Institution in financial chaos lectures institution in financial chaos
By adamg - 2/2/09 - 9:39 am
The New York Times wags its near-bankrupt finger at Brandeis University and sternly admonishes it not to sell off pieces of itself in an effort to stay alive.
Comments
wagging the finger
it's an editorial. its one of the things newspapers do. does your framing "wagging the finger" express some disagreement with their opinion?
the broader story is that private colleges all over the country are faced with the prospect of spending their considerably shrunken endowments to cover annual operating expenses. Even without the financial crisis, schools usually spend about 4 -7 percent of their endowments annually on expenses but due to shrunken endowments, the percentage they need is more and the assets they are spending are undervalued and represent a bigger portion of their total wealth. All private colleges are making hard choices about keeping costs under control.
when the nyt sells its share of the red sox to raise cash that'll just be a good business decision.
Sometimes irony is just irony
The New York Times isn't just looking to sell off its share of the Red Sox (and NESN). It just sold a chunk of itself to a member of the Mexican oligarchy. It's taking out a new mortgage on its already mortgaged New York skyscraper headquarters. It could be trying to find a way to jettison the Globe and Worcester Telegram. And here it comes sternly telling Brandeis that it should just suck it up and not shut down a museum that is peripheral to its core mission just because a bunch of swells down in New York like the idea of a modern-art museum.
Personally, I have no idea whether Brandeis is making the right decision (as a student there, yep, I visited the Rose a few times; as an alum, um, no). Just seems kind of odd for people in the position of the New York Times editorial board to make such stern pronouncements when their management is making the same exact sorts of decisions.
Fair enough ...Walk the
Fair enough ...Walk the walk.
I assumed that publicly
I assumed that publicly mentioning the possibility of selling the collection was a cry for help, especially when alumni are probably cutting back on donations.
I imagine that the NYT editorial is likely to scare up some new donations, and I wouldn't be surprised if that had occurred to NYT.
More on the Rose Art Museum
There were some interesting articles in the Wall Street Journal this morning, which offered up different points of view on Brandeis' decision to sell the art as well as the legal implications.
http://online.wsj.com/public/search/page/3_0466.html?KEYWORDS=%22rose%20art%20museum%22&mod=DNH_S
Aside from the fact that the
Aside from the fact that the Museum was built by funds raised by the museum and not the university, and that it operated financially independently of the university (taking only heat from Brandeis), the reason it is AMAZINGLY SHORTSIGHTED for Brandeis to auction the collection is that:
Brandeis' richest alums donated their prized art to the school they love, how do you think they will respond to the next solicitation from the development office after the school liquidating their prized and valuable gift, at the bottom of the art market no less?