Sackler money complicates donation policies for museums

Ask the CEO and president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art whether he's accepting money from the Sacklers, the billionaire dynasty notorious for its ties to the drug company Purdue Pharma, and the answer is somewhat complicated.

For one thing, it depends on which Sackler.

"There are people who have the name 'Sackler' who have nothing to do with the Purdue Pharma situation," Daniel H. Weiss says. "If it's someone tied up with the leadership at Purdue Pharma, we step away."

FILE - In this Friday, April 12, 2019 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. (AP PhotoJosh Reynolds, File)

Purdue Pharma recently filed for bankruptcy as part of a plan by the maker of OxyContin to settle thousands of lawsuits from state and local governments over the nation's opioid crisis. The Sacklers, who own Purdue, were listed by Forbes magazine in 2016 as one of the 20 wealthiest families in the U.S. and have contributed money to cultural institutions around the world.

The family has pushed back against accusations that Purdue played a central role in the deadly epidemic, but the legal battles have led some to sever ties with the relatives. The allegations have also heightened a debate over how much museums 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 more than three quarters of an annual budget, the decision to cut off a wealthy contributor such as the Sacklers or Jeffrey Epstein is sometimes a choice between upholding their stated values and being able to communicate those values through the art they champion.

FILE - In this Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019 file photo is the entrance of the Rooksnest estate near Lambourn, England. The property belongs to the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma based in Stamford, Conn. The allegations surrounding wealthy donors such as the Sackler family have raised questions for the museums they supported, including whether to keep the family's name on prominent galleries. (AP PhotoFrank Augstein, File)

"We live in populist times, with more awareness of economic and political inequality and more scrutiny of the wealthy," says David Callahan, author of "The Givers" and founder of the online site Inside Philanthropy. "This greater scrutiny is overdue, but it's creating lots of anxiety in nonprofit institutions with strong ties to America's far upper class."

Over the past year, the Tate museums in London and the Guggenheim in New York are among those that announced they would no longer accept money from the Sacklers. Other institutions 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 Purdue Pharma, but would allow for donations from those not involved. (Various Sacklers have denounced Purdue Pharma and called for some form of atonement).

The Met is not renaming its Sackler Wing, because, Weiss says, it's contractually obligated. In Washington, the Smithsonian Institution rejected calls to remove the Sackler name from the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which opened in 1987 after Arthur Sackler (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 Smithsonian to keep the name in "perpetuity."

The Smithsonian added that it is no longer "seeking" 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 OxyContin.

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 facilities even as his workers protested their low wages.

More recent examples include the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts, which rejected $5 million from Harvey Weinstein, and Chicago's Field Museum, which divested its financial portfolio from fossil fuels.

The definition of a toxic donor "is vague and keeps changing," Callahan says. He cited the resignation of Warren Kanders from the board of the Whitney Museum after protests about his company'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 individual 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 infamous for their monopolistic business practices. The Met has received millions from controversial donors, notably David H. Koch, who died last month. Koch and his older brother Charles were leading right-wing benefactors reviled by environmentalists and others for casting doubt on man-made climate change and opposing efforts to fight global warming through reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

David Koch was on the Met's board of trustees and contributed $65 million to a renovation of the plaza in front, named David H. Koch Plaza by the Met in 2014. The museum at the time defended the decision, which led to protests, saying it was a fitting honor for Koch's "generosity and level of commitment."

The Met does not "administer a partisan test for our donors — rather we accept gifts from those who seek to join in advancing our mission," Weiss said.

"It's equally important," he added, "to recognize that gift acceptance administration requires continual review ... as the landscape of cultural values, laws and facts change, and a bright line is often an imprecise instrument."

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution sponsored by the United States and Japan calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space, calling it “a dirty spectacle” that cherry picks weapons of mass destruction from all other weapons that should also be banned.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 13 in favor, Russia opposed and China abstaining.

The resolution would have called on all countries not to develop or deploy nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction in space, as banned under a 1967 international treaty that included the U.S. and Russia, and to agree to the need to verify compliance.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said after the vote that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space.

“Today’s veto begs the question: Why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding,” she asked. “It’s baffling. And it’s a shame.”

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia dismissed the resolution as “absolutely absurd and politicized,” and said it didn’t go far enough in banning all types of weapons in space.

Russia and China proposed an amendment to the U.S.-Japan draft that would call on all countries, especially those with major space capabilities, “to prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat of use of force in outer spaces.”

The vote was 7 countries in favor, 7 against, and one abstention and the amendment was defeated because it failed to get the minimum 9 “yes” votes required for adoption.

The U.S. opposed the amendment, and after the vote Nebenzia addressed the U.S. ambassador saying: “We want a ban on the placement of weapons of any kind in outer space, not just WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). But you don’t want that. And let me ask you that very same question. Why?”

He said much of the U.S. and Japan’s actions become clear “if we recall that the U.S. and their allies announced some time ago plans to place weapons … in outer space.”

Nebenzia accused the U.S. of blocking a Russian-Chinese proposal since 2008 for a treaty against putting weapons in outer space.

Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of undermining global treaties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, irresponsibly invoking “dangerous nuclear rhetoric,” walking away from several of its arms control obligations, and refusing to engage “in substantive discussions around arms control or risk reduction.”

She called Wednesday’s vote “a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s announcement of the resolution on March 18 followed White House confirmation in February that Russia has obtained a “troubling” anti-satellite weapon capability, although such a weapon is not operational yet.

Putin declared later that Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, claiming that the country has only developed space capabilities similar to those of the U.S.

Thomas-Greenfield said before the vote that the world is just beginning to understand “the catastrophic ramifications of a nuclear explosion in space.”

It could destroy “thousands of satellites operated by countries and companies around the world — and wipe out the vital communications, scientific, meteorological, agricultural, commercial, and national security services we all depend on,” she said.

The defeated draft resolution said “the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.” It would have urged all countries carrying out activities in exploring and using outer space to comply with international law and the U.N. Charter.

The draft would have affirmed that countries that ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty must comply with their obligations not to put in orbit around the Earth “any objects” with weapons of mass destruction, or install them “on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space.”

The treaty, ratified by some 114 countries, including the U.S. and Russia, prohibits the deployment of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or the stationing of “weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

The draft resolution emphasized “the necessity of further measures, including political commitments and legally binding instruments, with appropriate and effective provisions for verification, to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.”

It reiterated that the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, has the primary responsibility to negotiate agreements on preventing an arms race in outer space.

The 65-nation body has achieved few results and has largely devolved into a venue for countries to voice criticism of others’ weapons programs or defend their own. The draft resolution would have urged the conference “to adopt and implement a balanced and comprehensive program of work.”

At the March council meeting where the U.S.-Japan initiative was launched, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”

He said the movie “Oppenheimer” about Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the U.S. project during World War II that developed the atomic bomb, “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world.”

“Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” the U.N. chief said.

United States Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield addresses members of the U.N. Security Council before voting during a meeting on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at United Nations headquarters. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez)

FILE - U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaks on Thursday, April 18, 2024, in Tokyo. The U.N. Security Council is set to vote Wednesday, April 24, 2024, on a resolution announced by Thomas-Greenfield, calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space. It is likely to be vetoed by Russia. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, Pool, File)