Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
NewsCut
Bob Collins

Museums confront the source of their money

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

Some cultural institutions still have a conscience, or at least a heightened appreciation for public relations.

Take New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. For years, it's been feeding at the trough of the Sackler family, who have been enriched in part by fueling the opioid epidemic by pushing their highly addictive Oxycontin.

Last month, the New York Times revealed that the family's company -- Purdue Pharma -- not only had a plan to expand the use of the drug, but planned to make more money by marketing a drug designed to cure the addiction their product caused.

With the Met's decision to wean itself off Sackler money, the Times says it will lead to museums being more careful about where their money comes from.

The increased scrutiny on donors is forcing museums to navigate moral quandaries and a political climate where a protest can go viral in a matter of hours. At the same time, they must mollify the wealthy benefactors who help keep the lights on and would rather not see donations open them up to public examination.

“There really aren’t that many people who are giving to art and giving to museums; in fact it’s a very small club,” said Tom Eccles, executive director of the Center for Curatorial Studies at Bard College. “So we have to be a little careful what we wish for here.”

There is also the difficult question of where to draw a line. What sort of behavior is found inexcusable?

“We are not a partisan organization; we are not a political organization, so we don’t have a litmus test for whom we take gifts from based on policies or politics,” said Weiss of the Met. “If there are people who want to support us, for the most part we are delighted.

The Sackler family issued a statement saying it understands the Met's decision.