Museum director assails Brandeis' plans

OK. Of course the museum director is upset. He will be losing his job and that's too bad. But, given Brandeis' economic hardship, what should they eliminate? The dining halls? Professors? Athletic teams? Selling the art makes sense. It is a liquid asset and one that the the college can eliminate without changing the fundamental nature of the institution. Once they are again flush with cash, they can buy more art. In the meantime, the Greater Boston area has many fine museums that would welcome more attention from Brandeis' students. Do I hear 200 million??!!

What does it mean when he says:
"...and most of the great works we have, we are just not able to exhibit."

Why can't they be exhibited? Were you waiting for Tisha Bav?

So we should close the college and keep the Rose open? The mission of the college is to educate our youth, and the Board should take whatever reasonable steps necessary to secure it's future. It does seem that a compromise could be reached that will ensure both entities. Sell a portion of the artwork that will acomplish most of the goal

It seems like the Financial folks have not thought this through. Of course, selling art work would generate cash for the School. However, have they considered that selling art work donated to the school or purchased through donor funds goes against the wish of the donors? It's not as simple as sending the art work to a auction dealer when the donor's intent was to clearly have it at the school's museum not sitting around for a rainy day.

Brandeis is not in AT ALL IN SUCH an ailing financial situation. Its current endowment is "US $691.4 million;" with many multi-million state-of-the-art brand new buildings' constructions all over the campus. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE EVERYONE STOP ALL THIS NON-SENSE.

Who cares...

Selling the art is short sighted at best. You couldn't pick a worse time to sell art and will not get a respectable return on such a one of a kind asset. Yes, you can by art again when the school has more cash but you will not be able to buy the same unique pieces which will be irreplaceable. what other assets does the school have to sell? How much property are they sitting on that they don't use, I wonder what the President of the school gets paid and what kind of pension plan is draining them. Sell those pieces and the only way you will ever see them again........is if you visit some wealthly Japanese business man!!

Whether we keep or close the Rose. Brandeis is and will continue to be one of the most prestigious and world class university and educational institution in the whole world. Its the best of the very best and will always continue to be the best of the very best!!!!!

Why not look to a private institution that could potentially take over the museum operations while still keeping it a part of Brandeis? The publicity alone will bring more visitors and ticket sales, and the sponsor will get some great name recognition. Or if the museum is loosing money with day-to-day operations, then why not shut it down in the near term and keep the art?

Flex Tuning,

Why can't Brandeis eliminate athletics and save the museum? Is being a dumb jock more important than being an art-educated scholar? What are you, from Saugus?

Any person who has made a donation of art to a University expects that art work to reside at the University. It should not be sold. Family members should seek injunctions to prevent the University from selling these works of art. The University should work with the Museum Board for alternative ways to ensure the collection is kept whole and seek other options to become more financially fluid.

Maccabee - Most, maybe all, museums have far more work than they can display because of gallery size constraints (and, in all honesty, because not all art is created equal, but there's often little you can do with an old donation). The rest of the work is kept in storage, hopefully to be put into revolving shows at the museum, or loaned out as part of traveling exhibits. For example, I believe that only about 5% of the holdings of the Museum of Fine Arts are on display at any one time.

As for this decision, it is shocking and seems incredibly poorly planned. Obviously Brandeis is in dire straights, however, this is a public relations nightmare for the college. I can't imagine any parent encouraging their child to apply to a school which is obviously taking such a drastic and poorly thought out plan to raise money. Caliber of students will fall because of this, donations will fall because of this (who wants to give a donation to an institution which has a track record of ignoring intentions?) and Brandeis will be caught in a downward spiral. Surely there was another way.

The artwork in the Rose is legally owned by Brandeis, but was donated to the museum to be part of a well-thought out collection that could be used both to show and for educational purposes. The Rose has always run independently of the University - paying its own salaries and costs for its entire existence, as I understand it.

To acknowledge the tragedy of this situation is not the same as telling Brandeis to shut its doors. Indeed, I hope some donors step up to the plate to make the Rose closing unnecessary.

they should be required to return at no cost all donated pieces, after completing that they can hold a yard sale for not only the artworks but their pride and reputation. what does it say when an institution supposedly known for its business intelligence sells itself at the first sign of difficult times.

Ok don’t get me wrong here , but there is something fundamentally wrong with a university being an art museum in the first place. University is academics and athletics.

Sure Art is part of the curriculum , however in the case of comparing and contrasting art to other curriculum Universities do not normally collect sports memorabilia and “hide” it because of its value, nor does the math dept have antique abacus, eniac’s or Crays randomly placed.

I do however agree that “common” items or things that a university has been specifically involved in creating or pioneering i.e. MIT’s technology museum be part of a display. Student art, when part of the curriculum should be well displayed as well

These were donations, many of which should be displayed and/or auctioned off for there “donations” value . To better the university. Not to hide somewhere collect dust and require curators and security. There is a cost burden associated to even possessing most of the stuff.

If Brandeis can get a couple hundred million dollars for selling a bunch of oversized comic book pages, neon lights, and red balloon bunches, I say go for it. The art museum (just like the book filled library) as we know it will not exist much longer as our virtual world expands.

If they can get $350 mil. for that Roy Lichtenstein crap, and close the budget gap, do it!

I'm totally with SaulAbrahamson on this one; Brandeis should keep only the best pieces which it can display, rather than holding onto a stockpile in the back room. The choice between keeping faculty and hoarding art that nobody sees is pretty obvious. It's unfortunate that the museum director has to fall back on the kind of emotional language he's using; it all just sounds a little short-sighted and hypocritical. Art has ALWAYS been a liquid asset, and no doubt some of the pieces in the collection were originally donated purely for tax reasons. Does that mean those pieces are "tainted goods marked with the blood of an ill-begotten action"? I hardly think so.

Reponding to #2: more likely, they own many more paintings than they have wall space to display (at one time). That's true for many art museums, not just this one.

The "Educators" that are sucking the life out of our local school systems and has pushed the cost of ALL colleges out of reach is the real debate here.
This is a sad reaction to all to common problem we will all be reading about quite regularly in the future

In other words, a lot of the art is not even on display for lack of space, security? And sits in a warehouse? And hardly anyone sees the rest of the art that is on display?

So one could see this as a two fold opportunity to raise much needed capitol and to allow the great works in the Rose collection to gain a wider audience?

"I want you to know from me some basic facts."

Wow, maybe I could get a job at Brandeis, although I don't speak Yoda, so they might have a hard tiem understanding me.

In the interest of full disclosure, the President of Brandeis should have come out and said, "Here is a list of other Brandeis 'assets' that we did consider selling at this time, in the order that they were considered...". Personally, I would have put the athletic program on the chopping block. You can do push-ups and run track any one of twelve million ways, but a Rembrandt or a Dali is irreplaceable.

Colleges & universities have a public obligation to display and maintain art which has been donated to their respoctive museums for the purpose of sharing art with the world. When an institution of higher learning abrogates that covenant, doners will definitely think twice before committing their priceless artworks to museums that may be closed due to financial constraints. That will leave the public bereft of the level of quality cultural experiences that cannot be duplicated by mass appeal sources of entertainment. The Rose Art Museum may not have been on everyone's minds before this proposal surfaced, but that fact does not negate the negative impact closing the museum and dispersing it's collection will cause the art world in general and Boston's art community in particular. This decision needs to be rethought before real harm is permanently done.

I hope that behind the scenes Michael Rush and others that are intimately familar with this collection are taking actions to make sure that sales keep as much integrity to the collection as possible. We have been reading that the Brandeis community of administrators, staff, faculty and students have been preparing for changes in attempt to be flexible under the strain of economic challenges. It is entirely appropriate that supporters of the Rose taken similar measures.

Michael,

How can we miss you if you won't go away?

Unfortunately, this action will certainly damage the College's relationship with donors. People didn't give art to the Museum believing that it would become part of a fire sale. In addition, how easy will it be to unload all that art in this economy? Doesn't seem like a good time to sell. I wonder if they plan to maintain some of the collection for educational purposes. Art is not peripheral to core academic subjects after all. It is instructive in history, sociology, mathematics, science, etc.

I'd love to see some numbers on this "low foot traffic" they have.....notice the operator of the museum never mentions this fact.

Glad I did not donate art to them.

Museum directors are so important and have such tough jobs!!

I work at Brandeis and can tell you the museum does not get the traffic and attention that justifies all this press and fuss. I also object to this guy using University resources to criticize a University decision (one can exercise free speech but submitting his opinions via the University website is stepping over the line). In the real world we don't all get a vote in the decisions our supervisors make. The University chose it's students, faculty, and staff over some it's "stuff" as someone trying to make a living in a tough economy, I think that is the right decision. By the way, this guy could and should be let go as of now- we don't need to be spending our money so he can badmouth the University on University time in University venues.

*****"Of course the museum director is upset. He will be losing his job and that's too bad. But, given Brandeis' economic hardship, what should they eliminate? The dining halls? Professors? Athletic teams? Selling the art makes sense."*****

Or, at least selling some of it. I don't understand why -- if it allows the university to refrain from laying off professors or skimping on lab budgets -- Brandeis couldn't raise some cash via a sale of a piece (say, one-third) of it collection. Perhaps it might even mortgage some of the collection and sell it when the art market has recovered. My point is 2/3rds of Brandeis's collection would STILL be a large and impressive collection -- and they could start building it again when the economy improves.

A couple of comments on the comments below. I think the director was implying some (many? all?) of the items were donated to the SCHOOL. If you donated your Rembrandt to the school, you might not appreciate the school selling it to someone 10 years later.

Also, in terms of not being able to exhibit all of the works - the works may be very large, or may be fragile and require certain conditions and the school may not have the space or the funds to accomodate. Most museums have far more pieces than they routinely display.

How cynical to suggest the director is only upset because he will lose a job. Jeez! I think it is rather shocking that the Rose Museum staff wasn't included in the deliberations. Their perspective is important. I'm not saying they should get whatever they want, but certainly the director should be included in the decision.
I can understand that Brandeis is in a tough position. But, it sounds to me like they could have handled this much, much better than they did.

Brilliant. Sell off all your assets while the market is down, instead of borrowing money at 1.5%. How about actually promoting membership and attendance? ever think of that?
There's a reason I don't belong to the alumni association, and Reiharz is a big part of it.

Comment 3 (Saul) makes a lot of sense. I highly doubt Brandeis needs $350,000,000 to solve their budget crisis.

Why not auction a few pieces to fulfill their financial needs, but not destroy the Rose?

They'll need to find BUYERS for the stupid art first...good luck to all involved.

yes, eliminate the athletic teams! brandeis is a third-tier athletic school, and doesn't even have a football team.

For any art that was bought, then I guess it is Brandeis' right to sell it. However, for art that was donated, I just don't think it's right to sell it off.

This guy is living in a dream world. First, most of the "treasures" cannot be exhibited. Next, most places do not consult with the people whose job group is being eliminated. ( duh, wonder why). Third, it is well established that donors relinquish control, once the donation is made, so they really do not have a say in what happens once the donation has been legally completed. "Deep regret over the... decision?" Well me thinks even greater regret that he has to look for another job as cushy as his, particularly in this environment. Brandeis is a great instution of Higher Education. It is more important for it to remain academically competitive. It made the most responsible choice, including getting rid of the person who does not understand what Higher Education is really about. Perhaps Mr.

Stop all that non-sense and leave this WONDERFUL INSTITUTION ALONE; whether it decides to keep the Rose open or closed. Brandeis with or without the Rose will always remain one of the most prestigious institution in the academic world.

Gosh, the nerve of the President and Trustees to not include the Director in discussions. Surely he would have agreed that the museum should be closed and art sold to fill other more pressing financial needs at the university.

What's next? An article informing us about how irrate the toll collectors will be if the tolls are all automated or done away with?

The Art Director has a very good point. The artwork given to Brandeis was given to Brandeis not to be sold. If those donors wanted to sell the artwork, they could have done it themselves. If Brandeis is really going to shut down unless it closes the Rose and sells the artwork, then they need to be talking salary cuts and cuts across the board--including athletics (varsity teams could be converted to club teams)-- not just, "Well, we care the least about the artwork." Selling the artwork sends the wrong message in so many ways.

The fact is, in these economic times--there is not going to be much, if any, of a market for pricey art. At a minimum, the art will be sold for considerably less than its value.

I highly doubt that the art can be disposed of as a liquid asset. When a donor gives a gift, be it money or something like an art piece, there are stipulations. I work at Harvard...one of the common misunderstandings is that most of the money comes with severe restrictions and cannot just be used as the University pleases.

Certainly, if the museum must be closed in the interim to save money, that is one possibility. However, before taking the step to sell off the art works (if it can even legally be done) all other capital spending, pay increases, new job postings, extra activities, catering, expensive travel must go first. Here where I work, there is economy travel only, reduced catering, closed facilitites, hiring freezes, pay freezes, etc. Layoffs is the absolute last resort.

Yes, the athletic teams can be cut as I am sure they are not in the same echelon as BC, Michigan State, Holy Cross, UGA, or any other well-known national college sports teams. There are some sports programs that the student body can pursue on their own like soccer and still keep their educational standards at a high.level.
What other programs could be cut and/or shared like the campuses in the Berkshire/Western MA area? Art and its contribution to the culture at large needs to be supported and the alumni should be more supportive and look to having the collection given more exposure to the public at large. Rotating exhibits is the way to solve this with an admission fee to cover expenses from visitors. Take a good hard look at what programs can go online and cut back on salary/staff if necessary. Online education is not only the way of the future; it is a reality for many well-known institutions. Look at what MIT is offering....Think outside of the politics on campus and save the soul of the school. It is a true travesty that the donors who gave towards the school collection thought it would be a gift in perpetuity and now the gifts are being treated so shabbily. If the financial decsion makers who made such poor investments in the past were let go, that would be a good first step too.i

Normally, I would say that wealthy alumni should step in and come to the rescue of the university and museum. However, the greed of those well-heeled individuals led to them to seek unrealistically inflated returns and now many of them are also victims of the Maddof infamy.

If I had his job, I would complain too. Where will he work if they close this museum. A little self preservation here maybe.

How many millions of dollars does Brandeis have in it's endowment? I think they can probably afford to keep their artwork. I would be upset if I donated my priceless Warhol to my alma mater and then saw they put it on eBay.

Instead they could close their dining halls and force students to order food from local businesses. Everyone in Waltham wins.

Flex - In response to your question - YES, eliminate the athletic teams and close the gym. There are many other ways for students to exercise and work as teamsain, and remain fit and healthy.

If I had his job, I would complain too. Where will he work if they close this museum. A little self preservation here maybe.

Other than the art itself, what is the loss to the University? Prestige? Scholarship? What exactly will the University lose, other than the art, by closing the museum. And what are the alternatives? By keeping it, will they retain a very good art Museum (in a city with a great Art Museum) at the expense of 50% of their TA and TF positions. Will they have to decimate their PhD programs? Because the questio is not should they keep the museum. The question is, what should they cut instead of the museum.

Other than the art itself, what is the loss to the University? Prestige? Scholarship? What exactly will the University lose, other than the art, by closing the museum. And what are the alternatives? By keeping it, will they retain a very good art Museum (in a city with a great Art Museum) at the expense of 50% of their TA and TF positions. Will they have to decimate their PhD programs? Because the questio is not should they keep the museum. The question is, what should they cut instead of the museum.

Can anyone explain how you can run into financial difficulties by charging $50/hr per student in a classroom and renting out dorm real estate at the rate of $500 per month per 100 sq. feet? (By the way everything above is tax exempt)
The Rose is just a smoke screen before raising the fees again to cover pure management.

Can anyone explain how you can run into financial difficulties by charging $50/hr per student in a classroom and renting out dorm real estate at the rate of $500 per month per 100 sq. feet? (By the way everything above is tax exempt)
The Rose is just a smoke screen before raising the fees again to cover pure management.

Glad to see the readers have an appreciation for fine arts and culture. A museum is not just a place to go and rate how much you like a painting or not. It is a place to go and appreciate the different perspectives we as humans have to offer and to grow individually while expanding both taste and knowledge. I am sure the school is in dire straights with the economy and ponzi scheme, but to sell of precious pieces of work is simply an act of prostitution to make up for the ignorant and greedy acts of teh donors of the campus. try looking hard and fast within other areas of the school to begin to cut prior to eliminating arts.

Flex Tuning,

Here's a hint: do away with athletics and keep the museum and its collection. It's always art/libraries that have to go first, before the dumb jocks, isn't it?

Flex Tuning,

well, why **not** cancel the athletic program? Are you judging the worth of sports to be that of more importance than art?

If the director of the museum generated revenue from the collection, it would not be sold. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art, should generate some revenue from ticket sales. The art belongs to the Univ, not the director.

Academics and ego's.The people who were not informed beforehand seem angry and slighted.The real deal is the survival of the school.Tough decisions aren't popular,the school president is doing his job.

The artwork belongs to the University, not the Director. If the director had generated revenue from the Artwork, from exibits, or by loaning it out, this would not have happened. Before the threat to sell, how many people even knew about this museum?

Reindeer Girl - I take exception to the statement: "Is being a dumb jock more important than being an art-educated scholar?" What a false choice - and I hardly believe that any athlete at Brandeis could ever be considered a "dumb jock." This is a sad, financial reality for Brandeis.

But, pitting athletics against art is ridiculous. Athletes, especially athletes in non-traditional sports, who have the opportunity to attend an exceptional place like Brandeis and contribute to the overall campus success simply are far more important than some moldy art festering in a back room.

What seems to get lost in this discussion is that the University faces a financial situation that is no different than that being faced by other institutions of higher learning right now. Most appear to be doing the wisest, most prudent thing - temporarily cutting back across the board until the economy recovers (and with it, their endowments). Closing the Museum and selling off the collection is a knee-jerk reaction, and bad management.

Reindeergirl,
It's time that those for whom art is a passion, to stop considering themselves to be superior to those who don't. Somehow, somewhere along the line, people began to equate great culture (art, music, literature) with a great society.
Physical ability, intellectual ability, artistic ability --- these are all gifts from God. None are superior to others.
Looking down your nose at "jocks" and assuming them to be intellectually inferior only makes you look like a snob. And people have very little sympathy for snobbery.

As a Brandeis alum I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the direction the University is taking. I find it curious that President Reinharz has not contacted the rank and file alumni regarding the endowment issue. I understand that many of the benefactors lost money by "investing" with Bernie Madoff, but what about the University? How much money did the University itself lose to Madoff? And, more importantly, how will it protect its endowment in the future?

I have a collection of historical artifacts that I was going to donate to the State Museum. They are worth $20K. Now, I am definately rethinking this decision. If this is to be a precedent for what will happen to donations, count me out.

What product(s) does Brandeis University offer for them to succumb to recession? They just use recession for an excuse to eliminate the art gallery that is all.

The issue of whether Brandeis has a right to sell off donated assets (which, in this case, happen to be works of art) is tangential to the real issues: fiscal mismanagement and poor communicationsabout how assets are administered. It will have crucial long-term ramifications because nobody will make future donations to Brandeis without securing iron-clad legal guarantees of how that money will be spent and overseen. Forget the art for a second: who will be willing to donate money for new buildings, endow new Chairs, or give any securities to a university that has so shockingly and cavalierly decided on a precipitous course of action? The Board of Governors needs to be reconstituted immediately.

Jasper Johns is just the height of silliness. I doubt something like that has any kind of staying power vis a vis a Renoir or even something else not-so-great artistically like a Mondrian. I mean it's basically just nihilism, "we're going to protest against the limitations of art by declaring something that is not art as art." Nobody is going to care about that in 50 years.Very likely stuff like that hit its all-time peak last year.

HUH? Short-Sighted? Donor Expectation?

Did these Donors REFUSE the Tax Breaks they received when they donated the art? Did they impose restrictions? Will this sold Art be subsequently lost - gone from the face of the earth forever? WHERE is the disaster? WHO suffers actual harm? THIS ART WILL NOT BE LOST OR DESTROYED, people - it will merely change hands, just as it did when donated.

Almost certainly the Art will end up in a BETTER, MORE SUITABLE HOME - fully fulfilling the so-called altruistic goals of the donors (that the art benefit all by being accessible, yada yada yada); and the ROSE profits be re-generated into invaluable and TRUE ART: Intellectual Capital of Human Beings (aka, Brandeis Students - Direct Beneficiaries). Newsflash is that Art Donation is a mutually beneficial transaction just like any other and BOTH parties have rights and responsibilities. The Museum is excersising a LEGAL RIGHT, a right which each and every Donor was fully aware (or Should Have Been) when they made the donation - you see, that's why they got such a huge tax break BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE DONATED ART. It's immensely disingenuous for them to now argue any differently...

Solution is simple: Require any purchaser to fulfill the goals of the Museum and Donors - you see, these goals can be easily achieved, just not by the ROSE.

"Whether we keep or close the Rose. Brandeis is and will continue to be one of the most prestigious and world class university and educational institution in the whole world. Its the best of the very best and will always continue to be the best of the very best!!!!!" What a joke.

Reindeergirl - stop posting. Sports, if you like it or not, are much more popular in this country than an art display in Waltham, MA. Get over it.

For everyone questioning why the school isn't just selling some of their art, the answer is that it's quite complicated. Most of this artwork was donated with pretty strict stipulations. Usually that the art must be "for public display" or "can only be sold to a similar institution" or even just that it can never be sold.

Of course, there have to be legal loopholes: museums do close. Despite these stipulations, anything goes for the collection if an entire museum shuts down. That is why the whole museum will need to be shuttered, and all of the art sold: it's all or nothing.

It's still an awful idea, though. I definitely agree with everyone who points out that the art market is in the gutter... they won't be able to get very much right now.

"Ok don’t get me wrong here , but there is something fundamentally wrong with a university being an art museum in the first place. University is academics and athletics."

That is the most frighteningly ignorant comment I have seen in a loooong time. And believe me, it has some competition.

Those commenting on how typical it is for the museum director to be grousing since he's going to be out of a job are naive and/or cynical. This is a brilliant man who is devoted to the arts. He will be offered another position by numbers of museums now vacant of a director. Museums are crying to be led by impassioned brilliant leaders and promotersof art and its values. Also: The AAM and AAMD regulations impose restrictions and penalties when a museum mismanages its mandate by selling off art for any reason other than for the acquiring of more/other artworks. In non-for-profit institutional setting art can't be considered entirely as other assets are, as liquidity, which is in a sense what

makes it art in the first place.

I think the real problem lies with donors. Many big donors to Brandeis and other colleges want specific things done with the money.

They don't want to give $50 million and have it spread around. They want their name on a building.

So the gift ends up taking the form of a contract: The university must agree to do certain things with it (or not do certain things with it), or it won't get it. So, for example, Brandeis ended up using a $150 million or so gift on a new student center that was entirely unnecessary - there already was a student center. Had it been invested wisely (or even lazily , in treasury bonds), Brandeis would not need to sell off its art.

Lesson: If you're going to give money to your university, just GIVE it. Don't try to control your gift, because you end up screwing the beneficies.

CYA, Man, CYA. Ofcourse you will cry, What will you do for a job.

wouldn't it make more sense to cut all programs across the board so the various interest groups share in the "pain". I would rather see the Rose cut but can understand why "art lovers" would rather see the athletics cut. It is not a time to be parochial about this.

How come most people have only just heard of the Rose Museum? What did this museum director do exactly? Check out his resume, his last job which was in Florida, was a modern art gallery. That gallery went out of business too. Mr. Rush seems to have a knack of closing things down. Maybe his next job should be with Circuit City.

I agree with the first poster,viz., what else do you expect the Director to say,
and let me add that Brandeis has never had much appeal as a college
so maybe one really has to wonder why the school has stuck around
as long as it has.

reindeergirl,

Yes, Athletics ARE more important than art. A regular work out will make you healthier and live longer. I've never seen a painting save anyone's life.

Under the circumstances shouldn't every asset and liability that the University has be on the table. Pres. Reinharz was between a rock and a hard place. At the risk of his own reputation, because Brandeis' prestige with or without the art museum will remain intact, he was decisive. To be sure he learned lessons here that he will not repeat such as how to engage the students and most importantly how to handle the press. For me, It was not his decision that is the problem (although a private deal with an acceptable custodian seems to be a reasonable option to explore) but both the way it was transmitted and that he did not have a plan to deal with the aftermath of it.

As an alumin of the class of 1969, it does not surprise me that Mr. Reinharz is more interested in a business school than art. I always was proud that Brandeis did not have a law school, a business school or a medical school. Some of the commentators here have no idea what i'm talking about. Brandeis' greatest days, under Abe Sachar, who by the way knew how to raise a buck or two, featured a faculty and facilities that were mostly about ideas and turbulence. Turbulence in how we view the world.

I don't think anyone would suggest selling the architecture, or auctioning off specimen trees or furniture at Brandeis. So why is it alright to consider selling the paintings? Many of the pieces at the Rose were donated, some were purchased with money donated for that purpose, and some were even given as gifts by the artists.
America is in an economic crisis. Should we sell off the National Museum or say, the Statue of Liberty?
If the university is filled with such creative minds, why is this the best solution they could come up with?

"Here's a hint: do away with athletics and keep the museum and its collection. It's always art/libraries that have to go first, before the dumb jocks, isn't it?"

Yes, because the athletics program at a top 50 school in the country is just swimming with illiterate dumb jocks. I was a three season athlete at Tufts, a D-III college who competed with Brandeis in a number of sports. Some how my team of dumb jocks managed to produce more than a handful of Academic All-Americans, Fullbright Scholars, Doctors (both MD and PhD), lawyers, engineers, etc. Brandeis is no different. Students at these schools participate in sports for the friendships, the physical fitness, and a number of other reasons. I respect the role of art in the college environment, and am sick of the dumb jock comments.

Oh, and FYI...Brandeis currently has 10 varsity sports, and because of the financial crisis they are dropping 2 varsity sports (golf and sailing) at the end of the spring season. They are not immune from cuts either.

I thought the priority was to educate the students, not to collect contemporary art.

There's something fishy going on here, at least from what the Globe reported.

First, as quoted in the Globe, the university lied twice the day the sale was announce--first, claiming the state had approved the sale (it had not, and said so), and second, claiming there was an "outpouring" of support from alumni for the decision (which hadn't been publicly announced yet!).

Next day, the university says it might not sell the art, but still needs to close the museum. OK, you figure they want to cut operating expenses and salaries. But no--that has nothing to do with it. The weird thing is, the university doesn't even pay for the museum--it's self-funded. Only thing that Brandeis pays for is utilities. But the president says he's not going to close the building, so lights and heat stay on and there's no savings there. He's just going to close the museum, and maybe sell the art, and maybe not.

OK. So Brandeis is going to fire staff it doesn't pay for, keep paying utilities for the building, and maybe not sell the art anyway. Is the official story now not completely incredible? What's really going on here?

Almost makes you wonder whether there's some Madoff-type affair going on--whether somebody needs money fast to cover up a shaky deal that went south. Why doesn't the Globe investigate?

Why would one want to go to a school that can not keep its word to its donors?

If I went to Brandeis why would I want to donate, since the school can not manage its money properly and keep its word to its donors? Such an institution is not credible, and I wouldnt send my sons or daughters to such a place, regardless of reputation. Times are tough, but Brandeis is an academic institution...and if people are so smart there, then they would manage its money in a 'smart' way and protect itself in such a tough economy.

Excellent point "Another Dumb Jock". I was also a multi-sport athlete at a smaller college and was never a better student than when I was both a student and an athlete actively involved in a demanding sport. I learned time management skills and inter-personal relationship skills which I would not have learned had I only had to study, drink beer and chase women (I was a JV in both of those sports).

During the college years one is supposed to learn much about other people and cultures, as well as pure academics - lifetime skills. Not to mention that sports also provide significant income to many colleges through a lifetime interest from alumni. I agree completely with other commentary that selling art right now is a poor choice - kind of like selling real estate at the bottom of the market.

The museum director seems to think that the school is a democracy - it's not - it's ultimately a business as well as a school. He doesn't get a vote. I'm guessing that their endowment has seen significant shrinkage due the turbulence on Wall St. as well as potentially some major exposure with Madoff. That combination is deadly as they most likely rely on dividends to fund a significant part of either their operating budget or capex budget.

They're in a tough place, like a lot of other non-profits.

Best of luck to them - if people around Boston weren't so elitist thinking that only Harvard or MIT count, they'd realize what great schools Brandeis, Tufts, Bentley and Babson are - they're first rate, to be sure.

Other than that, I have no opinion.

We who protest sacrificing the Rose Art Museum might offer sums of money great and small that Brandeis might replenish its endowment. So why not each one of us send a check to President Reinharz? Tomorrow, I will do my part my sending a check for 25 dollars which is what I can afford.

Personnaly I have a ton of trouble wondering why ANY college or university in Mass. is having trouble with cash flow, they are all tax exempt and the tuition fees are outraegous and should be more that enough to cover all of the bloated administration staffing that they pompously throw at us.
These people live in a bubble and have no clue what's going on outside of their oak doors.
When their endowement funds get to ONLY nine figures they think they are on the verge of collapse.

There's a reason why schools like Brandeis are called "liberal Arts" schools and not "liberal athletics" schools. That's why we can study Art History as a major, but studying Sports History would just be ridiculous. Art in a university museum serves important educational purposes, just like a library or film archive.
Also, if the art is sold to private collectors, they might leave the country and never be shown in public again.

It is very disappointing to read some of the views on art here. It is hard for me to comprehend how undervalued visual art is in today's society.

These people are charging thousands of dollars a year to educate our children?? That's scary !

Brandeis is not in AT ALL IN SUCH an ailing financial situation. Its current endowment is '$691.4 million;" with many multi-million state-of-the-art brand new buildings' constructions all over the campus. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE EVERYONE STOP ALL THIS NON-SENSE. Brandeis has many, many very generous and wonderful donors, who have given multi-million gifts through the years and will continue to, because they believe that Brandeis is a great academic institution and community. Everyone loves Brandeis and is dedicated to do whatever needed to make sure that this great institution is and continue to grow and to be one of the most prestigious and world-class academic schools
worldwide; however, for the Rose I understand people frustration about closing it; however again, President Jehuda Reinharz made it clear that none of its precious treasured arts collection will be sold, unless it's necessary. PLEASE, everyone has to understand that besides the Rose collection which is valuable in $$$,
Brandeis students, faculties, administration etc...are as valuable as its arts
collection. All private colleges and universities in the US are going through tough times, here at Brandeis we are very lucky, our situation is not as catastrophic as other institutions. Relax and take a deep breath, Brandeis is the best and will continue to be the best of the best, with or without the Rose.

reindeer girl,

guess you dragged the "dump jocks" out of the woods with your ignorant and knee-jerk comments. I was just saying that Brandeis had some hard choices to make regarding their finances and the art, as an asset, was on the table. unfortunate, but true. but, hey, chin up. the QB might take you to the dance one day.

My husband and I are both Brandeis alum. This situation is an embarrassment to us - we used to be proud about having gone to such a wonderful liberal arts university ESPECIALLY because my husband was an art major. We often would tour Brandeis with our three children and spoke about how wonderful it would be for them to attend as well. But my oldest son is also a talented artist - why would we want him to go to Brandeis now? We dont; have a lot of means to give but if or when we do, why would give to Brandeis now? The true "shortfall" is Brandeis' reputation.

We love Brandeis and friends and supporters WILL NEVER STOP SUPPORTING THIS GREAT PRESTIGIOUS INSTITUTION. Fundraising is is currently focused on endowment, and Brandeis University has received gifts in that area from so many other donors and friends etc...

"We have been heartened by the overwhelming response from alumni and friends to help Brandeis students-our most precious resource-at this critical time," she said, adding that "Brandeis supporters are making an immediate difference in the lives of students by making Annual Fund gifts now to support student scholarships."

C'mon people. It's only art. There's always more where that came from.

Just a quote: "The College Art Association is expressing anger and disappointment at Brandeis University over its recent decision to close the Rose Art Museum and sell off its rare works to raise money for the school.

“Neither Brandeis University nor the Rose Art Museum is on the brink of economic collapse, nor are they unable to maintain the collections,” the Association said in a scathing indictment of the school. “Given that no clear explanation has been offered on the school’s financial exigencies, the closure of the Rose Art Museum and the sale of its collection appear to be in violation of professional museum standards and of academic transparency.”

CAN'T BLAME THEM TO BE SO ANGRY...

Brandeis is saying it is taking drastic measures, including shuttering its Rose Art Museum and selling its art collection, because it is facing a $10 million budget shortfall.

How did the Waltham university get here? Brandeis did well financially between 2005 and 2007, the most recent year for which tax filings are available, reporting a combined budget surplus of $175.7 million for those three years. In 2007, expenses totaled $304.2 million and the school posted a $58.6 million surplus.

And the school’s investments grew. In 2005, the school reported dividends and interest from securities totaling $14. 2 million, by 2007 that had climbed to $18.6 million. It’s investments grew from $495.4 million at the start of 2005 to $734.7 million at the end of 2007.

ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO AUCTION THE ROSE ARTS TREASURE, WHY BRANDEIS IS O.K. COMPARED TO OTHER COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE NATION.?!?

It is a very grave mistake what President Reinharz and Brandeis trustees decided in regard to the great Rose museum. It is still time to go back and reconsider this outrageous decision, that was taken without, even, consulting the Rose' Director, Brandeis community as a whole (students, faculties etc...) ONCE and IF, this unique arts collection is put on auction, forget about it, there will be now way to recover it or there will be no way for Brandeis to own another similar unique treasure such as this one. IT'S A MISTAKE, THAT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO REVERSE, AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, BESIDES THE HORRIBLE CURRENT MARKET AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND RECESSION, ONCE THESE TREASURED ARTS ARE SOLD (IN CASE BRANDEIS GO FOR IT SERIOUSLY) , JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL THIS UNIQUE COLLECTION. IT'S A SHAME AND IT'S A PITY TO LOSE SUCH A TREASURE, ESPECIALLY THAT I'M POSITIVE THAT BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY IS NOT IN SUCH A DIRE FINANCIAL SITUATION, (EVEN THOUGH, THE ENDOWMENT WENT DOWN) ALL SCHOOL'S ENDOWMENT WENT DOWN IN THIS CRISIS, NO SURPRISES.
Brandeis is very lucky to have had such a unique and valuable treasured gem, please, please, please once it's gone, it's gone, there will be now way back for Brandeis to own or possess such a treasure anymore. What Brandeis has as treasured arts is to be protected to disposed off. What a pity is Brandeis decides to do otherwise, and what a loss for EVERYONE.

Increasing this looks like a scheme by Reinharz to transfer art to his wealthy friends and a disgruntled fine art department to gain control of the building. Their silence and the process of decision-making displays itself as a badge of fraud.

Dennis J. Solomon

Simply put ,Brandeis has created a lack TRUST between all museums and their donors. That's what this whole situation boils down to. Who is going to want to give one of their cherished possessions to a museum who will only treat the gift as unrealized cash for unrelated needs? Donors give a part of themselves, their heritage, their culture, their values, when they make a gift to a museum.
TRUST! The Rose's closing is a pebble being dropped in the lake of all world museums! The ripples will damage all museums!