May 18, 2006 | Read Time: 4 minutes
The Smithsonian Institution stands out as one of our country’s great public organizations. It provides free, public access to world-class museums and is a caretaker of our nation’s cultural and scientific history. The Smithsonian holds our hopes and dreams, with precious artifacts of American history, including the Fort McHenry Star-Spangled Banner, the Apollo 11 command module, and a compass used by Lewis and Clark.
But the Smithsonian’s sterling reputation, as well as its noble mission to spread knowledge, is at risk because of a deal recently signed with Showtime Networks that gives the cable network exclusive rights to develop films based on the Smithsonian’s holdings. It is just the latest in a string of commercial deals the Smithsonian has entered into that raise questions about the institution’s approach to seeking revenue.
Although the Smithsonian needs additional money to protect its treasures and repair buildings, overtly commercial ventures that benefit a corporation more than the public are not the right way to fill the museum’s coffers.
Many nonprofit groups have a stake in how this deal plays out — especially because the high visibility of the Smithsonian means that the arrangement is getting plenty of criticism from donors as well as from members of Congress.
Because the Smithsonian refuses to publicly disclose the contract, details of the arrangement remain sketchy, including how much the museum will receive from Showtime, but news reports have said that the arrangement will limit public access to the Smithsonian’s vast holdings and effectively give Showtime veto rights over some film projects using Smithsonian materials. Showtime gets the right of first refusal to commercial films that rely on Smithsonian collections or staff members.
It is likely that this special deal with Showtime means that films making more than “incidental” use of Smithsonian materials may not be produced, denying the public the knowledge and enjoyment of its history.
The Smithsonian argues that the deal — which went into effect on January 1, but was only recently publicized — does not restrict research and will improve public access to Smithsonian items. Yet, in the first months of the agreement, two non-Showtime filming requests have been denied.
“I find this deal terrifying,” Ken Burns, the documentary filmmaker, told The New York Times. Epic documentaries produced by Mr. Burns, such as Jazz and The Civil War, could have been affected by the arrangement. “It feels like the Smithsonian has essentially optioned America’s attic to one company.”
The Smithsonian was created by an act of Congress in 1846 to accept James Smithson’s bequest, in which he left his entire fortune to be used by the United States to found an “establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” Congress pledged the “faith of the United States” to carry out Mr. Smithson’s instructions.
Lawmakers vested responsibility for administering the Smithsonian in the Board of Regents, which consists of the vice president of the United States, the chief justice of the United States, three members of the U.S. Senate, three members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and nine private citizens.
The Smithsonian, which has legal status as a tax-exempt charity, receives nearly 80 percent of its funds from federal sources, and has requested more than $600-million in federal appropriations this year.
What the public loses in the deal is much more than just a few movies.
Many of the Smithsonian’s holdings were donated because the institution is a respected caretaker. Restricting public access violates the trust of previous generations and could limit future donations.
In addition, the arrangement gives a private company a degree of control over how Smithsonian artifacts are used and is thus a form of censorship. Movies will be made from the perspective of the joint venture with Showtime, rather than the range of viewpoints that is crucial to sustain a public debate.
Most subtle, but perhaps most harmful, the deal undermines our sense of common purpose and identity. Sure, maybe you can visit the Smithsonian and see the nation’s treasures, but they aren’t yours and mine like they used to be.
Commercial arrangements like this set a bad precedent for all nonprofit organizations.
Donors and the public could become quite skeptical in their judgments about whether organizations are more interested in filling their mission or their coffers. Ultimately, this skepticism could turn into disinterest and distrust.
Lawmakers have already shown they are infuriated about this deal by threatening to cut appropriations to the Smithsonian because of the arrangement. Members of Congress should keep the pressure on, and remind the Smithsonian that its mission is to serve the public interest, not the interests of its private supporters.
David Madland is a Ph.D. student at Georgetown University. Previously, as a Congressional aide, he wrote and helped pass the first federal law to limit commercial activities in public schools.
