The New York Times covers the latest spasm in the Rose Museum closure controversy: the Rose family’s statement:

‘Re-purposing’ the museum is closing by another name,” 50 family members said in a statement released Monday night at a symposium at the Rose. “It would not be the Rose. Any other understanding of the university’s current plan is disinformation. “The art has been put on the auction block. The museum has been put on the chopping block.”

Geoff Edgers at the Boston Globe gives us a look at the forming battle lines. Naturally, lawyers are the field marshals here:

Boston attorney Edward Terry Dangel III said today that he has been retained by Rose board chairman Jonathan Lee, who has protested the closure. He also spoke with the Rose family after members contacted him.

“If Brandeis doesn’t back off, we’ve got big trouble,” said Dangel, who said that the university would be violating the intent of donors if it were to sell the art they gave to the museum.

The lingering question from both stories–a question Edgers raises through the Brandeis spokesman–is, why now? Brandeis has backed down a fair bit from their initial plan. True, they’re still doing the prep work that will allow them access to the Rose’s art should they need to raise money. So it would appear that Dangel is trying to turn up the heat on the university.

Rose Family Denounces Plan to Close Brandeis Museum (Boston Globe)

Museum Family Denounces Brandeis (New York Times)