There are multiple references on the Opioid crisis, scholarly, review articles and investigative reporting , which show:
The Sacklers knowingly misrrepresented the risks of addcition and diversion
The Sacklers knowingly misrepresented the efficacy of abuse safeguards
The Sacklers, despite having received warnings from Attornies General in Kentucky and West Virginia, continued to agressively promote oxycontin by directly incentivizing pharmacy benefit managers and over prescribers
The Sacklers were well aware of the existence of illicit pill mills which were dispensing millions of pills inappropriately
Richard Sackler, when deposed, was haughty and arrogant, entirely lacking empathy for the death and devastation caused by this epidemic. Purdue admitted wrongdoing and settled for over half a billion dollars and then insisted on Richard Sacklers incendiary testimony being sealed.
8
while you're at it, how about all of those buildings named after the Koch brothers? you know, the guys who wanted to ensure that none of the tax cuts to billionaires were reduced to provide social services to the poorest amongst us. how about it MIT, Johns Hopkins, state of New York, etc..? time to return their money and remove their names, don't you think?
4
It's delicious (almost) how messy this whole system is of patronage by these wealthly capitalists who "give" $ to idealistic efforts. Almost a kind of money laundering. Carnegie savagely attacked unions and worker's rights but hey, he promoted libraries and other "altruistic" efforts. The Koch bro. don't seem quite so subtle with their creation/support of political (libertarian) "think tanks" and departments n universities like George Washington but they did give $ to the NYC opera. This is the "free market" approach to supporting culture and the arts. Surely we can find a better way to support the arts.
5
Just because the FDA approved this strongly addictive drug does not mean it is safe. Just because billions were made off the drug, neither implies that the profits were earned honestly or without immense unethical marketing - see 2007 lost suit against Purdue. See also the relationship between Mexican drug cartels from LA up the west coast to Everett, Washington with Purdue. Let us not be so superficial as to believe their marketing again.
https://www.everettwa.gov/1681/Purdue-Lawsuit
Having lost a son to this highly toxic drug, the only action I have any power over is to strike by not seeing the art that was purchased off of tainted profit. I walk right by the Sackler Asian Museum at the Smithsonian, maybe even with a kick toward the bushes in the garden outside. I have no other power against this huge profit making business. I curse them daily.
I am happy to strike and make space for those of you who appreciate art no matter the family from which it was donated. Read a bit deeper and you may see that this is not one great all American company just making an honest profit from a product that helps so many. It causes death and destruction - knowingly.
7
Where is Harry Lime when we need him? If we were to follow the direction suggested in this article, not only would almost every cultural institution, university and research facility in this country eventually be shuttered, but almost every creation in them, starting with those produced by the slave-holding societies of the ancient Near East, would have to be rejected. It is ironic, isn't it, that while the underpinnings of a civilized society are being carefully dismantled by the right in this country, we are to consider, in our righteousness, doing away with most of the few refuges from we have. Better use our energies to try to figure out how we can wrest the country back from the abyss, taking a few needed minutes of relaxation now and then contemplating the Temple of Dendur in the Sackler wing of the Met between efforts to do so.
3
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
3
Does the art community really wish to epitomize The Stereotype that we are such snobs, we can't make any decision without judging the personal lives and choices of everyone involved? And these people aren't even the ledge to be connected to drug cartels only a pharmaceutical company whose drug was so effective, it needed to only be prescribed to patients with regular supervision like in home or hospital care? Should museums not accept donations from the Grant Family in light of relatively recent clashes in South Carolina? Quit judging people and start judging the work, the project, and the outcome. That is the Museum's job, and unless funds from the showing are being used to do evil Deeds, the life of the persons involved in creating or funding it are irrelevant. The experience and the provocation of intellectual growth from viewing or experiencing an artwork are the point. Should there be no exhibits of Nazi Arrow work, though they only serve through there Beauty and horror entwined, to drive home the point of how Insidious that evil was?
1
The outcome of their efforts is death - daily.
4
But if the "compromised" donor is given credit and good PR best to qualify their contributions more effectively.
2
OxyContin is a legal, FDA-approved, drug. It was approved because it was believed to fill a genuine medical need. The manufacturer cannot be criticized for that, unless approval was based on fraudulent data (which has not been suggested).
Perhaps that approval was a mistake, or insufficient conditions were imposed on prescribing. Then the FDA should correct its mistake; the manufacturer's shares will likely decline in price in response, and shareholders will have less money to give.
The people who are upset about donations ultimately deriving from OxyContin sales should turn their attention to the European manufacturer in the 1960's of thalidomide, an enormously harmful drug that should never have been approved (and wasn't in the U. S.) and that, even had it been harmless, met no significant medical need. Where did that dirty money go?
1
I think the NYT feels that if there is not an opioid epidemic article every few days, they have to invent a story.
1
Could it be moral to take money from "evil" donors who have retired, while declining to name buildings etc. after them, on the principle that if evil has been done but in the case in question is no longer actively going on, then good should be allowed to come out of the evil of the past? Is there even a moral imperative to try to create good out of past evil? And in that case, what sort of good? I don't personally have a fixed position on these questions, but I suspect that the ideas are worth thinking about.
The money of the wealthy -- from whatever sourced derived -- must be expropriated for the good of The People. Individuals have no right to private wealth or gain.
Nice to be able to look back, what, 20-30 years and say that Oxycontin is a scourge. If science felt back then that there was a trivial chance of addiction (was there any information to the contrary back then?) AND this was a product that, used as directed, could relieve pain without the 'high' --I'm sure benefits many patients.
As for the Sackler's, the article states that they've been philanthropists since the 70's--at least 20y before Oxycontin was introduced. Given this article, wouldn't surprise me if they and other wealthy families cut back on philanthropy lest skeleton's come out of THEIR closets and the and the media turns on them.
1
Wonder what the Krups in Germany are up to.
If you disagree, feel free to stop visiting these institutions. And please, keep digging. Good luck finding those donations you deem morally worthy of your attention. It's not news that money is dirty.
Hopefully the moralizers will find places to keep each other good company, while I drink up the art without having to navigate around all the people staring down their noses.
5
Thank you for such a hilarious. subtly satirical piece. Since over 90% of all bank notes in circulation have traces of cocaine, the obvious conclusion is that ALL the money is "dirty" and thus unacceptable.
If all the money is dirty, then the only recourse is to return to the barter system.
It is pleasantly amusing to contemplate bank vaults filled with squealing pigs and other livestock; mass amounts of produce, and other tangible wealth.
This article might be even more amusing if it directly addressed the question of what SHOULD be done with all that dirty money from possibly questionable sources. Should they just keep it all, and eventually have enormous fortunes from the interest on the interest to the 10th power?
Is it possible that dirty money can be cleaned, via donations to institutions that are valuable to the general public? Isn't it likely the Average Citizen, admiring lovely new art or an interesting new dinosaur skeleton; could not care less how a museum obtained the money to curate, purchase, display and protect its collections?
1
What rot.
Just because some people abuse OxyContin doesn't mean that it isn't a godsend to others and that the Sackler clan's money should be refused or returned.
In my mother's last months of terminal lung cancer, OxyContin allowed her to live in relative comfort and to enjoy visits with her family. The dose was very high, but she had very little time remaining. Taking it allowed her to stay awake and to converse with her usual articulate rationality. Thank goodness for that drug.
Let the Sacklers continue to keep our cultural institutions running. I, for one, appreciate their contributions to my city's intellectual and emotional life. Make no mistake: Great art nourishes the soul.
Maybe if Mr. de Blasio didn't insist that New Yorkers get something for nothing, the Metropolitan Museum could charge an admission fee and dig itself out of the red. While the previous director probably had personality problems that led to his making stupid, costly errors, the sizable crowds the Met draws should do something to decrease the deficit he left it with; that is, if everyone bothered to pay to experience hours of the world's greatest masterpieces.
The fee disclaimer is prominent and infantilizes visitors to this greatest of world-class museums.
Besides, what company, institution, or country to boycott depends on people's politics, prejudices, and sometimes silly sensibilities. Let the Sacklers continue to give.
5
Just to be clear, is the implied suggestion that donations of money, from people or institutions, that was legally earned thru legal means that some might find distasteful or objectionable for political or social reasons, should be refused or returned with "appropriate" condemnation leveled at the "guilty" parties? Gonna be a lot of museums and performing arts organizations starving on the vine.
2
The problem with donors to "the arts" by people who wield great,sometimes destructive, power in society, is that now -a- days they also manipulate the direction and policies of our country and even globally. This means that they also influence University presses, newspaper / media exposure of which authors, or what books are published and promoted. They control "art fashion" for investment purposes, in pop music, the film industry.
This is not an accident, for it is the creative, intellectually superior ideas expressed in all the arts that inspire and even lead the world to free societies that solve problems; are safer, healthier, more diverse, lively and empowered. Yet we are supposed to pooh pooh and forget about this fact.
Creative people of every kind, writers, musicians, visual artists, film makers, play-writes, journalists, are well aware of a freeze on venues, starting with school programs lacking in the arts, history and the humanities: a curricula blackout, with the substitution of tech; complicit Universities; lack of a climate for excellence of work, expression and innovation- prevails on every level including museums.
The various spells of the digital world; our separation from nature and a healthy life, as though the very usefulness of tech could be any substitute for inspiration much less wellbeing, passion, leadership. So yes: donors, banks, public policy have wreaked havoc on creativity, and our society must take it back.
4
Just stroll through the Metropolitan Museum if you want to make a list of dark and dirty money. Before the so-called Koch fountains in front of the Met were completed, I wrote to then director Thomas Campbell asking why he would insult the museum-going public by taking Koch money and emblazoning the name on the front of the museum. Indeed, the Koch name was already emblazoned all over the AMNH and Lincoln Center. Mr. Campbell's reply was indignant. To a museum, he seemed to say, there is no such thing a dirty money. It is all clean.
7
The Kochs made their money honestly by building a successful business. They are as entitled to their political opinions as this commenter is to hers.
Mr. Campbell (or someone on his staff whose position he approved) should be praised for taking the time to respond to such politicized letters.
Much great art was commissioned by the Borgias and other very nasty people. Even Shakespeare became a political hack in his history plays. Yet
these are great art. Enjoy it, and leave the political context to the historians.
1
ST: "... the so-called Koch fountains in front of the Met ..."
The redesigned *plaza* is named after Koch. And the new plaza has many significant improvements, all of which benefit anyone who walks past the museum:
"The massive outdoor space – which runs along Fifth Avenue for four city blocks – features new fountains, paving, lighting, and trees leading to the Museum’s entrances from north and south, and seating areas for visitors. Landscape architecture firm OLIN led the design to prioritize the pedestrian experience and create a welcoming urban destination."
ST: "Mr. Campbell's reply was indignant. To a museum, he seemed to say, there is no such thing a dirty money. It is all clean."
Post an exact quote from "Campbell's reply". A biased interpretation is not good enough.
Source for quote:
www dot toposmagazine dot com/david-h-koch-plaza-metropolitan-museum-art/
For photos, Google: "David H. Koch Plaza" and click "Images".
2017-12-04 02:28:25 UTC
You could start by not giving naming rights...and then watch the mega-rich run away....
8
The last line of this piece is astounding: “Since this has all emerged very recently, we haven’t had sufficient time to fully absorb it so we don’t have any comment,” she [Anne Canty] wrote.
Has Ms Canty, and her fellow artsy-mendicant types quoted herein, been living in a vacuum? That the Sacklers have PRIVATELY owned Purdue Pharma for decades is no secret at all, and that Purdue makes 99% of its money from Oxy is just as well-known. What kind of money do these museums take without thinking? I am reminded of the Vito Corleone wing of the hospital in Godfather III.
6
Purdue does not make 99% of its money from Oxycontin.
OxtContin at least has some positive purpose, even if it is misused; a sharp contrast to the dreadful Koch Brothers poisonous products and policies.
7
I guess this means you'll be giving back all the Nobel prizes?
5
No remotely as disturbing as the museums (including the Met), hospitals & cultural centers that have sold themselves as advertisements for the Koch brothers and their fascist politics.
9
The reductive moral reasoning of this article is ridiculous. The Sacklers made their money from a large pharmaceutical company. This company sells a drug that in hindsight helped fuel the current opioid epidemic. So they are bad and their money is bad.
That same pharmaceutical company has helped people with its many products, including those in terrible pain. Should we ignore the good in people because they are complicated and imperfect? Should a museum reject a donation because the source of the money is insufficiently pure? I would argue the better course is to accept the Sacklers generous gift with a thank you. If all the worlds wealthy were so generous, the world would be better off.
14
Prescriptions of OxyContin have saved millions of people from suffering excruciating pain. It's a legal product.
Should non-profits refuse donations from donors who have their wealth in General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler stock? After all, their products kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.
This is beyond absurd.
16
I'm no big fan of the Sackler's but the fact is that they produce a product that helps much more than it hinders. If people are really so interested in preventing needless deaths, they should start a movement to erase cigarettes, something with absolutely no benefit that kills hundreds of thousands a year.
People have some personal responsibility here. Is there anyone who can read that doesn't know that opioids are addictive?
8
Maybe we should consider these gifts of ill-gotten money differently: rather than seeing the unethical actions behind the money as somehow tainting the beneficiary, why not implement a simple rule for naming rights: if a donor is found to have donated ill-gotten funds, the beneficiary removes the donor's name from the institution. This anonymization of the gift would scrub it of its ugly past, and in a sense sanctify it for the public good.
3
Perhaps we should name the wings after the victims.
The company knowingly sold dangerous drugs as safe, marketing with false claims and the damage dwarfs any possible good their (relatively small) donations might do.
3
I have taken Oycontin since 2003 for a back injury, I have had three failed back surgeries. I have Neuropathy. Brand name Oycontin is the only drug that makes a dent in the nerve pain. Last month Workers Comp started messing with the approval of OxyContin, I had to take OxyCodone aka Roxcodone instead. It is not time realsed. It knocks you out and puts you to sleep and doesn’t allow you to function. OxyContin for someone that it is in Pain Management and takes in according to directions allows you to function and have some life.
8
Opiods have been unfairly demonized - the amount of good they do for people with chronic pain far outweighs the damage of the "opioid crisis", which has been hyped totally out of proportion to reality. There are far worse problems out there to focus on. Opiate addicts don't kill themselves because they overdose trying to get high - they die because they take too many because they can't stand the pain. Just google it - and you know what you will find - NOTHING. Statistics on why people OD are not available. Statistics separating deaths from prescription opiates from those due to heroin/fentanyl are also not available. And please reply to me if you can find any that are useful, because I've looked a lot.
Why not refuse donations from any company who has any employee accused of sexual harassment too? After all, that's another cause du jour.
Or any company that donated to Trump - now THERE's evidence of real criminality.
4
The Opioid Epidemic began with a corporate crime.Nobody seemed to care when it was just Appalachia. Well, the chickens have come home to roost. It is time for us to get angry and to get mobilized. There is a great crime behind this opiate epidemic. It is a corporate crime which rivals "big tobacco" and it needs to be exposed. The perpetrators of this crime, The Sackler Family of Perdue Pharmaceuticals and others, need to be fully disgorged of their blood money and the funds should be set up to aid those in recovery, to support educational efforts and to aid the families and communities so devastated. It is time to report on the role the "philanthropic" Sackler Family has played in this epidemic which is now responsible for the deaths of over 60,000 young people per year.
"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime"-Balzac
1
Tobacco kills, as has been known for a century or more. It has no benefits.
Opiates have important uses in medicine (see the many comments from people with severe chronic or terminal pain). Like all drugs, it has undesirable side effects. It is the responsibility of the prescribing physician and the patient to balance these with its benefits. It is not the manufacturer's fault if they sometimes get this wrong, or if others deliberately abuse it.
1
The manufacturer of this opiates is guilty of criminal misrepresentation. The manufacturer of oxycontin lied about the drugs half life. THe manufacturer lied about the drugs addictive potential. The manufacturer lied about the ease with which your kids could access the morphine inside the pill. The manufacturer even after been made aware of untold death and devastation due to diversion continued to feed the epidemic by making an end run around the attornies general by directly incentivizing pharmacy benefit managers and those who ran the pill mills. This is why Purdue demanded Richard Sacklers testimony be sealed after settlement and why Purdue is now approaching the Attornies General of 41 States preparing lawsuits and starting settlement discussions. History will reveal the Sackler Family's crimes to have been the worst corporate crimes in world history, rivaling big tobacco and those of the corporations which funded the gas chambers and the looting of the victims of The Shoah.
OK, the issue is not that the Sacklers sell opioids as therapeutic drugs.
The issue is that they have paid of the government to minimize oversight on their product that was designed to minimize the illegal and illegitimate uses of the opioids.
When a privately held corporation acts this consistently to thwart regulations that are designed to prevent the human damage so that the corporation can have higher profits, that is not a legitimate activity.
Although money has no smell, giving the family the public exposure of naming buildings and other public facilities after them is just rewarding bad behavior.
9
Opioids are legitimate medications with legitimate uses despite the fact that they and other pharmacological agents can be abused. Tobacco products are pure poison (although not for everyone) and probably should not be allowed to be sold. I do see a big difference between the two. But, as far as I know, no one was ever forced to use tobacco nor to consume opioids.
To the museums and other cultural institutions, I say, "Take the money and run!"
8
I agree. Take the money and reserve the right to change the building names if any proof of criminal wrongdoing is found. Would you rather have these people funding their own private art collections, rather than supporting public ones?
3
Tobacco is pure poison for everyone. No upside. It doesn't kill every user only because sometimes people die of something else first.
1
Opioids are a valuable and indispensable mediation in proper healthcare delivery. Would we discredit Henry Ford because automobiles are involved in traffic accidents?
13
All the insanely wealthy people have received their money, at least partially, through theft.
I see their donations as ways to give back what they took.
8
These families donate to museums to reduce their taxable income, out of a
genuine interest in culture, and to makes themselves look good. Let us be clear-eyed about this. Let us also remember those who died from opoid addiction and the lives ruined by the unnecessary prescribing of opoids. Kerp that in mind if you want to defend the Sacklers and their ilk.
1
Museums and other recipients of donations from the Sacklers are receiving blood money. It is certainly legal for them to accept it. That said, is the preservation of art and expansion of museums important enough for institutions to morally bankrupt themselves by (1) profiting from the death of hundreds of thousands of people due to corporate malfeasance and (2) accepting blood money in return for giving donors social prominence and tax write-offs.
6
Which museum is naming its new wing after El Chapo?
13
Let's look at the example of the Texaco sponsorship of the Metropolitan Opera's radio broadcasts that began as a PR move when the corporation was discovered selling oil to the Nazis in 1940. This was the longest running sponsorship in broadcast history, over 60 years. How many listeners to the Texaco program knew of its immoral origins? Very few, I expect. It was an excellent imaging move.
4
Ah, once again the PC police are out in full force. Just where does it stop? Do we go after a family that made its fortune manufacturing rope? Heck, it may well be responsible for thousands of hanging suicides each year!
I think that perhaps we need to rely on Justice Potter Stewart's famous comment concerning pornography: "I know it when I see it". If the money for a museum comes from a known mafia king or drug lord, I don't see any museum accepting such, but of course, these people also aren't donating it.
If we start fine tooth comb examining philanthropy to all not-for-profits and cultural institutions, we will no longer get such donations. And if we want these institutions to continue in operation, it will mean either high cost to users or higher taxes to pay for them. I don't think either is palatable to the general public. Will donations from the McDonnell Foundation no longer be accepted as they manufactured planes bought by the military for wars that some people find "wrong"? Too bad for Children' Hospital in St Louis and innumerable other recipients of the foundation's largesse. And they will be replaced just how?
Be very, very careful what you ask for.
33
How about this. If you don't approve of the donors who contribute to a particular institution, whether it's a hospital, orphanage, or art, natural history, automotive or children's museum, don't patronize it. Leave the rest of us to, gasp, freely choose those we wish to patronize.
11
Being careful is important, yes. But by being careful we can reduce the burden on health care institutions like Children's Hospital in St.Louis who are plagued with the ever increasing related injuries associated in some fashion with the misused of opioids whether inside or out side these institutions. Yes, accepting funding is just a smoke screen to try to divert attention from being responsible for the real problems. The well documented blind and greedy ambitions of the Sackler family foundation and the like must be acknowledged and reacted to for the betterment of our societies. I do enjoy the beauties of art. But at what cost? Everett Murphy M.D.
Before typing comments such as these, you should sit down and absorb the available facts. Why Oh why do people think their opinions warrant the attention of others when they haven't even bothered to google search the issue at hand?
JUST WHERE DOES THIS STOP?
Hey. Come on. This story perverts ethics. I’m sure the millions of people who have benefited from the painkilling properties of OxyContin would wonder whether the writer has gone mad. It is a serious prescription medicine, the strongest of several pain killing opiates, and is used all over the world for the temporary relief of extreme suffering. As with many medicines, it took time for the dangers of its long term use to be realised. So? The story smacks of witch hunting rather than serious ethical reasoning. As for the museums, let them get their donations where they can.
26
Thank you for a dose of reason. We are all one injury or illness away from chronic intractable pain.
9
It is worth reading the exposee of the Sacklers in the New Yorker. Totally clear that they don't just sell to post-operative patients. They have, for years, pushed this drug using deceptive practices that have led to massive over-prescription and to the opioid epidemic itself.
4
Read the New Yorker article and then think about your statement.
2
For a life imitates art moment, search for the Billions (Showtime) episode where Axe gets his name on a building.
4
Vanity name plates are tacky. The Sackler's are not the only ones that should be taken down. They appeal only to a small number of hyper-competitive people with personality disorders. Whenever I see on the bottom of a plaque next to a painting "anonymous gift", I think to myself, now there's a class act. Even scholarship money shouldn't come with family names attached. People need to learn how to care about art and architecture for the right reason. That should be a part of every institution's mission.
8
The 42nd Street library has engraved on it the names Lenox, Tilden, Astor. I see nothing wrong with that. The newest big donor, Schwarzman, on the other hand, is busy turning our grand Beaux Arts library into a glorified Starbucks.
Get the books out of New Jersey and back into those stacks and stop mucking around with our venerable library, so that Lenox, Tilden, and Astor can have back the institution they envisioned. How many generations of New Yorkers and researchers from around the world have reached for and grasped the world's wonders at this library? And now the books are in New Jersey warehouse, thirty miles away.
1
Most countries support cultural institutions with general revenue. It is the United States that decided that tax deductible private donations was the way to go. In France for instance, hospital buildings are named for famed doctors while in America they get the millionaire donor's name.
23
It’s probably been pointed out already in the comments, but yes, universities (and probably museums) have gift committees to vet their gifts. No one wants the SEC or FBI clawing back money gained illegally. But it seems the ends do justify the means in general ... As long as it’s legal, museums and universities will accept the fruits of that tree. Significant social pressure can force change. Witness for example the trend towards funds offering socially conscious investing choices and climate change awareness changes to university endowment investing strategy.
5
Oxycontin is an effective and safe drug that helps patients with severe pain who would otherwise live in misery. Why blame the drug researchers, makers or medical profession. Shouldn't it be the abusers who are held accountable?
12
The folks that should be blamed are the doctors that prescribed Oxy like candy and the folks that abuse it.
4
The Kochs funded the renovation of the State Theatre and the plaza in front of the Met. What was Carnegies deal: strike breaking and libraries. If you are a blood sucking capitalist what else are you going to do to divert recrimination?
1
Andrew Carnegie believed that a man should spend the first third of his life learning his business, the second third practicing it in pursuit of his fortune and the last third giving it all away.
3
This is as old as the Middle Ages process of the rich buying Indulgences into Heaven. My mother got it right; she always commented on the pictures in the news showing a fancy ball, with tuxedos and gowns, and all the glitterati who so "generously" donated their gold to some worthy cause, by saying "You notice, they never give Anonymously, do they?"
5
I think it would be a better use of the Sacklers' money if they created new rehabilitation clinics and made them free or subsidized for opioid addicts. After all, they pushed the drugs relentlessly, convincing doctors that they were safe to use. I've seen it first hand as an RN, it is ugly and very disruptive to families and society as a whole. The Sacklers with all of their money can hide behind their donations to the arts but they have a dark shadow following them.
8
Museums and other social/cultural assets have long served as a way for people with "dirty" money to cleanse their reputations and their souls. It would be crazy to turn down the money, even if it does rankle a bit to see monsters like the Sacklers puffing up proudly at charity benefits.
2
Look at the names of mega-donors to most museums... "Questionable" ethics and predatory business practices abound!
Look at the acquisition history of many collections... Looted art and knowingly accepting donations (often from the same rich benefactors) with bad provenance, and refusal to return "outed" art to rightful owners... Met, Getty, Austrian National Museum.
The shame goes way, way beyond one family's pharmaceutical lucre!
5
money is fungible.
1
So are morals.
Take their money, but insist that the gift be anonymous. How'd that be for a test of true magnanimity?
4
What about vetting their board members? Rebekeh Mercer is on the board of the Museum of Natural History, which is a travesty since she is a huge proponent and funder of climate change denial, not to mention racism. I have stopped giving the museum money because of her position. Apparently the museum sold out to the highest bidder. Shame on them.
28
The Sacklers and the medical community were complicit (in an Ivanka Trump 'word of the year' way).
Yes, the Sacklers and Purdue criminally misbranded Oxy as safe - but they couldn't have done that on their own. They were aided and betted by doctors. From Esquire:
"In 1986, two doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York published a fateful article in a medical journal that purported to show, based on a study of thirty-eight patients, that long-term opioid treatment was safe and effective so long as patients had no history of drug abuse. Soon enough, opioid advocates dredged up a letter to the editor published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 that suggested, based on a highly unrepresentative cohort, that the risk of addiction from long-term opioid use was less than 1 percent. Though ultimately disavowed by its author, the letter ended up getting cited in medical journals more than six hundred times."
As far as donations, I have no issue with the Sacklers donating lots of money. Art and culture help us appreciate life - so those are fine choices. Donating to opioid addiction programs and to police officers and EMTs on the front lines to keep more addicts alive is better - and so is funding physicians' education programs and ethics training programs - so that fewer patients are at risk of addiction when they see their trusted doctor.
In short, while the Sacklers aren't 100% responsible for this crisis, they should support its resolution 100%.
15
This is largely true - opioids are abused by people who have a history of drug abuse or other addictive behavior (who else would think to crush the pills and snort them?). This is not news. Since extended release versions are less likely produce euphoria unless adulterated, it is reasonable to predict a risk less than 1%, since that is the risk for any drug abuser exposed to a wide range of drugs - not just opioids. Millions of shady prescriptions were written prior to 2007 by pill mills, but fewer than 5% of legitimate pain patients ever misused their medication, and 1% or fewer (some say a lot fewer) became addicted (no medical reason) rather than dependent (as one becomes to all medications taken regularly). Were it not for there being so many illegitimate prescriptions written by unregulated Medicaid-fraudster clinics to those shooting up with crushed Oxy, or reselling it to those that did, followed by the cheapest, most abundant, most dangerous heroin flooding the market, there would be no crisis. You can't blame it all on the Sacklers or legitimate doctors. As others have mentioned, extended release and other painkillers do more good than most of the people commenting on this list are likely to ever know.
While the Sacklers might be morally compromised by all the misery and death caused by pushing Oxy Contin, I suggest that the public benefit from philanthropy should be augmented.
Instead of consigning the Sacklers to oblivion, convince them to increase their contribution by 200% or more. Forgiveness cannot be bought but any guilt they might have for the damage they have done can be manipulated for the public good.
1
I mean, the Koch brothers are huge patrons, and the damage they’ve wrecked, though difficult to quantify, is orders of magnitude greater. That’s the irony about the arts. Liberal artists happily accept sponsorship of the people destroying our country and the world.
4
A regular concert goer in many cities, I have never set foot in a hall with the name Koch associated with it and I was a regular at the State Theater.
3
Well. You are better'n me. Congratulations.
Are you aware that philanthropy, even to museums, in the Western world, like that made to many churches and houses of worship, have been made by many immoral, unethical and even crooked businesses? Just as Mafia dons would go confess, not entirely but partially, in their Churches, make generous contributions that excited their priests, bishops and cardinals...and then go back to the same crime and criminal behaviors as before. It was a revolving door of mutual convenience, dependency and despicable hypocrisy...Many businesses that were killing Natives all over Latin America, Africa and Asia were opening beautiful museums of architectural delight, from imperial and colonial money, and wealth collected through brutality and violence. Only now you are recognizing this?
2
Why would any organization that relies on donations turn down money from anyone? Makes no sense to me.
3
You certainly have a point. Even if it's "dirty" money it still can do some good. However, I feel the art community has to be more sensitive and maybe less selfish in that regard. Self-criticism and an open discussion about the issue are needed.
1
Yes PatsArtWorld. Also think about who gets this money if the donation is not made. Their heirs.
"The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together. Our virtues would grow proud if our faults whipped them not, and our crimes would despair if they were not cherished by our virtues."
"All's Well That Ends Well" Act 4, scene 3
4
The rebound effect from the Opioid Epidemic sweeping the country is that patients with legitimate, serious pain management challenges will be doubted and under-served by the medical community.
OxyContin is not an evil drug; many patients with chronic, intractable, perhaps terminal pain benefit from it. Addiction from, and diversion of, opioids is a problem, but don't suggest that the Sackler family is somehow immoral for being associated with OxyContin's existence.
21
Where is the line here? Do arts institutions need legal teams to vet donors? Doesn't this put a significant burden on arts organizations to conduct investigations before they accept a gift? Wouldn't that standard need to be applied to every donor at that point? It seems to me that development departments have enough on their plates without adding processes that include investigating how the donors money was made. I mean, sure, don't accept a blood stained suitcase full of fifties - but, again, where is the line?
7
Oxycontin - developed by the Sacklers and commercialized by Purdue Pharma - is a highly effective anti-pain medication for patients in post operative pain and suffering from chronic pain from diseases like cancer, used properly it's beneficial if not essential. It is also highly addictive when abused. Unless someone can show that the Sackler's profited from the diversion of their product for illegal use or even failed to take action to prevent the illegal diversion of their product, I don't see what the fuss is about. My understanding is that the product is available because of doctors knowingly over prescribing for profit, forged scripts and individuals re-selling the product illegally. Let's blame the FDA (and the pharma industry including Purdue) for dragging their feet on implementing serialization of prescription drugs and state medical boards for not aggressively going after doctors that abuse the system for profit. In the meantime, thank you Sacklers for contributing to the arts.
14
I urge you to read the New Yorker and Esquire articles about Purdue Pharma. OxyContin was deceptively marketed with regards to it addictive potential. The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma and if they didn't know what was happening they should have. The opioid crisis can be blamed in no small part on Purdue Pharma. To me their profits are "blood money" and the Sackler family members involved in the company should be vilified.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-f...
2
Read the New Yorker article, specifically what it has to say about Arthur Sackler's role in the misrepresentation and phony advertising of this drug.
2
The New Yorker and the NYT are attacking a company for marketing a product dishonestly. None of this changes the fact that the medication relieves intractable pain for millions of chronic pain sufferers who are not part of anyone's media-extended crisis. The New Yorker and NYT should not be anyone's bible where this subject is concerned - they are just journalists.
All donors should be vetted as a matter of course.
That said, not all Sacklers are the same. Elizabeth Sackler, whom I've followed for a number of years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Sackler), has publicly disavowed the side of her family that is involved in the opioid crisis. She is a strong advocate for the arts and women's rights. It would be a pity if her work and the funding her foundation disburses were to be turned away.
It shouldn't be too difficult to suss out what a donor's motives are and align those with the interests of the receiving institutions.
The opioid crisis will stay with us for a very long time and will leave deep scars not only because of the trail of deaths it will have left behind, but also the deep, deep rot that is a part of a story that is still being revealed.
---
https://www.rimaregas.com/2016/05/28/opioid-trail-from-fda-to-oxycontin-...
2
Good Rima. You leaving a couple million to your local museum for the purpose of vetting all future donors? Money to museums didn't create the opioid crisis. Or slavery on sugar plantations. Or pollution from fossil fuel extraction. Or slums, or lack of public transportation, or diabetes. May we move on from the hyper-drama, back to Flynn and the Logan Act violations that may trip up Trump Team, and leave our museum development people in peace?
2
Winchester,
Blood money is a thing. I wouldn't take money from the Pharma wing of the Sackler family any more than I would from the Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, Nazi sympathizers and the likes.
No one should be left in "peace." Look at the low point we've reached in American society. That happened because we stopped asking questions.
16
It is always about the money which easily sways decison- making among those with a flexible moral center. In addition to donors, Boards, who usually are expected to donate generously, may have ideas that may be inconsistent with the institute or organization for which they are honored to serve as a Trustee. Or maybe the American Museum of Natural History sees no conflict with having a climate science doubter, Rebekah Mercer, as a Trustee.
4
Wow - I didn't know that about Rebekah Mercer. I am not really cognizant of any rich company or museum board for that matter. But why wouldn't shameful people want to put themselves in a favorable light? I don't think I have any more room to fume over this country's transgressions. The Mueller investigation is taking up a lot of room already.
1
"... a climate science doubter, Rebekah Mercer ..."
Post an exact, reliably sourced quote in which Mercer "doubts" climate science.
And don't try to cite this earlier smear piece from the Times's arts desk. Mercer is not quoted: "Ms. Mercer did not respond to multiple requests for comment ..."
Museum Trustee, a Trump Donor, Supports Groups That Deny Climate Change
By ROBIN POGREBIN
JAN. 17, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/arts/design/natural-history-museum-tr...
2017-12-01 21:10:13 UTC
2
Of course museums should vet their donors, especially their trustees (who are usually the biggest donors). Best examples: David Koch on the board of the Smithsonian, Rebekah Mercer on the board of the American Museum of Natural History. These are institutions charged with presenting an unbiased, objective, evidence and fact-based account of the natural world to the public, but who have the worst anti-climate science funders on their boards. How can an institution not be beholding to special interests when a, say, 20-million-dollar gift is dangled in front of the CEO?
7
The Koch's keep me out of cultural institutions. I'm suspicious that
they want to control content.
2
Should museums vet donors. - of course they should. In the case of OxyContin maybe we need to question where the FDA and Congress was. Likely Congress was busy taking contributions from the likes of OxyContin and the FDA was being distracted by members of Congress who were hired by OxyContin to distract the FDA.
I guess this is the price we pay for failing to provide public funding for cultural institutions. At least the private money is allowing museums to provide access to the public.
I would be less concerned about donations from rich people (who are not felons) to museums, we should be more concerned about vetting contributions to politicians. This has a bigger impact on society than a monopolist putting his or her name on a marquee
3
Show me an example of "clean" money from philanthropists. Which family fortunes are built on something with no ethical stain? If they had ethical business practices, they wouldn't have all those millions to shell out.
8
Perhaps it is the crowd you associate with.
I know two people that were on the Forbes 400. They are among the most honorable people I know.
4
I have to wonder if the donating helped to alleviate an undercurrent of guilt about essentially making a lot of money off of the sales of drugs to alleviate pain and causes dependency and tragedy ultimately..
It doesn't cause tragedy ultimately for the millions helped by it. It doesn't cause tragedy for anyone but the very small percentage, most already addicts to something, that abused it, who, when the pills became harder to get and were reformulated to be uncrushable, focused instead on the extremely cheap and abundant heroin that has flooded the market for the past ten years. Dependency is something that people taking all kinds of drugs develop. You can't suddenly stop and start most antidepressants because your body becomes so dependent on them. This is not a tragedy if you are in intractable pain and the drug you are taking works.
I think if museums and other such institutions were only able to rely on "good" money they wouldn't have much to go on. This is not a new issue. Think of all the art and museums linked to the 19th century robber barons.
4
You might start your discussion with the Guggenheim itself. At least a major component of the Guggenheim family money came from the American Smelting and Refining Co. (ASARCO). For many, many years, ASARCO was one of the largest smelting companies in the US. It has been held responsible for air, water and soil pollution in communities across the country. The adverse health impacts of its activities -- all undoubtedly legal at the time -- has been incalculable.
6
Historically, patrons of the arts are often among the most politically incorrect of citizens. As an example, consider the Medicis. Without them--and the Sacklers--Western cultural and artistic heritage would not only suffer but be bereft. I am an old woman of progressive politics, but I believe our current culture of political correctness in all areas but politics has spun out of control. I am far more worried about global despotism, including in our own country, than I am about the morality of museums vetting donors.
14
So long as the money is made legally, there is no need for hand-wringing about whether or not the donor, or her business, is respectable enough for the museum world. This should be a non-issue, and if any museum directors take these concern seriously, I expect they won't last very long.
13
Museums have to be much more inclusive and transparent in their administrative and policy making practices, including funding and labor conditions.
The political economic conditions of art institutions constitute our encounter with art. We can no longer dissociate our encounter with art from its immediate surrounding lived conditions. The opaque, unregulated, and exploitative socio-economic conditions of art institutions need to be discussed with the same intensity as we do works of art themselves.
Instead of museum Directors who speak publicly about social justice values they identify with and represent in their work, while giving influential museum positions to patrons who are actively engaged in realizing a violent end to those values, it must be the duty of Directors and other museum fundraisers to reimagine what it means to fund a museum in the US context where public funding for the arts is almost non-existent. There are creative ideas for alternative sources of funding being discussed.
5
Let me know how that creative funding works out.
Relieving billionaires of their lucre to create venues for art, science, philosophy, seems an appropriate action for the directors of those venues.
Most attendees or participants in programs at non-profits will not know a Sackler from a Koch or a Carnegie from a Havemayer. The ability of those donors to pursue their ventures is rarely to never enhanced by their endowments.
2
Of course, Billionaires are not relieved of their lucre in their strategically planned tax exempt contributions to museums. Their financial contributions come with the rewards of furthering business networks, estate planning, and asset management. And their contributions come with deeply invasive and subtly undermining control over museums, in terms of programming, acquisitions, and management.
Many museum attendees and participants do in fact recognize this reality.
Ultimately, we must settle terms that define the Museum’s obligation to serve a public that supports the institution through tax deductions, and for whose benefit it exists as a charitable organization.
So sorry the Havemeyers forced all those Marie Cassatts on the Met. There would be no museums to control if people with too much money, filthy or virtuous, didn't have a need to unload it.
Get over yourself. Most museums were created when taxes on zillionaires were much higher. We do not as a nation value art much and I doubt the average voter is gonna check a box designating cultural diversion of their tax dollars.
3
The New Yorker article was a stunning example of investigative journalism. The Sacklers, like many other families that have prospered on the misery of others, try to "buy" respectibility through cultural donations. Thanks to the New Yorker and the NY Times, wherever and whenever I see a building or gallery plaque with the name Sackler, disgust, not gratitude, will be my first thought. Museums? They are run by people and people are inherently greedy. It is what it is.
6
This is just silly. Oxycotin wasn't developed as a dangerous drug, it is only recognized as that now that we have become aware of it's addictive properties and the aggressive marketing by Purdue and unthinking or greedy Doctors that have led to mass addiction. The Sackler family can't be held responsible, that is scapegoating. Their donations to arts institutions aren't just whitewashing dirty money, but a serious commitment to the arts, which, as we have very little Federal funding for in this country, are nearly entirely dependent on donations and have always been so. Most fantastically rich families have a somewhat checkered path as it takes more than a bit of ruthlessness to get there. Robber barons, for example, funded many of the great museums, hospitals, universities, etc., and continued outreach to wealthy donors has kept them going. The tradition of endowing and funding the arts, education and hospitals continues, as for example, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative, or their work with the Dreamyard school and arts education project in the Bronx that now educated kids in 50 schools in that borough. We need the arts, universities and hospitals. Looking too closely at where the money comes from is a luxury we can not afford, and, as in the case of the Sacklers, a petty, politically correctness argument run amok.
32
Please read the articles on the Sacklers and OxyContin.
Purdue has promoted thrived on the drug's misuse. Just here in the nyt you can read of Purdue's pleading guilty to a federal felony for 'misbranding with the intent to defraud or mislead.'
In other words, we are talking about a crime here.
Many people have died and are dying. Though there will be no murder charges, 'something' is killing people.
4
Oxycodone is the chemical in Oxycontin, which uses it in a way to make it long-acting. Oxycontin was intentionally developed as a form of oxycodone with a hook. Yes, there are unscrupulous doctors and stupid ones. But Purdue Pharma designed a drug that they could manipulate those doctors to prescribe, at the very least with disregard of its addictive potential but more likely with that potential as the rationale for the drug's very design.
3
To which I must reply, "read the informative article in the November 30, 2017, issue of The New Yorker that details the very long history of this family and its influence over the drug industry. One may come to quite a different conclusion.
Times: "The New York Times surveyed 21 cultural organizations ..."
So the Times is creating "news".
Times: "(The Sacklers personally were not accused of wrongdoing.)"
Where are any actual critics of the Sacklers quoted in this article?
2017-12-01 14:57:15 UTC
5
Take their money and ask for more. Their name on the gallery or list of donors really means nothing to me, but it means a great deal to them and their fragile egos. I can, as much as I find them repulsive, enjoy the fruits of the labor of the Sacklers, Kochs, Fricks, and Morgans. The sign over the door has little to do with the aesthetics of what's hanging on the wall.
5
This apparent conflict between philanthropy and money from tainted sources is not new. Edward L. Doheny of Teapot Dome fame gave money to USC to fund the Doheny Library. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_L._Doheny
4
Wouldn't it be nice to see, e.g., the "Veterans of Foreign Wars Memorial Gallery", or the "American People's Art Gallery", instead of the usual Ozymandias Plaza and "Aren't We Generous Billionaires' Pocket Change Museum Facade"? The New Yorker article made clear the Sackler complicity in the misleading marketing of opioids. What next? The "Pablo Escobar Washington Monument"? "El Chapo Guzman Arts Learning Center"? If the price of donors' "gifts" is their name on the place, it isn't really a "donation" anyway, is it?
23
It sure would be nice if they donated all that money to combat the problem their company caused.
27
Purdue no doubt did many unethical things in selling OxyContin.
That being said,it is important to point out that this is a prescription drug and there is no evidence there would massive thefts of it so it got into people's hands by getting prescriptions from doctors.
Purdue no doubt were selling doctors a bill of goods but it only succeeded because the doctors were too ignorant about opioids to know it. And any doctor who was so ignorant shouldn't have been prescribing these drugs in the first place.
And for all those who claim doctors now fear prescribing opioids, I would like them to show a single case where a physician was disciplined by the DEA or state medical boards for prescribing opioids in anything close to what is considered a legitimate purpose.
3
As long as no recognition must be given for the "gift", then I view money as a fungible asset. Once some sort of recognition is required or usually given, then vetting is important because it ties the institution with donor's "shortcomings".
Having worked in development departments of several arts organizations in NYC, I fully agree with the ethical concerns raised in this article, but you omit to answer the question: Where do those arts institutions are going to find the funds to be able to stay open? Do they really have the option to say no? You have to look at the bigger picture of the system and compare it with a state funded one... Yes, arts organizations are places for wealthy people to get tax deductions, where you get to choose where your money is going and on top of it, get to go to expensive galas to show off among your peers put together by underpaid/multitasking nonprofit employees. And for all this we have to THANK them because they're doing GOOD. At the end, all those board members, who are they accountable to? Who is watching them and the decisions they take for those public institutions? Can you investigate deeper on what's going inside places like the Museum of Chinese in America (and maybe you'll start having a different opinion on Maya Lin the "artist"), or more recently the closing of the National Academy Museum and School and its historical building that's now on sell but doesn't sell?
6
My fear is that turning down donors who made their fortunes in opioids, tobacco, firearms and other products that have caused immense misery will motivate those donors to turn away from charitable giving and focus on political campaigns.
5
The only way you can get OxyContin is if an MD writes a prescription. It might also be well to remember that Alfred Nobel of the Nobel prize made his money by inventing dynamite. Just like OxyContin, the use of Dynamite has been seriously abused. Does that diminish the value of the Nobel prize?
46
W.A.
You mean the only 'legal' way to get OxyContin is by way of prescription. The streets are so flooded with OxyContin that hardly represents a significant obstacle. And we know who keeps the mills running night and day.
If the Sacklers had merely invented OxyContin, they could claim some degree of distance from the crisis, all the deaths.
But that's not what happened. They engaged in aggressive face to face marketing with MDs, and swore their patients could be on the drug "for years" without any risk of addiction. That's the problem.
Two equally important issues:
1) The AMA has yet to issue an iron-clad ban on direct contact between drug manufacturers and wholesalers and their physician clients.
2) With the active engagement of our notoriously corrupt Congress, the Sacklers can make enough money selling run of the mill medications that they toss money around like candy while people in serious need of help go into debt and worse to get the medicine they need.
Yes, museums are ethically disappointing in many cases. On the other hand, we are starving them to death as we run around the globe touting our culture and refinement.
14
Just keep in mind that the pharma industry has inveigled the government to make it as difficult as possible to stem the illegal distribution of these drugs. They are in fact complicit.
5
I think you need to sit down and read the expose published recently in the New Yorker. Dynamite is often used in proper ways. I do not think anyone purposely manipulated the facts in order to damage and addict people in selling dynamite. The drug pushers lied and set up experts who were supposedly independent to convince our Doctors that OxyContin was not a dangerously addictive drug.
7
The New Yorker article about the Sackler family was eye-opening. Many of the great museums have been built with blood money here in the US and abroad, some collections have looted artifacts in them, and conflicts of interest arise with board members at times. Our museums are ethical mine fields, but as long as we depend on private donors, with federal support diminishing each year, what choices are there? Yes, it would be wonderful to be discerning about private donors, and the Smithsonian some years ago turned down a donor for this very reason, but what are our alternatives?
25
The solution is to support proper levels of taxation and politicians with spending plans other than the military and militarized police. In other words vote democratic!
1
OxyContin is without doubt a very dangerous drug, and a great deal more needs to be done to curb abuse and addiction. We need to keep in mind that patients undergoing major surgery need good pain management solutions in order to heal properly. Let’s not lose sight of that. Due to recent legislation, they can be extremely difficult to obtain even with a valid medical need and prescription. Punishing or blacklisting drug makers for the act of producing a FDA approved pain medication is not justifiable.
22
Your last sentence reveals that you do not understand the significant role played by Purdue Pharma under the Sackler leadership in driving physician's prescribing behaviors into the dangerous territory that is now an addiction minefield. Purdue's pharmacological "contribution" was to produce a form of oxycodone that was long-acting. Then Purdue deliberately made its drug representatives advise a specific dose of Oxycontin of q12h (every 12 hours), an aggressive marketing strategy that trumpeted the convenience of a twice-a-day pill. As happens with most psychoactive drugs and potent analgesics, there is risk of tolerance: the drug ceases to be as effective after continued use. And in chronic use, the risk of dependency/addiction. In the case of Oxycontin, the beneficial effect often began to wear off after 6-8 hours. For this development, Pharma reps were instructed to tell physicians to increase the dose rather than to change its dosing frequency. That step fostered the cycle of tolerance and dependency, and what we have as a result is massive problem with opiod addiction. Pharma isn't responsible for all of that problem, but it was a major trigger and enabler, and there are none bigger.
3
Every single drug is potentially dangerous from aspirin and Tylenol on down. If you wish to get rid of all dangerous drugs, we'll all have to become Christian Scientists.
3
No one is saying that painkillers like Oxycontin do not have a place! If the drug were only used responsibly, Purdue (and the Sacklers) would not be making a fortune.
Note: Purdue pled guilty to a felony for 'misbranding' the drug 'with the intent to defraud or mislead.'
2
Shouldn't matter?
I love to visit museums. Every time I go, I look at the donors list. I am appalled that the donors get the honor of having their names on the wall, tax deductions for their portfolios and dinners where women wear low cut dresses and the men wear tuxes. Worse than that, the evil that they do to garner their fortunes is under reported, allowing them a free ride from their polluting people and the environment, while they get to determine what art we see and who gets to make it. I feel so torn about this that it affects my enjoyment of the art. That being said, I went to the Kravis last week to listen to music and will go see his photographs in Palm Beach.
19
Honestly it shouldn't matter where the money comes from. In the end doing good with it is the best final outcome regardless of the origins. The people doing the donating already have the money - is it better to refuse it and leave it with them? I think not.
11
You ignore or overlook the fact that they gain a tax deduction, in addition to having a say in the nature of the exhibits and the direction of art. By not paying taxes, less money goes to the National Endowment for the Arts and less become available to emerging artists. The donators get special treatment, exclusive tours with curators and we get bupkus. Eliminate tax deductions and don't allow people to donate and name themselves, like the New York Public Library is no longer the New York Public Library. Its Steven Schwartzman's library. And don't allow these skeeves to cleanse their bad acts.
6
It absolutely does matter where the money comes from because the donors get far more out of it: the museums are practicing a sort of reputation money-laundering operation wherein the cost of getting their name printed on the wall means we forget the atrocities these people committed to amass the rest of their fortune. The Sackler name should go down in history with the same infamy as Escobar or Gotti - criminal organizations that preyed upon our society for their own personal gain.
15
"... doing good with it ..."
It's not that simple. The Sacklers have their names displayed in public. Read the first two paragraphs of the article.
For some reason the Times is attempting to smear the Sacklers, although the article says that the "Sacklers personally were not accused of wrongdoing".
However, there is a definite problem with naming places and institutions after donors who have in fact done evil things. The Times should have found a more problematic example. This article should be retracted.
2017-12-01 15:25:01 UTC
2