COMMENTARY: Sale of artwork is in line with core school values
by Hillel Buechler
Rose Reactions | 2/3/09
Posted online at 2:35 AM EST on 2/3/09
That editorial acknowledges that the donation was given for that specific purpose alone. It then concludes by questioning "the system of values" that says "that bigger and better buildings are more important than such considerations as faculty salaries, student scholarships, and additional professors."
Former Justice editor in chief Stephen Slaner '64 said in an interview with the Justice that during his time at the University, some students "disparagingly referred to it as the 'Rose Art Supermarket.'" And some considered then-University President Abram Sachar to have "an edifice complex."
The following issue of the Justice, published Oct. 31, includes another, longer editorial, which expands upon that initial sentiment of misplaced priorities. The editorial board, in the second editorial, points out that the Rose "was a worthwhile addition to the University, and a facility which could be used to good advantage." However, "there must be certain priorities when it comes to fundraising."
Students staffing the Justice that year covered stories like the brutal assault by white men on Brandeis student Paul Potter and friend Tom Hayden, who were trying to register black citizens to vote in McComb, Miss. The editorial board took strong stances against topics such as the expansion of nuclear power. The editor in chief the year that the Rose was opened, Stephen Solarz '62, went on to serve in the United States House of Representatives for 18 years. These people were true activists.
An additional issue for those students in 1961 regarding the Rose rested with Sachar's inherent contradiction from 1953, when he stated that, "Once the 'must' buildings are up we will concentrate specifically on securing funds for scholarships and faculty salaries."
The Rose was not a "must" building in 1961. And it's not a "must" building in 2009.
Today we are privileged to attend a University that grants full financial aid to those in need and provides its faculty with significantly improved salaries from those of the 1960s. The exact issues that inspired students to criticize unneeded buildings on campus in 1961 have subsided. But the sentiment behind that criticism has not.
Former Justice editor in chief Stephen Slaner '64 said in an interview with the Justice that during his time at the University, some students "disparagingly referred to it as the 'Rose Art Supermarket.'" And some considered then-University President Abram Sachar to have "an edifice complex."
The following issue of the Justice, published Oct. 31, includes another, longer editorial, which expands upon that initial sentiment of misplaced priorities. The editorial board, in the second editorial, points out that the Rose "was a worthwhile addition to the University, and a facility which could be used to good advantage." However, "there must be certain priorities when it comes to fundraising."
Students staffing the Justice that year covered stories like the brutal assault by white men on Brandeis student Paul Potter and friend Tom Hayden, who were trying to register black citizens to vote in McComb, Miss. The editorial board took strong stances against topics such as the expansion of nuclear power. The editor in chief the year that the Rose was opened, Stephen Solarz '62, went on to serve in the United States House of Representatives for 18 years. These people were true activists.
An additional issue for those students in 1961 regarding the Rose rested with Sachar's inherent contradiction from 1953, when he stated that, "Once the 'must' buildings are up we will concentrate specifically on securing funds for scholarships and faculty salaries."
The Rose was not a "must" building in 1961. And it's not a "must" building in 2009.
Today we are privileged to attend a University that grants full financial aid to those in need and provides its faculty with significantly improved salaries from those of the 1960s. The exact issues that inspired students to criticize unneeded buildings on campus in 1961 have subsided. But the sentiment behind that criticism has not.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
michael
posted 2/04/09 @ 11:39 AM EST
Is this an essay written in the satirical style of Swift? If not, it is bizarre.
While you give a nod to the "lack of transparency", do the "core values" of Brandeis include gutting one of the finest University museums in New England, putting forward a 'plan' with no meaningful financial information provided, trashing the much-taunted Brandeis community by threatening an alternative of mass faculty firings, and generating publicity which has made Brandeis appear as an insitution controlled by panic button pushers ?? Do you have any idea how ridiculous Brandeis now appears ? No future donor, no informed prospective student and no rational person will take you up on your trip down memory lane before the Rose museum existed. (Continued…)
Bekah
posted 2/04/09 @ 11:41 PM EST
Well, I enjoyed the 'trip down memory lane', for one. Good reminder of what real activism is-- not just joining a Facebook group for a museum you've never visited. (Continued…)
Kiernan
posted 2/10/09 @ 1:04 AM EST
Let me start out with a confession: I am a freshman at Brandeis, have no experience in the realm of managment, and have believe stick figures are art. (Continued…)
Post a Comment