Page 6 The Skanner Portland & Seattle September 25, 2019 News Sackler Money Complicates Donation Policies for Museums By Hillel Italie AP National Writer NEW YORK (AP) — Ask the CEO and president of the Metropolitan Muse- um of Art whether he’s accepting money from the Sacklers, the billion- aire dynasty notorious for its ties to the drug company Purdue Phar- ma, and the answer is somewhat complicated. For one thing, it de- pends on which Sackler. “There are people who have the name ‘Sackler’ who have nothing to do with the Purdue Phar- ma situation,” Daniel H. Weiss says. “If it’s someone tied up with the leadership at Purdue Pharma, we step “ as one of the 20 wealth- iest families in the U.S. and have contributed money to cultural in- stitutions around the world. The family has pushed back against accusations that Purdue played a cen- tral role in the deadly epidemic, but the legal battles have led some to sever ties with the rela- tives. The allegations have also heightened a debate over how much muse- ums should rely on the support of the rich and what, if any, conditions should be imposed on their gifts. For museums in the U.S. especially, where private funding can account for This greater scrutiny is overdue, but it’s creating lots of anxiety in nonprofit institutions away.” Purdue Pharma recent- ly filed for bankruptcy as part of a plan by the maker of OxyContin to settle thousands of law- suits from state and local governments over the nation’s opioid crisis. The Sacklers, who own Purdue, were listed by Forbes magazine in 2016 more than three quar- ters of an annual budget, the decision to cut off a wealthy contributor such as the Sacklers or Jeffrey Epstein is some- times a choice between upholding their stated values and being able to communicate those val- ues through the art they champion. “We live in populist times, with more aware- ness of economic and political inequality and more scrutiny of the wealthy,” says David Cal- lahan, author of “The Givers” and founder of the online site Inside Philanthropy. “This greater scrutiny is over- due, but it’s creating lots of anxiety in nonprofit institutions with strong ties to America’s far up- per class.” Over the past year, the Tate museums in Lon- don and the Guggenheim in New York are among those that announced they would no longer accept money from the Sacklers. Other institu- tions have not entirely distanced themselves, citing legal reasons and other factors. Last spring, the Met announced it would no longer accept gifts from Sackler family members closely connected to Pur- due Pharma, but would allow for donations from those not involved. (Var- ious Sacklers have de- nounced Purdue Pharma and called for some form of atonement). The Met is not renam- ing its Sackler Wing, because, Weiss says, it’s contractually obligat- AP PHOTO/JOSH REYNOLDS, FILE Pharma family accused of central role in opioid epidemic, complicating things for arts organizations that depend on wealthy donors In this April 12 file photo, Cheryl Juaire, of Marlborough, Mass., center, leads a protest near the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University, where protesters have demanded the school rename the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, also cited contractual reasons for keeping the name and said that the Sacklers donated money before the development of OxyContin. ed. In Washington, the Smithsonian Institution rejected calls to remove the Sackler name from the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which opened in 1987 after Arthur Sack- ler (who died the same year) donated more than 1,000 works of Asian art and millions of dollars for construction. In a recent statement to The Associated Press, the Smithsonian said the gallery was named in “recognition of Sackler’s generous gift” and that the donation agreement requires the Smithso- nian to keep the name in “perpetuity.” The Smithsonian added that it is no longer “seek- ing” money from the Sacklers and that in 2011 it changed its gift policy so that a name could be changed after 20 years or when a space gets its next major renovation. Smithsonian chief spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said control over exhibitions “rests solely with the Smithsonian” and that all gifts over $1 million are reviewed by leadership and approved by the Board of Regents. Harvard University, where protesters have demanded the school rename the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, also cited contractual reasons for keeping the name and said that the Sacklers donated money before the development of Oxy- Contin. Philanthropy has a long history of conflict in the U.S., dating back to when steel magnate Andrew Carnegie spent vast amounts of money on libraries, schools and other educational facili- ties even as his workers protested their low wag- es. More recent examples include the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts, which rejected $5 million from Harvey Weinstein, and Chicago’s Field Mu- seum, which divested its financial portfolio from fossil fuels. The definition of a tox- ic donor “is vague and keeps changing,” Callah- an says. He cited the resigna- tion of Warren Kanders from the board of the Whitney Museum after protests about his com- pany’s sale of tear gas used at the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere. Previously, Kanders’ business had not been grounds for being pushed off the board. “But in this highly charged political climate, the way a wealthy indi- vidual is seen can change rapidly,” Callahan said. Weiss wonders if the Met would now accept money from Carnegie or fellow tycoon John D. Rockefeller, both infa- mous for their monopo- listic business practices. The Met has received millions from contro- versial donors, notably David H. Koch, who died last month. Read the rest of this story at TheSkanner.com