ALTHOUGH THIS week's unanimous decision by the Brandeis board of trustees to sell the Rose Art Museum's collection was an indicator of a bad financial trend for American universities, equally troubling was that the trustees did not involve students in the decision.
The first that students heard of the possibility was in an e-mail and press release Monday. It said that though the university valued the 7,180-piece art collection, Brandeis would have to make sacrifices in order to "focus and sustain our core academic mission."
Ensuring the institution protects its academics should be the top priority of the trustees, and managing the budget is inevitably a delicate balancing act. The university has created a steering committee to restructure academics and it will likely be forced to cut faculty and increase class sizes. However, the message of the museum decision was that these cuts will not be enough.
Ultimately, the decision to look into selling part of the collection is probably the best of many bad options. Yet the university unnecessarily alienated donors, supporters of the Rose, and students and faculty. The university should have made the discussion one for the whole community, not just for the board of trustees.
The decision to close the Rose frustrated many who had contributed pieces to the collection. While the university obviously does not intend to sell art that has legal arrangements preventing its sale, the university generalized that it would "sell the art collection," causing donors to attempt to block the sell-off. The attorney general's office will have to look into the donation arrangement of each piece. Yet in the same way that donors contribute money for a specific project, contributors to the museum gave pieces to exist as art at Brandeis, not dollars at Brandeis. It is inappropriate, and likely to deter future donors, for the board to equate the two.
Yet the biggest unnecessary jab was at students, many of whom felt as if this was just another brick in the wall preventing student input in the university's financial challenges that would ultimately force students to sacrifice. This not only created a student backlash, with protests on campus, but also created headlines that would likely harm the reputation of the institution. While financial shortfalls may not deter some prospective students, a frustrated and ignored student body certainly will.
In the end, the administration officials alienated a group that ultimately could have been on their side. While few would be happy to give up the Rose, most students and faculty understand that sacrifices have to be made and that academics cannot be jeopardized. Yet the announcement did not discuss alternatives or lay out why the decision was necessary.
President Jehuda Reinharz had a question-and-answer session Wednesday and explained the need for the decision, yet this presentation could have been given before the trustees voted. This would have allowed students to provide input into the process, and in the end, many, perhaps most, would have supported the decision. While student votes should not make the ultimate decision, the university should not shoot first and take questions later.
University officials cannot act as if they do not care what the student body and faculty think and then try to make people feel included after the fact. The goal, even in crisis, should not be to pacify, but to involve. For Brandeis as well as other colleges and universities around the country, there will be many more chances to include students in university decisions. If they are smart, next time they will be more careful.
Jaclyn Saffir is a junior at Brandeis University and an editorial assistant in the Globe's editorial pages.
