The problem of deaccessioning is entirely one of ethics. I will not try to introduce the moral issue of trust into my examination. Ethics and morals are two entirely different concepts. If indeed the public trust is violated by deaccessioning, then the public should take a more active role preserving its history.
Many of the proposed "remedies" including contracts, tort reform, antitrust, and revised ethics all emphasize institutions and neutral actors to compel preservation. Few have emphasized public options. Revised standards are only part of the solution. However, there are several guidelines in place and each institution is free to adhere to either. In addition, each institution has inherent independence to govern its own matters, including having freedom to interpret and to change ethical allegiance to suit self interest. For example, deaccessioning to access more expensive or more relevant items is a nearly universal accepted practice. However it is not difficult to infer this implies that since museums must maintain their collections, deaccessioning for capital improvements to those ends is also acceptable. As in office history, there does not appear to be any way to restrict freedom of choice.
Legal antitrust minutia is intriguing, but courts cannot and must not take the lead. There must be a plaintiff, which inexorably leads us back to the need for the public to act in their own interests. Pre-donation agreements are also a promising avenue, but they depend on public understanding complex agreements. They are also limited as they would only serve to protect new collection items. Existing items would still be vulnerable.
There is no easy solution to the problem. However, a more diligent, informed public is a good place to start. A well funded action committee or two couldn’t hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment