I. Last November (http://geoffreyplattconsulting.blogspot.com/2017/11/)
I wrote about the contentious dispute regarding the intent of the Berkshire
Museum in Pittsfield MA to sell works of art (“deaccession”) in order to
cope with a large deficit and fund new, non-art strategic initiatives. The
estimated value of the art was $55 million, the bulk of which was represented
by a single painting by Norman Rockwell, “Shuffleton’s Barbershop.”
National museum groups decried the proposal on ethical
grounds. Such sales are supposed to fund art acquisitions, not deficits. Local
museum patrons, including several of Rockwell’s sons, filed suit to block the
sale at Sotheby’s. At the last minute a judge ordered the sale delayed to give
time for the Massachusetts attorney-general’s office to examine the matter.
In February 2018, the state announced it had reached an
agreement with the museum that would allow the sale but modified from the
original proposal. “Shuffleton’s Barbershop” would be sold to another, as yet unnamed
museum for an unknown sum, but would always be in public view. The painting
would also remain in the state for 18-24 months at the nearby Norman Rockwell
Museum and be made available for display in other Massachusetts museums. The Berkshire
Museum would be limited to proceeds not to exceed $55 million from the art
sale, the amount it claimed needed to stabilize its finances. Any funds realized of between $50 million and $55 million would
be required to be set aside for acquisitions of art.
In his April 5 decision allowing the agreement to go
forward, Judge David Lowy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
acknowledged the “serious concerns” raised by sale opponents but concluded it the
sale was vital to the museum’s survival: “the museum’s charitable purpose of
aiding in the study of art, natural sciences and cultural history must be protected.” As one observer noted, the decision may have
been sound on legal grounds, but weak on ethical ones.
II: A most unusual
and heartening gift was reported in a recent edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy . William
H. (Bill) Miller, a famous money manager and investor renowned for beating the
S&P 500 Index for 15 years in a row, announced in January a donation of $75
million to Johns Hopkins University in his native Baltimore. The sum is
significant enough, but its purpose is what got attention. It has been designated for use by the Philosophy
Department, not for instance health or STEM fields, popular designee programs
for higher education. The donation will create endowed professorships and
eventually almost double the number of full-time Philosophy faculty members.
Miller was a Philosophy major at Hopkins and a candidate for
a Ph.D. when, faced by a difficult job
market, he left for greener pastures in
the investment field. But as he stated
in the interview: “Philosophy I found intellectually, psychologically and
emotionally enriching. My life is a lot better for having studied it.
Secondly…the critical-thinking skills, the analytical skills, the rigor of
philosophy were extremely valuable to me in analyzing capital markets...”
Are you listening, Wisconsin? The University of Wisconsin,
at Stevens Point is proposing to drop 13 majors in humanities and social
sciences, including Philosophy , History and
English, and adding programs with “clear career pathways. ” The Washington Post also reported that
in 2015 Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had attempted secretly to change the mission of the state university
system by removing words that commanded the university to “search for truth”
and “improve the human condition” to be replaced by the mandate “to meet the
state’s workforce needs.” Such moves are
in line with the belief in some conservative quarters that universities are
breeding grounds for liberal ideas. After a storm of protest when the move was
exposed, Walker pulled back, calling it a “drafting error.” Perhaps he could have used more English majors on his staff….
When asked about the timing of the gift to Johns Hopkins,
Mr. Miller said he was advised by an associate that unless he wanted the
government by default to become his favorite charity, he should do something
important in his lifetime. “I wanted to
think about things that had an impact on me, “he said, “where significant money
could really move the needle. I thought philosophy was a good place to start.”
The somewhat idiosyncratic nature of this donation should
remind nonprofit leaders that giving, in whatever amount, is a personal action,
often driven by the donor’s particular passion. Honoring and working with that understanding
can bring mutual satisfaction to all concerned, and should never be overlooked.
Comments about this post and others to be found in the archive to the left are always welcome at: gplatt63@gmail.com
