Think about it this way: if you were a parent of a high school senior who was considering where to spend that $200K (give or take) to educate your son or daughter, would you choose the school that”s received so much negative attention and whose top administrator — President Reinharz — is repeatedly changing his story?

So while the headline may have been “insulting” to you, it wasn’t meant to be. While it still happens all too infrequently, in the corporate world, when the CEO and board screw up — and that’s a very generous assessment here — undoubtedly shareholders start calling for heads to roll. Why has Reinharz repeatedly changed his story? Where was the type of media advice that Kekst normally provides to his paying clients?

As for the numbers, Brandeis needs to put them out there. With so many talented alums in finance, perhaps one of them — or a group of them working together — can find the solution that clearly eludes the board. But without those numbers, all we have to go on is media reports.

Brandeis is a precious jewel in the higher education landscape of American Education. One of the few universities that not only claims a broad and inspiring mission but actually works very hard to fullfill that mission. There is no campus I know of where social justice and the desire to make a better world have such a tangible presence, as I’m sure you know from experience.

I am not a Brandeis alum, nor am I Jewish, but I care much more for this university than any others I have been affiliated with (U of Chicago, Boston U. and Harvard), and I see the potential tragedy here not in the closing of the Rose, as sad as that will be, but in the possibility that the fate of the Rose might overshadow the fate of Brandeis.

Rather than critiquing my status with the university, why not address the underlying question I posed: If not the Rose, then what?

Indeed, this just further demonstrates my point: Brandeis did not anticipate the media reaction over the news of closing the Rose and they continue to mangle the response, more than a week later. Even with a top-flight PR person serving as the school’s Vice Chairman.

As for your comments, the fact remains that Brandeis has not exactly been open and provided the numbers that people need to really figure out what’s going on. Send me the numbers — I’d love to see them! I also doubt that insulting donors by saying they have been unwilling to fund the situation isn’t particularly helpful.

Because of the collapse of the stock market, Brandeis, like every other university in the country that depends on endowment, faces a severe financial crunch that will not end this year or next no matter how well the market performs. No gains, means no income. As a young university (50% of alumni graduated after 1987), Brandeis simply does not have the financial resources that its peers have. You can’t spend money that isn’t there.

A plan has been developed to solve these problems that includes 10% reductions in faculty size, a 12% increase in the size of the student body, and (regretably) closure of the Rose and the sale of some of the art it houses. (You might be interested to note that approximately 12,000 people visit the Rose each year including students, and that very little of the collection is ever seen for lack of facilities. Facilities that donors have been unwilling to expand.)

There is certainly a rational argument to be made that the Rose should not be closed, but then I challange anyone making it to propose alternative changes to Brandeis that will solve the financial problems without doing even greater damage to Brandeis and to the degrees it has conferred (How does a 30% reduction in faculty size, or the closure of the Graduate School sound?) The loss of the Rose would be a blow to the community. But the treality is that the Rose Museum, no matter how remarkable it’s collection, is not part of the core mission of the university. Indeed, closure of the Rose creates opportunities to provide fine arts studio and gallery space to students who desperately need it. Space that donors have been unwilling to fund over the past 8 years of the Campaign for Brandeis.

I don’t know if you’re a public radio listener but here is a link to an interview w/ Jehuda Reinharz that was on NPR last week. The sale has been covered by NPR fairly well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99974995

While acknowledging major donors through a leadership title is important, if they cannot commit the time to attend and be actively involved in the Board they should be on some type of honorary board, or other designation. I have zero insight into this matter and the Brandeis Board beyond what I have read here, but I would be willing to bet big $ that Board attendance at meetings is <50%.

It is very hard to get anything done with more than 12 people, and diluting the board with huge numbers does give the CEO a lot of opportunity to divide and conquer.

Lastly, interesting that Gershon Kekst is Vice Chairman. If anyone should be sensitive to PR issues, and willing to help with them, it should be him.