Every day it seems someone is publicly outraged about
something. People channel their disapproval of an institution or person, dead
or alive, into media campaigns to remove a name from a building, banish a
statue from a public square, or fire those they declaim as responsible. There
is no shortage of targets, reasonable or unreasonable.
Now, these so-called SJWs ("Social Justice
Warriors") are coming for the museums. Specifically, they are taking aim
at mega-donations that support major new projects and exhibits. The latest
outrage campaign, against the family who made a fortune on the best known drug
blamed for America’s opioid epidemic, has sparked new conversations about
donation acceptance and recognition policies and how museums should balance
gifts with potential controversies about their givers.
One purpose of these campaigns, aside from attainment of any
specific objective, is public shaming. Recent
news articles have helped me understand this phenomenon. In the March 10th
edition of The New York Times there is
a piece by Salvatore Scibona entitled “The Industrial Revolution of Shame.” His
thesis is that new technologies have made it possible to expansively make and
distribute products. The particular product Scibona fixes on is “our judgment
of one another.”
The writer expands: “ Media culture has found a sweet spot
in the collective psyche – outrage.” To
which he adds: “Technology has so multiplied the outrages confronting us that
they crowd out our ability to discuss much else.” These perceptions allow me to examine one
particular shaming campaign in a field with which I am familiar – museums.
Prominent photographer and activist Nan Goldin and her
advocacy organization P.A.I.N. (Prescription Addiction Intervention Now) has embarked
on a campaign against museums that have benefited from donations from the Sackler family who, in return , have had
galleries, buildings and programs named after them. The Sackler family founded
Purdue Pharma, the maker of the addictive drug OxyContin, which is largely
blamed for the horrendous opioid epidemic that has resulted in the loss of
thousands of lives across the nation. Since the drug was introduced in 1996,
sales have generated $35 billion for Purdue and $4 billion for the Sackler
family, members of which still make up the majority of the Pharma board of
directors.
The museums targeted by Ms. Goldin, on social media and by dramatic
demonstrations on site, include New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, where
there is a Sackler Wing and The Guggenheim, whose education department bears
the Sackler name. The art museums at Harvard are also on P.A.I.N.’s target
list. P.A.I.N. demands that the Sackler
name be stripped from the museums and for Pharma to fund programs combating
the opioid epidemic.
Prominent among the family’s museum naming and another
campaign target is the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery at the Smithsonian in
Washington DC. Along with its neighbor
The Freer Gallery of Art, it comprises the Smithsonian’s national museum of Asian
art. The Sackler Gallery was founded in 1987 and named in honor of Arthur
Sackler, whose foundation donated his superb collection of Asian art along with
funds to establish the institution.
Arthur Sackler’s daughter Elizabeth has been vigorous in
pointing out that a) Arthur Sackler died in 1990, six years before the
invention of OxyContin, and b) his brothers Raymond and Mortimer bought out his
share in Purdue shortly after his death. Yes, Arthur was a Sackler and yes, he
was one of the founders of Purdue but he had no connection with OxyContin. So what
is the rationale for demanding the removal of his name from the Gallery at the
Smithsonian, which has stated it has never removed a name from a museum and has
no intention of doing so in this instance?
A statement by Dominic Esposito, a sculptor associated with
P.A.I.N. provides an answer. He said “Sackler has gone from a legacy of arts
and culture philanthropy to (one of) death and destruction.” Clearly that transition
is the intent of the campaign, if not the clear result at present. It is a public shaming effort designed to
obscure the extended Sackler family‘s generosity to museums, hospitals and
universities going back decades and to punish the family for its profitable
association with OxyContin.
The likelihood of names being removed from structures or
professorships is marginal, as there are contractual issues. The same would
apply to return of funds. In the Smithsonian example, taking it to an absurd
conclusion, I suppose there might be an asterisk placed next to Arthur
Sackler’s name, much like how Major League
baseball record holders suspected of performance drug enhancement are
listed: "* Sackler Gallery not directly
connected to Oxy-Contin."
The campaign appears to be having its effect. Recently The
Tate Gallery Group and the National Portrait Gallery, both prominent British
museums with long associations with the Sackler family, announced they would no
longer seek or accept donations from the Mortimer and Raymond Sackler branch of
the family. Sackler gifts to Tate have amounted to about $5.3 million over the
years. The Portrait Gallery has suspended a planned $1.3 million donation from
the Sackler Trust. Significantly the Tate group stated: “We do not intend to
remove references to (the Sackler) historical philanthropy. “
Meanwhile in New York City, the Guggenheim announced on
March 21 it would also no longer accept gifts from the Sackler family, who
donated $9 million to the museum between 1995 and 2015. The museum added it has
no plans to change the name of the Sackler Center for Arts Education, as the designation
was made by contract.
Purdue Pharma , still largely owned by members of the
Sackler family, is facing some 1600 lawsuits over the purported connection of OxyContin to the opioid crisis.
It is reportedly considering filing for bankruptcy to protect the company while
litigation drags on. On March 25th, Purdue settled, out of court, a
claim by the state of Oklahoma for $270 million. Notably a large portion of the
money will go to funding an addiction
and treatment center at Oklahoma State University.
P.A.I.N. asserts that the Sackler philanthropy was purposely
designed by the family to mask the “blood money” derived from the sale of
opioid drugs. But as several museums have pointed out, much of the philanthropy,
and the family tradition connected with it, predates the sale of OxyContin. But this is too fine a point for the P.A.I.N and
it would dilute its objective: to besmirch the Sackler name and by association
institutions that have accepted the family’s money.
The museums that so far have decided to cease accepting
Sackler philanthropy are bowing to negative publicity at the expense of any public
benefit the uses of those gifts might have produced. While I don’t think It
does any good to second guess such judgment
calls, I do agree that the ex post facto removal of the Sackler
name serves no purpose except the public shaming one. That outcome is already on
its way to some success, given the recent actions by the Guggenheim and two British
museums.
Finding positive aspects to this tragic situation is worth
the effort. The Sackler family is
increasing its funding of opioid addiction treatment programs. And
conversations are underway in the charitable sector over the balance between
“mega” gifts and their sources. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art for instance is
reviewing its donation acceptance policies). The public scrutiny of the
relationship, by the way, is not new. In
the Gilded Age, the gifts of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were
called into question citing their history of union-busting and ruthless
monopolistic practices. Yet their names
today are in in the philanthropy Parthenon
.
As for the general public I would urge resisting the common
“knee jerk” reaction to public outrage issues. I have often wondered how much
electricity could be generated if somehow the knees of America were attached to
a generating source. Salvatore Scibona in
his article in The New York Times suggests
that rather than sitting in judgment, the observer should become more of a
witness to allow a calmer opportunity for formation of a balanced moral
response. That way shaming is not the
objective but rather working towards deeper solutions to the crisis itself –in
this case the devastation the opioid
crisis has wrought on thousands of families and its effect on our national
sense of self-worth.
Comments on this and any other blog post found in the archive (viewed to the left) are welcome at gplatt63@gmail.com. And Happy Diamond Anniversary! This is my 75th posting since I started the blog eight years ago.
