Tufts Says Article on Its Handling of Sackler and Purdue Pharma Donations Was Unfair

To the Editor:

Your recent article entitled “Tufts Report on Sackler Giving Offers Cautionary Tale for Dealing With Controversial Donors” was both imbalanced and erroneous, doing a disservice to your readers by reporting inaccurate information, obscuring important details, and weighting comments unfairly. Among the article’s shortcomings:

• The story incorrectly asserts that Tufts “downplayed” the findings of a review of its gift policies and procedures as they related to the university’s former relationship with Purdue Pharma, which has been implicated in the opioid epidemic, and its owners, members of the Sackler family, over a period of decades. In reality, the university has been transparent and publicly forthcoming throughout its review process. It:

• • Hired an independent fact finder — former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Donald Stern – and gave him free rein to review its relationship with Purdue and the Sacklers in relation to the university’s Pain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) program
  • Committed to making the report publicly available regardless of its findings
  • Made Stern’s report widely available, not only to the university community but also to the public, so that other institutions can benefit from the report’s recommendations
  • Proactively provided the report to media outlets, hundreds of which prominently reported on the findings
  • Emailed a link to the report to all Tufts alumni
  • Posted links to the report on our social-media channels
  • Held two public meetings to discuss the findings with the university community.

• The story incorrectly describes the gifts that Purdue made to the PREP program as anonymous — and bases much of its criticism on this supposed anonymity. In fact, they were not anonymous. Nowhere in the gift documentation is anonymity required or granted, and nowhere in the Stern report is the gift described as anonymous. When we brought this mistake to the attention of your editorial staff, we were told, essentially, that the Chronicle had used “anonymous” because the gifts were not widely known, a puzzling and imprecise rationale.

The university’s decision to remove the Sackler name from its medical education building and from within its medical school programs was made after long, difficult, and thoughtful deliberation. The university, which has never taken this step before, was compelled to take action by the extraordinary circumstances of this public health crisis and its impact on the medical school’s mission. At the same time, the university was forthcoming in acknowledging that it made mistakes in the past. Tufts has examined this history, learned from it, shared its findings in the bright light of day, and committed to making changes that enable it to do better moving forward.

Criticism of this episode in the university’s history is deserved, and we recognize that not everyone will agree with the steps that the university has taken in response. However, that criticism should be balanced, fair, and, at the very least, accurate. This article was not.

Eric C. Johnson
Senior Vice President, University Advancement
Tufts University

Editor’s note: Based on the information Tufts provided in this letter, we have adjusted our description of how the university released the report. As for the use of the word “anonymous,” we believe it is used correctly. Tufts was asked about the undisclosed donation and whether other supporters had anonymously financed programs related to their business. In an emailed response, President Monaco did not object in any way to the characterization of the funding as undisclosed and anonymous.

The report describes a program whose funding source was not disclosed. The report says, “Each of the PREP [Pain Research, Education and Policy program] alumni interviewed said that he or she had not been aware at the time they matriculated that Purdue sponsored the program.”