Woke Takes a Hit at the Smithsonian, and Watch the Philistinism, Please

The National Review opinion piece frames Lonnie Bunch’s retirement as the close of a period marked by progressive institutional priorities at the Smithsonian, but it advances this view through broad assertions rather than documented examples.

Key Findings

• The article correctly identifies Bunch’s central role in the creation and opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, describing the project as “brand new—and gorgeous” and noting the author’s own experience with museum renovations to convey the scale of the achievement.
• It states that “Lots of DEI, lots of junk ideas, and lots of junk art undermined the Smithsonian during Lonnie Bunch’s reign,” yet supplies no named exhibits, acquisition records, visitor data, or policy documents to illustrate the claim.
• The piece is explicitly positioned as commentary from a conservative publication, signaled by its headline and the author’s prior interview with Bunch in 2019, rather than presented as neutral reporting.

What Was Missing

No verifiable institutional metrics—such as changes in exhibition budgets, acquisition lists, or attendance figures tied to specific programming—are referenced to support the characterization of “undermined” operations. The absence of these details leaves the central criticism as an interpretive statement rather than a fact-based assessment.

Source and Format Context

Brian T. Allen is identified as an art critic writing for National Review, a long-standing outlet with an editorial perspective that favors limited government involvement in cultural institutions. The published excerpt is brief and functions as an opinion column rather than a news dispatch.

Bottom Line

The article performs the expected role of an opinion piece by linking an executive departure to broader institutional trends, and it fairly credits Bunch’s most visible accomplishment. Its limitation lies in the lack of concrete evidence for the asserted decline in standards, which restricts readers’ ability to evaluate the claims independently.