ANALYSIS: Semantics over substance
Shifting language confuses Rose decision
by Hannah Kirsch and Mike Prada
Rose Art | 2/24/09
Posted online at 7:54 AM EST on 2/24/09
|
But while the language of the initial decision may have changed, the University's intentions have remained the same. The Rose will still transition from a public museum to a teaching space for the school, and the University will still sell the art if necessary in order to help alleviate its financial troubles. The confusion that has permeated the Rose situation lies in the University's words, not its intended actions.
"The new statement from the University president, Jehuda Reinharz, proposes certainly a much milder way of phrasing where we're headed, but I still think we're headed in the same direction," Prof. Eric Hill (THA), the chair of the Committee to Review the Closing of the Rose, told the Justice Feb. 13.
The initial Jan. 26 press release stated that the Board of Trustees "voted unanimously to close the Rose Art Museum," adding that "the University will publicly sell the art collection." Two weeks later, following extensive publicity in national publications like the Boston Globe and the New York Times, Reinharz seemed to backtrack from the original decision in a Feb. 5 e-mail to the Brandeis community. The e-mail read: "The Museum will remain open, but in accordance with the Board's vote, it will be more fully integrated into the University's central educational mission," and also stated that "The [initial public statements] gave the misleading impression that we were selling the entire collection immediately, which is not true." Reinharz blamed himself in part for the misunderstanding, channeling President Barack Obama by writing, "I screwed up."
But Reinharz's second e-mail did not violate the initial Board of Trustees resolution. The original resolution stated, "The University administration is authorized to take the necessary steps to transition the University's Rose Art Museum to a teaching center and exhibition gallery. These steps shall include, to the extent appropriate, review by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and court approval, followed by an orderly sale or other disposition of works from the University's collection." The resolution does not mention the word "close," and as Reinharz said in the first student open forum held Jan. 28 and organized by Student Union President Jason Gray '10, it merely gave the University proper authority to sell art. It did not mandate that the University sell any pieces.
Spring Break






Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
michael
posted 2/25/09 @ 11:16 AM EST
So, a rephrasing makes everything just fine ?
Guess that $20,000 spent on the PR firm that represented the Archdiocese of Boston in putting a smiley face on decades of child sexual abuse was money well spent. (Continued…)
Alum '77
posted 2/28/09 @ 8:34 PM EST
Well we got the email from the President's office, with the now ubiquitous "The Rose won't be closed but more fully integrated in University life and its academic enterprise". (Continued…)
roger kizik
posted 3/01/09 @ 10:15 PM EST
As a longtime former staff member of the Rose, I urge the Faculty Committee to rescind the University Trustee's decision to terminate the Rose Art Museum as we know it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment