I am not a huge art person. I can certainly appreciate some nice pieces here and there, but standing around in an art museum or gallery for hours is not my idea of fun. Nevertheless, I figured that the reopening of the Rose Art Museum last week was a big enough deal that I had better go.It turned out that it was a bigger deal than I thought, although I didn't find that out until later.

When I arrived at the opening, a jazz band was playing some bouncy tunes; waiters in tuxedos were scurrying about handing out wine, cheese and crackers; and people were alternately mingling and admiring the art. I noticed that many students and faculty were sporting buttons that declared "Save the Rose," but I didn't think much of them. It seemed to me that by being at the opening, people were already making the statement that they wanted the Rose to remain open. As far as I could tell, the buttons were just another means for people to express their opinion on the matter, but I didn't think they were inappropriate or disruptive in the least.

Apparently, I was wrong. That "big deal" I heard about later turned out not to be about the actual opening. Instead, it was about those "Save the Rose" buttons. Although I didn't witness any of the controversy myself, Prof. Shula Reinharz (SOC) was reportedly going around asking people to remove their buttons, and in some cases she was accused of using "coercion" in her requests.

I was really very surprised when I heard about these incidents. In last week's issue of the Justice, Reinharz was quoted as saying that the buttons were "misleading and detrimental" to the opening. Of course, it isn't surprising that Reinharz saw these buttons as "detrimental," especially since they could have been interpreted as shedding a bad light on University President Jehuda Reinharz, to whom she is married, and the Board of Trustees' decision to close the Rose. What is surprising is that Reinharz was bold enough to tell students and faculty members that the expression of their opinions was "detrimental" to the event, especially when the buttons seemed to be the least disruptive form of protest possible. As far as I could tell, the whole evening was quite enjoyable for the majority of people in attendance, and the buttons certainly took nothing away from the experience. In fact, Reinharz, as well as the wife of a member of the Board of Trustees, seemed to be the only ones to get worked up about the buttons.

To be fair, Reinharz certainly had a right to be upset about the buttons. As she said in an interview with the Justice for last week's article, in her opinion, "the Rose is saved." Although the lawsuit against Brandeis is still pending, it does seem that the majority of the controversy has passed. It is understandable that Reinharz would not want to see "Save the Rose" buttons, especially at the reopening of the museum. It is equally as understandable that Reinharz wanted to, and did, express her opinion on the display of these buttons. But what is not understandable is that Reinharz's expression of her own opinion was also an attempt to suppress the expression of others. To many students and faculty, the possibility of paintings being sold is still a huge concern even if the museum remainS open, and they have as much of a right to express their dissent as Reinharz had to express hers. The fact that Reinharz made any attempt to quiet the already silent protest was unacceptable.

To some, particularly those who are not concerned with the Rose, Reinharz's actions at the Rose opening might seem trite and unimportant. After all, she only asked some people to remove their buttons. But if we take these actions out of context, the implications are important and a little disturbing. Living in a country like the United States and going to a school like Brandeis, we sometimes take our unrestrained right to freedom of expression for granted. Whether we are protesting quietly, like those who wore the "Save the Rose" buttons, or marching in the streets, our right to express ourselves is one of the most valuable rights we have. Without our voices, it is unlikely that changes in our favor would ever be made. We need only look at our student counterparts elsewhere in the world to remember that not everyone has the same freedom of expression that we do, and not everyone is able to use this expression as a catalyst for change. So whether we think the Rose is still at risk or not, we should be supportive of the expression of opinions that took place at the Rose opening. And furthermore, we should condemn any attempts to suppress that expression.