Advocacy

News about the closing of the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis University and the selling of its collection slowed down this week, but not without several highlights. Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz issued a formal apology—not for the decision to dismantle the museum’s collection but rather for his mishandling the announcement to do so. He also regretted leaving out the Brandeis community in the board of trustees’ deliberations.

Michael Rush, director of the Rose, posted his statement on the closing and sale directly to his museum’s website this week. The university’s Department of Fine Arts also joined the chorus of protest voices, issuing a statement to all university faculty, students, alumni, and friends of the department. Also, the New York Times condemned the Brandeis decision in an article by Roberta Smith and in an unsigned editorial.

Jeff Gilbride of the Daily News Tribune in Waltham, Massachusetts, was at the “funeral march” held this week by Brandeis students as an “emotional and rowdy counterpart” to last week’s sit-in at the museum. Relatedly, Jeff Weistein fromObit wonders, “Can a Museum Die?”

Greg Cook reviews the current exhibition at the Rose, Hans Hoffmann: Circa 1950, for the Boston Phoenix, and Daniel Grant considers donor responses and restrictions on gifts in his article “Is the University’s Museum Just a Rose to Be Plucked?” for the Wall Street Journal.

The Rose Art Museum website is chronicling the press on the closing and sale. Laurie Fendrich has been passionately following the story in the Chronicle Review, the blog of the Chronicle of Higher Education. And, of course, theBoston Globe has been leading the charge with daily reports.

Yesterday about two hundred students and other protesters staged a sit-in at the Rose Art Museum, reports the Boston Globe, which has been following the story closely since Monday. A Facebook group and a website, established this week shortly after the news of the closing, played a major role in rallying students and support.

The Boston Globe also presents some of the larger issues surrounding Brandeis University’s finances. Modern Art Notes has published an general email sent by Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz to those who wrote to him. In it Reinharz gives a few more details about his school’s financial situation. The Justice, the independent student newspaper at Brandeis, and the Wall Street Journal are also looking into this part of the developing story.

The Brandeis Hoot also weighs in on the situation, and Emily Leifer of the Justicewrites an op-ed about Brandeis’s public image.

Art & Education, the academic wing of e-flux and Artforum, republished and emailed CAA’s statement against the closing.

Ford W. Bell, president of the American Association of Museums, has issued a Statement on the Closure of the Rose Museum at Brandeis University. Read it at the Boston Globe’s Exhibitionist blog.

Artinfo.com has published the response from the Association of Art Museum Directors.

The Association of College and University Museums and Galleries, a CAA affiliated society, has published its statement, ACUMG Responds to the Closure of the Rose Art Museum, Brandeis University.

Also as reported in the Boston Globe, the president of Brandeis University, Jehuda Reinharz, said that while he would not reconsider closing the museum, he is entertaining the possibility that his school might not sell the Rose Art Museum’s art collection and reaffirmed that the museum building would become a “fine arts teaching center with studio space and an exhibition gallery.” CAA notes that the Rose Art Museum as it stands now is already this.

Other updates and articles can be found at Bloomberg.com, the New York Times, and Modern Art Notes, including a Q&A with Michael Rush, director of the Rose Art Museum. Time also interviewed Rush on Tuesday, and Lee Rosenbaum at CultureGrrl has additional information.

Donn Zaretsky at Art Law Blog is also writing about the Rose situation, with deaccessioning in mind.

The College Art Association (CAA) was shocked and dismayed to learn of the decision by Brandeis University to close the Rose Art Museum and sell its entire art collection for operating revenue.

CAA supports the Codes of Ethics of the American Association of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors, which clearly state that works of art in museum collections are held as a public trust and that any proceeds of sales must only support the acquisition of new works. However, perceiving an entire art collection as a disposable financial asset and then dismantling that collection wholesale to cover other university expenses is deeply troubling for all college and university collections.

The closing of the museum at Brandeis will be devastating to the academic community, not only affecting our colleagues at the museum and students and faculty in the Department of Fine Arts, which offers programs in both studio art and art history, but also depriving the entire arts-loving public in New England and around the world. The teaching of art and art history in higher education is untenable without the direct study of physical works of art, and it appears the Brandeis Board of Trustees has disregarded the kind of scholarship and creativity that have been the hallmark of CAA members for nearly one hundred years.

According to news reports, neither Brandeis University nor the Rose Art Museum is on the brink of economic collapse, nor are they unable to maintain the collections. Given that no clear explanation has been offered on the school’s financial exigencies, the closure of the Rose Art Museum and the sale of its collection appear to be in violation of professional museum standards and of academic transparency and due process; the decision also demonstrates a lack of academic responsibility and fiduciary foresight. We appeal to the Trustees of Brandeis to revisit and reverse their decision.

Paul B. Jaskot
President, College Art Association
Professor of Art History
Department of the History of Art and Architecture
DePaul University

Linda Downs
Executive Director, College Art Association

Download a PDF of this letter from the CAA website.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an independent policy research center that conducts multidisciplinary studies of complex and emerging problems, has unveiled the Humanities Indicators, a prototype set of statistical data about the humanities in the United States that is organized in collaboration with a consortium of national humanities organizations.

“Until now the nation has lacked a broad-based, quantitative analysis of the status of the humanities in the United States,” said Leslie Berlowitz, chief executive officer of the American Academy and project codirector. “We need more reliable empirical data about what is being taught in the humanities, how they are funded, the size of the workforce, and public attitudes toward the field. The Humanities Indicators are an important step in closing that fundamental knowledge gap. They will help researchers and policymakers, universities, foundations, museums, libraries, humanities councils, and others answer basic questions about the humanities, track trends, diagnose problems, and formulate appropriate interventions.”

CAA worked closely on the Humanities Indicators project since its inception and eagerly looks forward to the essays that will interpret the first set of statistical information. CAA provided information on hundreds of art-history departments at colleges, universities, and art schools that were then contacted to participate in filling out questionnaires to add to the statistics. For the first time, statistical information on academic art history and art museums will be represented in separate categories instead of being summarized (as in the US Department of Education and US Department of Labor statistics) in the general arts category.

Visual art in higher education and elsewhere, however, was not considered. Linda Downs, CAA executive director, notes that “the visual arts are only represented by art history in the indicators because the American Academy chose to follow the current definition of the humanities used by the National Endowment of the Humanities. I have argued for the inclusion of statistical information on artists, and the academy has promised that they will include visual artists in next year’s collection of statistics. Visual-arts statistics are not kept separate from performing-arts statistics by the Education or Labor Departments. So, any step in this direction will be useful for CAA.”

The Humanities Indicators reveal that:

• The picture of adult literacy in the US is one of polarization. Among Western industrialized nations, we rank near the top in the percentage of highly literate adults (21 percent) but also near the top in the proportion who are functionally illiterate (also 21 percent)
• Public debate about teacher qualifications has focused mainly on math and science, but data reveal that the humanities fields suffer an even more glaring dearth of well-prepared teachers. In 2000, the percentage of middle (29 percent) and high school (37.5 percent) students taught by a highly qualified history teacher was lower than for any other major subject area. The definition of “highly qualified” is a teacher who has certification and a postsecondary degree in the subject they teach
• Humanities faculty are the most poorly paid. They also have a higher proportion of part-time, nontenured positions compared to their counterparts in the sciences and engineering. But almost half of humanities faculty indicate that they are “very satisfied” with their jobs overall
• Since the early 1970s, the number of Americans who support the banning of books from the public library because they espouse atheism, extreme militarism, communism, or homosexuality decreased by at least 11 percentage points, although from 26 percent to 34 percent of the public would support banning some type of book. In the case of books advocating homosexuality, the decline was a particularly significant 20 percentage points
• Recent federal legislation identifies certain languages as “critical need languages” (Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Bengali, Turkish, and Uzbek, among others), but the data show these languages are rarely studied in colleges and universities. At the same time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of students studying Chinese
• Charitable giving to arts and cultural organizations grew between the mid-1990s and the early 2000s before leveling off. But little public- or private-sector funding for the humanities goes to academic research. This trend undermines both academia and the public since public institutions rely on humanities scholars to provide much of the knowledge on which these activities are based
• The number of American adults who read at least one book in the previous twelve months decreased from 61 percent to 57 percent in the decade between the early 1990s and the early 2000s. The greatest rate of decline (approximately 15 percent) occurred among 18-to-24-year-olds

The project collected and analyzed data from existing sources to compile a prototype set of seventy-four indicators and more than two hundred tables and charts, accompanied by interpretive essays covering five broad subject areas. The indicators will be updated as new information becomes available, including data from a survey administered last year to approximately 1,500 college and university humanities departments. The academy views the indicators as a prototype for a much-needed national system of humanities data collection.

Among the organizations collaborating with the academy on the effort are the the College Art Association, American Council of Learned Societies, the American Academy of Religion, the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, the Association of American Universities, the Federation of State Humanities Councils, the Linguistic Society of America, the Modern Language Association, and the National Humanities Alliance.

Update: Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed has the first review of the Humanities Indicators, with comments from readers.

CAA has joined a list of twenty-six national organizations, six regional museum associations, and thirty-nine state associations in sending a letter to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. The letter, drafted by the American Association of Museums and sent on December 22, 2008, states the case for the importance of US museums of all kinds and recommends $50 million in funding for the Office of Museum Services at the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $19 million over this year’s budget.

The Arts Education Network Weekly News reports that several national arts and arts education organizations have submitted a policy brief on the arts to President-elect Barack Obama and his transition team. The brief covers recommendations for the National Endowment for the Arts; cultural exchange; arts education in school, work, and life; national service and the arts; and the role of the arts in nonprofit communities. The brief also requests that the incoming president appoint a senior-level administration official to coordinate arts and cultural policy.

According to the brief, “The arts and cultural community welcomes the opportunity to communicate with President-Elect Obama and his staff in re-imagining how the federal government can inspire and support creativity in communities nationwide through robust policies that advance participation in the arts for all Americans.”

The following are the recommendations proposed for arts education:

• Prevent economic status and geographic location from denying students a comprehensive arts education
• Ensure equitable access to the full benefits of arts education when reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that all, not just some, students can learn to their full potential
• Exercise leadership to encourage arts-based and other creative learning environments for academically at-risk students participating in Title I-funded programs
• Retain the arts in the definition of core academic subjects of learning and reauthorize the Arts in Education Programs of the US Department of Education
• Fund after-school arts learning opportunities and support arts-education partnerships between schools and community arts and cultural organizations
• Move federal policy beyond simply declaring the arts as a core academic subject to actually implementing arts education as an essential subject of learning
• Require states to issue annual public reports on the local status and condition of arts education and other core academic subjects
• Improve national data collection and research in arts education
• Invest in professional development opportunities for teachers in the arts
• Deploy arts education as an economic-development strategy
• Authorize and encourage inclusion of arts learning in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) initiatives in order to foster imagination and innovation. Without the arts, STEM falls short of its potential to advance education and workforce development
• Fully preparing students with the creative skills they will need to advance our nation’s position in the twenty-first-century global economy requires implementing the arts as a core subject of learning and ensuring that all students attain cultural literacy
• Ensure that the full range of federal initiatives that advance workforce development, such as Department of Labor programs, provide training in the skills of creativity and imagination

Among the many joining organizations are Americans for the Arts, the American Association of Museums, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Literary Network, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, the National Council for Traditional Arts, and the National Performance Network.

States are making little or no progress in providing affordable college opportunities or improving college completion rates for their residents, says a report released today by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. The findings come as states face massive budget shortfalls that threaten higher-education funding, and the United States continues to lag behind other advanced nations on measures of higher-education performance.

Drawing on nearly two decades of data, the report, Measuring Up 2008, finds that while states have made modest gains in preparing students for college, more students are failing to graduate from high school. While college-enrollment rates for young adults are improving, enrollment rates are declining for older adults. The report also notes that the burden of paying for college is now higher for students in every state, and low college-completion rates have barely improved. Additionally, disparities persist in college access and success by income, race and ethnicity, and state.

According to the study, major gaps include:

• Affordability. The burden of paying for college has increased for all families but has increased substantially more for low- and middle-income families. Nationally, families in the lowest-income group (bottom 20 percent of the population) pay 55 percent of their income to attend public four-year colleges and universities (after accounting for all student financial aid)—a jump from 39 percent in 2000. Families in the middle-income group (middle 20 percent of the population) pay 25 percent of their income (up from 18 percent in 2000), and those in the top income group (top 20 percent of the population) pay 9 percent of their income (up from 7 percent in 2000). (See page 8 of Measuring Up 2008.)
• Additionally, college is more affordable in some states than others. At community colleges, the proportion of family income needed to pay for college expenses, after financial aid, has increased from 18 percent to 25 percent in Florida, and from 20 percent to 25 percent in Washington State. At public four-year institutions, the percentage of income needed to pay costs, after aid, has increased from 17 percent to 20 percent in Minnesota, from 19 percent to 34 percent in New Jersey, and from 29 percent to 41 percent in Pennsylvania. (See page 15.)
• High school completion. In Illinois, 95 percent of white young adults have a high school credential, compared with 82 percent of blacks. In Texas, 93 percent of white young adults have a high school credential, compared with 74 percent of Hispanics. (See page 14.)
• College attendance. In Connecticut and New York, 50 percent of white young adults are enrolled in college, compared with 34 percent of blacks. In California, 45 percent of whites are enrolled, compared with 27 percent of Hispanics. In Arizona, 40 percent of whites are enrolled, compared with 18 percent of Native Americans. (See page 14.)
• College graduation. In Delaware, 73 percent of white students complete a bachelor’s degree within six years of enrolling in college, compared with 41 percent of black students. In New York, 63 percent of whites do so, compared with 43 percent of Hispanics. In New Mexico, 47 percent of whites graduate within six years, compared with 25 percent of Native Americans. (See page 16.)

As a result of these inequities, US higher-education performance has been declining compared to other nations in recent years.

• In college completion, which has never been a strength of American higher education, the US falls in the middle of the pack: fifteenth among twenty-nine countries compared
• The US adult population ages thirty-five and older still ranks among the world leaders (second only to their peers in Canada) in the percentage who have college degrees, reflecting the educational progress of earlier times
• Among twenty-five- to thirty-four-year-olds, however, the US has slipped to tenth in the percentage having college degrees. This relative erosion of our national “educational capital” reflects the lack of significant improvement in the rates of college participation and completion in the US in recent years, compared with other countries

Measuring Up 2008 is the fifth in a series of biennial report cards issued by the National Center, based in San Jose, California. Like the earlier reports, this edition measures the performance of the nation and of each state in providing education and training beyond high school. Each state receives an A-to-F grade in each of five performance areas.

In addition to the national report card, detailed individual report cards are available for each of the fifty states. Upon release of Measuring Up 2008, the national and state report cards will be posted on the National Center’s website.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education promotes public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve a quality higher education. Established in 1998 by a consortium of national foundations, the center is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. It is not associated with any institution of higher education, with any political party, or with any government agency. The National Center is solely responsible for Measuring Up 2008.

Last month, the CAA Board of Directors approved revisions to the MFA Standards, one of the organization’s many Standards and Guidelines for visual-art professionals. The revised document, prepared by a subcommittee of the Professional Practices Committee (PPC), is now published to the CAA website.

During summer and fall 2008, Jean Miller, chair of the PPC-MFA Standards Review Committee, and Charles Wright, a PPC member who is also leading a discussion about the doctorate in studio art, worked on a draft of a revised MFA Standards. Last revised and approved in 1991, the document was submitted to the board by Maxine Payne, PPC chair.

The PPC-MFA Committee contacted art and design colleagues across the nation throughout the revision process to gather ideas for changes. The response was very good, with certain themes or points reoccurring. Many of those queried thought that the idea of the MFA as the terminal degree in art and design needed to be reinforced. Others found the language in the 1991 standards to be dated, so it was rewritten throughout to reflect present-day issues and concerns.

Contemporary and evolving studio practices, interpretation of ideas, and the role of art and design in innovation were all thought to be important concepts. Information about technology and experimental media, collaborative works, and interdisciplinary applications of art and design were also considered to be critical to current art practices for students in MFA programs.

Some respondents advocated for robust and comprehensive educational curricula that include critical studies, art history, and visual culture. The inclusion of statements about diversity and how curriculum must support non-Western and Western cultures was important to all.

The PPC thanks everyone who helped in the revision, in particular, Carmon Colangelo, Patricia Olynyk, Nora Sturges, Judith Thorpe, and Jim Hopfensperger.

The National Endowment for the Humanities has announced that Chairman Bruce Cole will leave the endowment to join the American Revolution Center as its president and chief executive officer, effective January 2009.

Appointed NEH chairman by President George W. Bush, Cole was confirmed by the Senate in 2001 and reconfirmed in 2005 for a second term. Cole is the longest serving chairman in NEH history. During his tenure, the NEH launched innovative humanities programs, including We the People and Picturing America. Under his leadership, the NEH led the application of digital technology to the humanities through its Office of Digital Humanities. The office established innovative new grant programs and formed ground-breaking partnerships with the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Cole has also worked to broaden the international reach of NEH.