Spring Break
EDITORIAL: PR firm is a waste of resources
Save funds with straight talk
Editorial | 2/10/09
Posted online at 12:48 AM EST on 2/10/09
With the hiring of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, a Boston-area public relations firm, the University administration is trying to reverse the damage done by its disastrous communication of the Jan. 26 decision regarding the future of the Rose Art Museum. Unfortunately, it's too late for that. The media storm has already passed and hurt Brandeis' reputation, and any coverage of the administration's backpedaling won't be anywhere near as widespread. In other words, it's a lost cause. Honesty, in this case, is a better policy than any PR wordsmith could devise.
Were the firm being hired for more than just Rose repairs or to train Brandeis' in-house communications staff and other administrators in the handling of future announcements, then its hiring would be justified. But that is not the firm's purpose according to University President Jehuda Reinharz, and hiring a high-profile PR firm to try to repair our already-damaged reputation is not worth the cost.
President Reinharz and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French have volunteered to pay for the firm's services out of their own paychecks, each taking a 10-percent pay cut in order to do so. Yet the nature of this gesture is undermined when some of those funds go to a cause like PR instead of into the University's operating budget or endowment. At best, the gesture is admirable but misguided.
President Reinharz's recent e-mail announcement, in which he left many members of the community befuddled as to whether or not the Rose is actually remaining open or being fiscally gutted, underscores the need for such a new policy. At this point, the frustration lies not in the termination of the Rose but in the ambiguity and confusion with which the administration is treating such a delicate issue.
In order to clarify the exact state of the museum, President Reinharz should come forward and answer these questions for the student body:
First, initial reports implied that the Rose is closing as a museum, but President Reinharz's recent message left this statement in question. His statement that the museum will be "more fully integrated into the University's central educational mission" does not tell us if it will remain open as a public museum. Right now, those who have not closely examined the differences in the language of President Reinharz's e-mails may well be under the impression that the Rose will remain open indefinitely and unchanged.
Second, what art is the school selling, and when does it plan to do so? As more restrictions to the selling of the collection arise-the salary endowments, the donor wills-the administration's constant adjustment of policy reads more like an attempt to sidestep these obstacles by clouding the issue.
As it stands, the administration has made it seem as if the museum is both staying open and keeping its collection. If this is the case, and these statements are true, then why have we gone through the trouble of upsetting the student body and damaging our reputation? If the administration has merely hired Rasky Baerlein to placate the press and the school, then we are only wasting time and resources.
Were the firm being hired for more than just Rose repairs or to train Brandeis' in-house communications staff and other administrators in the handling of future announcements, then its hiring would be justified. But that is not the firm's purpose according to University President Jehuda Reinharz, and hiring a high-profile PR firm to try to repair our already-damaged reputation is not worth the cost.
President Reinharz and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French have volunteered to pay for the firm's services out of their own paychecks, each taking a 10-percent pay cut in order to do so. Yet the nature of this gesture is undermined when some of those funds go to a cause like PR instead of into the University's operating budget or endowment. At best, the gesture is admirable but misguided.
President Reinharz's recent e-mail announcement, in which he left many members of the community befuddled as to whether or not the Rose is actually remaining open or being fiscally gutted, underscores the need for such a new policy. At this point, the frustration lies not in the termination of the Rose but in the ambiguity and confusion with which the administration is treating such a delicate issue.
In order to clarify the exact state of the museum, President Reinharz should come forward and answer these questions for the student body:
First, initial reports implied that the Rose is closing as a museum, but President Reinharz's recent message left this statement in question. His statement that the museum will be "more fully integrated into the University's central educational mission" does not tell us if it will remain open as a public museum. Right now, those who have not closely examined the differences in the language of President Reinharz's e-mails may well be under the impression that the Rose will remain open indefinitely and unchanged.
Second, what art is the school selling, and when does it plan to do so? As more restrictions to the selling of the collection arise-the salary endowments, the donor wills-the administration's constant adjustment of policy reads more like an attempt to sidestep these obstacles by clouding the issue.
As it stands, the administration has made it seem as if the museum is both staying open and keeping its collection. If this is the case, and these statements are true, then why have we gone through the trouble of upsetting the student body and damaging our reputation? If the administration has merely hired Rasky Baerlein to placate the press and the school, then we are only wasting time and resources.
Be the first to comment on this story