The (Name Here) Museum

Ever since mortgage executive Lawrence Small became the Smithsonian Institution secretary a year ago, the institution has been in a state of uproar. A former top officer at Citibank and Fannie Mae, Small has said he is determined to overhaul the unwieldy cultural and scientific institution. Far from reforming the Smithsonian, however, Small is jeopardizing it by catering to donors.

Last week, the Smithsonian announced that it would permit General Motors to name a 20,000-square-foot hall of transportation in return for a $10-million donation. The hall reportedly may be called “America on the Move in the General Motors Hall of Transportation.” This might not seem like a big deal. Corporations pay for museum exhibitions and concerts all the time. They’ve been pushed to show that they are good citizens and shouldn’t be criticized for aiding the arts. But there are sound reasons to resist the commercialization of the Smithsonian. A federally chartered institution, the Smithsonian is as storied as the exhibits that it displays and the expeditions that it funds, which is precisely why corporations like GM are so eager to have a piece of it.

Imagine the uproar if the government sold rights to parts of the Washington Monument. Like Bill Clinton offering the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors, selling a chunk of American memory is a tawdry business. Allowing GM to name the exhibition conveys the impression, rightly or wrongly, that GM has overseen it and that America’s transportation history is mainly about GM.

Even more discomfiting are the attempts by individuals to buy respectability and steer exhibitions. In May, Small announced that financial services multimillionaire Catherine B. Reynolds would donate $38 million to fund a permanent exhibit about American achievers. Reynolds has recommended that Martha Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, AOL Time Warner Chairman Steve Case and figure-skater Dorothy Hamill be included--and, according to Smithsonian employees, herself. How much clout she has on the choices is unclear, but that, of course, is the problem. She, and other donors, should earn gratitude but not control.

Then there is the new Air and Space Museum annex, which will be named for businessman Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy, who donated $65 million. His architect, Doug Dahlin, has been hired by the Smithsonian to study alterations of the exhibition hall. Or California businessman Kenneth E. Behring, a trophy hunter of endangered species who has given more than $100 million and gained his name on the National Museum of American History.

Opposition to these moves is further fueled by dismay among the Smithsonian’s scholars and curators. Seventy members of the curatorial staff have already asked the museum’s Board of Regents to examine Small’s relationship with his donors. Even if everything is above board, Small should not be handing out the Smithsonian’s intangible assets. The Smithsonian can welcome donations, but the exhibitions, not sponsors, should come first.