“Modern morality,” wrote Oscar Wilde, “consists in accepting the standard of one’s age.” But how can museums define the moral standard of our age when constrained by historic rules of stewardship and the absence of a modern ethical framework?

A new free online tool designed to help museum trustees resolve these moral decision-making dilemmas has been launched by practical ethicists at Oxford’s Uehiro Institute, working closely with the UK’s Institute of Art and Law.

At an official launch in Oxford this month, members of the working group who’ve spent the past two years designing DARCA (The Decision Aid for the Restitution of Cultural Artefacts) explained how the introduction of a new shared framework and ethical vocabulary can help museums engage more effectively with communities seeking the return of artefacts.

“There’s not one right answer,” explained Erica Crump, Managing Partner at London-based lawyers Bates Wells speaking at the launch. “But DARCA helps make decisions within the range of what is reasonable.” The new tool “brings back a nuance to the debate.”

After the new Charities Act 2022 introduced a provision that allows charities to return lower value items where a moral obligation can be demonstrated, trustees discovered there were no shared ethical tools to help them evaluate a case for restitution. With the introduction of DARCA this may change.

DARCA introduces “moral philosophy to resolve these ethical problems”, explained Alexander Herman, Director of the Institute of Art and Law, adding that philosophy was the one voice missing when the Charities Act was enacted. By combining philosophy and new museum ethics, DARCA can play a role, “even when there are reasons to question a moral decision.”

Operating the tool takes the user through a series of questions that probe whether an object was removed in a morally illegitimate manner. It does this by considering both the claimant’s relationship to the artefact and the nature of the relationship between the claimant and the events surrounding the object’s illegitimate removal. The tool also takes into consideration any legitimate expectation of retention by the present owner.

Isn’t this something museums already do when they engage with source communities? Not according to Frezer Haile, who served as a senior advisor and negotiator for Ethiopia’s government on matters of cultural restitution. Speaking at the launch, Haile explained that linguistic issues still lie at the heart of the problem. “Institutions do not speak the same language,” insisted Haile. “The lack of tools in Ethiopia’s negotiations was a drawback.... they simply didn’t understand what we were talking about.” However, drawing on this new structured framework and language, Haile believes DARCA’s new tools can help alleviate this problem.

The tool’s outcomes do not constitute legal advice, nor do they help assess the strength of a particular legal claim. Trustees in England’s national collections will continue to be constrained by their current exclusion from provisions that permit the transfer of charity property. So, they cannot benefit from application of the tool right now. But Britain's Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) could affect a much needed change.

The tool is free for anyone to use, so we decided to test it on an object in the V&A’s collection. Most people would agree the moral case for permanent return of this particular object is beyond dispute. What would DARCA conclude?

The object we selected is a silver and embossed monstrance (No. M.367-1956), commissioned in 1538 by the Collegiate Church of Santa Maria la Mayor in Toro, northern Spain. The monstrance was stolen from the Church in 1890. After passing through several private collections it was bequeathed to the V&A in 1955. However, its identity and history only came to the Museum’s attention in the 1980s, leading to a formal petition for its return in 2004. Unable to deaccession the monstrance owing to restrictions in the 1983 National Heritage Act, the V&A have returned the monstrance to Toro, but only on the basis of a long-term renewable loan.

DARCA’s evaluation, based on the submissions we inputted, confirmed the ’strong general basis for a moral obligation to return’. It also concluded ‘the institution (i.e. the V&A) does not have a moral claim to the item based on a legitimate expectation of retention’.

We have a suspicion the V&A might agree with this evaluation. But will the DCMS acknowledge the benefits this new tool can offer the entire museum sector while they set about their review of the Charities Act 2022? Will DARCA's introduction of a new shared framework encourage them to reverse the present exclusion of national collections from a moral obligation to return an object? The Collegiate Church of Santa Maria la Mayor in Toro certainly hopes it will.

Photo: Courtesy of The Uehiro Oxford Institute