Faculty ask to put off closing Rose Art Museum for a year
Twenty-two professors signed a letter written to Provost Marty Krauss and the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum last Tuesday recommending that the administration impose a moratorium on closing the Rose for one year, according to Prof. Nancy Scott (FA).The letter, written by Prof. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH), urges the committee to "recommend to the administration that, at a minimum, the Rose Art Museum should stay open as a public art museum, at its current level of professional staffing and continuing to mount high-quality exhibitions, until at least June 30, 2010."
Schattschneider told the Justice that she began this initiative because she believes there needs to be more time to consider all options regarding the museum. "There is concern that we are rushing into a decision without due consideration," Schattschneider explained.
Schattschneider said that she was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a moratorium, but could not make any predictions.
Scott, who signed the letter, said that she learned of the letter through e-mail. Like Schattschneider, Scott said that delaying decisions about the museum for a year would help ensure a well thought-out decision about the matter and would give the faculty more time to digest the report by the Committee on the Future of the Rose.
"In the best possible scenario, the committee meeting this spring delivers a report that the larger faculty has time to discuss. The way things are going, the Rose is closing on June 30. That potentially only gives us the month of final exams and graduation to decide if we are going to push to keep the Rose open and how we are going to do it because there is not a good budget plan without selling paintings. The intent of [the] letter was to give another year to the public existence of the Rose so all recommendations currently coming in by the committee will be made in a more sober fashion," Scott explained.
"I hope the provost takes this letter seriously in light of our concerns about how much will be cut off short with a very uncertain future," Scott said. "I hope she will also realize that from a practical standpoint, the faculty cannot invent new programs to take the place of the old between the end of this academic year and next fall and will lose a year of Fine Arts programming," she said.
Krauss could not be reached for comment in response to the letter before press time .
Scott said she was very concerned about educational programming at the Rose and added the section of the letter that expresses the concern that students normally seeking to pre-enroll for fall internships at the Rose now have no such option and that educational programming at the Rose, including that funded by the endowed Starr and Warner internships, is now in jeopardy.
"The faculty was excluded from the initial process of decision making about the Rose, and we are trying to reignite the process," she said, adding, "I think it is very important for the faculty to speak out."
The letter was sent after Prof. Robert Meyer (PHYS) withdrew his proposal to keep the Rose open as a public museum. Meyer's proposal, presented at the March 12 faculty meeting, called for the faculty to support the resolution "that the Rose Art Museum shall remain open as it is, a fully functional public art museum, with the provision that the University may, only as necessary for its financial well-being, sell selected items of art from its collection. Moreover, that this resolution of the faculty shall be widely publicized to help restore public confidence in the University."
Meyer wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the proposal was postponed at the meeting until the Committee on the Future of the Rose made its report. The faculty voted 35-22 with 23 abstentions to renew Meyer's resolution and open up discussion about the Rose. As a result of the discussion, the faculty voted to amend the proposal to remove the parts about selling the paintings and restoring public confidence in Brandeis.
Scott said that, while she supported the idea behind the resolution, she was unable to support Meyer's initial proposal because it mentioned the possibility of selling paintings.
While Meyer ultimately withdrew his proposal, saying that he had "heard enough" of the discussion of faculty members' opinions abut the Rose Art Museum, he said in an interview with the Justice that both Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe and Joe Baerlein of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, Inc., the University's temporary public relations firm, tried to discourage him from proposing his motion because they believed it could potentially cause negative publicity.
"[Jaffe] tried to talk me out of making this motion, saying that the story could get national headlines and would sound like a terrible conflict between the faculty and the administration and would make the faculty seem rebellious," Meyer said.
Baerlein said in a phone interview with the Justice that he was not discouraging Meyer from making his proposal but that he did not think he should make it before the Committee on the Future of the Rose had even met.
"As a distinguished professor, I feel that Meyer can provide a lot of perspective as to what the committee should look at, and I thought his voice along with other experienced faculty, could be important in shaping the final outcome of the Rose. The idea of putting the proposal forth would have negated future discussion about the museum, and I suggested that it was premature for him to put forth the proposal before the committee met," Baerlein said.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.