This is not to say that the opposing students are necessarily wrong, but rather that they have been fighting the wrong battle – that is, the facts of the proposed changes and the terms of the argument have been lost in the heat of discussion.

So before we continue angrily decrying the proposed change, let me try to frame the situation as clearly as possible:

Brandeis is faced with a predicament: many students apply to Brandeis who the office of admissions would like to accept, and who also have financial need. The university has a set amount of money it has put aside for need-based financial aid. Unfortunately, this amount is only enough to meet about 85% of all the aid those students require. The school is faced with three options:

1. Give every low-income student 85% of the money ze needs, or

2. Give 85% of low-income students ALL the aid they need, and give the other fifteen percent nothing, or

3. Choose a middle ground between options 1 and 2.

This question is at the heart of the recent decision to change the financial aid admissions policy. Currently, the university follows a middle ground much closer to option 1 than 2, granting most needy students less money than they require in order to pay Brandeis tuition. This process, referred to as “gapping,” means there is a funding gap these students will have to meet on their own, through taking out thousands of dollars in debt.

Now, the university is proposing we move to option 2. Brandeis will grant full aid to as many needy students as it can, according to their merit (so the most desirable 85% of needy students will be accepted and have their full need met). The other fifteen percent would not get any aid, because the university has no money left to give.

This decision is a just one. If Admissions tells a student coming from a family of poverty that it can give hir $120,000 but ze will still have to find $40,000 more, ze could understandably not decide to come to Brandeis ( especially in today’s poor economic climate). The poor student is even more unlikely to come if another, wealthier school with a huge endowment grants hir 100% of hir need. Indeed, our retention rate for needy students granted aid has been dropping recently, precisely for this reason. The proposed change would raise the retention rate significantly. In the end, more low-income students will actually be able to attend Brandeis – if that’s not social justice, what is?

However, we are left with a conundrum: what to do with the bottom fifteen percent of students? We could either…

2.A. reject their applications outright, or

2.B. admit them but offer them no aid.

In terms of who eventually comes to Brandeis, options A and B will usually have the same effect. Consider – If you need $160,000 over four years to pay for college, you don’t have it, and the university will not give you any of it, do you think you would attend Brandeis or another school that offered you an aid package?

The administrators said today during the Town Hall that they’re still ironing out the details on options 2.A vs. 2.B, but seem to be leaning towards option 2.A. They gave a few reasons for this, chief among which is how shitty it is to tell a needy student that ze is accepted, but in name only, since ze will not receive any aid. Understandable. Also, accepting students who will be unlikely to attend the University has the effect of raising our acceptance rate (a supposedly bad thing) while lowering our accepted student retention rate (also a bad thing). But option A does allow for some righteous sermoning, if you’re so inclined. Even if A is the same as option B in practicality, in principle option A does discriminate admissions decisions based on need (since the bottom 15% of needy students – those who would receive no money – are rejected, while comparative applicants who demonstrate no financial need would be accepted). But it is important to realize that the heart of the proposed change is the move from options 1 to 2, not the decision of whether to implement option 2.A or option 2.B.

In reality, the administration is not even planning a full implementation of the plan I have called option 2.A. They are instead treating that bottom 15% (or whatever it might change to) of needy students with a softer cut-off, realizing that there are always special cases and so making sure the general plan doesn’t result in any obviously unwanted results. But regardless, the situation I have laid out is the correct one. And after reading through it, it should be obvious that the point of these changes is not to make more money for the University, but to more justly redistribute financial aid. If you care about social justice, vote yes on this one.

In case you had forgotten about the steps University officials are quietly making in preparation to sell art from the Rose,Koplow told the faculty that “some of the solution will come from realizing value ultimately from some of the art at the Rose [Art Museum].” No whitewashing there.

In regards to academic cuts, Jaffe explained: “the board has essentially told us that we need to make reductions in our academic commitments;” to achieve these reductions, Jaffe has suggested that the University “eliminate the Music Composition graduate program, the Linguistics major and the teaching of ancient Greek, as well as [make] a reduction in the number of faculty in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and Physics departments.” Koplow expressed the same sentiment: “if that means we can’t spend money on programs where we don’t do as well, that’s what it means.”

Just be sure not to forget – the Administration and Board still have every intention of cutting some departments entirely, and selling art from the Rose’s collection. As an alternative solution, Brandeis could draw from its endowment principle to make up shortcomings over the next few years (admittedly somewhat slowing our recovery) due to UPMIFA, a recent revision to MA law designed to help non-profit institutions deal with the recession. Last year, I wrote about this possibility of drawing down the endowment as an alternative to faculty cuts or art sales. The argument still applies.

On a more hopeful front, or perhaps to assuage the discontent of any Art-worshipping, Linguistics-studying activists listening, Koplow has also said that “a major pillar of this university is the mission of social justice, and this could be pushed more to the forefront and integrated into many of the programs.” I’d like to see some specifics on that.

But I think we need to look a little further. From all signs, it seems that the University is still planning to sell some artwork in the future, or at least keeping the option open. At Thursday’s faculty meeting, new VP Jeffrey Apfel said the University was considering “monetizing assets,” according to the Justice. He told the paper, “to some extent, that’s a reference to the Rose.” The University has hired a high profile defense attorney, Thomas Reilly, to defend itself against the suit brought by the Museum’s board of overseers to prevent any sale of the art. And if you read the Hoot a little while ago, you learned that this suit hinges on the financial independence of the museum from the University.

So to me, this new allocation, when we’re even more strapped for cash than we thought, seems a bit like a Trojan horse. By allocating so much additional money to the Rose, the University may be trying to build its case that the museum is not independent, in order to win the lawsuit. It will then be able to sell artwork for a quite a bit more than $200,000. This new “gift” to the Rose could be nothing of the kind. Of course, I don’t know how much merit this strategy holds, considering the allocation was made now, not before the suit was filed. So perhaps I’m stabbing at shadows, but I don’t think so.

We’re not there yet, but this is a significant step towards the 15% reduction in emissions over the next five years targeted by the University’s new climate plan. We’ll need to do a lot more to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, but when combined with Pres. Reinharz’ suggestion at the event to seed the campus with Vespas, solar panels could go a long way.

How will we pay for all this silicon, you ask? Simply put, we won’t, because we won’t actually be buying the solar array. Rather, we’ve signed a 20-year contract with EOS ventures. They’ll provide the upfront cost of the array, and have contracted with the Boston firm Alteris Renewables to build the array and prepare the roof. In return, we’ll be buying the electricity produced every year at a predetermined rate which rises slowly each year. Initially, this solar energy will start off as more expensive than conventional fossil fuel energy purchased through the ordinary power utility. But if fossil fuel costs rise at projected rates (one assumes the projections used are those of EOS), the solar energy will quickly become cheaper. I was told by an EOS representative that after 20 years, we will hopefully have saved $820,000 in energy costs.

A good deal of credit for this venture goes to Janna Cohen-Rosenthal, the sustainability coordinator of the University. Though some were initially skeptical of allowing a private firm to own equipment on the Gosman roof, the projected energy savings and environmental good were enough to win over the skeptics. Long-term creative payment schemes like this are the future of renewable energy, and Brandeis is leading the way.

Adds Phil:

The placement of the panels on Gosman was a smart choice, not only for its solar orientation but for visibility.  Unlike most buildings on campus, Gosman has a pitched roof, so people on and passing through campus will be well aware of the panels.  They will be visible from both South St (inbound to Waltham) and the Commuter Rail.  Our committment to sustainability won’t go unnoticed.

As expected, Pres. Reinharz has announced his resignation. He plans to stay on until the next president is selected by the Board of Trustees, or June 30, 2011, meaning he will continue as president for up to three more semesters. Though there were some decisions on which he seriously fucked up (the Rose Art Museum comes to mind) he also did a great job raising Brandeis’ endowment and prestige. Unfortunately, the Rose seems to have done him in… though he told the Hoot that “the situation with the Rose… had no impact on this decision,” and claims to have “reached the conclusion that now is the right time for me to focus on the next chapter of my career,”  I suspect pressure from angry alumni, faculty, and students certainly had a good deal to do with that conclusion.

I, for one, thought he was a pretty good, if often tricky, President, though I have had no chance for comparison. This one caught me by surprise – I thought Reinharz had mostly weathered the Rose / budget crisis storm and was back on top. To his credit, he didn’t leave when things started getting nasty, but waited until they cooled down. Anyways, check out Phil and Sahar’s posts for some more nuanced reflection.

The full text of Reinharz’ email is below the break.

September 24, 2009

To the Brandeis Community:

I wanted to let you know that I have made the decision to step down from the presidency of Brandeis University.  I have reached the conclusion that now is the right time for me to focus on the next chapter of my career.  I have notified the Board of Trustees and they have requested that I continue in my role for this upcoming academic year and stay on as president until a successor has been selected up until June 30, 2011 if necessary.  Following the completion of my term as President of Brandeis, I expect to be the president of a significant foundation, where I can address issues facing the Jewish community at the national and international level.

Serving Brandeis for nearly three decades has been a great honor, which I have enjoyed immensely.  Ours is an active, engaged community; one that is both intellectually strong and fiercely passionate; it is one that has never failed to make me proud to be a part of Brandeis. I believe the future is very bright for the University and I am confident that my successor will take Brandeis to even greater heights.

I would like to express my gratitude to all of you who have helped make Brandeis one of the great universities in this country.

Sincerely,
Jehuda Reinharz, President
Brandeis University

Below you will find my letter to Mal Sherman, Chairman of the Brandeis Board of Trustees, and his response.

Mr. Malcolm Sherman
Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA  02454

Dear Mal,

I am writing to inform you of my intent to resign as President of Brandeis University.   I am letting you know now so that ample time is available to plan for a smooth transition.

As you can imagine, I do so with a great mix of emotions: pride at what we have collectively achieved over these last sixteen years; confidence that this is the right juncture to hand the reins over to the next leader; and a bittersweet feeling of nostalgia and fondness for the Brandeis family that has been my own for almost thirty years.  During my tenure at Brandeis, I have had the opportunity to work in partnership with some of the brightest minds in academia.

It is now time for me to enter the next chapter of my professional life.  I plan to continue to serve in the non-profit arena at the national and international level where I can address issues facing the Jewish community.  I have already been approached by two foundations to run their organizations at the conclusion of my time at Brandeis.

I feel strongly that this is the right time for me personally to move on to a new challenge.  Many of the goals that I set out for my presidency have been accomplished.  I will leave the University in good condition with a strong foundation on which to build in the future.  The Brandeis of today is significantly different than it was sixteen years ago.  It is a stronger brand, with a national and international reputation for academic excellence.  It is dramatically more diverse in its student body.  It offers a substantially larger curriculum with new creative areas of study.  It has state-of-the-art facilities that enhance the teaching and learning experience.

The challenges facing all educational institutions of higher learning in the coming years are considerable.  I remain steadfast in my commitment to leading Brandeis until new leadership is in place and will work tirelessly with the campus community and friends of the University to ensure Brandeis’ success.  I have enjoyed the challenge of leading Brandeis and will always be ready to be helpful in any way I can.

Sincerely,

Jehuda Reinharz, President
Brandeis University

President Jehuda Reinharz
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02454

Dear Jehuda,

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I accept your letter of resignation with reluctance but with the understanding that you have thought long and hard about this decision.  As you know, we would have greatly preferred that you complete your term.  But we appreciate your willingness to continue leading Brandeis for this academic year and until a successor has been named.  We also understand that your commitment to stay on as President will not go beyond June 30, 2011.

While at this time it is difficult to think about Brandeis in the absence of you as its visionary, we feel fortunate that you will hold the position of President Emeritus, working with the Board and Brandeis following your tenure as president.

When you became President in 1994, you set ambitious goals for yourself and for the University. Your dedication to the achievement of these goals has been extraordinary.  While many leaders of higher education are professionally fulfilled after a few years of service and a few accomplishments, your unusually long commitment to the Brandeis community is a testament to your character and devotion.

In partnership with your talented staff and faculty, you have succeeded in strengthening all aspects of the University from the physical plant to the curriculum to university finances.  You have guided this University in prosperous and difficult times with an unwavering focus on providing all students with an exceptional education.

Under your leadership, we have witnessed a heightened profile within the international academic community and an exceptionally diverse student body ethnically, racially, religiously and geographically.

One of your accomplishments that I am most proud of as Chairman of the Board is the increase in financial assistance to our student body and indeed that 72% of our students receive some form of financial aid.  As we both know, access to education changes one’s life.  We need only look at our impressive alumni who have made tangible imprints on all sectors of our society.

Your pursuit of excellence on behalf of Brandeis has been incredible and I feel privileged to have worked alongside you for the past sixteen years.  Please know that we all recognize that your hard work and dedication have kept this University on its path of greatness and will allow us to continue to flourish in the future.  All of us on the Board of Trustees have the utmost gratitude and admiration for your leadership and stewardship.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Sherman
Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Brandeis University

ORIGINAL POST:

According to multiple unsubstantiated ethereal sources (UPDATE: this has been confirmed), Pres. Reinharz, after a long and storied tenure at Brandeis University, will be announcing his resignation at midnight. The announcement will be made by the Justice and the Hoot at midnight. Innermost Parts, which (like you) was not given access by the administration to this information, is telling you now.

This is possibly in response to a recent, renewed faculty push for Pres. Reinharz’ resignation after his mishandling of the Rose incident. We’ll publish more details as they come in. Analysis to come shortly.

UPDATES:

- We believe Marty Krauss will take over the job of President, though for how long we are unsure. (UPDATE: no mention of this in the email, but a likely temporary selection nonetheless)

- We’ve got more sources confirming this news. If you’re reading this and know more about the situation, please email us right away at c...@innermostparts.org

- This is going down, folks. You’ll receive an email at midnight telling you all about it.

He writes,

We need a targeted expansion in local production of foods that really belong in New England, tied to reforms throughout our global agricultural system – and certainly, some reduction of meat in our diets. This would bless us with healthier food, an attractive landscape, and opportunities for people to become more engaged with how their food is grown. Yes, we can shrink our carbon footprint, too, if we farm with that in mind. But in the end those connections, not some chimera of local self-sufficiency, are the real benefits of local farming.

Check the rest out here. Its worth a read.

Financial Status Report

This latest document shows that our budget gap-closing measures, spearheaded by a $7.4 million suspension of payments to faculty retirement accounts, are going pretty much according to plan. Actually, slightly better – French writes,

At the conclusion of FY 2009, the University’s financial status can be characterized as slightly stronger than the middle-case.

Our endowment, rather than suffering a 30% loss, has dropped only 17.3% in FY 2009, much better than the ~25% drop at most peer institutions. However, we still need to recruit 400 more students and retire 35 faculty members over the next few years if we are to remain on schedule.

In other news, the new Shapiro Science Center has been declared “fully operational,” just like the second Death Star.

University Learning Goals

are here. Essentially, after Brandeis, you should have a mastery of all kinds of communication, intellectual, and critical thinking skillz. You should be creative and flexible, like a good porn star. You should understand everything and everyone, and  be able to maintain six pack abs in only 2 minutes a day. And most importantly, you should read Innermost Parts every single day of your life.

Expect regular posting from here on out. Tell your friends.

Brandeis has decided, after considering some apparently rather unpleasant options, to suspend payments to its faculty and staff retirement accounts for FY 2010, a move it expects to save $7.4 million in an effort to make up a projected budget deficit of $8.9 million. Generally, the University matches individual donations (up to a certain percentage) to private retirement accounts, much as all employers are required to do with Social Security. Such benefits are standard at universities and in most of the nonprofit sector. Alas, no more. Read the detailed Justice article about it.

The NY Times has also picked up the story, and both esteemed publications are ambivalent to the merits of such a move.

From the Justice’s characterization, the faculty seem to be reluctantly accepting the decision, seeing it as a progressively fair way to deal with the problem, as the lowest paid staff members are generally not members of the retirement fund. From a human psychology point of view, losing theoretical future money is probably easier to cope with than losing money due to a pay cut, say, next year. The timing of the announcement – right after the onset of summer, when students and faculty are no longer naturally organized in one place – is also quite fortuitous. Probably, this one will slide by without major incident. Good thing for Peter French and his merry band of budgeteers those aren’t union contracts!

The Unification Church is a new age religion, called a cult by some, founded by a man named Sun Myung Moon in 1954. He claims to have seen Jesus Christ in a vision, who charged Moon with completing his work and unifying all sects of Christianity into a single moral force. The Church’s primary goal is this unification, and the promotion of heterosexual family units through arranged marriage.

In very large part, the Unification Church is driven by Moon, who is revered with near-prophetic worship by the Church’s members (those outside the organization often call its members Moonies for this reason). Moon is a very incendiary figure, a megalomaniac who somehow managed to book a Senate office building on Capitol Hill to crown himself the Messiah. He has stated,

“Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”

Moon has been convicted of tax evasion, and served 18 months in prison. Using money he accrued through his prosletizing, he built a media corporate empire, and is currently the owner of the Washington Times and several companies in the US and Korea.

Though the Church claims to seek world peace, that desired peace is one of a theocracy led by Moon. Moon has repeatedly made homophobic and xenophobic remarks: A few years ago, he said during a sermon,

Jewish people, you have to repent. Jesus was the King of Israel. Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews. That is why. God could not prevent Satan from doing that because Israel killed the True Parents. Even now, you have to determine that you will repent and follow and become one with Christianity through Rev. Moon.

Moon has also made repeated homophobic remarks, calling homosexuals “dirty dung-eating dogs.”

This evening, a club calling itself College Association for the Research of Principles, the college-level branch of the Unification movement, came to the Senate to seek recognition. The Club’s purpose stated,

The vision of CARP is to create a culture of peace on college campuses by upholding the ideal of “One family under God,” as explained in Divine Principle, which summarize the teachings of the Unification Movement, written by Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 1957.

Several Senators, including Nathan Robinson and myself, were adamently opposed to the recognition of this club. Though the two women representing the group seemed like good people, and swore they would never spread any kind of homophobia or other hate, I felt that Brandeis still should not legitimize nor officially recognize a club directly linked to the intolerant, cultish Unification Church. Others felt that as long as the club members themselves did not discriminate in their membership or actively spread hate speech, it should receive the same recognition as do other campus religious groups, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise. Before the vote, I wrote a short speech summarizing my thoughts (which I never got the chance to read, though I addressed its points earlier in the discussion):

I am not voting against this because I want to silence the voices of these individuals before us. I believe the merits of particular organizations can and should be openly discussed, no matter how controversial their views. Yet that does not mean we need give them Union government recognition. There is one thing that should not be tolerated at Brandeis, and that is intolerance. By recognizing this group, inherently linked to the Unification Church, we are promoting intolerance. Brandeis has many great groups already working to create a culture of peace. Working under the auspices of such an intolerant cult of personality as the Unification Church is not the way to go about that. The two women who came in front of us seem like great people who truly care about the world, and that makes this difficult. But the organization they represent, and its leader, is not, and it does not merit the recognition of Brandeis nor any other body which believes itself to uphold the ideal of social justice.

The two women claimed their religion was being missrepresented and their beliefs were not being respected. In the end, the Senate recognized the club with five voting against. Right? Wrong? What do you think?

UPDATE:

There has been some great discussion going on in the comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to Jon’s comment (#10):

While we may label the Moonies a cult – and for good reason – as Adam points out, the content of their beliefs is not wildly crazier than that of any other religious group on campus. I think that reducing this issue to a question of tolerance won’t get us anywhere, because we would be mired in the complexities of tolerating an intolerant group, a sticking point which is always the case when dealing with religious or ideological groups.

A better approach, I think, would be to ask whether or not this group has acted in any way contrary to University policy. Have they, or will they, be engaging in hate speech, or the like? The question of illegal action seems like a much better measure than trying to assess and ideologically validate the content of this group’s beliefs. If this were the yardstick, we could simply watch the group to see if they engage in hateful, illegal activities, and then proceed to illegitimate them.

The great benefit of this is that we could apply this measure to a wide range of clubs. Adherents to Christian, Jewish, and Muslim beliefs are often at odds with the Brandeis spirit, but their clubs on campus comply with university policy – they are LGBTQ-friendly, etc. Singling out the Moonies based on their belief system is unfair to them, and could prevent us from taking action against “protected” mainstream groups were they to engage in illegal activity.

After thinking it through, I agree with him (with a few nuances). See my comment (#12) for a more careful explanation of why.

And yes, perhaps all this talk is making a big deal out of a little something. But its an important philosophical question that was brought up yesterday, and I thought it deserved more thought.

We also take issue with the fact that Senators for the Class of 2011 Lev Hirschhorn and Alex Melman voted on the resolution even though they are members of Democracy for America, one of the organizations sponsored by the Senate’s $900. This is a conflict of interest, and the senators should have recused themselves.

I said this in the trial, but I want to repeat it here: No goddamn way. This would be true if we had a true “picuniary interest” in the vote; ie if we were set to personally make a lot of money because of it. Thats not true in the least; the SMR would have merely granted money towards an event that one of the clubs we were in was helping to plan. Unlike F-board, an organization with closed meetings that is supposed to remain unbiased and grant money in the most equitable way possible, the Senate is supposed to have opinions on its vote. This is reinforced by the ability of clubs to endorse candidates for Senate; F-board candidates are supposed to remain impartial and can receive no endorsements. To ask us to recuse ourselves from the vote is akin to asking every Senator who planned any project from recusing him or herself from the vote on whether to grant money to that project. This is not what the Senate has done in the past nor is it what the Senate should do in the future.

I said all this at the Senate meeting after careful consideration of the idea of recusal, suggested at the last minute by Treasurer Max Wallach. It is also important to note that every sophomore in the room (our constituency) urged us to vote on the issue lest they not be represented. To recuse ourselves would have been the irresponsible thing to do.

Some say this shortfall was unavoidable. But even given the current recession and the Madoff scandal, the University should not be in as tough a spot as it now is. Our assets were overextended before the crash – we took out long-term debt in the middle of a fundraising campaign, over-relied on gifts, and added operating expenses to our budget faster than we could devise sustainable ways to pay for them. Like many institutions, our endowment investments were in funds that gave good returns but were overly risky in retrospect; our swift losses are a testament to that.

In short, the Administration’s financial strategy was ambitious at the expense of prudence, and now the shit’s hit the fan. They need to own up to that, and hopefully learn from it in the future. But enough pointing fingers – what do we do now, if not sell the Rose?

Most alternatives are completely infeasible. We aren’t going to cut need-based aid. We aren’t going to drastically hike tuition. We aren’t going to cut 200 hundred more staff, or 275 additional faculty. We aren’t going to close half the buildings on campus. Our student services have been cut to the bone.

In my mind, the only feasible alternative would be to draw from the principle of the University endowment. If we were to so choose, we could make up our budget deficit this way, completely. However, such a decision would not be without consequence. The effects of the current shortfall would linger for longer. It would take several more years for our endowment to grow back to its previous levels. Its unlikely that we’d be able to begin hiring faculty again for some time. The primary financial vision of the current Brandeis Administration – to expand and improve the University by growing the endowment as quickly as possible – would suffer a major setback.

But, we could avoid selling any of the Rose’s collection – a decision many find immoral, unprincipled, and in flagrant disregard of the ethical agreements the University entered into with donors and the American Association of Museums.

However, right now, such a path is impossible. Massachussets law follows the provisions of UMIFA, the Universal Management of Institutional Funds Act. This law prohibits charitable institutions from dipping into the endowment below “the historic dollar value of the [endowment] fund.” Since Brandeis’ endowment has been recently built, most of it is composed of original gifts, not interest on those gifts reinvested into the endowment (this is often the case at older, richer universities). Because of the sudden depreciation in our investments, we have already fallen below the level where we are legally allowed to draw from the endowment.

But, an updated version of the act, UPMIFA (the P stands for prudent), was drafted after the dot com bubble burst tied the hands of charities whose investments had suddenly dropped. UPMIFA allows charitable institutions greater flexibility in their expenditures, and permits them to draw below the principal of their endowment. Since its introduction 2 years ago, UPMIFA has been ratified in 26 states, and has been recently introduced in the Massachussets legislature by a coalition spearheaded by the Massachussets Audobon Society, which lost 26% of its endowment last year. (see the Wall Street Journal article for more details). COO French, in a letter to the Justice quoted in their recent editorial, stated,

UPMIFA … establishes a sounder and more unified basis for management of charitable funds.

But so far, Brandeis has not joined the coalition pushing for the new law. Reinharz and French have also failed to pursue other means of accessing the endowment principle. Charity Governance Consulting provides a primer on these alternative avenues. Essentially, the University could petition the Attorney General’s office to use the doctrine of cy pres to grant the University an exemption from spending restrictions. In fact, this path is explicitly endorsed as a possiblity in current Massachussets law -

If the [Attorney General] finds that the restriction is obsolete, inappropriate, or impracticable, it may by order release the restriction in whole or in part.

Which leads to an intriguing question: If the Administration supposedly endorses the premise of UPMIFA, why has it neither joined the coalition lobbying for its passage nor petitioned the Attorney General’s office to allow us to draw additional funds from our endowment?

Through either path, we’d be released from a financial bind. We’d have more options. But through inaction, the Administration is able to force our hand. Without being able to draw from the endowment, there are no other available options but to sell the Rose’s art, as soon as possible. Since this is the path settled on by the higher-ups in the Administration, it is against their strategic interest to open up viable alternatives.

Now, some would have us believe that drawing from the endowment would threaten the future stability of Brandeis. In the recent student press conference, President Reinharz said something to this effect, via goofy metaphor:

“You can eat your corn seed today. But somebody’s going to suffer in the future. You and I will not be here.”

But in the event that we are suffering an undue amount in the future due to any hypothetical increased endowment draw, the same possibility of selling art still exists. Actually, the pieces will even be worth more, as art markets continue to recover. The only difference is that our crisis mentality will have settled down. It will be even more difficult to sell the idea to the Brandeis community when we aren’t freaking out quite as much. But if we are to make such a permanent and momentous decision, we shouldn’t be shock-doctrined into doing it hastily in crisis mode.

In short – Drawing from the endowment gives us a good alternative and still allows the possibility of selling art (at a probable higher price) if the University is still in desperate need of money. So if you want a solid argument to keep the Rose, start lobbying the Massachussets legislature to review and pass the UPMIFA legislation. Pressure the University Administration to go to the Attorney General and ask if cy pres can be implemented. There is little incentive for the University to act on this without significant pressure. Very soon, I expect a coordinated campaign on campus and among concerned alumni to this effect. Its the obvious next step.

“To quote President Obama, ‘I screwed up.’ “

These are clear reversals from the earlier policy of last week, when Pres. Reinharz and others told us, with finality, that the Rose Museum would be closed. His initial email stated

The Board of Trustees met today and voted to close the Rose Art Museum.

Yesterday, 9 days later, Pres. Reinharz sent another email, stating,

The Museum will remain open.

He tells us this new idea is a clarifying correction to the earlier stance, and that the Board resolution’s real mandate merely gave the President the authority to conduct ”an orderly sale or other disposition of works from the university’s collection.”

Disregarding this mandate’s parallel to the Iraq War Resolution, the initial Administrative position was nonetheless clear: The University had been authorized to sell the Rose’s artwork, and fully planned to close the museum and do so (at least the Warhols, Lichtensteins, Rauschenbergs, and other really valuable pieces).

Now, we have some softer, vaguer language. Today’s email said,

“The University may have the option, subject to applicable legal requirements and procedures, to sell some artworks if necessary, but I assure you that other options will also be considered.” (emphasis on vague-ifying words added by me).

But as was pointed out in a comment on an earlier post, nothing concrete has really changed. Even if the building is still called the Rose and remains open to the public, the museum will be turned from a museum into a teaching space. The Rose’s staff had been given leave of notice for June, and there is no indication that plan has been altered. As the Rose is financially self-sufficient, there is no reason for the museum to be closed this summer unless the Administration is planning on dismantling the “museum” part of the Rose museum.

I wish we could trust Pres. Reinharz at face value. If he says “I’m not closing the Rose,” I’d like to believe that without reading behind his words. But such trust has to be earned, and until a few days ago the modus operandi of the University administration had been to make big decisions behind closed doors and try to slip them past the community with little discussion and no fuss. I hope the University administration really has turned over a new leaf, but we cannot be naive enough to be placated so easily. For now, this new reframing of the decision looks like little substance and a lot of PR spin concocted by our new friends at Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

During his student press conference today, President Reinharz began by firmly stating that the Board of Trustees Resolution did not call for the closing of the Rose, nor did it mandate the selling of the collection. This had been a misunderstanding, continued Reinharz, precipitated by a hastily worded and somewhat innacurate press release. This original press release said,

“Brandeis University’s Board of Trustees today voted unanimously to close the Rose Art Museum.”

 But this morning, Pres. Reinharz told us that was an error. Instead, he went on to state,

“I’m not closing the Rose… had I said that originally, that would have saved us a lot of pain, aggravation, and the rest. I take full responsibility.”

“The arts have always been one of the four schools at Brandeis. They have been as important as the sciences or the social sciences or the humanities. We have always been supporters of the Rose. I have raised most of the money for the Rose… So I want you to understand, this decision has been painful. It has been very painful to everyone – to the trustees, to the administrators, to the faculty, to the students, and it has not been taken lightly.” 

“I take responsibility for at least two things. One is the way [the decision] has been communicated, and the other is the process that led up to that vote of the Board of Trustees. If I could turn the clock back, I would do it differently.” 

Earlier, the Administration had hedged on when and how much art would be sold. But to my knowledge, this is the first time that the University has backed off its decision to actually close the Museum. Such a move is almost certainly a reaction to the bad press, student protest, and alumni shock following the announcement that the Museum would be closed. Indeed, Pres. Reinharz seems to have entirely accepted the request in the faculty letter sent yesterday to his office. That letter asked Reinharz,

We would like to ask you to consider suspending any final decision about the fate  of the Rose Art Museum, pending a full airing of possible alternatives by the Brandeis community.

Today, Reinharz will hold a discussion with faculty, students, and other community members whose fates intertwine with that of the museum. And, in the press conference, he told us,

“We have a faculty committee thinking right now on what and how the Rose should function on this campus.” 

This is great news. Our outcries have worked. It should have been done earlier, but the unilateral Administrative decision has been reversed.

More to come.

update:  (Sahar here) Jehuda just sent an email to the University Community. Full text:

Dear Members of the Brandeis community:

The past ten days have been extremely difficult for all of us. I have heard from many of you and listened carefully to your criticisms and constructive suggestions. I have read every message on the faculty list serve, and the thoughtful letter sent to me by a group of faculty last night. I have also heard from students, staff, alumni, university presidents and complete strangers about my statements regarding the vote by the Board of Trustees concerning the Rose Art Museum.

In retrospect, I wish I had handled the initial statements I made in a far more direct way. Unfortunately, those statements did not accurately reflect the Board’s decision authorizing the administration to conduct “an orderly sale or other disposition of works from the university’s collection.” The statements gave the misleading impression that we were selling the entire collection immediately, which is not true.  The University may have the option, subject to applicable legal requirements and procedures, to sell some artworks if necessary, but I assure you that other options will also be considered.  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.  We will meet with all affected University constituencies to explore together how this can best be done.

I regret as well that I did not find a more inclusive and open way to engage the Brandeis community in the deliberations that led to the Board’s decision.

I take full responsibility for causing pain and embarrassment in both of these matters. To quote President Obama, “I screwed up.”

Having learned from this experience, I will do my best, as will the entire administration, to work together with all of you in a collaborative manner. We must cooperate as we move forward to confront our financial crisis.  But we also have to take bold steps. Obviously, we have many tasks ahead of us regarding the curriculum and the budget.

In meetings with members of the faculty and with students in the past few days, I have been heartened by the enormous reservoir of good will, imagination and willingness to work hard to guarantee that Brandeis will continue to thrive as a first-rate institution of higher learning.

Sincerely,

Jehuda Reinharz

There’s a bit of a debate over whether this the really a change in policy for the University. Commenter Andy responds:

I think things have definitely changed. The fact that the museum is not closing in June is a HUGE thing thats changing. The Board authorized the closing and as of this morning the Administration is not utilizing that authorization.

Today, both Pres. Reinharz and COO French have announced they are taking a 10% pay cut, presumably starting this fiscal year. This was hidden away in the Boston Globe this morning - 

Reinharz will give up $50,000, French $40,000.

Such a step is something we’ve been thinking about for a while, and which I brought up with COO French at the first student forum. He originally referred me to the sticky wage theory, an economics term describing the difficulty of lowering wages even when market conditions dictate they should go down. Well, it seems the University’s new PR firm, Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, is slick enough to overcome its chief officers’ stickiness – the move came two days after the firm’s hiring by the University. Didn’t take a genius to figure out the PR benefits of that one, however.

But regardless of PR motivation, the results are what counts. Such a move is commendable and illustrates a new sensitivity of the Administration to the mood of the community. If we are letting go 10% of our faculty, it seems pretty fair to cut 10% of the half-million dollar salary of our President. Thank you, President Reinharz.

The letter comes as a welcom show of support from the faculty for more community involvement in decisions, and serves as a rebuke to the Administration for acting in such a secretive matter. 

Perhaps one thing that could be considered is the possibility of drawing from the endowment principle, which seems to me to be the best feasible fiscal alternative that would leave the University intact. I plan on talking more about this in a future post.

The full letter is below…

An open letter from the Faculty to Pres. Reinharz

February 4, 2009 

Dear President Reinharz,  

            We would like to ask you to consider suspending any final decision about the fate  of the Rose Art Museum, pending a full airing of possibl alternatives by the Brandeis  community. With the world’s eyes fixed on Brandeis, now is the time for all of us in the university to show our willingness to debate, to deliberate, to explore a range of financial and intellectual options. This process should take place in a timely manner, but without undue haste. The last two weeks have left many in the faculty feeling uninformed by an administration bent on taking speedy action. But the crisis of confidence that this episode has engendered may yet be transformed into a widespread support for our governing bodies, if all members of the Brandeis community are allowed to take part in a truly free discussion about what can be done, both for the Rose and for the tough financial choices that face the university. When transparent and accountable governance is circumvented anywhere in the university, we all suffer. When that breach of process results in adverse 

publicity for the university as a whole, as well as serious damage to the intellectual work undertaken by our colleagues in Fine Arts and their students, we all feel threatened. 

The university’s deserved reputation as a beacon for both social justice and intellectual integrity is at stake here. And speaking pragmatically, the events of the last week have shown that the Rose museum’s value to the university is not only measured in the auction price of pictures. Donor goodwill is a valuable and hard-to-recover asset, and the Rose’s potential dissolution may send the wrong  message about Brandeis to potential supporters everywhere. Because closing the Rose Museum was authorized but not mandated by the Board of Trustees,  we hope that you will reassure us that you plan to hold off on any final decision about the Rose at this juncture. We believe that the suspension of  any action concerning the Rose for a reasonable period—coupled with a resolve to make the university’s financial options open to informed analysis by engaged members of the Brandeis community—would go a long way to reassuring both the community and our well-wishers outside. 

Sincerely, 

Silvia Arrom (History) 
Susan Birren (Biology) 
Marc Brettler (NEJS) 
Mary Baine Campbell (English) 
Bulbul Chakrabarty (Physics) 
David Cunningham (Sociology) 
Steven Dowden (German, Russian, & Asian Languages and Literatures) 
Irving R. Epstein  (Chemistry ) 
Elizabeth Ferry (Anthropology) 
David Hackett Fischer (History) 
Seth Fraden (Physics) 
Richard Gaskins (American Studies) 
Michael T. Gilmore (English)  
Leslie Griffith (Biology) 
Karen Hansen (Sociology) 
Eric Hill (Theater Arts) 
Jane Kamensky (History) 
Don Katz (Psychology) 
Nina (Cornelia) Kammerer (Heller) 
Tom King (English) 
Sarah Lamb (Anthropology) 
Sue Lanser (English) 
Harry Mairson (Computer Science) 
James Mandrell (Women’s and Gender Studies) 
Catherine L. Mann (IBS and Economics) 
Eve Marder (Biology) 
Charles McClendon (Fine Arts) 
Robert Meyer (Physics) 
Robin Feuer Miller (German, Russian, & Asian Languages and Literatures) 
Paul Morrison (English) 
Leonard Muellner (Classical Studies) 
Richard Parmentier (Anthropology) 
Gregory A. Petsko (Biochemistry) 
John Plotz (English) 
Michael Randall (Romance Studies) 
Michael Rosbash (Biology) 
Fernando J. Rosenberg (Romance Studies) 
Daniel Ruberman (Mathematics) 
Ellen Schattschneider (Anthropology) 
Dawn Skorczewski (English) 
Nancy Scott (Fine Arts) 
Marion Smiley (Philosophy) 
Ramie Targoff (English) 
Gina Turrigiano (Biology) 
Jonathan Unglaub (Fine Arts) 
Cheryl Walker (Classical Studies) 
Aida Yuen Wong  (Fine Arts) 
Bernard Yack (Politics) 
William Flesch (English) 
Laura Quinney (English) 
Dimitry Kleinbock (Mathematics) 
Jim Haber (Biology) 
Melissa Stimmel (Legal Studies) 
Derek Isaacowitz (Psychology) 
Patricia Johnston (Classical Studies) 
Joyce Antler (American Studies) 
Sacha Nelson (Biology) 
Liuba Shrira (Computer Science) 
Richard Lansing (Romance Studies) 
David Engerman (History) 
Jeffrey Agar (Chemistry) 
Govind P. Sreenivasan (History) 
Jane Hale (Romance Studies) 
Gordon Feldman (Sociology) 
Thomas Doherty (Film Studies) 
John Wardle (Physics)