Valpo Strategic Plan

[valpo95]

Here is a link to the Torch story about the art sales. Three works, including the most famous painting in the collection (Rust Red Hills by Georgia O'Keeffe) are up for sale, at a total estimated valuation of $20.5M.

http://www.valpotorch.com/news/article_28884a8e-a83e-11ed-93a8-cf14b64bc39f.html

[valpopal]

The plan to sell some of the highest prized and treasured artworks from the Brauer Museum is ill advised, even worse than the mascot debacle. If the removal of the Crusader lost a number of donor alums associated with sports, this move will alienate those donors to the arts. The backlash from a number of devoted members of the Valparaiso University community is already happening. Richard Brauer, one of Valparaiso University's most beloved and influential individuals, has declared he will request removal of his name from the museum and cut all contact with the university. The museum is one of Valpo's jewels, and its reputation will be tarnished greatly. Donors to the museum, including those in Friends of Art, who have contributed vastly in the past, will walk away since the works they help purchase are not guaranteed to stay. As Prof. John Ruff has stated, the sale violates agreements made when paintings were obtained as well as requirements previously set for sales. Those in the art community—current and alums, especially big donors—will see this as a stabbing in the back. Economically, artworks appreciate in value forever while a dorm building will begin to depreciate in value the moment in opens.   

[vu84v2]

First, I do not know the terms associated with the donation of these works of art (e.g., never sell them without donor's approval). Valpo should not violate those terms. I also don't know the amount of future potential donations from those who may stop donating because of artworks are sold. That should be assessed (and probably was).

Within those limitations, this seems like a good move. What is the mission of the university? We could debate on the details of that, but it is not to be holders of expensive art. If assets can be repurposed to make the university more competitive, than that is the right decision. Look at this in a different perspective. If the university had $20.5M in cash, should the university buy artwork or invest in capital spending that attracts more students and improves the experience at Valpo? Far more alums (myself included) would scream if the university bought artwork in that scenario.

The only problem that I had with President Padilla's comments was that the proceeds will not go towards operating expenses. This is the fallacy some organizations try to argue - that money can somehow be different from other money. The bottom line is that the proceeds from art sales would go into the university's total financial resources and that its financial resources could then support additional uses.

[David81]

The plan to sell some of the highest prized and treasured artworks from the Brauer Museum is ill advised, even worse than the mascot debacle. If the removal of the Crusader lost a number of donor alums associated with sports, this move will alienate those donors to the arts. The backlash from a number of devoted members of the Valparaiso University community is already happening. Richard Brauer, one of Valparaiso University's most beloved and influential individuals, has declared he will request removal of his name from the museum and cut all contact with the university. The museum is one of Valpo's jewels, and its reputation will be tarnished greatly. Donors to the museum, including those in Friends of Art, who have contributed vastly in the past, will walk away since the works they help purchase are not guaranteed to stay. As Prof. John Ruff has stated, the sale violates agreements made when paintings were obtained as well as requirements previously set for sales. Those in the art community—current and alums, especially big donors—will see this as a stabbing in the back. Economically, artworks appreciate in value forever while a dorm building will begin to depreciate in value the moment in opens.   

I wondered about the possible pushback on this. President Padilla's initial announcement -- anticipating that not everyone would agree with this move -- was the first time that I've thought he might be sounding a wrong note in tone and in substance. I understand the practicalities here, but it creates the impression that the school cannot offer more competitive housing options without raiding and pillaging its art museum and other sellable assets.

VU touts the Brauer Museum of Art this way: "The Brauer Museum of Art is home to a nationally recognized collection of 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century American art." https://www.valpo.edu/brauer-museum-of-art/ I am hardly the world's greatest patron of the arts, but I recognize that housing a high-quality art museum at a university says something important about how that school regards the importance of a rich cultural and intellectual life. Right now, VU is one of 680 American universities with art museums (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_art_museums_and_galleries_in_the_United_States), and I'm guessing that the Brauer is unusual among art museums at smaller, regional universities in housing a fairly valuable and distinctive collection. But also note the Wikipedia reference to the vulnerability of university art museums when the host school faces financial challenges.

Nevertheless, the President's announcement makes it sound like Brauer and other University sites with sellable assets are now regarded by the Board and Administration as potential ATMs for needed buildings. Among other things, it significantly risks that: (1) VU will lose an entire constituency of people who have been very connected and loyal to the University; and (2) the Brauer museum will never receive a meaningful (=valuable) donation of art ever again, as potential donors will not trust the University with their charitable gift. I hope they (Board and Administration) know that this move may effectively kill off the Brauer museum as home to a dynamic collection, or at least signal its significantly diminished value to the University and ensure that its holdings remain largely static in terms of significant acquisitions for the foreseeable future.

Believe me, this kind of move has repercussions that the money counters don't always appreciate. Without going into details, during a financial pinch not unlike VU's today, around a decade ago my university did something unfortunate with the biggest charitable gift it had ever received. The move resulted in the loss of a significant asset and some very unflattering news coverage that (fairly) made us look like idiots.

[valpopal]

Wednesday's long and substantial article in the Chicago Tribune about the art sale was very damaging to VU public relations, and it appears the negative publicity will continue. Not only did the piece profile and quote Brauer and Ruff, both highly respected and influential VU figures, it also outlined the university's declining enrollment since 2015, highlighting the downfall of the "now-closed law school." The description of the art sale plan as "utterly disgraceful, irreparably existentially diminishing, unethical, and seemingly unnecessary" by Richard Brauer, who has served the university since 1961 and is as beloved as any individual at the campus, is impactful. (This is not a good look for VU. I haven't seen a news report as damaging to Valpo since the New York Times hit piece that eventually led to the end of the law school.) Ruff disputed the argument by Padilla in an email to Brauer that the museum and its prize collection are "not part of our core mission of educating students," stating that about 1,000 students engage with the artworks through class visits each semester.


Additionally, it is revealing that Padilla's open letter to the campus about the art sale happened only as a defensive move on the day of the Tribune article, and that faculty were not consulted, though the process began as far back as last June with a visit by Christie's. The newly appointed director of the museum and the search committee who hired him also were kept in the dark about the sales plan. The article says Padilla met with Brauer after the decision had been made and approved by the Board. All these details undercut any claim of transparency.

[David81]

Wednesday's long and substantial article in the Chicago Tribune about the art sale was very damaging to VU public relations, and it appears the negative publicity will continue. Not only did the piece profile and quote Brauer and Ruff, both highly respected and influential VU figures, it also outlined the university's declining enrollment since 2015, highlighting the downfall of the "now-closed law school." The description of the art sale plan as "utterly disgraceful, irreparably existentially diminishing, unethical, and seemingly unnecessary" by Richard Brauer, who has served the university since 1961 and is as beloved as any individual at the campus, is impactful. (This is not a good look for VU. I haven't seen a news report as damaging to Valpo since the New York Times hit piece that eventually led to the end of the law school.) Ruff disputed the argument by Padilla in an email to Brauer that the museum and its prize collection are "not part of our core mission of educating students," stating that about 1,000 students engage with the artworks through class visits each semester.


Additionally, it is revealing that Padilla's open letter to the campus about the art sale happened only as a defensive move on the day of the Tribune article, and that faculty were not consulted, though the process began as far back as last June with a visit by Christie's. The newly appointed director of the museum and the search committee who hired him also were kept in the dark about the sales plan. The article says Padilla met with Brauer after the decision had been made and approved by the Board. All these details undercut any claim of transparency.

Uh oh, that is not good news. It means there's now a public controversy, and for whatever reason the media like to cover those stories coming out of universities.

And on campus, now it's also about not consulting faculty, and faculty have long memories (as I can attest).

This is not a good look for the President, which is unfortunate because I think he's come across as being a friendly, engaged, and forthright leader. And believe it or not, unfavorable news coverage and potential faculty pushback makes it politically harder for VU to offer an expensive buyout deal in the event a coaching change is desired for the MBB program.

[valpo95]

Additionally, it is revealing that Padilla's open letter to the campus about the art sale happened only as a defensive move on the day of the Tribune article, and that faculty were not consulted, though the process began as far back as last June with a visit by Christie's. The newly appointed director of the museum and the search committee who hired him also were kept in the dark about the sales plan. The article says Padilla met with Brauer after the decision had been made and approved by the Board. All these details undercut any claim of transparency.

So the open letter to campus is published because the Tribune calls VU, asking for comment on the story that is going to run? That's not a good look. It also would have made sense to get the input of key stakeholders like Prof. Brauer and the Urschel family ahead of the decision, to at least let them know there was the chance some key paintings might be sold. To do so after the decision was made by the Board is a slap in the face.

I get that the university is in need of funds for important initiatives, yet think ahead!

[vu72]

The fact is that without dorm improvements Valpo is truly facing an "existential threat".  The fact is that the Brauer (or whatever the new name will be) has thousands of valuable pieces.  This isn't a going out of business sale.  The O'Keeffe was purchased in 1962 for what is described as "a modest price", it wasn't a gift of a donor.  Imagine the outrage from donors if the university closed its doors!  Adding $20 million to the university's debt when one or two or three pieces of art could be sold doesn't make any sense to me. 

I wonder how many on this board, or members of the alumni association for that matter, have actually visited the Brauer or have taken the time to view the O'Keeffe?  I saw it a few years ago while on campus for homecoming.  It is what it is, I'm far from any sort of art expert.  $20 million? SOLD!

It seems many alumni and faculty, particularly the older ones, are stuck in the past, yearning for long walks through the tundra to buildings built in the 1800's. The current Valpo is at a nexus in history. The current board and president are facing numerous challenges now, with the financial cliff of 2026 looming. Tough decisions to follow.

[valpo tundra]

The article is in the Post-Tribune not the Chicago Tribune. Yes, it is confusing because it says Chicago Tribune on the top but they are the parent company of the Post-Tribune. The Chicago Tribune may have, or perhaps will publish it online or in print, but Amy Lavalley works for the Post-Tribune and lives in Valpo.

[valpo95]

The fact is that without dorm improvements Valpo is truly facing an "existential threat".  The fact is that the Brauer (or whatever the new name will be) has thousands of valuable pieces.  This isn't a going out of business sale.  The O'Keeffe was purchased in 1962 for what is described as "a modest price", it wasn't a gift of a donor.  Imagine the outrage from donors if the university closed its doors!  Adding $20 million to the university's debt when one or two or three pieces of art could be sold doesn't make any sense to me. 

I wonder how many on this board, or members of the alumni association for that matter, have actually visited the Brauer or have taken the time to view the O'Keeffe?  I saw it a few years ago while on campus for homecoming.  It is what it is, I'm far from any sort of art expert.  $20 million? SOLD!

It seems many alumni and faculty, particularly the older ones, are stuck in the past, yearning for long walks through the tundra to buildings built in the 1800's. The current Valpo is at a nexus in history. The current board and president are facing numerous challenges now, with the financial cliff of 2026 looming. Tough decisions to follow.

72, usually I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to this board, yet this one is off the mark. So the Brauer has thousands of valuable pieces? Fine. Yet this one single painting is the most well-known and most valuable painting in the collection. Would you recommend the  the Louvre selling the Mona Lisa to fund construction of a new visitors center? Second, donors provided the funds for the collection, and the Urschel family have been large donors to the University in the past - both for Urschel Hall and for the VUCA. 

Perhaps the sale of three paintings is the right decision, especially if there is a true existential threat. Yet if that is true, we would not have yet another unforced error that gives the University a black eye. Instead, most people would say, "I'm sad to hear that these paintings might be sold. However, it is much more important to secure the future of our University. There is no other way, so reluctantly we say goodbye to these paintings, and are glad to see that they will remain on display at (insert big museum here)." Getting that consensus would take some time, and it would never satisfy 100% of the stakeholders. Yet it seems that the leadership made this decision without even consulting the key stakeholders! Of course they are mad!

[valpopal]

I wonder how many on this board, or members of the alumni association for that matter, have actually visited the Brauer or have taken the time to view the O'Keeffe?  I saw it a few years ago while on campus for homecoming.  It is what it is, I'm far from any sort of art expert.  $20 million? SOLD!

I have visited the museum numerous times over the years, and I conducted class visits to view the major artworks for term projects every semester. I published books that included two of the three paintings up for sale, crediting Valparaiso University, just as other publications do. Every time those famous artworks are exhibited in museums nationally and internationally, the university is credited both in the galleries and in the accompanying books or pamphlets. The same is true when the art is viewed online. The well-known pieces bring attention to VU just the way our sports programs or the university chapel do when viewed on television. The status of the university is enhanced by the museum's better holdings. I am sorry you didn't get to spend more time at the museum. It is one of Valpo's finest assets.

[David81]

The fact is that without dorm improvements Valpo is truly facing an "existential threat".  The fact is that the Brauer (or whatever the new name will be) has thousands of valuable pieces.  This isn't a going out of business sale.  The O'Keeffe was purchased in 1962 for what is described as "a modest price", it wasn't a gift of a donor.  Imagine the outrage from donors if the university closed its doors!  Adding $20 million to the university's debt when one or two or three pieces of art could be sold doesn't make any sense to me. 

I wonder how many on this board, or members of the alumni association for that matter, have actually visited the Brauer or have taken the time to view the O'Keeffe?  I saw it a few years ago while on campus for homecoming.  It is what it is, I'm far from any sort of art expert.  $20 million? SOLD!

It seems many alumni and faculty, particularly the older ones, are stuck in the past, yearning for long walks through the tundra to buildings built in the 1800's. The current Valpo is at a nexus in history. The current board and president are facing numerous challenges now, with the financial cliff of 2026 looming. Tough decisions to follow.

But vu72, the Brauer Museum as it currently exists is not some remnant of a foggy and soggy eyed past. It wasn't even named the Brauer Museum until the mid-90s or so, in conjunction with opening the new Center for the Arts. Before that, VU's art, theatre, and music programs were spread around campus in those old, creaky buildings that you reference. So the art museum as now conceptualized represents a maturation of VU's contemporary commitment to the fine arts, not a nostalgic yearning for some day gone by.

So maybe it's not a "going out of business" sale, strictly speaking. But it creates a precedent for the future raiding of the most valuable pieces in its collection, which President Padilla more or less alluded to in slightly more diplomatic words in his announcement. A sudden sell-off of selected pieces would almost certainly end the museum's standing in the art world, knowing that its most valuable works could quickly be on the auction block, whenever necessary to make up for fundraising deficits.

The story shared by ValpoDiaspora about how faculty used the Brauer collection until a program closure and her departure for hopefully greener (fiscally and otherwise) pastures raises the connected question of how much a university can cut before waking up one day and seeing how diminished it has become. That, too, is an existential question about the worth of a university. That doesn't turn this art museum into the piece on which this all turns, but it's part of the equation.

[valpopal]

Perhaps the sale of three paintings is the right decision, especially if there is a true existential threat. Yet if that is true, we would not have yet another unforced error that gives the University a black eye. Instead, most people would say, "I'm sad to hear that these paintings might be sold. However, it is much more important to secure the future of our University. There is no other way, so reluctantly we say goodbye to these paintings, and are glad to see that they will remain on display at (insert big museum here)." Getting that consensus would take some time, and it would never satisfy 100% of the stakeholders. Yet it seems that the leadership made this decision without even consulting the key stakeholders! Of course they are mad!

If the university does sell the artworks, there is no guarantee another museum will purchase them. They could be bought by a private individual and be removed from access to public viewing.

[vu84v2]

After reading the article in the Post-Tribune (I did not see it in the Chicago Tribune), let me offer some observations. As I stated in my prior post, I am assuming that there are no written agreements between Valpo and the various parties (Brauer, Urschel, etc.) that the painting (or other paintings) cannot be sold. Best or preferred practices stated by some association or third party are meaningless unless written agreements signed by the university stated that the university would adhere to those practices.

1. Strategy involves tradeoffs and hard decisions. In prior posts, I was very critical of Valpo's strategic planning for several reasons - including (and perhaps most importantly) no visible attempt at prioritization (which involves hard decisions). This direction is a hard decision and seems correct when you consider the university's mission and the outcomes by which it measures itself. I don't deny that art may have instructional value in a number of liberal arts fields, but I strongly doubt it is millions of dollars in value (of course, this cannot be measured - but it must be considered). As I stated in a prior post, the choice is actually very simple: retain works of art worth $20M or fund necessary capital improvements that are needed to attract and retain students. Remember, this is not that the university is at parity with the dorms (and some other facilities, by the way)...it is at a disadvantage.
2. I was a student at Valpo in the early 80s. I am married to a Valpo alum. I have friends and some other family members who attended Valpo. I have had numerous types of engagement with the university during my professional careers - including teaching at the university. I have spoken to students in the Arts Center at Valpo. Despite all of this, the first time that I ever heard of the O'Keefe was in the prior post in this thread. Others in this thread argue that the painting (and other paintings) are an integral part of Valpo fulfilling its mission. As someone more closely affiliated with the university than most, I do not see that.
3. When I read the article, I was left wondering how the writer discovered the issue. If someone said, "I disagree and I am going to the media to disparage Valpo", I find that to be very immature. Frankly, I think that public comments from Brauer and Ruff are emotional (which is understandable) - but also lack emotional maturity. Raising their concerns to Padilla and the board, asking to have the name removed from the building, discontinuing all contributions, privately contacting other donors and stakeholders to gain support for their position are all valid and mature responses. But discussing your disagreement with the media comes off as "do what I want, or I will harm you publicly and as much as I can."
4. It is not Valpo's responsibility where the painting ends up. If it goes to a private collector because that realizes the highest price, then that is the best option for Valpo.
5. For those of you who say the O'Keefe and other paintings should not be sold, what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?

[historyman]

Yes, I went to the Brauer Museum! Back before the pandemic & layoffs, I took an upper level group of Theology and Chinese and Japanese Studies majors there. It was a course on East Asian Christianity, so the fantastic curator took us all thru the museum and the basement to see the Japanese and Korean Christian works along with some European and American Christian pieces, in comparative mode. SUPER cool experience for the students. Then the museum curator got laid off, and so I got notified of layoff too; the Museum was then shut a long time. Most the other faculty in Asian studies are gone too now,  so I am not sure if anybody is still taking students to see those collections. But it was really a fantastic field trip, and actually a lot of students mentioned in their course evals that it was their favorite part of the whole course. Kind of ironic since of course I had really exerted myself so much on every other aspects of the course prep while the museum day was the easiest day ever for me, guided by the curator. But that was what the students loved and wrote about the most!

You may not remember but that curator was most likely Gloria Ruff, the wife of John Ruff, who is a wonderful person and extremely knowledgeable person. She was one of the staff who was cut by the university in the layoffs before President Padilla took office as president of VU.

[David81]

After reading the article in the Post-Tribune (I did not see it in the Chicago Tribune), let me offer some observations. As I stated in my prior post, I am assuming that there are no written agreements between Valpo and the various parties (Brauer, Urschel, etc.) that the painting (or other paintings) cannot be sold. Best or preferred practices stated by some association or third party are meaningless unless written agreements signed by the university stated that the university would adhere to those practices.

1. Strategy involves tradeoffs and hard decisions. In prior posts, I was very critical of Valpo's strategic planning for several reasons - including (and perhaps most importantly) no visible attempt at prioritization (which involves hard decisions). This direction is a hard decision and seems correct when you consider the university's mission and the outcomes by which it measures itself. I don't deny that art may have instructional value in a number of liberal arts fields, but I strongly doubt it is millions of dollars in value (of course, this cannot be measured - but it must be considered). As I stated in a prior post, the choice is actually very simple: retain works of art worth $20M or fund necessary capital improvements that are needed to attract and retain students. Remember, this is not that the university is at parity with the dorms (and some other facilities, by the way)...it is at a disadvantage.
2. I was a student at Valpo in the early 80s. I am married to a Valpo alum. I have friends and some other family members who attended Valpo. I have had numerous types of engagement with the university during my professional careers - including teaching at the university. I have spoken to students in the Arts Center at Valpo. Despite all of this, the first time that I ever heard of the O'Keefe was in the prior post in this thread. Others in this thread argue that the painting (and other paintings) are an integral part of Valpo fulfilling its mission. As someone more closely affiliated with the university than most, I do not see that.
3. When I read the article, I was left wondering how the writer discovered the issue. If someone said, "I disagree and I am going to the media to disparage Valpo", I find that to be very immature. Frankly, I think that public comments from Brauer and Ruff are emotional (which is understandable) - but also lack emotional maturity. Raising their concerns to Padilla and the board, asking to have the name removed from the building, discontinuing all contributions, privately contacting other donors and stakeholders to gain support for their position are all valid and mature responses. But discussing your disagreement with the media comes off as "do what I want, or I will harm you publicly and as much as I can."
4. It is not Valpo's responsibility where the painting ends up. If it goes to a private collector because that realizes the highest price, then that is the best option for Valpo.
5. For those of you who say the O'Keefe and other paintings should not be sold, what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?

Well, on #5, if I was privy to the University budget and development activities, it's possible I might have some alternatives. Or, maybe I'd learn that VU has run bone dry on fundraising possibilities. But unless you know all the numbers, you really don't know......

As to the sale of $$$ paintings from the Brauer museum and the question of how those specific paintings relate to the University's mission, well, we could ask similar questions of other VU activities. I'd bet there are folks mad as hell about the Brauer decision who are asking if D1 basketball is an integral part of fulfilling VU's mission.

On whether a state-of-the-art residence hall is "vital" to the student experience, logically speaking, it's not -- or else we'd be talking about this being essential for every matriculated student. But given the high expectations of many young people, VU's residential living options definitely fall short of the competition. So....I will respectfully suggest that this residence hall is more vital to student recruitment than to the college experience. And since student recruitment is necessary to meet Mission #1, i.e., staying open, I do not take this lightly, even as I become the Old Guy shaking his head over some young folks' expectations.

I don't blame Brauer for talking publicly. It's the only chance he has to possibly reverse the decision. When internal university stories go public, it changes the dynamic. Plus he's seeing a lifetime of dedication -- for him, at the level of genuine mission -- now treated like an exchangeable commodity to help recruit young ones who expect fancy dorm rooms. That may be the sad reality in today's higher ed industry, but I'm sure this decision makes him feel pretty disposable as well. And universities that become dismissive towards their long-time core community members often become very much the same in substance, even as they try to tout their diminishing distinctive qualities.

[historyman]

I don't blame Brauer for talking publicly. It's the only chance he has to possibly reverse the decision. When internal university stories go public, it changes the dynamic. Plus he's seeing a lifetime of dedication -- for him, at the level of genuine mission -- now treated like an exchangeable commodity to help recruit young ones who expect fancy dorm rooms. That may be the sad reality in today's higher ed industry, but I'm sure this decision makes him feel pretty disposable as well. And universities that become dismissive towards their long-time core community members often become very much the same in substance, even as they try to tout their diminishing distinctive qualities.

[valpotx]

Yes, I went to the Brauer Museum! Back before the pandemic & layoffs, I took an upper level group of Theology and Chinese and Japanese Studies majors there. It was a course on East Asian Christianity, so the fantastic curator took us all thru the museum and the basement to see the Japanese and Korean Christian works along with some European and American Christian pieces, in comparative mode. SUPER cool experience for the students. Then the museum curator got laid off, and so I got notified of layoff too; the Museum was then shut a long time. Most the other faculty in Asian studies are gone too now,  so I am not sure if anybody is still taking students to see those collections. But it was really a fantastic field trip, and actually a lot of students mentioned in their course evals that it was their favorite part of the whole course. Kind of ironic since of course I had really exerted myself so much on every other aspects of the course prep while the museum day was the easiest day ever for me, guided by the curator. But that was what the students loved and wrote about the most!

I also went to the Brauer Museum a few times, in order to view the art on display.  However, one of my favorite memories from my time at Valpo, was when the Miss USA pageant was being held in nearby Gary, IN in 2001, I believe.  They had a dinner/event setup for the VUCA/Brauer Museum with all representatives/staff for the pageant and some Valpo personnel, that my friends and I somehow found out about in advance.  I am not ashamed to admit that just before we knew that they would be locking the doors to outside folks, 4-5 of us hid out in one of the rooms, and stayed for the event.  Surprisingly, no one kicked us out as we mingled with the contestants.  We ended up with a group picture with the 4-5 of us dudes (only students inside the event), and the 50 reps from each state, and of course, I got a 1:1 with Miss Texas.  The group picture remained my wallpaper for my Desktop for the rest of my college career lol.  I really need to find those pictures at my parents house, as that is a really cool memory.

Pgmado, sure sounds like me/my friends, right?

[vu72]

After reading the article in the Post-Tribune (I did not see it in the Chicago Tribune), let me offer some observations. As I stated in my prior post, I am assuming that there are no written agreements between Valpo and the various parties (Brauer, Urschel, etc.) that the painting (or other paintings) cannot be sold. Best or preferred practices stated by some association or third party are meaningless unless written agreements signed by the university stated that the university would adhere to those practices.

1. Strategy involves tradeoffs and hard decisions. In prior posts, I was very critical of Valpo's strategic planning for several reasons - including (and perhaps most importantly) no visible attempt at prioritization (which involves hard decisions). This direction is a hard decision and seems correct when you consider the university's mission and the outcomes by which it measures itself. I don't deny that art may have instructional value in a number of liberal arts fields, but I strongly doubt it is millions of dollars in value (of course, this cannot be measured - but it must be considered). As I stated in a prior post, the choice is actually very simple: retain works of art worth $20M or fund necessary capital improvements that are needed to attract and retain students. Remember, this is not that the university is at parity with the dorms (and some other facilities, by the way)...it is at a disadvantage.
2. I was a student at Valpo in the early 80s. I am married to a Valpo alum. I have friends and some other family members who attended Valpo. I have had numerous types of engagement with the university during my professional careers - including teaching at the university. I have spoken to students in the Arts Center at Valpo. Despite all of this, the first time that I ever heard of the O'Keeffe was in the prior post in this thread. Others in this thread argue that the painting (and other paintings) are an integral part of Valpo fulfilling its mission. As someone more closely affiliated with the university than most, I do not see that.
3. When I read the article, I was left wondering how the writer discovered the issue. If someone said, "I disagree and I am going to the media to disparage Valpo", I find that to be very immature. Frankly, I think that public comments from Brauer and Ruff are emotional (which is understandable) - but also lack emotional maturity. Raising their concerns to Padilla and the board, asking to have the name removed from the building, discontinuing all contributions, privately contacting other donors and stakeholders to gain support for their position are all valid and mature responses. But discussing your disagreement with the media comes off as "do what I want, or I will harm you publicly and as much as I can."
4. It is not Valpo's responsibility where the painting ends up. If it goes to a private collector because that realizes the highest price, then that is the best option for Valpo.
5. For those of you who say the O'Keeffe and other paintings should not be sold, what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?

I am in total agreement with 84 on this.  The reaction--or over reaction--is filled with emotion which is understood.  Nonetheless, it needs to be put in perspective.  The Brauer is not closing. The thousands of pieces aren't being liquidated, the tours many seemed to enjoy and value will continue. Three pieces may not be there any longer but the tradeoff is perhaps necessary to keep Valpo relevant or perhaps to even survive.

None of us know what enrollment pressure exists at Valpo nor what perhaps a continuing steam of recruited students are saying when interviewed as to why they are enrolling elsewhere. As 84 stated..."what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?"

[valpo95]

If the university does sell the artworks, there is no guarantee another museum will purchase them. They could be bought by a private individual and be removed from access to public viewing.

Agree 100%, I was going to comment further yet got pressed for time.

[valpopal]

I am in total agreement with 84 on this.  The reaction--or over reaction--is filled with emotion which is understood.  Nonetheless, it needs to be put in perspective.  The Brauer is not closing. The thousands of pieces aren't being liquidated, the tours many seemed to enjoy and value will continue. Three pieces may not be there any longer but the tradeoff is perhaps necessary to keep Valpo relevant or perhaps to even survive.

None of us know what enrollment pressure exists at Valpo nor what perhaps a continuing steam of recruited students are saying when interviewed as to why they are enrolling elsewhere. As 84 stated..."what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?"

This is a classic false argument. You begin by stating that "none of us knows" the scope or details of the situation, but then you ask for a solution, "what is your proposed alternative...?" You can't have it both ways. Also, even if you are correct that it is merely "three pieces," and there is still a museum, you could say those folks who suggest Valpo athletics drop from Division-1 (it's still the same sports) make the same point. Or how about VU play the rest of the season without Krikke, King, and Green: it's only three players. Finally, the limited scope of the sale doesn't make the move any less unethical and damaging to the university's reputation or less harmful in its relations with numerous loyal alums and devoted donors who have contributed greatly. In fact, because of the university's violation of protocols set by the Association of Art Museum Directors, other museums could refuse to cooperate with Valpo in touring exhibits or allowing works on loan to be exhibited, diminishing the overall quality of the museum.

[valpo95]

Clearly strategy involves tradeoffs. If you read my posts on this, I have never said the paintings should never be sold in any circumstances.

What I keep coming back to is that the University has demonstrated a lack of leadership and vision. Off the top of my head, some failures include 1) A strategic plan (launched by President Heckler) to grow the university to 6,000 students. 2) A failure to monitor the Law School leading to a stumbling closure. 3) A ham-fisted mascot change. 4) Poor enrollment strategy, and turnover in enrollment leadership. Now, another black eye because there is seemingly a lack of trust from key individuals and donors to the Brauer.

To paraphrase John Kotter, the number one attribute of leadership is to create a sensible and appealing picture of the future state: I hope President Padilla can do so. Perhaps, a new first-year residence complex is a key part of that vision, yet the first time I heard about it was in the open letter that was an attempt to limit damage with the forthcoming Chicago Tribune article.

More generally, Kotter would also say that to make change, establishing a sense of urgency is the vital first step. This would involve making the status quo more dangerous than taking action. Some on this message board are convinced of the existential threat to the University, and they may be right. However, I doubt that most faculty, staff and alums have the same sense of urgency, nor is there a common vision of the future.

I hope the leadership can both raise the level of urgency to make changes, and provide an appealing vision of the future state.

[valpopal]

The art sale situation has now made the headlines in the prestigious ART NEWS and prompted a joint statement against Valparaiso University by the four main associations governing museums.

About the ethical obligations of the university, the news article states:

"College and university art museums have a long and rich history of collecting, curating, and educating in a financially and ethically responsible manner on par with the world's most prestigious institutions," the groups wrote in a joint statement. "That a campus museum exists within the larger ecosystem of its parent educational institution does not exempt a university from acting ethically, nor permit them to ignore issues of public trust and use the museum's collections as disposable financial assets."
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/valparaiso-museum-art-sale-georgia-okeeffe-controversy-1234656869/

[vu72]

I am in total agreement with 84 on this.  The reaction--or over reaction--is filled with emotion which is understood.  Nonetheless, it needs to be put in perspective.  The Brauer is not closing. The thousands of pieces aren't being liquidated, the tours many seemed to enjoy and value will continue. Three pieces may not be there any longer but the tradeoff is perhaps necessary to keep Valpo relevant or perhaps to even survive.

None of us know what enrollment pressure exists at Valpo nor what perhaps a continuing steam of recruited students are saying when interviewed as to why they are enrolling elsewhere. As 84 stated..."what is your proposed alternative to improve facilities that are vital to the student experience?"

This is a classic false argument. You begin by stating that "none of us knows" the scope or details of the situation, but then you ask for a solution, "what is your proposed alternative...?" You can't have it both ways. Also, even if you are correct that it is merely "three pieces," and there is still a museum, you could say those folks who suggest Valpo athletics drop from Division-1 (it's still the same sports) make the same point. Or how about VU play the rest of the season without Krikke, King, and Green: it's only three players. Finally, the limited scope of the sale doesn't make the move any less unethical and damaging to the university's reputation or less harmful in its relations with numerous loyal alums and devoted donors who have contributed greatly. In fact, because of the university's violation of protocols set by the Association of Art Museum Directors, other museums could refuse to cooperate with Valpo in touring exhibits or allowing works on loan to be exhibited, diminishing the overall quality of the museum.

Do you know the extent of the scope? None of us (on this board) know but the Valpo Board and President do and as a result took a very big step, which in their, very educated mind, was required. Your comparison to three basketball players is silly and you know it.  The Brauer wasn't known for only these three pieces. From my view it was better known as "the home of the largest collection of works by Junius R. Sloan (1827-1900), a Hudson River School painter who lived and worked in the Midwest. Other points of focus within the collection include world religious art and Midwestern regional art".(from the Brauer's home page)
The fact remains that this proposed action was determined as the best use of assets of the university.  If you accept the fact that this, in the view of the board and president, is a necessary action, then we go back to the question: What alternative plan would you suggest? The status quo?  Borrowing $20 million? (we have no idea if the Universities credit rating would even allow this) Your basketball analogy might better be put in this context--you are unhappy with the teams performance, the conference is about to boot us out but you have no suggestion as to what to do.  There is a problem. How are you going to fix it?

[DuneHwx]

It doesn't do the art any good to wait around and be liquidated in bankruptcy. This is a difficult decision, for sure, but is a wise use of assets to help ensure that there is a future for the school. The president is right, while a beautiful asset to have, the museum is not the center of the school's mission. Even art students could be well educated without the museum present on campus at all.