(I just sent this letter to Matt Fleury, the president and CEO of the Connecticut Science Center.)
Mr. Fleury,
On Friday, August 21, my family and I were “stranded” in Hartford for the weekend. We are observant Jews, and therefore riding in cars is forbidden to us during the Sabbath, from Friday evening through Saturday night. We were on our way home from New Jersey to Boston on that day, and we realized as we drove through Hartford that because of unexpected traffic delays, we were not going to make it home in time for the Sabbath. With less than an hour until the start of the Sabbath, we stopped in Hartford and started looking for a place to stay; we ended up at the downtown Marriott, right next door to the Science Center.
We are also forbidden from watching TV on the Sabbath, nor are we permitted to spend money or write. Therefore, as you might imagine, finding a way to occupy our five children for the entire Sabbath in these unexpected surroundings was a substantial challenge.
On Saturday morning, desperate for something to do with the kids, we walked over to the Science Center, explained our situation to a member of your staff at the admissions desk, and asked if it would be possible, given our unusual and difficult predicament, to visit the Center without paying. She called over a supervisor, to whom we explained the situation again. The supervisor said that she could not let us in without paying “in fairness to our other guests who pay.”
Let me be blunt: That’s stupid, antithetical to your mission, and unlikely to help you to draw more visitors in the future.
As your Web site notes, you already offer “courtesy discounts (with valid ID) for active military personnel, educators and college students,” so your policies are already “unfair,” if indeed allowing some people to pay reduced rates is “unfair.” Furthermore, I hope that you have some sort of arrangement for reduced or free admission for people who cannot afford to pay your rates; the Boston Museum of Science, for example, has free entry passes that can be checked out from all Boston Public Library branches. Finally, if you are not accessible to people who cannot afford to pay for admission, then clearly you are failing to live up to your mission of “engaging students and families from all social and cultural backgrounds,” then clearly you need to be accessible to people who cannot pay.
On rare occasions, my wife and I have been in similar situations in the past, and when an institution is kind enough to let us partake of their services without paying because of the Sabbath, we always send them a donation afterwards equivalent to what we would have paid if had been able to do so. However, I can’t offer to pay after the fact, because Jewish law views an offer to pay later as equivalent to paying, and it is therefore prohibited on the Sabbath.
If you had let us in, we would have paid $84 after the fact and talked about how great your museum was to all of our friends in Boston. Worst-case scenario, we might not have paid after the fact, but we would still have had a good time at your museum and told our friends about it, as well as telling them that you were accommodating to our religious observance in a time of need. Instead, what we are telling all our friends is that while the staff at the downtown Marriott was astoundingly helpful and accommodating and made what could have been an extremely difficult experience into a pleasant one, the folks at the Connecticut Science Center were unhelpful and inflexible. Is this the message you want to be sending?
One more thing I would like to mention is this offensive statement from your Web site:
Exclusive Membership
We think we’re a pretty unique place. We have exhibits no one else in the country (or the world) offers. And we like to think our members are one-of-a-kind, too. That’s part of the reason we don’t extend reciprocal admission to other ASTC members or regional destinations. So, consider yourself part of an elite group.
Aside from the fact that “pretty unique” is an oxymoron, do you really not realize how offensive it is to every other science museum in the country, and to the members who patronize and support them, to suggest that you’re just too special to offer reciprocal admission as thousands of them do? Oh, please, get over yourselves. (We are members of both the Boston Museum of Science and Mystic Aquarium, so were it not for your misguided policy of not offering reciprocal admission, I would have had no reason to write this letter.)
We drive through Connecticut on a regular basis, and you can be sure we won’t be including the Connecticut Science Center in our travel plans in the future.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kamens
I want to be respectful here, but want to go into a museum for free that is run by electricity, machines, and a staff of people working, but you don’t want to pay because your religion forbids it? That’s fine, don’t pay if you can’t because ofnyour religion. But then don’t go. Is not fair you should go for free and use a service everyone else is paying for. You can’t have it both ways.
I have already explained here why I think it is both beneficial and appropriate for the museum to let people in for free who can’t pay, so I’m not going to repeat myself.
Suppose this thread is long dead but wanted to comment as I find the topic (which is really about tolerating diversity and unbiased public sphere) fascinating
If I were the manager I would have let you in, but I would have also rolled my eyes. Not out of disrespect to your particular religion — and a Sabbath away from electronics and the outside world can be a great and healthy thing.
But its your schtick, really, not everyone else’s. As long as it does not ask anyone else to participate in it as reality, its fine.
You may truly believe that a “command from God” is the same as a poor person not having money but you cannot expect anyone else to believe that. You can reinterpret (or God can reorder as in the case of the MOrmons in 1978) but a poor person cannot pray to have money appear. Material reality and belief are different.
And science deals with the first.
That God created the world in six days and on the seventh he rested and so should we is a religious formula. The idea that there is actually a transcendent day called the Sabbath that is not the product of humans and (often changed and mis-measured) calendars is also religious.
Why should any public space, especially one devoted to science, respect that at all?
Because people should be treated with respect.
But I actually don’t think it’s really about respect. I think it’s really about that it would actually do more good than harm to the Science Center for them to let in anyone for free who is willing to go to the trouble to ask, regardless of why they’re asking.
Ummm, if you’re not allowed to spend money how did you stay in a hotel? Did they comp you? if not should we boycott them too? hogwash
It is not the act of utilizing a service that was paid for at some point in the past or will be paid for at some point in the future that is forbidden to observant Jews on the Sabbath. It is actually transacting the business of paying that is forbidden.
We paid for the hotel when we checked out after the Sabbath.
You need to look at this from a business point of view… how do they know that you’re being true and not just fabricating a story to try and swindle a free visit out of them… unfortunately, this country has turned into a very dishonest place where it seems people will say ANYTHING to get a free ride. Besides that, how do they know that if they let you in for free, that you won’t go and tell someone else that they let you in and then that person goes and brings their family of five expecting the same thing… it’s a business and I understand your predicament and I’m sympathetic, but if they continue to just let everyone with a good story in for free, it won’t be long before they go out of business!
I apparently have a higher opinion of people than you do. I think most people try to live their lives honestly. I also think most people wouldn’t be willing to lie in front of their kids just to get into the science museum for free.
Furthermore, the goodwill generated by letting people in who sincerely can’t pay for whatever reason, would be far more valuable than the small amount of money lost in admission fees.
Aside from all that, they are not a business, they are a non-profit charitable organization. Their mission is to serve the public. It is worth letting in some dishonest skinflints for free for the sake of also letting the people who truly cannot pay have access to the museum.
I live in reality, that is the only difference between you and I in this particular situation… it’s not a lower opinion of people I have, it’s reality. You’ve got to be kidding me that you think people wouldn’t lie in front of their children to get into the science center!! People have used their children to shoplift items from stores, they’ve put their kids in harm’s way to get a quick drug fix, it’s not pretty and it’s not okay, but it DOES happen!! So, in my opinion you are being very close-minded to think that your specific situation merits special attention. You can’t hold it against the Science Center for conducting business in such a fashion that they do not lose money!
I didn’t say there are no dishonest people in the world, or that if the science center let people in for free there wouldn’t be anyone who would abuse it.
What I said is that most people are honest, and that as a non-profit institution which is supposed to serve the common good, it is necessary and appropriate for the science center to suffer the few dishonest people’s cheating for the sake of giving the honest people access to their services.
There are plenty of staid institutions, most notably the Met in NYC comes to mind, which have a formal, publicized policy of letting people pay whatever they can afford for admission. I’m not proposing that the science center go that far — I doubt they have an endowment as big as the Met’s! — but I am certainly saying that if someone is willing to humble themselves by asking for charity, they should get it.
And your apparent point of view that most people would cheat if given the opportunity isn’t “reality,” it’s just wrong, and it’s sad.
My family visited the center this week and told the manager your story. I was surprised that she hadn’t heard it, but she seemed interested and said she would look into it. As I was telling the story, and got to the part where you asked the manager to allow you admission, she interjected, “of course not! That wouldn’t be fair.” I explained your perspective and she seemed genuinely interested. Hopefully, if enough patrons bring it up, the information will “trickle up” the chain of command and some sensitivity training will be included in staff training. I doubt it though. Anyway, Western Mass. specifically Northampton, would be a great place to be stranded; )
My wife and I were driving to a store near hartford and on the way home, I asked about the New Science Center…Lets go see it !!!
We parked underneath in the garage…no hours of operation were posted outside..too bad.
We got to the top of the escalator and were greeted by a guard. He gave us pamphlets and we walked over to the payment area. I was very surprised to find out that the Center closes at 5pm? Why not 8pm so adults who work all day can stop by and visit? It was 4pm, and only one hour left before the center closed. 34 dollars please….. ahhhhh NO
No discount for one hour only. I was going to go back, but after looking online, I fear its more for really young kids and not adults who like the Boston Science Center or the Smithsonian or similar ones.
5 bucks each for less then an hour would have made us happy and saved gas, so as not to have to go back. (talk about green)
I will always remember the IBEW apprentice who died in the building.
It’s not clear from any of that if they would give free admission to someone who was truly destitute. If they choose to draw a distinction between someone who is unable to pay because their finances do not allow it and someone who is unable to pay because their religion does not allow it, it is their right. It’s one thing to discriminate against someone due to religion and another to make special allowances for them.
It was their right to choose not to waive the fee, just as it is their right to be snooty and not participate in museum reciprocity or organizational discounts.
Failing to respond to the letter, on the other hand, is simply rude.
But Ruben is right: vote with your feet.
OK fine they suck and they hate poor people.
Did you miss the part where what I posted on my blog is the letter I sent to the President and CEO of the Science Center?
Or the part where they obviously received my letter, since as noted by Rocket, they removed the obnoxious statement about reciprocity from their Web site shortly after I wrote to them?
Despite the fact that they received my letter, they did not have the courtesy to send me any sort of reply, which is answer enough: they have no intention of addressing the question of making the Center accessible to people who can’t pay admission for whatever reason.
This text on their Web site is also particularly telling:
In other words, “We think it’s more important to make money from our visitors than it is to make the Science Center accessible to more people.” I’m not certain, but I believe the “negatively impact our financial status” text is new since I sent my complaint. At least they’re being honest now.
OK fair enough. My thought to that is, there are 42 members of the Board of Trustees listed on the Science Center’s website along with 24 staff members with their direct telephone extentions and email addresses. How about you address your concerns to the people that may be able to change the policies you have an issue with.
After you try that if you want to report back as to how the Science Center specifically handled your concerns that would truly mean something. Additionally it just might move them to implement the changes you want to see. Just complaining about it on a blog without doing anything substantive does not give much weight to your argument.
@Ruben Flagg: Your comment is a combination of points I have already addressed and things I’ve said taken out of context and distorted.
I’ve already addressed your claim that it’s about religion by explaining, quite clearly, that in my opinion the Science Center and other institutions like it should let in anyone who says they are unable to pay for any reason at any time. As I said, they don’t have to make it easy, but in the end, if someone is insistent that they cannot pay for whatever reason, they should be let in.
The comment I made about the lack of Jews in downtown Hartford on Shabbat was specifically in response to the claim that if the Science Center had let me in, they’d have to do it for other Jews on Shabbat as well, and it would impact their bottom line negatively. That claim, as I explained, is absurd, because the situation in which we found ourselves would only occur once in a blue moon for the reasons I described.
I respect the fact you and your family are people of faith, in this day and age that is becoming a rare thing. It would have been great if someone at the science center was empowered or went the extra mile to accommodate you and your circumstances but I think you are being unfair to chastise the Center for not giving you free admission. Also, trying to prop up your argument by saying the other discount are unfair because they did not help you is a transparent attempt to justify your unreasonable position.
If the Science Center said, we do not allow Jewish people in because they are Jewish regardless if they pay or not is obviously wrong or if they were ONLY open during Shabbat I can understand and agree with you. But what you are saying if the Science Center won’t let you in for free because YOU chose to go there during the Shabbat, then no one should have ANY discounts, not what I see as reasonable. Should ALL business be closed on ALL religious holidays and work around EVERY religious practice?
Please don’t say this is not about religion or the Science Center is not living up to its own mission, it is ALL about religion. You were stuck somewhere you did not want to be with board and cranky kids trying to pass the time till you could get to where you really wanted to be and it didn’t work out the way you hoped.
You said:
“No. There are essentially no religious Jews in downtown Hartford on Shabbat, and given a choice, religious Jews would not choose the Science Center as a Shabbat activity; they would go during the week. We wanted to go there not because it was something we would freely choose to do on Shabbat, but because of the choices available to us it was the least objectionable one.”
And that is the Science Center’s fault?
You do have a choice not patronize the Science Center for the same reasons I would not go back to a restaurant for bad food or service and you should leave it at that.
Interesting: The statement about reciprocation is gone. Apparently you made an impact.
I’ll take your word for it that under Jewish law, it is as bad to get home late because of circumstances beyond your control, as it is to murder someone.
In fact, the circumstances were not beyond our control, as shown by the fact that we were able to find an alternative to driving on Shabbat.
If there had been no safe alternative to driving on Shabbat, then we would have been permitted to drive home, because the requirement to keep the laws of Shabbat is superseded by the requirement not to risk one’s life by observing Jewish law. Specifically, if one is driving at the start of Shabbat through an area where it is not safe to stop and stay for Shabbat, then one is not only permitted but obligated to keep driving until it is possible to stop safely.
That was not the case here; it was safe for us to stop in Hartford, so we did.
But to me that’s just plain silly. These examples of seemingly arbitrary rules re-enforce my belief that religion is not for me.
The rules we’re discussing now are hardly arbitrary (which is not to say that Judaism has no arbitrary rules!), but certainly, a substantial amount of background knowledge, not to mention belief in God, is needed to understand why.
Thanks for the clarification. I hope you understand that when you say (as you did in your previous blog entry) that you couldn’t use any electricity, that could easily be misinterpreted as not being able to use any electricity, as opposed to ‘changing the use of’. Pardon my ignorance.
I’ll take your word for it that under Jewish law, it is as bad to get home late because of circumstances beyond your control, as it is to murder someone. But to me that’s just plain silly. These examples of seemingly arbitrary rules re-enforce my belief that religion is not for me.
Is it just me or is there some irony, if not hypocrisy, in the fact that you choose to visit a place that is relying on the use of electricity in order to operate, for no other purpose than entertainment, on the Sabbath?
Both you and Frisky are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be unable to “use” electricity on Shabbat.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I am not about to try to explain the intricacies of the laws of Shabbat on my blog. There’s plenty of material on that topic which you can seek out and read if you wish to educate yourself.
Briefly, the prohibition is not against benefitting from the use of electricity, but rather against engaging in activities which change the use of electricity. At a very basic level, we’re not supposed to do anything which completes or breaks a circuit.
Turning on a light is not OK. Using a light that’s already turned on is perfectly fine.
In your situation I probably would have driven home on Friday afternoon and prayed for forgiveness. But then again, I’m not religious so I probably don’t understand.
No, you don’t understand. Jewish law doesn’t work that way.
Do you think it would be OK to murder someone and then “pray for forgiveness?”
In Jewish law, intentional violation of Shabbat is as bad as murder — the penalty for both offenses is death. This is obviously only a theoretical penalty nowadays — there aren’t rabbis anywhere in the world running around executing people for violating Shabbat — but this should give you some idea of just how serious it would have been for us to just “have driven home on Friday afternoon and prayed for forgiveness.”
Such a suggestion also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how sin and repentance work on Judaism, but that is definitely beyond the scope of my blog.
Is it just me or is there some irony, if not hypocrisy, in the fact that you choose to visit a place that is relying on the use of electricity in order to operate, for no other purpose than entertainment, on the Sabbath? Although I suppose that a religion that can write books on whether or not it’s ok to open refridgerator doors can probably come up with a justification for that as well.
In your situation I probably would have driven home on Friday afternoon and prayed for forgiveness. But then again, I’m not religious so I probably don’t understand.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Frisky – it is fine to ask for free entry, but it’s well within the museum’s right to refuse that. There is no reason to rip them to pieces for that, especially not publicly.
I guess the question is whether this is a legitimate reason to them, or only to you. And that’s where the question of religion arises. You pillory the museum for not appreciating your position.
But I am fine to end the discussion; I don’t think I’m the only one repeating myself.
Ah, right, thanks. good question! Perhaps so, although in that scenario, presumably you could also promise them that you’d send them the money after the fact, if they cared.
But I think that’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, or at least oranges and tangerines. The fact remains that you had money, but by religious edict, you couldn’t spend it. Is your hitting a traffic jam like your getting mugged? In a way, in that the end result is that you can’t pay for your entry. But it’s different, both in terms of the perception (the museum might say they’re happy to give a free pass to the mugging victim, especially if it was in their parking lot 🙂 and in terms of the ability to commit to later compensation.
Tell me, is the spirit of the religious law that you’re complying to (a) that you should not go entertain yourself someplace that would require money to enter or (b) that you should expect special dispensations to be allowed to do for nothing (at least in the eye of the museum employee) what others pay for?
I stand by my position that although the museum could have let you in, regardless of whether they expected to be repaid later, they not only didn’t have to, they are owed an apology.
Tell me, is the spirit of the religious law that you’re complying to (a) that you should not go entertain yourself someplace that would require money to enter or (b) that you should expect special dispensations to be allowed to do for nothing (at least in the eye of the museum employee) what others pay for?
Neither.
You keep harping on the circumstances which prompted us to ask for free admission, and I keep explaining that the circumstances were irrelevant, i.e., that I think they should let in anyone who asks for free admission for any legitimate-sounding reason. I’m going to stop talking about the religious aspect of this with you, because it is, to me, an irrelevant argument. If you believe that it is relevant, then it is actually “I think they should let in anyone…” that we are arguing about.
…they not only didn’t have to, they are owed an apology.
Repeating your position over and over is not going to change my mind, so perhaps it is time to end this discussion.
“Let me ask you this: Suppose my family and I had driven an hour from our home to Hartford to visit the museum, and when we got out of the car uppon arrival in Hartford, we were mugged and all of our money and credit cards were taken away. If, in that circumstance, we had gone to the museum after our visit to the police station, told them our story, and asked to be admitted for free, do you think they should have let us in?”
Which one?
OK, I won’t argue that they are damaged financially, unless they get into the situation where these freebies dominate their admissions.
But I still think they are entitled to draw the line where they drew it, without reprisals. As you said, they were entitled to decline. But did they deserve the blogflog as a result? I don’t think so.
And you still haven’t responded to my hypothetical scenario.
Well, I said it was treated like a “right” because you called them on the carpet, not just privately through a letter to the museum but on your blog. You said That’s stupid, antithetical to your mission, and unlikely to help you to draw more visitors in the future. I have been trying to defend their viewpoint because I think it was not unreasonable.
I, too, appreciate the dialog … this is an interesting discussion. I’m sorry you’re troubled that a Jew would take this view. I’m not disagreeing that it’s impossible for you to pay. But I think the accommodation that a museum might make for someone without a penny in the bank is indeed different from what it would make for someone who could not spend his pennies because of his religion.
Let’s say you were hungry, and what was next door was a five-star restaurant. Should they feed you because you can’t pay them? What if your hotel had no restaurant from which you could order Saturday and pay Sunday (assuming this is allowed?). What if what’s next door is McD’s instead of a fancy restaurant? Where do you draw the line? I think you were focusing on this because it was a museum. But in general, it seems like they treat it more like a business than a public enterprise, and they’re entitled.
But in general, it seems like they treat it more like a business than a public enterprise, and they’re entitled.
No, in my opinion, they’re not. They’re a non-profit charitable organization. They don’t pay taxes on their income, and donors get a tax deduction. If they want to be a business, then fine, they can incorporate as a business and compete on an even playing field with other businesses that pay taxes. Part of being a tax-exempt non-profit is that you’re supposed to use the money you save by not paying taxes to serve the community.
As for your hypothetical scenarios, all of them involve monetary loss to the business should they choose to serve people who can’t pay. That doesn’t apply here — the museum wouldn’t have lost anything if they had let us in for free, unless they had been so packed that somebody else who would have paid was prevented from doing so by our admission. And believe me, they weren’t.
And you didn’t answer my hypothetical scenario.
Following up on my own comment… If you pay membership dues to a museum, the dues are fully tax-deductible. You can visit the museum as many times as you want for free, and you do not have to report to the IRS what those visits would have cost if you hadn’t been a member. Furthermore, most museums give discounts to members at the gift shop and cafeteria, and you don’t have to report those discounts to the IRS either. In short, the law of the land, a law which these museums very much take advantage of, is that entry to the museum has no tangible value. So neither they nor you can then turn around and say that it would damage them financially to let someone in for free who is unable to pay.
I don’t mean to start a flame war, especially over a deeply personal issue,
I don’t think this is a flame war at all. You are making reasonable, well-presented points, and I appreciate the dialogue.
I also don’t consider this a “deeply personal issue,” or for that matter a “personal” issue at all. We managed just fine after the museum turned us away, and I’ve got a pretty thick skin. I made a fuss about this not because I was personally offended or insulted, but rather because I think the museum’s decision to turn us away, and more broadly the policy behind that decision (if indeed there is such a policy, as opposed to one employee acting of her own initative), is stupid and counterproductive to the museum’s mission.
I don’t see this. A 10% or 20% discount to military, AAA, and so on is a discount. Letting someone in for 100% off is not a discount.
There is certainly a quantitative difference between a discount and free admission. There is, however, no qualitative difference. In both cases, some people are being given special treatment because of their circumstances. At that point, it is no longer an issue of “fairness” but rather of practicality, i.e., where the institution chooses to draw the line in who gets special treatment and what level of special treatment they get.
I agree that some people might, like you, perceive it as “fair” for certain discounts to be offered to certain groups of people but “unfair” for some people to be let in for free. This is certainly a reasonable point of view. On the other hand, other people will perceive it as “unfair” for discounts to be offered to anyone, and that, too, is a perfectly reasonable point of view.
You’re saying you couldn’t pay is not the same, as it is not due to an inability to afford it in general, it’s an unwillingness (due to your personal convictions) to pay on a specific day of the week. Not the same at all.
It’s disturbing to see a Jew make this statement.
As a religious Jew, it was as impossible for me to pay to enter the museum on Shabbat as it would be for an impoverished family without a penny in the bank. As far as I am concerned, it was not my “personal convictions,” but rather a commandment from God, which prevented me from paying.
But all of this is completely irrelevant, because as I noted before, I believe that the museum should let in anyone who says they can’t pay for any reason.
Let me ask you this: Suppose my family and I had driven an hour from our home to Hartford to visit the museum, and when we got out of the car uppon arrival in Hartford, we were mugged and all of our money and credit cards were taken away. If, in that circumstance, we had gone to the museum after our visit to the police station, told them our story, and asked to be admitted for free, do you think they should have let us in?
Did you CC/email the main Marriott corp. offices? I’m sure that’d be appreciated.
I assume my letter will be bounced up the chain of command :-).
But I am troubled by people who have a view that their religious practices, of any flavor, make them deserving of special treatment.
I think religious practices deserve reasonable accommodation, especially when there are extenuating circumstances as there were in this case. As I’ve also noted, I think there are also all sorts of other practices, beliefs and circumstances that deserve reasonable accommodation. The museum’s decision to turn us away was not wrong because they disregarded or disrespected our religious practices. It was wrong because they turned us away, regardless of why we said we couldn’t pay.
I’m objecting to your treating that as a right rather than something they could or could not choose to do,
I have never said we had a “right” to enter the museum without paying; you are reading things into what I’ve written that I didn’t say and didn’t mean. Indeed, we had no such right, and they were entirely entitled to turn us away. I said that doing so was a stupid decision from the point of view of carrying out their mission and expanding their membership.
I don’t mean to start a flame war, especially over a deeply personal issue, but I want to at least clarify some points.
If letting people in for free, which is just a 100% discount, due to special circumstances is “unfair”, then by extension giving discounts to anyone because of special circumstances is unfair. They can’t offer discounts to certain people due to their circumstances and then turn around and proclaim that they can’t discount admission to other people because of their circumstances because that would be “unfair.”
I don’t see this. A 10% or 20% discount to military, AAA, and so on is a discount. Letting someone in for 100% off is not a discount.
The fact that the special circumstances which prompted us to ask for free admission were religious in nature is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that there was a legitimate reason why we couldn’t pay.
Again, I disagree. I fully agree they should let in people who can’t afford to pay, just like your synagogue did. You’re saying you couldn’t pay is not the same, as it is not due to an inability to afford it in general, it’s an unwillingness (due to your personal convictions) to pay on a specific day of the week. Not the same at all.
The fear that this would result in a “run on the bank,” with countless people demanding to be let in for free, is unfounded.
I don’t think it’d be a run on the bank. It’s just that they’re saying that as a matter of “fairness” they needed a consistent policy, and unlike you, I thought this was a reasonable consistent policy.
I thought your parallel blog post complimenting Marriott for how they handled that aspect of it was great.
The situation with the Marriott wasn’t parallel at all. … very few businesses provide it, so I try to go out of my way to recognize it when I find it.
I wasn’t saying the situation was parallel, just that you posted two related blog posts at once. I too try to recognize good business practices when I find them, and your blog is a good way to do that. Did you CC/email the main Marriott corp. offices? I’m sure that’d be appreciated.
I think their choosing to be snobby and not participating in reciprocity is… orthogonal to the issue of giving you a free pass,
It’s not orthogonal at all.
… The statement that the Connecticut Science Museum is making by not entering in reciprocity agreements with other museums is the same as the statement they are making by not letting in people who can’t pay — “We don’t care if your financial circumstances prevent you from being able to visit our museum.”
I don’t think so. And my point was really that I thought you were weakening your case to the museum head by tying the two together.
Simply put, you can’t claim that your mission is to serve “students and families from all social and cultural backgrounds” if you don’t let in people who can’t pay.
“Can’t” and “won’t” are different. Can’t because you’re broke and won’t, or can’t if you prefer, because your religion prohibits it are really different things!
And lest you think I’m exhibiting anti-Semitism with these remarks … I am Jewish, but not Orthodox. I understand how difficult it was for you to drop everything, run to a hotel, and try to pass the day given those restrictions. But I am troubled by people who have a view that their religious practices, of any flavor, make them deserving of special treatment. It’s one thing for someone to say they can’t work, go to school, or do other things on certain days of the week or days of the year. It’s another thing to say that others are obliged to give them a “free pass” [your intention to reimburse later notwithstanding, since they didn’t know about it] for something in the secular world as a result. I think your argument that because this is a museum they are different from, say, some private enterprise, only goes so far. Like I said, they could have obliged you, and that would have been very nice of them. I’m objecting to your treating that as a right rather than something they could or could not choose to do, and publicly calling them on the carpet over it. Just like you publicly commended the Marriott, you publicly humiliated the museum, or tried to. It was not deserved.
Look I live in Ct and have wanted to take my family to the science center from its opening but the cost has always. Been prohibitive as my wife and don’t make much money and spending $60 is not possible for us right now. We do have a membership to Peabody which lets go to the children’s muesum in west Hartford as well. I find the science center’s addmission policy’s way out of line for a nonprofit. They don’t care at all about the community just about making money. That is obvious by their not partnering with other muesums and by not having a sliding scale for addmission. When I lived in NYC I used to vist the Met and the. Natural History Muesum all the time. They have suggested donation price. When I was young I paid what I could latter when I was making really good money I paid more than the suggested price. My point is this as a nonprofit they don’t pay taxes because they are supposed to benefit all the people in the community not just the ones with money.
Nor is the comment that they give discounts to some groups germane: they aren’t letting them in for free,
If letting people in for free, which is just a 100% discount, due to special circumstances is “unfair”, then by extension giving discounts to anyone because of special circumstances is unfair. They can’t offer discounts to certain people due to their circumstances and then turn around and proclaim that they can’t discount admission to other people because of their circumstances because that would be “unfair.”
and if they are, they’re not not singling out an ethnic group.
The fact that the special circumstances which prompted us to ask for free admission were religious in nature is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that there was a legitimate reason why we couldn’t pay.
Frankly, I think that this institution and other similar ones should let in anyone who asks to be let in for free and gives a reasonable explanation for why they can’t pay. Make them speak to a supervisor, take them into a private room to discuss it, make it a bit awkward, but in the end, let them in. They’ve raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors with the mantra that they are serving the community. Part of serving the community is letting in people who can’t pay.
The fear that this would result in a “run on the bank,” with countless people demanding to be let in for free, is unfounded. People have pride, and one of the things that people have the most pride about is money. If someone is willing to humiliate themselves to a complete stranger by saying they can’t afford to pay, the odds are they’re telling the truth. And if not, well, that’s life. Just as the old saying goes, “It’s better to let a hundred guilty man go free than let a single innocent man go to prison,” It’s better to let the people who truly can’t afford it have access, even if that means that a few people will take advantage.
I used to be the membership chairman of our synagogue. Our policy, which was well-publicized, was that we would never turn anyone away due to inability to pay dues, and all anyone had to do to have their dues discounted or waived completely was to ask. In all the years I was membership chairman, only two people ever asked, and believe me, there were plenty of people who had trouble paying their dues but did anyway. Asking for a free ride is very hard for most people to do, even when they really need it.
“gee, if we let you in for free, we have to let every Jew in for free on Saturdays.”
No. There are essentially no religious Jews in downtown Hartford on Shabbat, and given a choice, religious Jews would not choose the Science Center as a Shabbat activity; they would go during the week. We wanted to go there not because it was something we would freely choose to do on Shabbat, but because of the choices available to us it was the least objectionable one.
And, in any case, as noted above, this just wouldn’t happen.
I thought your parallel blog post complimenting Marriott for how they handled that aspect of it was great.
The situation with the Marriott wasn’t parallel at all. We paid the Marriott. Their service was excellent, but I expect excellent service when I stay at a decent hotel. I sent them a letter praising the service because (a) I think it’s important to recognize individual employees of any business who perform well, and (b) despite the fact that excellent service is to be expected, the sad fact is that in this day and age, very few businesses provide it, so I try to go out of my way to recognize it when I find it.
I think their choosing to be snobby and not participating in reciprocity is… orthogonal to the issue of giving you a free pass,
It’s not orthogonal at all.
Family memberships to science museums are expensive. Many families who pay for membership find it difficult to do so, but they do it anyway because it’s important. One of the main points of the reciprocity that so many of these institutions offer is that they recognize that joining is expensive and don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to expect a family to cough up big bucks to join one museum and then to have to cough up big bucks to visit another one in another city.
The statement that the Connecticut Science Museum is making by not entering in reciprocity agreements with other museums is the same as the statement they are making by not letting in people who can’t pay — “We don’t care if your financial circumstances prevent you from being able to visit our museum.”
Not to mention the fact that the general “we’re better than everybody else” attitude exuded by their statement about reciprocity is exactly the kind of entitlement attitude that would allow an institution supposedly intended to serve the community to pick and choose who they actually want to serve.
Simply put, you can’t claim that your mission is to serve “students and families from all social and cultural backgrounds” if you don’t let in people who can’t pay.
I have mixed feelings about this one. There may be places that have accommodated this situation, but I don’t think it’s fair to single them out for not doing so. Nor is the comment that they give discounts to some groups germane: they aren’t letting them in for free, and if they are, they’re not not singling out an ethnic group. Their argument about fairness was essentially saying “gee, if we let you in for free, we have to let every Jew in for free on Saturdays. And if we do that, we have to let everyone else in for free as well.” I can appreciate the logic.
Now, I sympathize with your predicament, and I thought your parallel blog post complimenting Marriott for how they handled that aspect of it was great. Had they chosen to let you in for nothing, and had you then made a donation after the fact, it would have been great. But I think you owe them an apology for casting aspersions. They acted reasonably, if not in the way you would have preferred.
Finally, I think their choosing to be snobby and not participating in reciprocity is their choice. It hurts their own members, since people would no doubt like to be a member of someplace that gives them widespread access. But this is orthogonal to the issue of giving you a free pass, special circumstances or otherwise.