Blog Fights

This morning, I was reading through my Google Reader feed when I came across a new post by Edward Winkleman to his blog. He was responding to a comment left by an anonymous poster regarding Winkleman's previous post "Brandeis: Art = Cash"

Here is the comment left by the poster:
Yes its a shame, but perhaps its time that the tail no longer wags the dog. Don't forget that the donors get a nice fat charitable tax deduction for the "fair market value" of the art. Remember former Brandeis Professor Maslow's theory-- we need to provide for our basic physiology and safety before we get to be able to worry about our self-actualization. I would suggest that our chemistry, biology, and physics graduates have a better chance of improving the life of mankind than artists.

Quite frankly, this comment absolutely outraged me. Perhaps I've gotten a bit more emotionally invested in the Rose Art Museum crisis than many; however, I couldn't let this sort of flippant comment go without some response. Below is my response to both Winkleman and the anonymous poster. If I was out of line, missed anything, or whatever else, feel free to let me know. I think it's really important to engage in honest, open and thoughtful communication, and I really feel like this commenter was unwilling to and incapable of doing such.

Here is my response:

Edward,

Quite frankly, I think you didn't push the commenter hard enough in this post. What s/he said was not only short-sighted, but selfish, ill-conceived, and clearly comes from a place of severe insecurity and fear.

There are certainly many, many differences between the sciences and the arts as academic undergraduate departments; however, the point to close the museum thrusts both into some form of relationship founded in crisis. The absence of the museum would, ostensibly, benefit the presence of the science programs. But how? By providing more raw materials, better teacher salaries, higher-tech buildings? OK. Sure, one could make that claim, and thus continue by saying that the science students deserve these things to better support their decision to study.

But what of the humanities students? Brandeis is, above and beyond, a liberal arts university, although it does have strong ties to research. So, it appears to me that the commenter would rather the University renounce its ties to the humanities, thereby effectively making it Brandeis Tech, which would therefore allow for a higher dedication to the sciences.

OK, so that may be slightly too much of a stretch, but I suppose what this all gets down to is the equality of the student. One enters the college under a financial contract to pay $50,190 (according to the official website). That $50,190 does not mean anything more if you're a science major than if you're a studio art major. The simple fact is really that each student should be given the same opportunities, access to technologies, faculty and up-to-date facilities, and above and beyond the same level of respect, which thus means that for the studio art, art history, public relations, history, public service, and public policy majors (to name a few), the Rose Art Museum should absolutely be available as shining example for what art is capable of from a spiritual, emotional, economic, and cultural perspective.

I take a lot of issue with the commenter's lack of respect for the students at Brandeis University, and hope that s/he takes a long hard look at their priorities and re-evaluate if their heart is in the right place-- whether their devotion is to the student unequivocally, or only to those benefiting their immediate, insulated world.

One last point-- Brandeis' motto is "Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts"... it would be nice to see this anonymous someone working for the University believe in and uphold that rhetoric.