The Save the Academy Coalition is glad to hear that Drexel remains committed to the Academy of Natural Sciences and its mission. Unfortunately, Drexel has not provided evidence of that continued commitment, or a well-thought-out plan. When you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Philadelphia deserves transparency, clear rationales, and insights into how Drexel University and the Board arrived at the conclusion that closing the public museum was the best course of action. We will continue to disagree with this decision unless sufficient evidence is produced justifying it, along with a plan to preserve meaningful public access to the Academy’s science, collections, educators, exhibitions and programs, including an in-person public museum.
Likewise, while we recognize that the William Penn Foundation did not offer a specific amount last week, that is largely due to the University failing to clearly disclose the operating costs they are seeking to cover. A publicly stated willingness to support a year of continued operations should not be dismissed as a ‘band-aid’; it should be developed into a formal proposal and tested against the actual cost of continued public operations. If, as Drexel has suggested, the Academy faces millions in capital needs, that figure should be broken down into what is urgent, what is required for collections protection, what is necessary for continued public museum operations, and what represents longer-term or aspirational work. It should not be treated as a lump-sum obstacle to keep the museum open while those needs are assessed and fundraising continues. It is difficult to fundraise for a museum generally, but immeasurably more so when it is closed and unavailable to the public. Likewise, it is difficult to fundraise without being allowed the time that a successful capital campaign requires.
Moving the Academy’s collections would require years of work and substantial expense. Drexel and the Academy have already assessed that cost; the estimate, its assumptions, and the proposed source of funding should be made public. Drexel has not clearly articulated the annual cost of the museum, and in the short term, we know that another month would be a matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than millions, since the collections and research are still operating in the same building. Therefore, the building will still require HVAC, electricity, security, maintenance staff, and other support regardless of the museum itself being open to the public or not. The University and Board has failed to produce any reason why the Academy must close September 30th rather than October 30 or January 1, for that matter.
Long-term sustainability of the Academy (in all its parts) is, of course, the ultimate goal for our coalition as well, but it is very difficult to achieve sustainability without operations that keep the public (and donors) engaged with the museum. Permanent closure is not a solution. Nor is replacing a public museum with occasional, off-site, or digital engagement equivalent to maintaining meaningful public access to the Academy’s science, collections, educators, exhibitions, and programs.
Drexel should explain how they envision public engagement when public-facing staff have been eliminated and Academy social-media channels are being removed, inactive, or deactivated. Off-site programming or occasional outreach is not equivalent to maintaining public general admission access hours to a natural-history museum and its scientific work.
Drexel now says that the future of both the collections and the museum remains under evaluation and explicitly acknowledges the possibility of reopening. If those questions are genuinely still open, irreversible decisions should not outrun that evaluation.
We are also highly skeptical of the University and Academy Board’s stated commitment to the collections when, among the positions slated to be terminated (at least per a September 2nd email) is the paid staff position responsible for recruiting, coordinating and supporting the Academy’s volunteers. If volunteers perform material work supporting the collections, Drexel should explain who will organize that work after closure. Biological collections rely heavily on volunteer labor, making the loss of that position a significant cause for concern.
Collections care also requires specialized, skilled labor, yet we have seen nothing to suggest Drexel will be hiring additional personnel to supplement the curatorial team or backfill vacant positions. Rather, in the last 15 years the number of full-time curators has halved from 11 to 5. If collections preservation is the priority, where is the staffing and recruitment plan?
There is considerable evidence of unresolved problems in governance, fundraising, financial management and decision-making over the last decade. Those questions now require independent examination. After 15 years of largely-closed door decision-making between Drexel and the Academy, the public must have a meaningful role in determining what comes next. As such, we urge the following: The Academy and Drexel Leadership should work with the William Penn Foundation to secure a year of bridge funding and, for that year, appoint an independent commission of nonprofit leaders, biological collections professionals, architects, and subject-matter experts. That body should then be provided with access to all relevant materials, documents, personnel, previous assessments and conduct its own independent assessment of the Academy’s condition and future, while fundraising towards a sustainable path forward. That process should also include a formal public-engagement component, with opportunities for the public to inform the commission’s work and respond to its recommendations. This could take the form of public meetings, member surveys, or otherwise, and we are open to discussing the details with Academy and University leadership. The current process however, simply shuts out the public from participating in any decisions about the Academy’s future.
We believe that an Academy dedicated to research, education, collections, and public engagement—including a public museum—is possible and achievable. Such an institution should preserve what is beloved in the stories published on our website, while advancing new ways to engage the city and inspire the next generation of scientists. We therefore refuse closure.To be clear, we believe Drexel has a place in the Academy’s future. Multiple curators are tenured professors at Drexel, and the co-op system has helped bring countless students into the natural sciences. It is not our goal to harm what is working. We do, however, believe the closure of the public museum to be an unacceptable casualty, particularly given the speed of the decision and lack of transparent public accounting of the alternatives considered. We are increasingly concerned about the current relationship between Drexel and the Academy, and believe it warrants public examination, which we hope the City Council hearings will begin.
Until it is accompanied by an actual plan, concrete action, transparency, and a process that meaningfully incorporates public input we see no reason to treat the University’s statements as evidence that any of the underlying problems have been or will be resolved.