Whitney Museum Staff Demands Answers Over Vice Chair’s Relationship to Tear Gas Manufacturer

To the leadership of the Whitney Museum:

We are writing to convey our outrage upon learning that Whitney Vice Chairman Warren Kanders’ company, Safariland, is the supplier of the tear gas recently used to attack asylum seekers at the US border, and our frustration and confusion at the Whitney’s decision to remain silent on this matter. We understand this is not new information to leadership or likely to the rest of the Board, but many of us learned of the connection via the Hyperallergic article published November 27, 2018. We also understand the nuanced and vital relationship any nonprofit has to its Board. But we believe that this recently aired knowledge about Mr. Kanders’ business is demonstrative of the systemic injustice at the forefront of the Whitney’s ongoing struggle to attract and retain a diverse staff and audience. And because we feel strongly about this, we believe it is our responsibility to speak to this injustice directly, even as the Whitney has chosen not to. To remain silent is to be complicit.

First and foremost, some of us are deeply connected to the communities that are being directly impacted and targeted by the tear gassing at the border. For the Whitney not to acknowledge that this news may impact its staff is to assume we are separate from the issue, that it is happening somewhere else to some other people. Many of us feel the violence inflicted upon the refugees—and against mostly-POC protesters in Ferguson, and mostly-Indigenous protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline, just two of many other instances of militarized tear gassing of unarmed citizens—much more personally than it seems to affect leadership. For many of us, the communities at the border, in Ferguson, in the Dakotas, are our communities. We read the Hyperallergic article and felt not annoyed, not intellectually upset—we felt sick to our stomachs, we shed tears, we felt unsafe.

As of Thursday morning, November 29, we have received no official internal communication addressing the Hyperallergic article. A small group of us were informed of the Whitney’s policy not to comment on the personal business of Trustees, but this is public knowledge, not a private matter of Mr. Kanders’. Setting aside the personal reactions of staff, this choice makes it difficult for staff to function well professionally. Should protests from the public or questions from visitors arise, our visitor-facing staff will be the ones answering them. Leadership choosing not to give a public (or even internal) statement displaces the labor to our visitor-facing staff, who are, generally speaking, our most diverse and lowest paid staff. You will recall similar complaints surrounding the Dana Schutz protests—and we are disappointed that the response by the leadership of this institution remains the same.

So many of us are working towards a more equitable and inclusive institution. We work to bring in artists who are immigrants and artists of color to the collection. We create programming for youth and families who are affected by current immigration policy. Upon learning of Kanders’s business dealings, many of us working on these initiatives feel uncomfortable in our positions. We cannot claim to serve these communities while accepting funding from individuals whose actions are at odds with that mission. This work which we are so proud of does not wash away these connections.

The Whitney has historically followed artists’ lead in finding our way through thorny decisions. Now we encourage the Whitney to follow the lead of its staff.

Here are our current demands:

• For leadership to convey our concerns to the Board, including that they consider asking for Warren Kanders’ resignation.
• A public statement from the Whitney in response to the Hyperallergic article
• A museum wide staff forum for employees to discuss this and other issues, and related policies moving forward
• The development and distribution of a clear policy around Trustee participation.
  • NB: Here, we intend to clarify what qualifies or disqualifies a wealthy philanthropic individual for the Board. Is there a moral line? If so, what is that line? If this was an instance of a #metoo scandal, would we call for resignation? If this was an instance of overt racism, would we call for resignation? We believe the line should be that we not be afflicted with any Board member whose work or actions are at odds with the museum’s mission.

We acknowledge the difficult position in which these demands will place leadership, and consequently the unfortunate strain any ramifications will put on our staff. But we believe in speaking truth to power, we believe in cultural institutions as community leaders and as sanctuary spaces, and we believe that there is a better way. To achieve true institutional health, measured not on the quality of our exhibitions or the number of tickets sales, but the genuine satisfaction of our audiences and staff, we need to address these uncomfortable issues. We need to interrogate our tendencies to look the other way. We are reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said:

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

Continuing to accept funding—even, or perhaps especially, transformative funding—from individuals who are knowingly complicit in the injustices committed on our own land and across our borders is negative peace. We demand positive peace.

Thank you, and we look forward to a productive dialogue and definitive change.

Sincerely,

1. Dani Lencioni
2. Elena Ketelsen González
3. Melissa Robles
4. Hakimah Abdul-Fattah
5. Jeanette Gonzalez
6. Mark Guinto
7. Dyeemah Simmons
8. Dina Helal
9. Levi Friedman
10. Deja Belardo
11. Caroline Kelley
12. Hunter Adams
13. Christy Yanis
14. Shaye Thiel
15. Dante Fumagalli
16. Natali Cabrera
17. Billie Rae Vinson
18. Emma Quaytman
19. Marcela Guerrero
20. Vishal Narang
21. Leslie Castaneda
22. Isabelle Dow
23. Amalia Delgado Hodges
24. Ramsay Kolber
25. Ambika Trasi
26. Greta Hartenstein
27. Christie Mitchell
28. Rujeko Hockley
29. Kelly Long
30. Hilary Devaney
31. Kennia Lopez
32. Alana Hernandez
33. Carly Fischer
34. Anes Sung
35. Aliza Sena
36. Elizabeth Knowlton
37. Michael Moriah
38. Claire K. Henry
39. Clemence White
40. Justin Allen
41. Danielle Bias
42. Jessica Palinski
43. Lauren Young
44. Margaret Kross
45. Madison Zalopany
46. Colin Brooks
47. Lawrence Hernandez
48. Nicholas DiLeonardi
49. Jackie Foster
50. Max Chester
51. Jennifer Ciarleglio
52. Emma Gluck
53. Sasha Wortzel
54. Lauri London Freedman
55. Micah Musheno
56. Joseph Shepherd
57. Megan Heuer
58. Karly Anderson
59. Liz Plahn
60. Andrew Hawkes
61. Greg Siegel
62. David Huerta
63. Mike Jensen
64. Sofia Sinibaldi
65. Nancy Joyce
66. Eric Preiss
67. Max Parry
68. Saleem Nasir Gondal
69. Ricki Rothchild
70. Aqsa Ahmad
71. Jennie Goldstein
72. Laura Phipps
73. Andrea Ahtziri Reséndiz Gómez
74. Melinda Lang
75. Austin Bowes
76. Ariel Luisa Mercado
77. Justin Romeo
78. Nicolas Ochart
79. Kayla Espinal
80. Nathaniel LaCelle-Peterson
81. Jessica Man
82. Luis Padilla
83. Jaz Garner
84. Yon Mi Kim
85. Rachel Ninomiya
86. Michael Brogan
87. Jessica Pepe
88. Jason Phillips
89. Rebecca Walsh
90. Kelley Loftus
91. Chrissie Iles
92. Lindsey O’Connor
93. Joanna Epstein
94. Zoe Tippl
95. Joel Snyder

_______________________________________________________________________

Adam Weinberg, the Alice Pratt Brown Director of the Whitney Museum of American Art responded to the letter on December 3, 2018

 

Dear Staff and Trustees,

I write to you now as one community, one family—the Whitney. Together, for the last fifteen years, we have created a place of great promise, hopes and dreams, often against great odds. Our community united in common purpose to reimagine a home for artists in the 21^st century where they can envision, experiment, struggle, risk and even protest openly, unencumbered and uncensored. We have fashioned this protected space together through mutual trust, respect, openness and discussion even when opinions differ. We respect the right to dissent as long as we can safeguard the art in our care and the people in our midst. As one director colleague describes the contemporary museum, it is “a safe space for unsafe ideas.” This is the democracy of art.

We truly live in difficult times. People are suffering in our city, the US and around the world: nationalism has risen to unimaginable heights; homelessness is rampant; refugee crises abound; people of color, women and LGBTQ communities feel under attack; and the environment grows more precarious. All these tragedies have understandably led to tremendous sadness and frustration, quick tempers, magnified rhetoric and generational conflict.

Like many contemporary cultural institutions, the Whitney Museum has always been a space for the playing out of disparate and conflicting ideas. Even as we are idealistic and missionary in our belief in artists—as established by our founder Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney—the Whitney is first and foremost a museum. It cannot right all the ills of an unjust world, nor is that its role. Yet, I contend that the Whitney has a critical and urgent part to play in making sure that unheard and unwanted voices are recognized. Through our openness and independence, we can foreground often marginalized, unconventional and seemingly unacceptable ideas not presented in other sites in our culture.

I am proud of the work we are doing to present progressive and challenging artists and exhibitions for vast audiences, including this year alone: David Wojnarowicz, an outcast voice silenced much too early; Zoe Leonard, a poet of the unseen and unsung; Pacha, Llaqta, Wasichay, a chance to experience powerful new Latinx voices; Programmed, a radical rethinking of art and technology; Mary Corse, a giant of her generation often overlooked because of her gender; Grant Wood, who worked in other challenging times; Between the Waters, a view of young artists grappling with environmental precariousness; Nick Mauss’s meditation on dance, fashion, design and untold queer histories; and now, Andy Warhol, whose work continues to interrogate and upend how we think of the world today. Beyond that we have presented a compelling array of artist-centric educational and community programs that reach increasingly diverse publics from our neighborhood and afar.

We at the Whitney have created a culture that is unique and vibrant—but also precious and fragile. This “space” is not one I determine as director but something that we fashion by mutual consent and shared commitment on all levels and in many ways. As members of the Whitney community, we each have our critical and complementary roles: trustees do not hire staff, select exhibitions, organize programs or make acquisitions, and staff does not appoint or remove board members. Our truly extraordinary environment, which lends such high expectations, is something we must preserve collectively. Even as we contend with often profound contradictions within our culture, we must live within the laws of society and observe the “rules” of our Museum—mutual respect, fairness, tolerance and freedom of expression and, speaking personally, a commitment to kindness. It is so easy to tear down but so much more difficult to build and sustain.

To those of you, and I trust it is nearly all, who want to move forward despite some significant differences of opinion, I am here as your partner, to lead and to work hard every day to make the Whitney, and possibly the world, a better place. I accept that there may be a few of you who are not inclined to do so, but I would like nothing more than to continue this journey together. We have important work to do. As Flora Miller Biddle, the granddaughter of our founder, said several years ago, “The Whitney Museum is an idea…” This idea, painstakingly built for close to ninety years, has been bequeathed to us. It is a vulnerable idea,  now ours to nurture.

I am deeply grateful to our extremely committed, thoughtful and generous board, as well as to our talented and dedicated staff.

I look forward to working and meeting with you in the days ahead.

With respect,

Adam

________________________________________________________________________

Whitney Vice Chair Responds to Open Letter Calling for Action Against Him

 

To the Whitney Board of Trustees:

I am writing in response to the statement signed by staff members of the Whitney. I am, and always have been, exceptionally proud of my company, its employees and our vital mission to provide safety and survivability products for public safety professionals, which we have been doing for over 50 years. I also appreciate that, while this is a highly politicized and divisive time, these developments create an opportunity for an open and informed dialogue that will hopefully bring us together around common values.

While the staff at the Whitney felt the need to speak out, which I fully support, it is unfortunate that they did not first reach out to me. As such, I have taken it upon myself to respond.

I am the Chairman, CEO and owner of The Safariland Group. We are the largest global manufacturer of body armor for police officers, we provide safety holsters that prevent criminals from taking firearms from cops and we make the majority of the bomb suits worldwide worn by people who risk their lives to keep us safe.

We also manufacture the non-lethal products that started this discussion, including what is commonly known as tear gas. Non-lethal products were created as an alternative to lethal solutions. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, I hope we can all agree that uncontrolled riots pose a serious threat not only to the safety and security of law enforcement, but also to the public in general. When faced with a chaotic situation, law enforcement officers have few options for crowd control, and non-lethal products (including “tear gas”) are on the list.

Safariland’s role as a manufacturer is to ensure the products work, as expected, when needed. Safariland’s role is not to determine when and how they are employed. The staff letter implies that I am responsible for the decision to use these products. I am not. That is not an abdication of responsibility, it is an acknowledgement of reality. We sell products to government institutions, domestically and internationally, all of which must be certified to purchase and use these products. Domestic buyers must be bona fide law enforcement agencies. In the case of international clients, we are required to obtain export licenses from the Department of State for every shipment. In other words, our business is highly regulated to ensure that our products are only sold to governmentapproved users.

Notwithstanding an obvious difference of opinion, I admire the bravery of the staff in stepping forward. Having said that, however, I think it is clear that I am not the problem the authors of the letter seek to solve. I spend a substantial amount of time with the first responders Safariland serves, and they are not the problem either. In fact, they are self-sacrificing men and women who put themselves in danger every day on our collective behalf.

I am proud that we have broadened the Whitney’s role as the preeminent institution devoted to the art of the United States. While my company and the museum have distinct missions, both are important contributors to our society. This is why I believe that the politicization of every aspect of public life, including commercial organizations and cultural institutions, is not productive or healthy.

More than ten years ago, I became involved with the Whitney because I believe its mission is bigger than any one person and that creating a safe space for artists and expression is critical. Let me be clear that my commitment to that mission is unwavering, and I am grateful for the support recently expressed by the Board of Trustees. My involvement with the Whitney also reflects my personal values around diversity, inclusion, access and equality. In fact, just last month, I co-organized a series of exhibitions, installations and public programs at Brown University entitled “On Protest, Art & Activism”. I believe that my record speaks for itself, both with regard to my philanthropic activities as well as the businesses and institutions that I associate with.

My hope is that providing facts about Safariland, and the vital products it produces for public safety professionals worldwide, can lead to a more informed and constructive dialogue as we move forward together.

Warren B. Kanders