A week has passed since the publication of my deaccessioning op-ed in The New York Times: the screams have occurred, the rebuttal letters have been printed, and it's time again for me to weigh in on the objections.
First, it seems I must repeat (because this has been ignored or misconstrued): I am not pro-deaccessioning to raise money for operations or endowments. I merely think that, on occasion, it will be considered, like it or not, and the museum world should have a process for that. I proposed arbitration to make it tough, not easy. I expect proving the need for deaccessions to be onerous in itself, and the hurdle to be set high by arbitrators. But it must be done in the open and in an orderly way, and often it isn't now.
Here are the stated objections, with my responses.