CAN COLLECTORS PROTECT THEIR GIFTS?

Brandeis University trustees voted unanimously last week to close the Rose Art Museum on campus and sell all of its contents. There had been no advance discussion with faculty, students, the museum's own board, or its director. The college said it needed money, and the museum's collection, all donated, of 7,180 works of art (many from the 1960s-70s) is said to be worth $350 million. Why didn't the trustees sell just a few paintings to cover its $10 million shortfall? The American Association of Museums prohibits accredited museums like Rose from de-accessioning any art except to purchase new art. Brandeis avoids the prohibition by closing the museum, but perhaps the university could have worked out an agreement with the association.

We wonder at the ethics and wisdom of the Brandeis decision to close the museum. The sale sparked a sit-in by students, and it will also anger art donors and discourage gifts. Besides, does the university even have the legal right to sell the art? Will Brandeis first offer the art back to the donors? Did the board balance the budget at the expense of a very bad PR move that will haunt them for years? Museums need to know how the public and future donors feel about the Brandeis move. This is important to all of us, because our collections of objects from everyday life could also be destroyed--and future generations might never see a tinsmith's tools or a wooden washing machine or even an 18th-century house. Let everyone know how you feel by posting on our blog.