Rose Art Museum to be closed

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:35:00 GMT

The Board of Trustees voted yesterday to close the Rose Art Museum and auction all of its art.

Eli Lesser-Goldsmith '99's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:43:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 8:43 AM EST
By: Eli Lesser-Goldsmith '99

When I first opened this, I thought it was April Fool's day.. then I saw the date of 1/27/09.

This is disastrous for Brandeis and I feel the students should uprise and speak out against this.

In previous years, Brandeis has pressed hard for greater fund raising and an increased endowment. Wikipedia reports that the number hovers around $691 Million. Is this not enough to keep the museum open?

This is a shortsighted and misguided reaction, and I think the University is making a terrible mistake.

Again, I ask all current students to march and protest this event.

sarah jacobs '82's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:54:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 8:54 AM EST
By: sarah jacobs '82

Oh, I am so sad. I was an Art History major. I felt so fortunate to be able to see and examine twentieth centruy treasure close up. I loved how the Rose's collection of Abstract Expressionism was better than that at the Met and other world class museum.

I can understand how selling the collection will raise sorely needed funds.I am sad that the university has to let this treasure go.

bryce's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:44:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 9:44 AM EST
By: bryce

But it won't get the funds they want from it! This is a BAD ART MARKET...and everyone knows that going out of business sales never bring in the true value of art. People are either a) not going to pay it because the reserve is too high or b) going to buy it at less that 60% of the value. I suggest that any majors tied to the museum transfer, because the BOT just sold your degrees down river. Liberal + anti-Arts = Bad Republican Policy. Originally posted by: sarah jacobs '82
[snip]
Oh, I am so sad. I was an Art History major. I felt so fortunate to be able to see and examine twentieth centruy treasure close up. I loved how the Rose's collection of Abstract Expressionism was better than that at the Met and other world class museum.

I can understand how selling the collection will raise sorely needed funds.I am sad that the university has to let this treasure go.
[/snip]

Andre's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:01:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 9:01 AM EST
By: Andre

I am completely taken aback.

Jeffrey A. Rahn '79's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:36:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 9:36 AM EST
By: Jeffrey A. Rahn '79

Professor Bernstein, where are you when we need you the most?

My whole life was transformed when I first took a survey course in art as a Brandeis undergraduate. I became so absorbed by American art that I had to expend considerable effort to re-formulate my studeis so I could take more art history courses---culminating in requesting that I be the Brandeis student in several consortium courses.

The ability to pop into the Rose between classes was part of the equation; to be able to borrow art for the dorm room an honor and learning experience on how to be an art patron.
Knowing that I belonged to a community that preserved a major slice of American art history was priceless---since Brandeis was THE major university doing so on an exclusive basis.

Exchanging art for cash is extremely short-sighted and just provides an opportunity for the cash to be de-valued a second time.

A priceless collection---from hundreds of donors who donated because they knew they were helping to create a comprehensive collection--is to be disbursed?! The negative publicity that Brandeis will garner will do more harm to its perceived and actual liberal arts image then the money can do for its short term prospects.

Laurie Slater Albert's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:10:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 1:10 AM EST
By: Laurie Slater Albert

Originally posted by: Jeffrey A. Rahn '79
[snip]
Professor Bernstein, where are you when we need you the most?

My whole life was transformed when I first took a survey course in art as a Brandeis undergraduate. I became so absorbed by American art that I had to expend considerable effort to re-formulate my studeis so I could take more art history courses---culminating in requesting that I be the Brandeis student in several consortium courses.

The ability to pop into the Rose between classes was part of the equation; to be able to borrow art for the dorm room an honor and learning experience on how to be an art patron.
Knowing that I belonged to a community that preserved a major slice of American art history was priceless---since Brandeis was THE major university doing so on an exclusive basis.

Exchanging art for cash is extremely short-sighted and just provides an opportunity for the cash to be de-valued a second time.

A priceless collection---from hundreds of donors who donated because they knew they were helping to create a comprehensive collection--is to be disbursed?! The negative publicity that Brandeis will garner will do more harm to its perceived and actual liberal arts image then the money can do for its short term prospects.
[/snip]

Yes Gerry is turning over in his grave...and Carl Belz must be aghast as well! This was truly the brightest gem of the University. The Collection can never be recouped. We all know that this is response to a crisis, but it appears extremely short-sighted. This is a tragedy for the Creative Arts, Liberal Arts, and the University. Cut ALL the sports, but these paintings...? Sell off some property...not the art. Please, Trustees, you can do better than that!

Matt Brown's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:58:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 10:58 AM EST
By: Matt Brown

There is an alumni petition circulating at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/in-opposition-to-the-closing-of-the-rose-art-museum, and there is also a website www.savetherose.org

Amelia's Reply

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:19:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 7:19 PM EST
By: Amelia

I believe the correct address is www.savetheroseart.org

I am unaffiliated with Brandeis, not an art history major, but I am absolutely floored by this move. It is a terrible, terrible decision. I hope students might volunteer to forego some services in exchange for keeping the museum for future classes.

michael's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:36:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 11:36 AM EST
By: Michael Schakow '01, MA '01

I know closing the Rose is unpopular, but I agree it is a necessary step. In higher education as in any endeavor, there are "must-haves" and "nice-to-haves", and while the Rose Art Museum was a "very-nice-to-have", it can never be allowed to eclipse the core academic mission of the University.

With respect, I'd like to suggest that every student considering taking part in the planned "sit-in" first draw up a list of those things--classes, professors, staff, services, financial aid, etc.--that they would be willing to forgo in exchange for keeping the Museum. I suspect that almost no one will be able to list enough items to equal the tens of millions of dollars that will be saved. Frankly, that's where the inquiry should end.

Miles's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:40:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 11:40 AM EST
By: Miles

As one of my good friends points out, the current economic climate is extremely disfavorable to selling illiquid assets. By selling now, they're ensuring that it will never re-open because the costs of rebuilding the collection will be several times the immediate revenue the pieces will bring in.

james lansing (curator)'s Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:10:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 12:10 PM EST
By: james lansing (curator)

The move the university has taken is in lock step with the typical reaction to the arts in tough economic times. Instead of viewing art as a refuge for the human spirit, it is treated as baggage. When will educational institutions, be they on any level, see that the arts are not an extra they are a necessity. The students and staff need to take serious, drastic steps to halt this outrage. And that this was done behind the scenes is even more insulting and dehumanizing.

John Bottonari's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:15:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 12:15 PM EST
By: John Bottonari

This is totally NUTS. That the dismantlment of a facility--actually, "facility" is a banal term for an entity so important as the Rose--integral to the identity of Brandeis is entertained betrays complete incompetence on the part of the Administration: Exactly how far beyond the University's means has it been living??? Has the Administration NO contingency but starving out the basics--i.e., its faculty and its singular structures?

I must say, Professor Reinharz, that your series of "God is in his Heaven and All is Superb at the almost-completely-rebuilt University" newsletters seems now the merest puffery.

For SHAME!!!

Joanne Deutch's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:33:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 12:33 PM EST
By: Joanne Deutch

Will Brandeis use the proceeds of the sale of the Art Collection to rebuild the swimming pool? First the pool being taken away, health, then the Art Collection being taken away,beauty, what's next! I think that Brandeis should re-think the way that they are looking at these tough times.

Jeffrey a. Rahn, Class of '79's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:43:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 12:43 PM EST
By: Jeffrey a. Rahn, Class of '79

I am still fuming but just returned from a business meeting where I bumped into a Brandeis grad and asked her if she had read the email. When she asked the content I told her, and then the entire room erupted into a discussion---and this what is going to happen hundreds of times over. So much for the reputation of Brandeis in the liberal arts community.

I call on Jehuda to immediately remove all Brandeis owned artwork from his office and residence-IMMEDIATELY so he knows what life without art is truly like. Then I ask him to sell the President's residence and Brandeis House---after all, these are perks that we are now asking corporate CEOs to give up...as well as any university owned vehicle....frankly on the salary he receives he can afford to own his own home and drive his own car, and the University obviously needs the money.

michael's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:58:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 12:58 PM EST
By: Michael Schakow '01, M.A. '01

Originally posted by: Jeffrey a. Rahn, Class of '79
[snip]
I am still fuming but just returned from a business meeting where I bumped into a Brandeis grad and asked her if she had read the email. When she asked the content I told her, and then the entire room erupted into a discussion---and this what is going to happen hundreds of times over. So much for the reputation of Brandeis in the liberal arts community.

I call on Jehuda to immediately remove all Brandeis owned artwork from his office and residence-IMMEDIATELY so he knows what life without art is truly like. Then I ask him to sell the President's residence and Brandeis House---after all, these are perks that we are now asking corporate CEOs to give up...as well as any university owned vehicle....frankly on the salary he receives he can afford to own his own home and drive his own car, and the University obviously needs the money.
[/snip]

The Brandeis House no doubt makes more money than it costs, from aiding fundraising, so getting rid of it would be silly. The President's Residence is, I suspect, contractually obligated as part of Jehuda's employment contract, and as such the Board can't get rid of it until his contract comes up for renewal. I agree the residence sounds silly, but, if it is true that it both helps to attract and retain higher quality candidates to serve as President (and that they in tern raise more money through fundraising than the University otherwise would have gotten), and if it is also true that the residence itself directly contributes to fundraising efforts by serving as a facility, like the Brandeis House, to host fundraising initiatives, then getting rid of it would be silly as well. I agree completely that you can't crassly calculate the value of art on the same cost-benefit plane as "if it makes more money than it costs, keep it"; but that doesn't mean you should get rid of things that DO make more money than they cost, just to satisfy a grudge or perceived inequity. The Board has allowed the Rose Art Museum to exist for nearly half a century; do we really, honestly believe that they would so lightly get rid of it now if they didn't have good cause, and dire necessity? I don't think the composition of the Board has changed that dramatically in the past decade.

Andrew '06/'07's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:11:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 1:11 PM EST
By: Andrew '06/'07

Some websites have been set up to save the Rose. Use the below link to access them:

http://noyoureatowelblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/save-rose.html

walter's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:28:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 1:28 PM EST
By: walter

can someone run over there and check to see how many of the major works are labeled "Promised gift of Carl & Ruth Shapiro?

They're bigtime victims of Bernie Madoff and the biggest donors to Brandeis.

We want to see how many of the pictures in the museum -- very valuable, some of them -- belong to the Shapiros

Daniel Liebman '12's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:56:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 1:56 PM EST
By: Daniel Liebman '12

The loss of the Rose is tragic, no doubt. Artists always warn that their craft is the first to go in times of economic hardship, and as was seen in President Reinharz's email last night this has indeed come to pass. I sympathize with those for whom the Rose will most sorely be missed, and I share their anger at the lack of transparency in the process of its closure. But before trashing the Board of Trustees and the administration out of (understanable) reactionary fury, I would ask everyone to take a brief step backwards and look at the situation objectively: we have a 10 MILLION dollar shortfall this year alone. This is not a scheme to squeeze out as much profit as possible - this is the real deal. Many of our best donors have been crippled by the economic crisis, and families are less and less able to afford the tuition payments which we rely on to function. To be blunt- something's gotta give. Certainly, the university could move money around in some other area- but are there any better options? Loss of a needs-blind admissions process? Scrapping financial aid? Firing professors? Eliminating classes and majors? Abandoning the graduate schools? No matter where you look, it's clear that the University has been placed in a lose-lose situation- no matter what we do, someone's going to get hurt, and there's really nothing to be done about it. The Rose is a huge point of pride for this school, but is it worth sacrificing a significant portion of our teaching staff in order to keep? Is it more valuable than our needs-blind promise to applicants and current students? When a person is at risk of freezing to death, his/her body pulls its blood supply away from its extremities to protect its most vital organs- the ones without with it would die within minutes. Sometimes this means that the person loses something incredably important- an arm, a leg - but they live through the ordeal as a result. In Brandeis' case, the vital organs are our student body, our faculty, and our overall academic core, and we must take whatever means are necessary, however painful, to preserve the university first and foremost as a place of learning and academic excellence. Losing the Rose is like losing an arm - as anyone who's been involved with it knows, the museum is so much more than just a "collection of pretty paintings", and its loss painfully handicaps us all in the arts and humanities and thus our ability to produce the exceptionally well-rounded graduates for which we're known. We're not alone- one look at the news is enough to remind us that people are hurting everywhere, and that tough decisions like this are being forced upon schools and businesses around the nation and across the world. Now more than ever it is vital that we remain cohesive and strong as an elite academic institution and as a community, and not let our anger tear us apart.

Michael Behrendt's Reply

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:49:00 GMT

Posted: 2/01/09 @ 1:49 PM EST
By: Michael Behrendt

If indeed Brandeis is facing possible death, then the closure of the Rose may well be justified. But is that the case? The university has an endowment over $500 million and a projected deficit of $10 million. That is not a dire situation. Paying the deficit will require taking/borrowing only 2% of the endowment this year. That is what endowments are for - helping the university get through unusually difficult times. If I were near death I would sacrifice an arm to stay alive...but only if I were near death. Brandeis must do what it must do: cut faculty, cut programs, possibly even sell selected works of art, even terminate certain sports programs. These are difficult, unpalatable steps but none are irretrievable! The university can restart an athletic program and rehire faculty. It cannot - or certainly could not conceivably - reopen this priceless musuem and reacquire Warhols, Rauschenbergs, Johns, Picassos, etcetera. Bad, bad, bad decision. The students, faculty, alumni, parents should exert unending pressure on the trustees to force them to pull back from the brink. This would damage Brandeis for a generation. Prospective donors to the university would lose respect and not "invest" their funds in what would now appear to be a second rate school. When a guidance counselor suggests to a prospective applicant to consider applying to Brandeis, he/she would think, "isn't that the school that sold off its art collection? I'm not applying there.". Originally posted by: Daniel Liebman '12
[snip]
The loss of the Rose is tragic, no doubt. Artists always warn that their craft is the first to go in times of economic hardship, and as was seen in President Reinharz's email last night this has indeed come to pass. I sympathize with those for whom the Rose will most sorely be missed, and I share their anger at the lack of transparency in the process of its closure. But before trashing the Board of Trustees and the administration out of (understanable) reactionary fury, I would ask everyone to take a brief step backwards and look at the situation objectively: we have a 10 MILLION dollar shortfall this year alone. This is not a scheme to squeeze out as much profit as possible - this is the real deal. Many of our best donors have been crippled by the economic crisis, and families are less and less able to afford the tuition payments which we rely on to function. To be blunt- something's gotta give. Certainly, the university could move money around in some other area- but are there any better options? Loss of a needs-blind admissions process? Scrapping financial aid? Firing professors? Eliminating classes and majors? Abandoning the graduate schools? No matter where you look, it's clear that the University has been placed in a lose-lose situation- no matter what we do, someone's going to get hurt, and there's really nothing to be done about it. The Rose is a huge point of pride for this school, but is it worth sacrificing a significant portion of our teaching staff in order to keep? Is it more valuable than our needs-blind promise to applicants and current students? When a person is at risk of freezing to death, his/her body pulls its blood supply away from its extremities to protect its most vital organs- the ones without with it would die within minutes. Sometimes this means that the person loses something incredably important- an arm, a leg - but they live through the ordeal as a result. In Brandeis' case, the vital organs are our student body, our faculty, and our overall academic core, and we must take whatever means are necessary, however painful, to preserve the university first and foremost as a place of learning and academic excellence. Losing the Rose is like losing an arm - as anyone who's been involved with it knows, the museum is so much more than just a "collection of pretty paintings", and its loss painfully handicaps us all in the arts and humanities and thus our ability to produce the exceptionally well-rounded graduates for which we're known. We're not alone- one look at the news is enough to remind us that people are hurting everywhere, and that tough decisions like this are being forced upon schools and businesses around the nation and across the world. Now more than ever it is vital that we remain cohesive and strong as an elite academic institution and as a community, and not let our anger tear us apart.
[/snip]

David J. Tracy '74's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:21:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 2:21 PM EST
By: David J. Tracy '74

As I had suspected the College Confidential website now has threads that talk about this issue. Parents and prospective students are raising the worst possible question: Should I still consider Brandeis? I can only assume that all other alternatives were carefully considered before this step was taken. This and the prospect of the change in academics will hurt Brandeis in its admission activity. But so will a funding deficit. These are very difficult times.

Disappointed Alum '01's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:42:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 3:42 PM EST
By: Disappointed Alum '01

After watching my alma mater repeatedly fire long-time community members due to their age, fail to properly maintain campus facilities, and name every new building after the Shapiros, I am hardly surprised about the decision to close the Rose Art Museum.

The problem with Brandeis can be summarized in two words: Jehuda Reinharz. He seems like he could care less about students, alumni, faculty, or other campus employees. Sure, selling the artwork may net $150-200 million, but it won't stop Jehuda from wasting more of the college's resources in the future. Most college presidents serve for 5-7 years, so why is Jehuda still at Brandeis? I guess it's for the photo ops.

lily's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:17:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 4:17 PM EST
By: lily

Unbelievably short sighted decision. Not to mention that they will get very little for the art in the current financial state. Shame on Brandeis! Maybe it should plan and budget better.

AL '08's Reply

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:24:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 6:24 PM EST
By: AL '08

Clearly the Board of Trustees and the Reinharz Administration did not properly think through this decision. After reading their email, I saw an article on the New York Times about the problem. Getting this much bad press will certainly turn off potential students. I know I would have passed on a school that was suffering so much it was making extremely poor decisions without consulting a wide audience. For a school trying to move up the ranks, Brandeis, you are certainly aren't taking the right path.

Liz '13's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:17:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 8:17 PM EST
By: Liz '13

Wow.

I was supposed to be an incoming freshman this fall, but now I'm legitimately worried for Brandeis.

In the event of the school closing, what would they do with their students?

What horrible times.

Mark Horowitz '79's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:55:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 10:55 PM EST
By: Mark Horowitz '79

The presence of an art museum with such a vibrant collection is a treasure the University should preserve. The move to close the Rose Art Museum and liquidate its holdings runs in distinct contradiction to the University's mission. It is ill-advised.
From a purely economic perspective, to sell even one work is unwise in the current depressed market. I hope the Board of Trustees will reconsider its decision. The Justice can do students and alumni a favor by publishing the names on contact information of the trustees, so individuals can express their outrage directly.

Mr. Lansing's comments are appreciated.

DR's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:16:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 11:16 PM EST
By: DR

The endowment has fallen "markedly" -- which we can assume means close to or more than the 20% average that most college endowments have fallen. This means the University probably has 500 million, perhaps less, perhaps more, to dip into.

The endowment at Brandeis has always been small for a school aiming to be in the elite, and the school has not invested effectively either. But it still should look to tap into those funds.

Now I know the purpose of an endowment is the long term health of the university and dipping into capital is frowned on -- but here you really have to wonder how much university will be left. . .

George Dainis's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:17:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 10:17 AM EST
By: George Dainis

Originally posted by: DR
[snip]
Now I know the purpose of an endowment is the long term health of the university and dipping into capital is frowned on -- but here you really have to wonder how much university will be left. . .
[/snip]

The problem is more than "frowned upon". Massachusetts law limits the amount of an endowment that can be tapped to a 7% payout rate (based on a 3-year minimum trailing average). With the rapid drop in value coupled with prior year disbursements, it's likely that options on amount and usage of the endowment are quire limited.

Andy's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:57:00 GMT

Posted: 1/27/09 @ 11:57 PM EST
By: Andy

Not a Brandeis student or alum, but my life is tied to institutions like the Rose. It is, as my grandmother would say, a shonda, an absolute shame, that the board at Brandeis feel this is the path to take. Their logic is fuzzy at best (in economic downturn, the 'liquidity' of art is in question - even solid Andy Warhols have been passed up at auction recently). While I understand the difficult position that Brandeis finds itself in, selling off the Rose's collection will be a public relations nightmare at best. Every student and alum should be incensed and should demand the board reverse its decision immediately. Art is not simply a "very-nice-to-have" but in fact is a part of core academics and has a place in the history of humanities education. For those who form close relationships with art, their lives are forever changed. Without the close relationship with art I enjoyed at a similar institution I would most likely not have studied art history at a graduate level.

This is a shonda.

Richard Lerman's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:29:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 12:29 AM EST
By: Richard Lerman

When I saw the email this morning from the President of the University, I was surprised, then shocked at the language chosen. To quote: "Choosing between and among important and valued university assets is terrible, but our priority in the face of hard choices will always be the university's core teaching and research mission."

President Reinharz and the Board: Since when has Art not been part of Brandeis' mission? And since when does a university, (allegedly) of great stature, not have an Art Museum?

Along with the loss of the collection will be a the loss of the sweep of historical arts events that took place in the Rose. These have included premiere performances by John Cage, David Tudor, & Alvin Lucier, exhibitions by Louise Nevelson, video work by Nam Jun Paik and works of many other artists.

Did the university make poor investments? Did the Board approve these investments? If so, they should figure ways to meet the shortfall rather than de-accesioning this collection. And, rather than having secret votes to make such a decision, the President and Board should be completely forthcoming and transparent. I for one feel they have not done so and they have diminished Brandeis with their actions and certainly adversely affected the quality of Arts students for the future.

Richard Lerman '66 and '70 (MFA)
Professor of Media and Digital Arts
HArCS (Humanities, Arts and Cultural Studies)
Arizona State University

Jeffrey A .Rahn, Class of '79's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:39:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 12:39 AM EST
By: Jeffrey A .Rahn, Class of '79

Two words: ART HOLOCAUST

Think about it.

It is ironic that post-war Jews---proud of what had been created as Brandeis, gave generously not only in dollars but in art-work---now must watch as the collection they created
is disbursed to the diaspora.

Elisabeth Ioannides, class of '00's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:29:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 4:29 AM EST
By: Elisabeth Ioannides, class of '00

I had the privilege of working at the Rose Art Museum while Carl Belz was still director! and was selected by the Dean as Undergraduate Representative for the Fine Arts Department. I cannot believe that the University has decided to go ahead with such a "criminal" act. The collection is priceless and nothing will ever substitute it.
I am certain there is another solution.
WHY NOT GO AHEAD WITH IT??

John Farr '08's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:21:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 11:21 AM EST
By: John Farr '08

Sad that the University feels the need to do this, and I worry about how it will affect the school's stature and it's ability to attract top students.

Is it really necessary to close the entire museum? Why not just sell off a few pieces? The budget shortfall is supposed to be $10m, and I have heard that there are works that can get $15m or so. I don't know if it's wise to divest of the entire collection for the fire sale prices they'll fetch given the economy.

According to a recent NYT article this seems to be an unprecedented move as far as university art collections go. To what extent is this an overzealous move by Pres. Reinharz and to what extent is it truly (sadly) necessary to maintain the school's academic quality? I hope that it is merely the former though I am very worried that the former is more likely.

It seems as though we can't go a year without some sort of scandal which is a black eye towards the school (the Palestinian art controversy; Reinharz's equally deplorable and completely embarrassing treatment of Jimmy Carter, the Ancient Greek issue a couple of years ago, etc.)

Mindy Nierenberg '77's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:34:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 1:34 PM EST
By: Mindy Nierenberg '77

I was a studio art major at Brandeis, and have worked in higher education for 26 years at other institutions. I am stunned and outraged at Brandeis' decision as an alum, as an artist, and as an educator. Brandeis has been especially hard hit by the current economy (as have many other institutions). But to decide to close a world class art museum's doors and sell off its collection has got to be one of the most barbaric and short-sighted solutions out there. Targeting the art is a quick fix that will have repercussions on the university's reputation and its students for generations to come. Art is not a "frill": it is one of the pillars upon which an education is based, a way to understand the world and create solutions. Artists have been great thinkers, community builders, and sparks that have ignited change on local and global levels. A university art museum educates not only future artists, but also those that will be lawyers, physicians, teachers, scientists, social workers, etc., and provides access to our own and others' imagination and creativity. It doesn't matter if you have never chosen to enter: a university museum with the stature of the Rose is a major contributing factor to the stature of the university. I ask these questions:
1. How can leaders responsible for the financial oversight of the university (BOT and President) not understand the importance of a world class museum to the reputation of Brandeis, to the education its of students, and to the public?
2. How they could make such an important decision cloaked in secrecy, without any input from those who do understand, and those who are most directly impacted? Lack of transparency in this is unacceptable.
3. Why they need to sell a collection worth $350 million when they have stated that their shortfall is $10 million. Brandeis has not been public about what they have lost to Madoff. Other schools (such as Tufts), foundations, and individuals have been open about this but Brandeis has been silent. Is there a greater loss than we are aware of?
Shutting the Rose and selling off every last bit of a collection amassed by thoughtful donors and curators for over 50 years could be the saddest day in the university history.

Greenpants's Reply

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:12:00 GMT

Posted: 1/29/09 @ 9:12 AM EST
By: Greenpants

Originally posted by: Mindy Nierenberg '77
[snip]
I was a studio art major at Brandeis, and have worked in higher education for 26 years at other institutions. I am stunned and outraged at Brandeis' decision as an alum, as an artist, and as an educator. Brandeis has been especially hard hit by the current economy (as have many other institutions). But to decide to close a world class art museum's doors and sell off its collection has got to be one of the most barbaric and short-sighted solutions out there. Targeting the art is a quick fix that will have repercussions on the university's reputation and its students for generations to come. Art is not a "frill": it is one of the pillars upon which an education is based, a way to understand the world and create solutions. Artists have been great thinkers, community builders, and sparks that have ignited change on local and global levels. A university art museum educates not only future artists, but also those that will be lawyers, physicians, teachers, scientists, social workers, etc., and provides access to our own and others' imagination and creativity. It doesn't matter if you have never chosen to enter: a university museum with the stature of the Rose is a major contributing factor to the stature of the university. I ask these questions:
1. How can leaders responsible for the financial oversight of the university (BOT and President) not understand the importance of a world class museum to the reputation of Brandeis, to the education its of students, and to the public?
2. How they could make such an important decision cloaked in secrecy, without any input from those who do understand, and those who are most directly impacted? Lack of transparency in this is unacceptable.
3. Why they need to sell a collection worth $350 million when they have stated that their shortfall is $10 million. Brandeis has not been public about what they have lost to Madoff. Other schools (such as Tufts), foundations, and individuals have been open about this but Brandeis has been silent. Is there a greater loss than we are aware of?
Shutting the Rose and selling off every last bit of a collection amassed by thoughtful donors and curators for over 50 years could be the saddest day in the university history.
[/snip]

Oh Mindy - Are you that naive? Lets be realistic about this. It is not some evil plan by the President or BOT to "reduce the importance of the arts". I am not sure if you are aware but our economy is facing its most difficult period in decades. The financial state of the university has always been tenuous. In a crisis, the situation becomes more troublesome. Brandeis has the fortune of being close to great cultural institions in Boston. For sure, current and future students will be inconvenienced by now having to travel to admire art. (Is there still a train stop near campus - how bad is that?) The educational mission of the University is to provide a world class education. Not having an art museum does not devalue the mission. As an alum, I do not want anything to compromise that objective. In fact, I applaud the President and BOT for the courage to make a difficult, controversial and unpopular decision in challenging times to prtotect the Univeristy's future and ensure its legacy. It is always easy to launch critisms from the cheap seats. Perhaps there are ways to enhance the school's financial position. How about a reduction in union wages and benefits? I doubt that would fly amongst the liberal elite...

Mike Feinberg's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:11:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 2:11 PM EST
By: Mike Feinberg

To all those who are (understandably) upset about the closing of the Museum: What do you suggest that the University do instead? Are you willing to pick which students will receive less financial aid due the school's undercapitalization? Can you draft the guidelines which departments will have to shrink or vanish because they can't be funded? Will you break the news to support staff that some of them will have to be let go because the University cannot afford to sign their paychecks?

One of the harshest facts of life -- which, unfortunately, colleges do not impart to their students -- is that more often than not we are not faced with good and bad options, but simply bad and worse choices. It's lamentable that the Museum has to close; but something had to go. The economy is in the worst shape that it's been in for over fifty years, and many of our donors are also having to deal with the fallout from the Madoff scandal. Nobody is happy about this state of affairs, but denying that it exists accomplishes nothing. Refusing to face hard choices, or to constantly second guess them, is both childish and churlish.

michael's Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 10:20 AM EST
By: michael

Well, for starters, the Trustees could display just a little transparency. Their financial plans are not state secrets and Brandeis is a community. Faculty and students happen to have a pretty large stake in how this university is run. To deprive non-trustees and non-administrators of basic facts then to make take it or leave it decisions turns any notion of community into a farce. Perhaps, unless it is just too embarassing to certain trustees or certain administrators, we could find out how Brandeis fell into a financial ditch so deep and so unique. Sorry, but this is not just a question of the harsh choices that adults make. Sounds more like some folks who made bad decisions are now making worse decisions, like a fire sale in the midst of a depression. Are trustees going to be able to bid on this art ?? Will over-paid administrators be able to hang newly acquired works of art in their homes?

David Traktman's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:23:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 3:23 PM EST
By: David Traktman

As a Brandeis alum and long term (albeit modest) supporter of both my alma mater and the Rose, I would like to point out that closing the Rose is a means to an end for the Administration and Board of Trustees, not the end itself.

While I have no doubt that Dr. Reinharz and the Board are sincere in their desire to secure the University's future, they are both insincere and misleading in how they have merchandised their action.

Closing the Rose will contribute little if any savings to help erase the University's budget deficit. The Rose has been largely self-sustaining for years. Its directorship, acquisition budget, construction projects, etc., are all funded by separate endowments and/or contributions.

The simple fact is that the University feels it needs to liquidate the Rose's major asset--its collection--and the only way to do that is to close the Rose first. Further, having unluckily voted to extend and expand its capital campaign to the tune of $400 million just before the financial markets imploded, the Board is now tempted by a quick and
(it thought) relatively easy solution to raise capital and save face.

While I reiterate my belief that both the President and Board are doing what they think is right for the University, their claim that this action will in the long run enhance Brandeis' reputation is preposterous. Can you name a single prestigious college or university in the United States that lacks an art collection and/or art museum? Does Brandeis really want to voluntarily turn itself into the first?

Finally, it is important that alumni, as well as students, make themselves heard. The Rose Art Museum has until now enjoyed relatively little support from Brandeis alumni. Few alumni serve on its Board of Overseers or donate cash or art to its collection. For the Rose to survive, this lack of involvement will need to change. For starters, I hope that the many alumni who hold leadership positions in the arts, media and other fields, will leverage their influence on the Rose's behalf.

David Traktman '68

Andrea Aronson Morgan's Reply

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:46:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 3:46 PM EST
By: Andrea Aronson Morgan

As a member of the undergraduate class of 1980 (B.A., Art History) and a career museum professional, I am outraged by Brandeis's cavalier disregard for the most basic tenets of cultural and educational stewardship of fine arts collections. This decision reverses the university's reputation as a haven for ethical and progressive education. The fine arts are at the core of Brandeis' academic program; the Rose and its collection are indispensible to a Brandeis education. How can the Brandeis Board of Trustees expect the university's graduates to heal the world unless they learn that the quality of the world's legacy ultimately depends on its ability to preserve and present culture and the arts?

Andrea Morgan
Associate Director, Institutional Giving
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Alumnus '79's Reply

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:56:00 GMT

Posted: 1/28/09 @ 8:56 PM EST
By: Alumnus

Many in America, including Federal, State, and local governments, public and private schools, including possibly Brandeis, having been living beyond our means.

Now we know, that thinking green, includes the ecology of money. Perhaps this is a life lesson to all. I'm still trying to figure out why a new student union was built -- what was wrong with Usden and why was new admissions center -- what was wrong with the old one? Why is there a mini-major for every possible taste under the sun? Ecology of money means everybody can't have everything all the time.

Alumni '05's Reply

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:04:00 GMT

Posted: 1/29/09 @ 11:04 AM EST
By: Alumni '05

This is truly appalling! It's the equivalent of someone selling the family heirloom in a pawn shop to pay off their credit card debt!

If the university goes through with this decision it will severely lower the quality of education offered to Brandeis students, not to mention rob itself of a very valuable cultural heritage. The Rose was always much more than a mere 'asset.'And I wish in these times of economic hardship the university would find alternative ways to deal with its debt other than carrying out this completely irresponsible dictatorial decree that was decided behind closed doors, without any transparency or taking into account ANY other voices, not from the faculty, not alumni and not the student body. To quote Louis Brandeis himself "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Why did the board decide this in such an authoritarian fashion! What happened to 'Truth onto its innermost parts.'

Closing the Rose will send a very negative message to its students and the world that Brandeis deems culture and art as somehow less valuable to liberal arts education or to the pursuit of 'seeking truth' and can be written off as a mere 'luxury good' to be liquidated when it becomes necessary. I am sure it will prevent future students from coming to the university and it will also prevent alumni, like myself, from giving to the university in the future!

I simply demand to know the logic of WHY this had to be done! Why couldn't a portion of the collection be sold off and the museum remain open. Not to mention, is the university violating a code of ethics by selling donated works? And finally WHY does this have to be done in this terrible market?

As someone who worked at the Rose for the entire duration of my time at Brandeis and then having gone on to art school, I can't stress enough how important the Rose has been to my formation as an artist and human being. The Rose is a very unique institution and everything should be done to prevent it from closing. From my time at Brandeis I remember it as a vital resource and hub for cultural activities that brought some of the world's best artists to Brandeis not to mention some life and vitality to the Brandeis campus. We simply can't afford to let is close!

I strongly urge the board can take a pause and reconsider this haste decision. There are many of us that still consider culture as something sacred and a necessity to the 'pursuit of truth," without it we might as well live in a sterile, robotic society that doesn't have any sense of curiosity or wonder or appreciation of beauty!

Christopher Wheatley ('77)'s Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:15:00 GMT

Posted: 1/29/09 @ 7:15 PM EST
By: Christopher Wheatley ('77)

Selling The Rose Art Museum collection would be like throwing cargo overboard to keep a ship from sinking before it actually hits the reefs. The decision is not only a breach of trust with donors, and also with the Brandeis community at large, but it reeks of deeper problems that begged to happen despite the odds. Being "artful" or expedient just won't do (e.g. selling art to circumvent legal restrictions on the use of endowments). We need a new business and financial model at Brandeis, and greater transparency outside trustee circles.

michael's Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:48:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 12:48 PM EST
By: michael

perhaps we need new trustees and new administrators, not the ones who seem so secretive, vested in bad decisions and ready to gut a museum to pay for their mistakes.

Michael's Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:12:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 1:12 AM EST
By: Michael

I was under the impression that Brandeis is a community. Since the decision made by the Trustees doesnt take effect until six months from now, what is the reasoning for not having a community discussion about such a drastic step ? It would seem obvious, for example, that having a fire sale when sale prices would be lowest is just plain stupid. Also, when you look at the endowment, the current level is a rollback to two years ago. This step seems panicky and not reasoned nor prudent.

I would be a decent thing to share all the financial info with the Brandeis community NOW. As Mr. Bottanari states well above, has Brandeis been living beyond its means and who made those decisions ?? I doubt the donors are going to be pleased with this decision made in secrecy to gut the museum. More to the point is the process followed in getting to this result. I guess the Trustees just believe they run a command economy. They may find many unintended consequences from such a shocking decision. To only blame it on external economics is a sham.

Brandeis Parent ('09)'s Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:51:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 10:51 AM EST
By: Brandeis Parent ('09)

It seems to me that such a major decison should be made after consulting the entire Brandies community, or at least more than just the Board of Trustees.

Dan Fineman's Reply

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:28:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 4:28 PM EST
By: Dan Fineman

As a jew and an academic who believes the arts are as deserving of long term growth as every other element of education, I deplore this decision. If this goes through, I will never be able to support the university in the future and every potential giver should look elsewhere.

bejpa's Reply

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:40:00 GMT

Posted: 1/30/09 @ 9:40 PM EST
By: Joe

Remember former Brandeis Professor Maslow's theory-- just like a person, the University needs to provide for its basic "physiology" and "safety" before it can worry about its "self-actualization."

And furthermore, I am far from a science person, but I would suggest that our chemistry, biology, and physics graduates have a better chance of improving the life of mankind than artists. The world is in trouble in many ways. Perhaps we don't have the luxury for the time being of living in Medici's Florence.

Yes its a shame, but the tail cannot always wag the dog.

And don't forget that the donors get a nice fat charitable tax deduction for the "fair market value" of the art. So that would argue against them having an unlimited veto over an item for which most were in part reimbursed by a tax deduction. I would think that many of the donors can understand that difficulties of the world's first global recession, let alone Bernard.

Alum's Reply

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:06:00 GMT

Posted: 1/31/09 @ 1:06 AM EST
By: Alum

And furthermore, I am far from a science person, but I would suggest that our chemistry, biology, and physics graduates have a better chance of improving the life of mankind than artists. The world is in trouble in many ways. Perhaps we don't have the luxury for the time being of living in Medici's Florence.

quite on the contrary! artists have just as much ability and power to improve life of mankind and engage in the 'pursuit of truth' as any scientist. And to think otherwise is to align with the same kind of philistine, short sited thinking that resulted in this decision in the first place.

Some of us still value culture and art as something sacred and indispensable! Shame on you Brandeis for this unconscionable decision, for which generations of students will be worse off as well as the Brandeis reputation!

Christopher Wheatley ('77)'s Reply

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Posted: 1/31/09 @ 10:20 AM EST
By: Christopher Wheatley ('77)

[QUOTE id="397eeed8-b930-46da-8402-7a5550af86d2"] Quote: Remember former Brandeis Professor Maslow's theory-- just like a person, the University needs to provide for its basic "physiology" and "safety" before it can worry about its "self-actualization." Endquote

Joe, anyone who has pulled through hard times before will tell you that these factors are inseparable: "self actualization" is a motive, a reason to live - i.e., "physiology" and "safety" both need an objective. As for parallels regarding the sale of valuable art, try "lobotomy"...something that includes all three and will not grow back. We all seem to forget that if this art is valuable today, much of it was not so when initially acquired. It took talented and trained people to recognize the potential values for society, and if the collection is ever sold, we should thank the Fine Arts for contributing to the long term wealth of Brandeis (this last tidbit is for the short-term bean counters). That's how "useful" it is. In recesionnary times, the best course is to reign in operating expenses, find new ways to make money, not sell the irreplaceable family jewels. The Rose art museum as a "cost center" is a red herring. It is self sustaining, so closing it is definitely a sign that the Trustees want the freedom to sell off its art collection. This is not something you consider unless bankruptcy is looming. I think it's time we kick the doors open and audit the situation.

Michael's Reply

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:46:00 GMT

Posted: 1/31/09 @ 12:46 PM EST
By: Michael

I think at least half of the previous commenters are not going to like this post. First, a general request to please cut down on the vitriol. It is so unbecoming of lovers of the arts to talk down to people who value art less than they do. No one is arguing that the Rose and its collection are worthless wastes of time and money; we're just prioritizing it lower than you would like.

I wonder whether this is a debate over the art itself. If the entire collection were to be transferred en masse to a different museum somewhere else in the Boston area, would everyone still be so angry? Let's remember we're not talking about having a book-burning here; we're talking about selling the art to others who will presumably appreciate it and care for it. Therefore I assume the anger is over some combination of 1) breaking up the collection and/or 2) no longer having it on the Brandeis campus. Boston is blessed with a tremendous number of collections that students can view and can derive every bit as much education and culture in their lives as they could at the Rose. Insisting that it must remain here, in this form, and that anything else is heresy, simply smacks of prideful jealousy rather than genuine concern for students, the arts, and Brandeis.

On selling it in a down-market -- that's what happens when you have to liquidate assets, folks. Most people don't have fire sales in an up-economy, but that doesn't mean it's an irrational time to do it. The net present value in cash of the collection, while far below its appraised value a year ago, is still likely greater than its appraised value because it will immediately begin generating returns for the University -- endowment investments that will be made at the bottom of the market rather than at the top. Most investments are fungible from one account to another, and turning artwork into securities investments is no exception.

I am not so sympathetic to the demands that the community should have had a voice in this. The Board of Trustees exists for that purpose. We call them trustees because they are given the trust of the stakeholders of Brandeis to shepherd the University's best interests. Can you imagine what hell it would be if they had to consult with the entire active University community every time they had to make a terrible decision like this? How long do you think the committee process would last on this question? Far too long, and likely with no different result.

Finally, it irks me to hear people talking of Brandeis "living beyond its means," and needing to cut down on "operating expenses." Folks, the money that has been spent by Brandeis hasn't been used on solid gold toilets and on-site massage therapists. It has been used to educate students, generate knowledge for all mankind, employ people, or invest in the endowment with the associated risk of gain and loss. Don't callously say that Brandeis should cut down on operating expenses so that it can keep the Rose open until you're willing to tell us precisely which economically disadvantaged students you would like to exclude from the University because you're taking their financial aid away. The luxury of having a $350 million art collection tucked away on campus is money that could be better spent on throwing the doors of education open to more of society, and better ensuring the financial and academic strength of the University for generations to come.

While there is a place for investment in the arts, demanding that the University sit on an amount equal to more than half of its entire endowment is, frankly, disproportionate and selfish. Cool down and think about all of the affected parties here, not just the arts.

Joe Alumnus's Reply

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:02:00 GMT

Posted: 1/31/09 @ 4:02 PM EST
By: Joe Alumnus

Sure I find art inspiring and nice and wouldn't want to demean it. But in my experience, everyone in his own field thinks his field is the "most" deserving and the most intellectually worthy and that to "save" humanity. The international tax law professor thinks his field is the most deserving and that to save mankind. Similarly the sociology professor and the artist. Most think that they are the center of the universe, just like the proverbial "worm in the bottle of horseradish."

A picture of Campbell Soup is nice, but it is not going to heal a sick child, clean the air, and lift the poor out of poverty. Besides, there is plenty of art in the Boston area and indeed NYC where many are from.

Our Board of Trustees and President are apparently in a situation to make difficult decisions so that Brandeis can survive on a fiscally sound basis. It would behoove us to cut them some slack instead of attacking them like is done in a elementary school PTA meeting where there is always "outrage" and more "outrage".

Brandeis was built on the kindness of strangers and the almighty charitable tax deduction provided by the federal government. The kindness of strangers is not unlimited and cannot give everything to everybody.

Christopher Wheatley ('77)'s Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:37:00 GMT

Posted: 2/01/09 @ 9:37 PM EST
By: Christopher Wheatley ('77)

Have the trustees discussed rescheduling debt, for instance?Looking at financial statements for FYE June 2008, some $67 million in debt repayments kicked in, presumably under construction bonds, vs. $5 million the prior year. Have they lobbied regulators to relax restrictions on endowments? Have they explored having new bonds issued to cover cash deficits, under State programs or guarantees, until the budget can be brought back in balance? If they have, they must have drawn a blank on all these options to decide to mug the museum...

Christopher Wheatley's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:11:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 11:11 PM EST
By: Christopher Wheatley

Originally posted by: Christopher Wheatley ('77)
[snip]
Have the trustees discussed rescheduling debt, for instance?Looking at financial statements for FYE June 2008, some $67 million in debt repayments kicked in, presumably under construction bonds, vs. $5 million the prior year. Have they lobbied regulators to relax restrictions on endowments? Have they explored having new bonds issued to cover cash deficits, under State programs or guarantees, until the budget can be brought back in balance? If they have, they must have drawn a blank on all these options to decide to mug the museum...
[/snip]

It pays to print what you read too quickly on the screen - My bad! The staements say the $67 million in debt repayments is largely a refinance through a new bond issue. My apologies. Other questions stand.

Done with it's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:59:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 12:59 AM EST
By: Done with it

In reply to Michael (posted 1/31/09 @ 12:46 PM EST), I find that if his comments reflect the trustees' thinking, then may we pro-Rosers are out of touch, still clinging to the vision of Brandeis's founders, when the brand is gone. If it's all just a matter of responsible rebalancing of the portfolio, by monetizing a disproprotionately large component in art assets to capture a market upside, great, sell the art now, not later or over the long term, lest we miss this upside. If any. No Rose art museum could ever be central to Brandeis' mission in this kind of universe. You don't need it. Besides, it's true, there are many other museums to visit in Boston or New York, as there are many other colleges our children can chose from, at least 30 ahead, around the country. It's a big world. Godspeed with your finances. Mind the debt.

Michael's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 10:20 AM EST
By: Michael

Originally posted by: Done with it
[snip]
In reply to Michael (posted 1/31/09 @ 12:46 PM EST), I find that if his comments reflect the trustees' thinking, then may we pro-Rosers are out of touch, still clinging to the vision of Brandeis's founders, when the brand is gone. If it's all just a matter of responsible rebalancing of the portfolio, by monetizing a disproprotionately large component in art assets to capture a market upside, great, sell the art now, not later or over the long term, lest we miss this upside. If any. No Rose art museum could ever be central to Brandeis' mission in this kind of universe. You don't need it. Besides, it's true, there are many other museums to visit in Boston or New York, as there are many other colleges our children can chose from, at least 30 ahead, around the country. It's a big world. Godspeed with your finances. Mind the debt.
[/snip]

There's a distinctly purist, elitist, quality to this comment, but I think it accurately reflects where a lot of the negative feelings about closing the Rose are coming from. We're sorry, Posse Program children from the ghetto and all non-wealthy undergraduates and graduates who lack the ability to pay tuition in full (not to mention those highly qualified students who would accept their invitation to Harvard but instead come to Brandeis for the massive academic scholarship) -- the founding fathers of Brandeis wanted an art museum, and by golly, even though it's worth more than half the value of our entire endowment, and even though in reality it serves but a tiny fraction of the Brandeis community in any significant way, and even though it means we're going to have to cut to the bone in other critical areas of spending such as, say, financial aid, we're going to keep it. So please, stay at home; or better yet, go to another one of the 30 or so colleges ranked ahead of us if you can get in and pay for it. We won't be joining you up there on that list any time soon because we've decided to spend our bus fare on admission to the Rose where we can wallow in our cultural purity and self-righteousness just like back in the days when only white Jews from Long Island roamed this campus. I realize that sounds like outrageous hyperbole; and it is. But honestly, don't you think there's a degree of truth to it? Yes, the Rose is irreplaceable, and yes, we're going to look puny and desperate compared to many of the other mighty private research institutions in this country. But the minute we lose the ability to flexibly adapt our strengths and weaknesses to the demands of the day is the moment we truly divorce ourselves from the vision of the founders. They would want Brandeis to be scrappy and do what is necessary to continue striving for academic excellence. They would not want us to treat any physical edifice or program -- no matter how wonderful it is on its own -- as sacrosanct. Won't you join those of us brave enough to admit this to ourselves and to the community, or at least take some time to actively think about many of the other interests at stake before you dismiss this out of hand merely because it looks like an attack on your personal belief in the value of the arts?

Done with it's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:55:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 10:55 PM EST
By: Done with it

Originally posted by: Done with it
[snip]
In reply to Michael (posted 1/31/09 @ 12:46 PM EST), I find that if his comments reflect the trustees' thinking, then may we pro-Rosers are out of touch, still clinging to the vision of Brandeis's founders, when the brand is gone. If it's all just a matter of responsible rebalancing of the portfolio, by monetizing a disproprotionately large component in art assets to capture a market upside, great, sell the art now, not later or over the long term, lest we miss this upside. If any. No Rose art museum could ever be central to Brandeis' mission in this kind of universe. You don't need it. Besides, it's true, there are many other museums to visit in Boston or New York, as there are many other colleges our children can chose from, at least 30 ahead, around the country. It's a big world. Godspeed with your finances. Mind the debt.
[/snip]

In further reply to Michael's comeback posted 2/02/09 @ 10:20 AM EST, no one is chucking financial aid for art. This is at the core of higher education, and should be defended, particularly in these recessionary times. But waht is the real issue here? Financial aid is running at about $60 million a year (from statements - this may grow with overall enrollment, or if more students find themselves in difficulty). It contributes to a structural net deficit projected at $4 million in fiscal 2009 to $23 million in fiscal 2014 (per The Justice article). If the deficit is closed, financial aid is saved, case closed... unless revenues drop further. Back to the Rose art museum with its $375 million collection. If it's sold, the money will cover deficits for years to come, whatever may cause them. One problem, though, is you don't usually sell assets - valuable art included - to cover ongoing yearly operating needs, or you'll just run out at some point. So the money should probably be treated as restricted endowment and/or applied to retire debt financing on existing campus facilities (which would bring down interest expenses now at $10 million). Whatever the disposal, on paper the opportunity offered by the collection to shore up the university's financial health is crystal-clear. The urgency, however, is not apparent. If the situation is that desperate for financial aid, then we're probably not hearing the whole story on deficit trends. Yet, as far as I can see, if the endowment is down 25% it just puts us where we were in 2006-2007 (per the Provost's bar charts). How insurmountable can that be? Nothing wrong with selling some art on the way to plug deficits. It's healthy, and it helps renew collections. But to sell off a proud heritage is indeed about educational priorities changing, really.

Michael's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:41:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 11:41 PM EST
By: Michael

Originally posted by: Done with it
[snip]
In reply to Michael (posted 1/31/09 @ 12:46 PM EST), I find that if his comments reflect the trustees' thinking, then may we pro-Rosers are out of touch, still clinging to the vision of Brandeis's founders, when the brand is gone. If it's all just a matter of responsible rebalancing of the portfolio, by monetizing a disproprotionately large component in art assets to capture a market upside, great, sell the art now, not later or over the long term, lest we miss this upside. If any. No Rose art museum could ever be central to Brandeis' mission in this kind of universe. You don't need it. Besides, it's true, there are many other museums to visit in Boston or New York, as there are many other colleges our children can chose from, at least 30 ahead, around the country. It's a big world. Godspeed with your finances. Mind the debt.
[/snip]

I think this is reasonable; and I think it's accurate in analysis if not necessarily conclusion. Educational priorities are changing, and the Rose may be a victim of its own success. Just like a business that becomes cash-heavy becomes an attractive take-over target, a museum that manages to amass a collection that rises exponentially in value over a relatively short period of time becomes an attractive asset to liquidate. I think it's correct that if the Rose's collection were worth $10M total, it would not be closed. But I don't think that makes this the wrong decision. And to be quite honest, I suspect that the Board has wanted to do this for a long time, and is using the financial crisis to finally provide enough political cover for them to do it. Extending the analogy, a business that becomes cash-rich is failing its purpose because it's not finding any more productive use for that money than leaving it in cash. The value of the Rose's collection outgrew the value the Rose provides to the University, and the Board is making precisely the long-term vision-focused decision we want them to make in the abstract: reallocating its assets to the most productive uses possible. It may seem unfair, because the Rose has done nothing wrong and has only gotten better and more effective at pursuing its charter over time. But as its collection grew, the opportunity-cost of keeping that collection in place grew too. Today, the value of injecting a quarter billion or more dollars into the endowment is absolutely a more productive use of those funds. Many other departments can achieve a lot more bang for the buck in terms of contributions to students and to human knowledge, and the Board would be derelict of its duty if it didn't recognize and act upon that reality. In my own view, they've been derelict for not dismantling the Rose ever since the value of its collection more than doubled in the 1990s, but I understand that it took a global financial crisis before they could muster the political will to act upon it. In that respect, the supporters of the Rose have already had an enormous impact.

Done with it's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:05:00 GMT

Posted: 2/03/09 @ 1:05 AM EST
By: Done with it

Originally posted by: Done with it
[snip]

[/snip]

Excellent, Michael. The political perspective helps come to grips with the probable outcome. So shall the War of the Rose finally close in 2009, after all these years. Remember to name the endownment after it.

LV's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:32:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 11:32 AM EST
By: LV

What's so disappointing about this whole fiasco as that the administration, as is so typical of them, made this Enormous decision as quietly as possible without asking any input from the community. They clearly knew this would stir a tremendous amount of controversy. "Truth, even unto its innermost parts" indeed.

JR's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:37:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 3:37 PM EST
By: JR

What seems lost in the discussion above is that the University faces a financial situation no different than that being faced by most other institutions of higher learning right now. The rest appear to be doing the wisest, most prudent thing - temporarily cutting back across the board until the economy recovers (and with it, their endowments). Why does this University think theirs is the wiser course?

Alum's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:50:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 3:50 PM EST
By: Alum

Originally posted by: JR
[snip]
What seems lost in the discussion above is that the University faces a financial situation no different than that being faced by most other institutions of higher learning right now. The rest appear to be doing the wisest, most prudent thing - temporarily cutting back across the board until the economy recovers (and with it, their endowments). Why does this University think theirs is the wiser course?
[/snip]

Because this University has always had a much smaller endowment relative to its size and research aspirations. Also, I think it's accurate to say its donor base has tended much more heavily than at other universities to want to donate to buildings and other facilities that will bear their name, rather than contributions to the endowment as such. That catches up with a place and makes it facility-rich and cash-poor. You can't compare Brandeis to other, wealthier institutions with far broader alumni bases.

Anonymous's Reply

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:19:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 6:19 PM EST
By: Anonymous

I think Jehuda, who makes $400,000 a year, should take a pay cut... maybe it will save a piece of artwork or two and maybe a professor's job!

Done with it's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:03:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 11:03 PM EST
By: Done with it

Originally posted by: Anonymous
[snip]
I think Jehuda, who makes $400,000 a year, should take a pay cut... maybe it will save a piece of artwork or two and maybe a professor's job!
[/snip]

$400,000 is already a pay cut, compared to what a university president can earn in private industry. Compare that with revenues Jehuda may have helped raised for the university since the 90's. I'm all for the Rose art museum, but we should avoid getting personal in a public forum.

Joe Alumnus's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:34:00 GMT

Posted: 2/02/09 @ 10:34 PM EST
By: Joe Alumnus

The Rose assets are hundreds of millions of dollars -- isn't that a disproportionate allocation of the University's assets at this point, which is the strengthen the University as whole and at a very difficult economic time for all? That much in assets for one area of the liberal arts? Is there no wisdom for mankind in the great books taught in the humanities, social sciences? Selfishness?

Duncan's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:13:00 GMT

Posted: 2/03/09 @ 1:13 AM EST
By: Duncan

Michael wrote: "It may seem unfair, because the Rose has done nothing wrong and has only gotten better and more effective at pursuing its charter over time. But as its collection grew, the opportunity-cost of keeping that collection in place grew too. Today, the value of injecting a quarter billion or more dollars into the endowment is absolutely a more productive use of those funds. Many other departments can achieve a lot more bang for the buck in terms of contributions to students and to human knowledge, and the Board would be derelict of its duty if it didn't recognize and act upon that reality. In my own view, they've been derelict for not dismantling the Rose ever since the value of its collection more than doubled in the 1990s, but I understand that it took a global financial crisis before they could muster the political will to act upon it. In that respect, the supporters of the Rose have already had an enormous impact. "

Michael: Museums, whether they are stand-alone, such as the MET (which does receive NYCity funding), Boston's MFA, or college museums such as the Rose, are NOT "opportunity cost" driven assests. One does NOT create a collection over the span of almost 50 years to provide operating monies for the university. (de-accession is allowed only to provide monies to add superior works to the collection). i I would think you might agree that one does NOT sell newly acquired science equipment, or rare books, etc, because it is valuable.

Your analogies show that you only understand current (and hopefully now out of date) business models: focus on the profit THIS month, THIS quarter, NOT what the company is setting the stage for over the next year, or, indeed years. We have seen what this "profit now" attitude has done to the world-wide stock-markets. No one is thinking beyond three months from now. Think about that. Having "cash" on hand in business used to be considered a good thing....for investment in infrastructure, in exploration, in development, as a cushion for the inevitable down times. Strong companies, strong universities and colleges used to have a rather small debt to capital ratio. Strong companies, strong universities and colleges (and especially colleges with smaller endowments) used to draw less than 5% of average value to pump up the endowment.

Colleges and universities do not place the value of their art collections on their balance sheets. Stand alone museums do not place the value of their collections on their balance sheets. A major pledge may be placed in restricted assests until it is in the permanent collection...then 'poof' you don't see the value on the books again.

So, no, the Rose did nothing wrong, and it should not be penalized for doing nothing wrong. The Rose received donations as any museum would, in the full expectation that what was built/created/collected in the first 48 years, would last through the first 50 years, 100 years, and beyond. THAT is/was the Rose's mission. Brandeis' administrations mission is NOT to raid the good work that the Rose did; the university's mission is to SUPPORT the museums mission.

My own college (alma-mater), Colby, is completing the receipt of a major American art collection worth well over $100 million. They will be building a wing to house the collection; they are using the new collection to EXPAND course works across academic disciplines; they are using the collection to bring in school-children who don't have a chance to see major works of art; they have become a major repository of the works of Whistler through this gift....this collection was formed over the past 25 years, and TRUST was required between the donors and the college...trust over two presidents, trust over three museum directors...trust that the collection would be available to not only the college students, but for the state, and indeed, the nation.

Other collectors (including one major international artist) are giving and purchasing works for the college's collection...not to create am "attractive asset to liquidate" as you so cavalierly expound; they are doing so to create one of the top collections of (primarily) American art in a liberal arts college. Each of the major collectors have mentioned that they will not stop collecting and giving because they expect the museum (currently at over 6,000 works) to continue to grow, both in terms of the permanent collection and in gallery space. All of these collectors are happy to be part of a team...they feed off of each other.

As with the Rose, this college museum has it's own board of governors. Perhaps unlike the Rose, the board has members of the art department staff, the chair of the colleg board of trustees, and others, as ex-officio members.

However, unlike Brandeis, the board of trustees of the college, and the president do NOT view the museum as something that can be "liquidated" as needed. My alma-mater believes and subscribes to the code of ethics of the major accrediting groups. My college believes, if there is a controversy on campus, to bring ALL the stakeholders to the table; they would NEVER have decided to close the museum without having the museum director and board involved. Nor would ANY of their peer museums and colleges. Bowdoin has had an art collection since Mr. Bowdoin presented them with one hundred drawings in 1811; they have had a museum since 1898 or so. Yale began it's art collection by building a building to house Trumbull's art in the early 19th century,in addition to paying Trumbell a (costly) annuity. Today the Bowdoin collection is over 16,000 works and is housed in the original building, recently renovated and expanded in a $20 million program. Yale is also renovating and expanding, and from a few dozen Trumbell works in the 1830's is now over 185,000 works across all major disciplines. Would Amherst, Smith, Mt. Holyoke and Williams think of doing such a thing as "pulling a Brandeis"? I think you know, Michael, that the is is unreservedly NO!

My own college has grown from 100 or so works in the mid-1950's to over 6,000 works, in gallery space that was expanded three times in the 1990's, with another expansion in the planning stages.

Despite economic ups and downs, which do occur somewhat regularly, none of these colleges and universities have considered selling all or part of their collections to balance the budget. No, instead, they have cultivated their alumni, and, in many cases, friends; they have created collections that are seen not only by the college students, but also the youngsters and school children in their geographic area. They have become their own local "Museum of Fine Arts" for those who cannot attend the MFA in Boston, or Houston, or the MET or MoMA in New York.

My own college's collection of the works of John Marin are second only to the National Gallery. Their collection of prints and drawings of Richard Serra are second only to MoMA. Their collection of the works of Alex Katz are the largest in the world.

My college, Colby, and it's peers and it's peers in the Ivy League are certainly not looking at their collections as fungible assests. Nor should they. They all know that their fiduciary responsibilities as trustees include keeping assests such as art available for the use of their students, and the people near and far for study and enjoyment.

One of my favorite cartoons in my college weekly, showed the president crying and wringing his hands over a bag of money worth $1.7 million ....because that was the cost of a dorm Colby was building and that bag of money was $1.7 million bequest to purchase art. The dorm was built, and despite many donations for various rooms and function halls, it never received a "naming" gift.

The $1.7 million gift for art purchases was put into the endowment, and has over 22-plus years grown (before the stock debacle) to $10 million.

So, Michael, with the exception of the Brandeis leaderhip, I would say that all the museum directors and their college/university boards would NEVER comtemplate "pulling a Brandeis".

These colleges and universities, who are ruled by folks who are in business, banks, law, medicine and other professions do understand the current fiscal crisis and are working to deal with the issues. NONE have called on their museums to sell all or part of their collections. NONE.

As you say, this may be the moment for the Brandeis trustees to accomplish their goalo of using the Rose as a cash cow. Now that Mr. Foster is dead, that may lessen the board's restraint. That does NOT absolve the board, and the president and provost, from the disgust that is rightfully being hurled their way.

Dave '08's Reply

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:03:00 GMT

Posted: 2/03/09 @ 2:03 AM EST
By: Dave '08

A few comments for the peanut gallery. Here's the problem with the pro-sale members of the audience: they think that the artwork will actually make Brandeis money. The reality is even if it did, it would be too little, too late. Do you know how long it takes to sell a piece of artwork? I'll give you a hint -- it's to the tune of two to three years. (And guess what? They'll receive HALF of the art's value IF THEY'RE LUCKY!) So regardless of Brandeis' intentions, they're going to have to cut elsewhere before they can get the Rose money -- it seems like a fruitless pursuit.

John Farr '08's suggestion, buried under the posts of frantic philistines who belittle art because -- wait for it -- they can't contribute any of their own, wasn't a terrible one. The Rose Art Museum is best known for its American artwork, but as an alum I can tell you there are several pieces that do not fit in with the Rose's core mission, and are rarely, if ever, shown to the public. As unethical as it might be, if the university is truly in dire straits -- and if so, they need to do a bit more internal restructuring (Jehuda! Peter French!) before they start selling Andy Warhols -- sell a handful of paintings. If three paintings can get you $7 million, and Brandeis is $10 in the whole, sell five from storage and save the museum.

Unfortunately, Brandeis has been so fixated on the almighty dollar that they've failed to register the long-term battle. Happy alumni make for high endowments. But Brandeis seems content on cutting costs, misappropriating funds (the Shapiro Campus Center was so ill-used that additional campus meeting spaces were built in the Village, which was so runty that a whole new Ridgewood had to be built... and that's not even looking at the Hiatt Career Center, worthless sinkhole that they are), not to mention the constant alienating the very students who could build this place up -- and yes, I'm looking at you, Matthew Magida, who threatened to put students on probation for speaking out about this -- Brandeis painted itself into a corner, earning the support of only a few wealthy donors instead of a cohesive whole. And now that the Shapiros are down due to the Madoff scandal, where can Brandeis turn?

Boy, it's like they want to devalue my education once a semester. No press is bad press, eh, Jehuda?

Cat Laughlin's Reply

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:48:00 GMT

Posted: 3/19/09 @ 5:48 PM EST
By: Cat Laughlin

I am floored! I had a private tour of the museum years ago and fell in love. The collection at the Rose is so important to New England and the art world in general. To see all of these important works be sold to a private owners would ruin the idea that all of these works were donated to the Rose to be seen by the world. It would be a sad sad day for Art is this happens.

clopha deshotel's Reply

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:44:00 GMT

Posted: 4/18/09 @ 9:44 AM EST
By: clopha deshotel

Many art museums and galleries work with medical schools in the training of Doctors. Not sure how many work with the training of Nurses, so Brandeis could look into this to raise money. I have no ideas on how you would do that, but you should be smart enough to figure out the details.