Now, how do you plan to or propose to balance these opposing forces? And how can you be a national museum and maintain an activist, non-neutral agenda?

You know, it's funny.

I'm just going to turn that completely around because I think in our situation, we can't be a national museum without being activist and non-neutral because our very existence, just a neutral statement of our right to exist is seen as activists by so many parts of this country, right? So I think, you know, for me, I would start by saying I don't believe there are neutral museum agendas, right? The whole movement of museums are not neutral, that Latanya Autry and Mike Morawski sort of championed and others have championed.

I feel convincingly argue that unconscious or implicit bias exists in all museums and that museums are best served by examining it, naming it when they can see it.

Right.

So you can strive to be poly vocal and to bring nuance into your interpretation, which we absolutely are doing.

You know, we have more than 70 advisors who are looking at our interpretation, who come from different perspectives within the community and outside of the community.

First of all, is the fiscal position of the LGBTQ plus museum diversified enough to be able to take necessary risks to be an activist institution as you've outlined? And secondly, can you envisage instances where self-censoring might occur?