So did you catch the latest Justice? This issue is one of the good ones.

I particularly like the article “Semantics over substance: Shifting language confuses Rose decision” by Hannah Kirsch and Mike Prada.

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.

This is perhaps the strongest stand the Justice has taken in calling out Berstein-Marcus in my memory. The rest of the article mostly catalogs the contradictory public statements and the existence of public forums throughout the Rose art debacle.

This article also has a neat info-graphic:

Way to call it like you see it.

Way to call it like you see it.

The Justice also has an informative article on what the CARS committee is up to, as well as how the University is trying to change Massachussetts policy so that it can draw more money out of the endowment.

Comments are closed.