My daughter is a curator for a large museum, so I asked her about this. She told me that all loaned or leased exhibits and especially historical exhibits come with stings attached. The owners and or sponsors of such an exhibits always attach a long list of dos and don’ts about how the exhibit is to be presented, publicized, advertised, etc.
The museum has little control over any of this. The more popular an exhibit, the less likely that any of these things are negotiable. Most of the time they can only choose to accept or reject the exhibit. The owners and or sponsors call the shots, not the museums.
I don't entirely disagree with what either of you say, but a few things need to be pointed out. (1) In Kansas City, the museum directors made sure to invite University of Chicago historian Norman Golb, a major opponent of the Qumran-Essene theory, to participate in the lecture series (and in that sense the exhibit was both "with" and "without" controversy); this was reported on in the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle. You can read Golb's detailed critique of the Kansas City exhibit in his article on "
Fact and Fiction in Current Exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls." (2) Thus, the Kansas City exhibitors clearly attempted to accomodate opposition to the old theory, and this itself shows that hosting exhibitions do have a measure of control. Indeed, from what I hear, when the scrolls were shown at the Library of Congress, the Library distributed supplementary material to the public informing them of the debate; and when they were shown at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago they held a public debate on their origins. By contrast, in San Diego all opponents of the Qumran-Essene theory have been carefully excluded from participating in the lecture series. (3) At any rate, beyond the question of the hosting exhibit, there is the issue of news coverage. I am perhaps not as critical of the San Diego museum's failure to modify or supplement the exhibit, as I am of its active, and obviously successful, effort to conceal the affiliations of the exhibit's sponsors from the public. I can understand why they did this, but it certainly does seem to raise ethical concerns that need to be addressed.