So I was looking at the online poll on the Justice last week.
The whole story is that at the Rose re-opening this semester, a bunch of students wore “save the rose” buttons, and Shula Reinharz (wife of Pres. Reinharz and a Sociology Professor in her own right) was all “dude the Rose is saved. Get rid of those buttons already.” The Poll basically asked “was this thing that Shula did ok?”
Now, lets put aside the fact the allowed poll responses were awful. Actually, let’s not. For the “No, that was not OK” response, they put “No; the right to free speech should not be challenged.”
Um, if the right to free speech should not be challenged, why challenge Shula’s right to ask people to not wear buttons? A possible real “No” response might read “No; Shula acted inappropriately and rudely”, or “No; in fact, the Rose is not yet saved.”
The point is this: I don’t think whoever made that poll understands why those students were wearing those buttons in the first place. You see, the Rose still isn’t saved. The Rose is under attack, and quite possibly not actually a museum any more.
Fact: “The Rose, if it continues to function as a museum, would almost certainly be excommunicated from the community of other art museums for breaching a code against selling works (unless it is for the purpose of buying other art). It could be unable to secure loans of work from other museums. This would have a huge impact on its ability to mount exhibitions, and on its ability to attract a replacement director, if it seeks to do so.”
Fact: The Rose currently has no curator, educational director, or permanent director.
Fact: The University is in a big legal battle with the Rose trustees, and is claiming that they are of course entitled to sell whatever the hell they want
Claim: Without visiting art works or a director, the Rose would be a gallery, not a museum.
The Rose is still not saved, and the University is still trying to crush it legally.
And that, my friends, is why the Rose needs saving.
One response to “Yes, the Rose still needs saving”