You may have read that Brandeis University is planning to shut down its modern art museum, the Rose. The shut down is in response to a fall in the Universities endowment as well stress among benefactors who'd parked their money with Bernie Madoff.
While the situation is regrettable surely the fuss it's created seems out of line. The Boston Globe produced a particularly puffed up bit of harrumphing over the museum closure. On the other hand the Globe has had little to say about cuts to UMASS funding that will surely raise tuition costs on struggling families and increase graduates debt load. The hard economic knocks are fine for middle class kids, but Warhol must be protected.
Now there is no doubt having a quality museum on campus is an asset to the school and community. I get that even though I don't particularly care for contemporary art that much. But universities have been expanding their expenditures on non-core missions like athletic fields, fancy dorms and even Art Museums for thirty years far faster than they have on instruction. These things are conspicuous spending and help build the 'brand' of the school. (It's my theory that it's easier to be seen as a successful school by attracting desirable students rather than actually providing a good education).
But the core mission of a university shouldn't be to brand itself and provide a cushy hiatus for the children of the rich, in theory it should be about education. And in an economic downturn the universities are going to have to cut something, and in general I'd rather see them selling Warhols than cutting class offerings or financial assistance.
