Letters to the Editor

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun
NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

‘Kindred Spirits?’


Your November 3, 2005, editorial, “Kindred Spirits?” critiquing my recent Wall Street Journal and New York Times opinion pieces about the New York Public Library’s art disposals is an excellent summary of the arguments being vigorously promulgated by library officials in their self-defense.


But it fails to acknowledge the attorney general’s responsibility to preserve and protect the assets – including collections – of tax-exempt nonprofits such as the library. Strapped for cash, the library suddenly decided that it no longer needed to keep in the public domain masterpieces that it had proudly displayed for generations.


I am not asking legislators to “prevent free trade in art,” as you assert. I am merely asking them to take steps to ensure that the attorney general’s office properly does the job that it is already charged with.


The attorney general’s Charities Bureau has a long history of protecting the public patrimony: In 1995, it regulated sales from the collection of the New-York Historical Society, as mentioned in my Journal article. In the 1970s, it also placed restrictions (which exist to this day) on art sales by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, after its much-criticized disposals under the directorship of Thomas Hoving.


This time, the lawyers in the Charities Bureau merely read the report supplied to it by the library, without requesting the underlying documents, such as donors’ letters and trustees’ minutes. Those documents, some of which are cited in my articles, undermine the Library’s arguments.


The most baffling assertion put forth by the library and echoed in your editorial is that I was wrong in stating that the library decided to “sell first, fund-raise later.” If you read the article itself, rather than relying on the library’s critique of it, you would see that the library’s own report, in advocating the disposals, explicitly directed that sales precede fund raising for the acquisitions endowment.


Sure, as you say in your editorial, the library has raised lots of funds for other purposes. But what we are talking about here is acquisitions, not general operations or capital projects.


As quoted in my article, a board member, Neil Rudenstine, explicitly stated that the library did not feel it could solicit funds for collections when it was about to launch a big campaign for other purposes. Hence, the sales.


We urgently need legislation to provide clear guidelines about what constitutes proper disposals from public collections, to prevent cultural institutions from yielding to the growing temptation to turn a quick profit by selling what they are meant to preserve.


LEE ROSENBAUM
Fort Lee, N.J.


‘The Hate That Endures’


No better example exists of the extent of anti-Semitism in the world than the decision to create the Red Crystal [“The Hate That Endures,” Editorial, December 9, 2005].


I am currently reading James Reston’s book, “Dogs of God,” about the events leading up to the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. One of the edicts required of Jews in Spain prior to expulsion was to wear distinctive clothing indicating that they were Jews.


This was copied by the yellow armbands that the Nazis required Jews to wear. Yet, over 600 years later, Jews are still singled out by the international community and required to use a special neutral symbol that is set up especially for the use of Jews, thus, denying them the ability to use their national symbol as a member of the International Red Cross.


It must also be noted that the logic presented for the use of the Red Crystal is also flawed. The Red Cross, while it may be the inverted Swiss flag, is based upon the Christian cross, which is part of so many European flags. The Crescent is a sign of Islam all over the world.


The six pointed Star of David, however, has no religious significance. It has nationalistic and ethnic significance, since David was the great king of Israel and it is this symbol that has kept alive the Jewish yearning for their homeland. It is a nationalistic symbol and not a religious one.


STEVEN Z. MOSTOFSKY
President
National Council of Young Israel
www.youngisrael.org
Manhattan

NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use