Spring Break
EDITORIAL: Focus Rose commitment
Faculty must work together
Editorial | 3/31/09
Posted online at 1:58 AM EST on 3/31/09
Anyone who has read University e-mail updates knows of the newly formed Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum, a faculty organization designed to guide the Rose's closing in an appropriate fashion or prevent it altogether. Yet for all the blustering prose stemming from the formation of committees, readers may have noticed little in the way of actions. Without pointing fingers at any individuals, this paralysis is the fault of both the committees and the administration, which has failed to define the role and level of effectiveness that these committees will have in the decision-making process. More unity on the part of the faculty and more respect for their recommendations on the part of the administrators would help to involve both parties more effectively in decisions regarding the Rose.
Since the first Rose Art Museum announcement was made, members of the faculty have been impressively active in involving themselves in policy recommendations about the future of the museum. Provost Marty Krauss recently formed the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum chaired by Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL). Prof. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH) and Prof. Nancy Scott (FA) compiled yet another letter last week asking for the Rose to remain open. But in order to be effective, these efforts should be more organized. As it is, the faculty's committee- and speech-making seems more like they are spinning their wheels than making changes in policy.
While the faculty's enthusiasm for having a say in Rose-related policy is admirable, more cooperation and better focus will help the faculty be more effective. CFRAM's first meeting, the details of which are not being discussed with the public, was held to decide the charge of the committee itself. The provost and committee members should have created a more directed committee whose goals would be clear from the beginning. Meanwhile, Schattschneider and Scott's letter was signed by a mere 22 faculty members. The fact that only 22 out of the entire very interested body of faculty members signed it shows a lack of cohesion that will have little effect on internal policy or external views of Brandeis.
Since the first Rose Art Museum announcement was made, members of the faculty have been impressively active in involving themselves in policy recommendations about the future of the museum. Provost Marty Krauss recently formed the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum chaired by Prof. Jerry Samet (PHIL). Prof. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH) and Prof. Nancy Scott (FA) compiled yet another letter last week asking for the Rose to remain open. But in order to be effective, these efforts should be more organized. As it is, the faculty's committee- and speech-making seems more like they are spinning their wheels than making changes in policy.
While the faculty's enthusiasm for having a say in Rose-related policy is admirable, more cooperation and better focus will help the faculty be more effective. CFRAM's first meeting, the details of which are not being discussed with the public, was held to decide the charge of the committee itself. The provost and committee members should have created a more directed committee whose goals would be clear from the beginning. Meanwhile, Schattschneider and Scott's letter was signed by a mere 22 faculty members. The fact that only 22 out of the entire very interested body of faculty members signed it shows a lack of cohesion that will have little effect on internal policy or external views of Brandeis.
Be the first to comment on this story