Spring Break
Faculty ask to put off closing Rose Art Museum for a year
by Alana Abramson
Staff writer
News | 3/31/09
Posted online at 7:21 AM EST on 3/31/09
Twenty-two professors signed a letter written to Provost Marty Krauss and the Committee on the Future of the Rose Art Museum last Tuesday recommending that the administration impose a moratorium on closing the Rose for one year, according to Prof. Nancy Scott (FA).
The letter, written by Prof. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH), urges the committee to "recommend to the administration that, at a minimum, the Rose Art Museum should stay open as a public art museum, at its current level of professional staffing and continuing to mount high-quality exhibitions, until at least June 30, 2010."
Schattschneider told the Justice that she began this initiative because she believes there needs to be more time to consider all options regarding the museum. "There is concern that we are rushing into a decision without due consideration," Schattschneider explained.
Schattschneider said that she was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a moratorium, but could not make any predictions.
Scott, who signed the letter, said that she learned of the letter through e-mail. Like Schattschneider, Scott said that delaying decisions about the museum for a year would help ensure a well thought-out decision about the matter and would give the faculty more time to digest the report by the Committee on the Future of the Rose.
"In the best possible scenario, the committee meeting this spring delivers a report that the larger faculty has time to discuss. The way things are going, the Rose is closing on June 30. That potentially only gives us the month of final exams and graduation to decide if we are going to push to keep the Rose open and how we are going to do it because there is not a good budget plan without selling paintings. The intent of [the] letter was to give another year to the public existence of the Rose so all recommendations currently coming in by the committee will be made in a more sober fashion," Scott explained.
"I hope the provost takes this letter seriously in light of our concerns about how much will be cut off short with a very uncertain future," Scott said. "I hope she will also realize that from a practical standpoint, the faculty cannot invent new programs to take the place of the old between the end of this academic year and next fall and will lose a year of Fine Arts programming," she said.
The letter, written by Prof. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH), urges the committee to "recommend to the administration that, at a minimum, the Rose Art Museum should stay open as a public art museum, at its current level of professional staffing and continuing to mount high-quality exhibitions, until at least June 30, 2010."
Schattschneider told the Justice that she began this initiative because she believes there needs to be more time to consider all options regarding the museum. "There is concern that we are rushing into a decision without due consideration," Schattschneider explained.
Schattschneider said that she was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a moratorium, but could not make any predictions.
Scott, who signed the letter, said that she learned of the letter through e-mail. Like Schattschneider, Scott said that delaying decisions about the museum for a year would help ensure a well thought-out decision about the matter and would give the faculty more time to digest the report by the Committee on the Future of the Rose.
"In the best possible scenario, the committee meeting this spring delivers a report that the larger faculty has time to discuss. The way things are going, the Rose is closing on June 30. That potentially only gives us the month of final exams and graduation to decide if we are going to push to keep the Rose open and how we are going to do it because there is not a good budget plan without selling paintings. The intent of [the] letter was to give another year to the public existence of the Rose so all recommendations currently coming in by the committee will be made in a more sober fashion," Scott explained.
"I hope the provost takes this letter seriously in light of our concerns about how much will be cut off short with a very uncertain future," Scott said. "I hope she will also realize that from a practical standpoint, the faculty cannot invent new programs to take the place of the old between the end of this academic year and next fall and will lose a year of Fine Arts programming," she said.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
roger kizik
posted 3/31/09 @ 11:19 PM EST
Hallelujah! A tendril of common sense crosses the stage! Pity a few more faculty didn't sign on....
Post a Comment