Viewing page 136 of 156
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
- 124 - Issue There is a need to set policy guidelines with respect to the naming of Smithsonian facilities for corporate donors. To date, the Regents have faced no formal proposal to name a facility in honor of a corporation. However, given recent discussion about naming the Insect Zoo at the National Museum of Natural History in recognition of a corporate contribution of $500,000 toward renovation (2/3 of total cost), policy guidelines need to be considered. The fund-raising requirements of the Extension of the National Air and Space Museum and the Campaign for the National Museum of the American Indian might also soon require policy guidance in this matter. Background The Smithsonian itself emerged out of a naming opportunity provided by the funds offered the people of the United States by James Smithson. Perhaps because of that, through much of its history the Institution has allowed the naming of permanent facilities after important individual donors from Charles Freer to Enid Haupt. The last Regents meeting approved the naming of the Arthur Ross Terrace and Garden at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum and the Freer Gallery's Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Auditorium. Individual naming has not been without controversy. The Hirshhorn awakened concerns dormant since the creation of the National (not "Mellon") Gallery about the naming of entire Federal museums after donors, and some argued that the "bargain price" of the Evans Gallery lessened the threshold appropriate for naming. But, for the most part, the Institution has grown comfortable with the practice on a case-by-case basis. It is the issue of corporate naming that now troubles the Institution in an era when, increasingly, philanthropy comes in new forms and tied to specific corporate goals. Significantly, it was only as recently as 1973 that the Regents reserved to themselves the right to approve naming "any building or part of a building or any exhibit or collection of objects after a person or corporation" because of the Secretary's approval of the Henry R. Luce Hall of News Reporting in recognition of a Time-Life gift to the National Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History). Though an individual, not corporate, name was involved, concerns were raised about the implication that a particular individual or his enterprises were being commemorated or that the donors might exercise some control over the permanent installation. The Institution's need to confront the issue of corporate naming has gained urgency as costs mount and resources fail to keep pace. The urgency is sometimes presented as a matter of the survival of collections, services, and vital programs and sometimes as a matter of the Smithsonian's continued capacity to mount major new initiatives and respond to changing national needs. Corporate patronage itself is certainly not the issue. This has been widely accepted for everything from temporary exhibitions to Smithsonian World television programs. Rather, the issue focuses on the attachment of a corporate name to enduring public facilities and installations. At heart, the question is that of perceived Smithsonian endorsement of commercial self-interest rather than of philanthropic purpose in any long-term association with corporate identity.
Transcription Notes:
Deleted notations of underlining per new transcription guidelines
