Paul Zimmerman: A Response from Hodges (and my response to it)

http://www.lugal.com/blog/?p=68

February 2, 2009

On Friday I received a letter from Richard Hodges in response to my letter protesting his dissolution of MASCA (see here). His letter was clearly tailored as a direct response to my letter, but some paragraphs seem to have been boilerplate. If so, I take this to mean that mine was one of many such letters received by the Museum. The tone of his letter was cordial, and it revealed no secrets, but out of respect for his privacy I won’t be posting its contents. I do, however, wish to highlight a few points raised by it:

• Hodges maintains that the Museum will maintain its dual mission as both a center of archaeological research and as a world-class museum, despite the changes.
• MASCA, in particular, was targeted for elimination because of its failure to generate revenues to offset its cost, or to effectively provide services to the rest of the Museum.
• Hodges takes issue with the media coverage of the layoffs, stating that the position of “Senior Research Scientist” has been eliminated, and that those who are losing their positions may still be eligible for employment in different positions in the Museum.
• He also reasserts that the decision was, in no uncertain terms, driven by financial considerations.

You can take these points however you wish, but I must comment on a few of them.

First, I believe that everyone involved is still supportive of the dual mission of the Museum. Most archaeologists, such as myself, who have spoken up against these layoffs feel that they will gravely damage its reputation and efficacy as a research institution. Hodges, clearly, thinks otherwise.

Second, the lack of interest or integration of MASCA with the rest of the Museum is news to me; during my time at MASCA, it was deeply involved in a wide range of expeditions and even put together a successful traveling exhibition (Roman Glass: Reflections on Cultural Change). But, if it has since lost relevance to the rest of the Museum, I suspect that this is because, during the past few years of churn in the Museum’s administration, the proper political pressure to ensure communication and cooperation between departments was absent. (The Museum, as much as I love it, can be a seriously factional institution with petty little turf wars.) Stuart Fleming, MASCA’s last scientific director, was a master of making his department relevant, but since his retirement that role has not been adequately filled. But if we are to grant Hodges his point about MASCA’s current isolation from the rest of the Museum, would it not have been better (given the talent and resources there) to have instead tried to rehabilitate it or improve intra-departmental contact and collaboration? Powerful people within the Museum have long sought to disband MASCA. It seems that Hodges, at the helm only briefly, was an easy mark for them.

Third, if the Senior Research Scientists are not placed in comparable positions within the Museum, Hodges’ complaint about the media coverage of the decision is just a distinction without a difference. These people will still have lost their jobs.

And finally, I actually admire Hodges for sticking to his guns about this being a financial decision. Financial decisions can be assessed by looking at the numbers. Dire financial straits can be softened through improved operating efficiency and improved fundraising. But, again, this decision was sprung as a fait accompli. There was no public discussion prior to the announcement of the decision—suggesting to me a very weak attempt at reaching a decent solution to the problem. Hodges’ defense of this as a financial decision also reasserts the confusion between his and Amy Gutmann’s public statements. All in all, the whole process still seems shamefully amateurish.

Update 2/12/09
I just heard from an old friend who also received a response from Hodges. As I suspected, his letter is almost identical to the one that I received and blog about above. So, since it’s clearly not a very personal letter, I may yet post it for others to consider.

Archaeology Detectives on the Chopping Block (National Geographic Blog by Chris Sloan)

In his inaugural speech President Obama called for putting science in its rightful place. This was music to the ears of many scientists and science-supporters. Science needs to be nurtured for the sake of the long term benefits, not short term goals. In the entry below, guest columnist Dr. Christina Elson points to one place that apparently did not get the message.

While America and Britain ramp up programs to show science in action, the University of Pennsylvania Museum has taken what most people consider a big step backwards by threatening to strangle out of existence the positions of eighteen of its researchers. They include archaeology’s reigning crime scene detectives.

The American economy is suffocating from job losses, home foreclosures, and a dissolving financial sector yet newly elected President Obama is prioritizing our role as a world leader in science and technology. Great Britain just launched a massive new initiative called “Science: so what? so everything” to make science and scientists more accessible. Too often people in both countries see science as elitist and incomprehensible. Making it more accessible shows why our economy and national security benefit when we invest in science education and research.

For decades the Penn museum provided a home for world class scientists. The Museum’s archaeology detectives use all manner of techniques to discover fascinating things about the way ancient people lived and died, used plants and animals, and created and shared technologies. For example, Dr. Patrick E. McGovern (whose work has been reported by this organization) analyzed chemicals in ancient pot sherds to discover the origins and spread of wine making in the Near East and China. His colleague Dr. Naomi Miller recently figured out what King Midas might have had for dinner by providing archaeobotanical evidence for the chemical analyses of beverage and food residues found inside vessels.

The Museum’s director Dr. Richard Hodges insists that Penn is not making a financial decision. Rather, it’s finding a strategic balance between research and public outreach. People like Dr. McGovern are supposed to be supported with grants, not the institution’s operating budget. Come June, if they don’t have funding they’ll get taken off life support.

The Penn Museum also has self-esteem issues. How do you reach out when it sounds like most Philadelphians visit you only once in a lifetime? An expensive facelift and more amenities might do the trick. After all, getting people to the museum for any reason, if only because you can get a good cheesesteak there, greatly strengthens opportunities for outreach. In London you can walk into the overwhelming British Museum for free, get some coffee, and admire the Elgin marbles. In Philadelphia they ask you for a ten dollar “Admission Donation” and there’s a mummy.

If Penn wants to ramp up public outreach it might be exactly the wrong thing to let these scholars go. National Geographic is a massive organization that funds exacting research and has a powerful media arm. It succeeds in making science accessible in part because people here work hard to engage in meaningful conversations with scientists (and yes, as a scientist I’ve had any number of fun, funny, frustrating but ultimately meaningful conversations with “creative types”).

The kinds of discoveries Penn researchers make are incredibly appealing and picked up by news outlets that broadcast far beyond the city of Philadelphia. More excitingly, the work is tangible, tactile, and ideal for creating visualizations showing science in action. One hopes Penn’s facelift isn’t just about building more exhibit cases full of “stuff” but also investing in a media-rich environment that can broadcast its in-house research locally and internationally. Shouldn’t Penn be excited to have such great assets? My colleagues and I can only wonder why Penn isn’t trumpeting plans to make it’s scientists as accessible as a cup of coffee or gourmet meal. After all, they are the exhibits.

What do you think about the future of science research in the US? Is science it too elitist? How can scientists and the public connect better? For NG new coverage of some of Dr. McGovern’s http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0721_040721_ancientwine.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0718_050718_ancientbeer.html For more information about the layoffs at Penn https://pennmuseumpetition.wordpress.com/ For information on Great Britain’s new science initiative http://sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/

FIRE IN THE LAB (Archaeology Magazine 62.2(2009) by Roger Atwood

http://www.archaeology.org/0903/trenches/fire_lab.html

A plan by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology to cut costs by laying off 18 researchers and closing a major scientific laboratory has drawn angry protests from academics in the United States and abroad. Facing the backlash, museum director and archaeologist Richard Hodges said he will likely keep an as-yet-undetermined number of the 18 researchers on staff, but stood by plans to shutter the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) as part of a plan to deal with slumping fundraising. Supporters of MASCA call it one of the museum’s core strengths and cite its pioneering work on the development of agriculture in the ancient Near East and the Maya world.

“What I’m trying to do is make the museum more financially sustainable.” Hodges told Archaeology. But he sounded an optimistic note on renewed fundraising efforts since announcing the layoffs in December. “We are finding quite a few new opportunities for funding, and I am pretty confident that in the end the number won’t be anything like that,” he said, referring to the 18 researchers originally slated to be let go.

Hodges announced the changes while circulating a “five-year strategy” to overhaul the venerable Philadelphia institution. The plan called for refurbishing exhibits, bolstering educational programs, and making the museum more tourist-friendly by adding an expensive restaurant and a visitor services department. The plan also called for “refram[ing] exhibitions in line with contemporary intellectual frameworks.”

“Some of our exhibits looked great in the ’80s but they’re a little tired now,” said Hodges, adding that he hopes to raise annual visitorship from 160,000 to 300,000 in five years. He said MASCA “was groundbreaking in the 1960s and ’70s,” but that its mission of pure archaeological research did not fit with the museum’s new direction.

The cutbacks drew almost immediate criticism, much of it focused on the plan to close MASCA and dismiss Patrick McGovern, head of its Biomolecular Archaeology Laboratory and a nationally known researcher on the origins of wine and chocolate. In a letter to Hodges, Zahi Hawass, the head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, said McGovern and other MASCA researchers “dedicated their whole lives to the discovery and elucidation of humans on this planet” and urged Hodges “to reconsider this harmful decision.”

Founded in 1961 as a center for radiocarbon dating, MASCA specializes in molecular and biological analysis of archaeological remains, and has a long list of research breakthroughs to its name. Among them are McGovern’s work that showed chocolate was cultivated in Mesoamerica by 1100 B.C., five centuries earlier than previously thought. MASCA’s demise would also mean laying off two other prominent researchers: Naomi Miller, a specialist in Near Eastern agriculture, and Kathleen Ryan, who studies ancient settlement patterns in east Africa.

Other research-driven museums face similar distress. The Field Museum in Chicago announced in January that its endowment had fallen $95 million, about 30 percent. “Corporate and philanthropic giving are down. What we see anecdotally is that many museums are in similar situations as the Penn and the Field,” said Dewey Blanton, a spokesman for the American Association of Museums.

McGovern, who also teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in biomolecular archaeology at Penn, said past efforts to boost visitor levels had fallen short and doubted this one would fare any better. “What has worked for the museum is cutting-edge research,” said McGovern. “This is what excites and draws people into the museum.”

Letting Go (The Chronicle of Philanthropy Special Report, February 12, 2009)

From the issue dated February 12, 2009

Letting Go

Layoffs at nonprofit groups are spreading — with many more expected in coming months

By Caroline Preston

Sherilyn Adams, executive director of Larkin Street Youth Services, began bracing for an $800,000 hole in her charity’s budget last summer.

She started by making small incisions, such as reducing travel and training costs. Then last month, after discussions with board and staff members, the San Francisco group cut the salaries of top employees and eliminated 11 positions, three of them through layoffs.

“We’re doing everything we can to protect against program closures,” says Ms. Adams.

Layoffs are beginning to batter the charity world, as more and more organizations can no longer compensate for declining revenues simply by freezing hiring or pay. But the job losses are still less significant than in the corporate world, in part because few nonprofit leaders are willing to take the sort of pre-emptive strike to projected budget shortfalls common among business executives.

“We don’t have the same business mentality, and we are slower,” says Nancy Hall, senior adviser at the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations. “Nonprofits want to try everything to avoid cutting staff.”

But many organizations are finding themselves without alternatives. While layoffs seem to be spreading most rapidly among smaller charities, not even the largest institutions are proving immune. Of the 25 American nonprofit groups that raised the most money in 2007, six have eliminated jobs, according to a Chronicle tally. Another four organizations that have not cut jobs on the national level have local chapters that have had to resort to layoffs. (One organization on the top-25 list, the Nature Conservancy, declined to comment).

AmeriCares has reduced its work force by 10 percent. Boys and Girls Clubs of America has cut 3 percent of its positions, and some local chapters are also shedding jobs. The United Jewish Communities National Office eliminated 39 full-time positions and one part-time post last year, or 15 percent of its staff, as a result of both the economy and a longer-term plan to decrease the group’s size.

State by State

The number of charity employees seeking work is starting to pile up in states across the country.

Of the 44 percent of nonprofit groups in Michigan that said their cash flow has been imperiled by the economy, 57 percent have cut jobs, according to the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University.

In Maryland, 14 percent of charities surveyed by the state nonprofit association have laid off employees and another 12 percent expect to do so.

In Los Angeles, 21.6 percent of charities plan to lay off employees, according to a survey by the Center for Nonprofit Management, which supports charitable groups in Southern California.

Around the country, jobless claims are now at 4.8 million, the most on record. That means that demand for services has grown at many organizations, even as they are being forced to shed workers themselves.

People in the nonprofit world anticipate many more layoffs this year and next. Some charities that rely on multiyear grants are still relatively secure and may not be forced to take the ax to their organizations until later this year or next.

“We are not expecting to see a major fallout for another six or nine months,” says Elizabeth Banwell, director of external affairs at the Maine Association of Nonprofits. Her group is planning to hold a two-day clinic this spring to help pinched charities take smart approaches to trimming their staffs and other expenses. While few tasks are more painful than laying off good employees, some experts worry that organizations may not move fast enough to weather the recession.

“Charities tend to wait too long to make cuts and wait too long to take advantage of the economic recovery,” says Kim Wright-Violich, president of Schwab Charitable, a San Francisco organization that runs a donor-advised fund and provides other assistance to philanthropists. “If you are a small service-delivery organization, you want to get ahead of the downturn, which means you should probably already have made cuts, and then you should be watching very carefully for the recovery.”

‘Scale Down’

For now, most nonprofit leaders’ biggest concern is the people who depend on their help. If they are forced to lay off workers, they are trying to do so in a way that will not jeopardize their services.

Some charities are making small cuts across their organizations while others are eliminating specific programs.

Ms. Adams of Larkin Street Youth Services, which provides housing, job assistance, and other services to homeless youths, says she looked at where government was withdrawing support from the charity and trimmed jobs in those programs.

Among the areas where jobs were eliminated: HIV prevention and outreach. She also combined two positions in the development office.

“The idea is to scale down those services that we can easily scale back up,” she says.

Aaron Simonton, executive director of the Monroe Center for Healthy Aging, in Michigan, says he also looked at what programs he could offer on a reduced basis. For example, he transformed an assistance program for elderly people into an appointment-only system, which, along with other changes, allowed him to cut four jobs.

Other organizations are axing entire programs to focus their resources on other areas.

At Catholic Charities of East Tennessee, the Rev. Ragan Schriver, the group’s executive director, decided early last year to cancel an emergency-shelter program after state funds dwindled. Father Schriver says he examined the charity’s mission statement for direction.

“For any organization, that should be your deciding point, the mission statement, and ours talked about meeting unmet needs,” he says. “And we thought, There are shelters in a nearby city.”

Regina Birdsell, president of the Center for Nonprofit Management, in Los Angeles, says that cash-strapped charities ought to be looking for programs they may have developed in flush times that no longer make sense in this recession. She says in recent years there have been cases of “mission creep, where organizations have followed the funding, but that becomes more expensive in this economy.”

Larger charities are also examining their missions when deciding where to make cuts.

The National Christian Foundation, a donor-advised fund in Georgia, reduced its roughly 80-person staff by just under 10 percent in December. Steve Chapman, vice president for communications, says the cuts did not focus on any one department or type of job but were determined instead by which positions could be eliminated while still effectively serving donors.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America, too, combined some positions and laid off other staff members based on an assessment of which positions were less critical to serving children in need.

Donor Needs

At the same time, few charities are making deep cuts in their fund-raising departments. Some experts say the dire economic situation may have given nonprofit groups even more reason to hold onto fund raisers.

“Donors are going to be more cautious about what they support, and they’re going to want more assurance about effectiveness,” says Sharon Knight, interim president of the Colorado Nonprofit Association. “You have to either maintain your staff or beef it up to do that.”

While layoffs are spreading, even more common are freezes on hiring, reductions in benefits, salary cuts, and furloughs.

Thirty percent of charities that responded to a survey by the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations have already frozen hiring, and 43 percent have cut travel costs.

Carole Alexander, executive director of House of Ruth Maryland, says that she and her group’s board members decided at the end of last month to require staff members to take unpaid days off. The goal was to avoid laying off employees and to preserve the charity’s services. The organization will probably close all but its emergency assistance and shelter for one week this year.

“I wouldn’t say I’m hopeful, but I’m determined that we will find the money to sustain this agency,” Ms. Alexander says. “Demand has increased between 20 and 30 percent, and I think it’s unconscionable to reduce our staff in a way that will further disable us.”

Indeed, many employers are trying everything they can to avoid giving out pink slips, which can be devastating not only to those who receive them but also to those still employed.

James A. Phills Jr., director of Stanford University’s Center for Social Innovation, says that charity leaders can minimize the impact of layoffs on employee morale by being open and clear about their actions.

“How you handle layoffs has a tremendous impact on the productivity, resiliency, and capability of the people who are left,” he says. “If the people who are left see those cuts as fair and not political, and made with transparency, then it’s not as bad as a situation where there is a lot of negative emotion.”

Mr. Phills also says that groups should avoid multiple rounds of layoffs, which can further weaken employee productivity.

Laura Begley, who was recently laid off from a nonprofit human-services association in the Midwest, agrees. She says she appreciated the organization’s ability to articulate why her job was among those cut, as well as the help from an outplacement firm that she received.

“What was most important to me was that the vice president made it clear it wasn’t performance-based,” says Ms. Begley, 26, who worked in program support and marketing.

But charities may still see pushback in response to layoffs, and not only from within their organizations.

When the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology announced last fall that it would eliminate 18 research positions, 3,500 people, including many professors at other institutions, signed a petition criticizing the move. The museum said the changes were due to a reorganization as well as budget concerns, and that some of those losing their jobs might be moved to different positions in the museum.

Weighing Options

Meanwhile, charity workers at institutions of all sizes fear the worst is yet to come.

Many nonprofit leaders worry they will have to start cutting soon but are, for now at least, still reluctant to take steps that could reduce assistance to the people who depend on them.

Stephen A. Miller, executive director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Cecil County, in Maryland, is debating whether to charge families more for a summer camp his charity operates or to shut it down. That would mean laying off some workers.

Mr. Miller says he relies on those employees throughout the year.

If he did close the camp, he imagines, his employees would move elsewhere and he wouldn’t be able to find experienced people to replace them in the fall.

“We’ll probably make a decision at the end of March,” he says. “We’re in limbo.”

RECENT JOB CUTS AT CHARITIES AND FOUNDATIONS: A SAMPLING

American Civil Liberties Union (New York)	The charity’s national office has eliminated 36 positions, or 10 percent of its staff. It has also frozen salaries.
American Cancer Society (Atlanta)	Roughly three dozen jobs were eliminated last summer in the national office, although the charity hired for other jobs as part of a restructuring. It has now frozen hiring.
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (New York)	The international-aid group reduced its staff last fall by 60 positions, or roughly 8 percent.
American Museum of Natural History (New York)	The museum reduced its 1,100-person staff by nearly 10 percent through a combination of layoffs, buyouts, and not filling vacant positions.
AmeriCares (Stamford, Conn.)	The organization last month cut its work force by around 10 percent, or 25 people.
Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Atlanta)	The national organization has cut its staff by 11 positions, or 3 percent. Some local chapters have also laid off workers.
California Endowment (Los Angeles)	As many as 24 employees may be leaving the grant maker as part of a staff reduction. The changes are due to administrative cuts triggered by a decline in the organization’s assets last year and a long-planned shift in the foundation’s grant-making approach, which requires different personnel.
Catholic Charities USA (Alexandria, Va.)	The national organization has frozen salaries of all workers. A recent survey of 50 local Catholic Charities showed that a quarter have trimmed programs, and 56 percent of those organizations have eliminated jobs.
Daniels Fund (Denver)	The grant maker has laid off four employees.
Harlem Children’s Zone (New York)	The charity laid off 10 percent of its 1,200-person staff in November.
Los Angeles Opera	The organization has laid off 17 people, or 17 percent of its staff.
Medical Teams International (Portland, Ore.)	The organization has laid off nine workers, or 10 percent of its staff.
Museum of Contemporary Art (Los Angeles)	The museum announced in late January that it would cut 32 jobs, half of which are full-time positions.
National Christian Foundation (Alpharetta, Ga.)	The national organization eliminated nearly 10 percent of its 80-person work force in December.
National Public Radio (Washington)	In December, the nonprofit organization eliminated 85 positions. Since some of those positions were already vacant, 64 people lost their jobs.
92nd Street Y (New York)	In January, the charity pared its full-time staff by 10 percent, or 24 jobs.
Northern California Public Broadcasting (San Francisco)	The organization has eliminated 30 positions.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (New York)	The organization laid off workers last month. It would not provide information on how many people were affected.
United Jewish Communities National Office (New York)	Thirty-nine full-time jobs and one part-time position were eliminated at the national level last year, as a result of both a long-term effort to cut the size of the staff and the economic situation.
— Compiled by Caroline Preston and Ian Wilhelm

Museums and Academic Values (by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Education)

Arts advocates have been outraged this week by Brandeis University’s plan to sell all of the art in its museum as a way to raise money for the university. It turns out Brandeis isn’t the only university where critics are questioning the university’s commitment to important values for academic museums — although many may be relieved to know this other controversy does not involve a university selling off a collection. (Update on Brandeis: Its president on Wednesday indicated he might go along with keeping some of the art, but was committed to shutting the museum.)

The University of Pennsylvania’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology — long considered one of the leading institutions of its kind — last month told the 18 research specialists who make up the research division of the institution that they would all lose their jobs in May. Those laid off include many leading scholars, some of whom have worked 20 or more years at the university, managing research expeditions around the world, running labs at Penn, and publishing widely. These researchers are not tenured faculty members, however, so their positions can be eliminated with relative ease, which is what the museum is doing.

While these jobs are being eliminated, the museum is also considering ways to attract a bigger name for itself, and more visitors. The new director, citing budget constraints and changing museum priorities, wants research focused on the collections, not on scholarly inquiry broadly related to the museum’s fields, as the researchers have been able to do.

And the museum sees fund raising as key — whether in the idea of adding an upscale restaurant for visitors or in encouraging researchers who want an affiliation to raise their own funds through grants or other sources. Indeed those whose jobs are being eliminated may be able to stay if they can raise money for their costs. This more entrepreneurial approach isn’t flying with many scholars.

“We would like to remind the administrators that universities are not for-profit businesses, rather they are institutions of research and teaching whose component parts need to be supported and protected, especially in tough financial times,” says an open letter circulating about the situation at Penn, and signed by more than 3,300 people, many of them professors from all over the world. Noting the museum’s “unique status as a research institution that has carried out many historically significant archaeological projects, most notably in the Middle East, the Mediterranean World, and Mesoamerica,” the letter says that the “dismantling of the research infrastructure” is “a drastic surgical gesture, a decisive act that will discontinue the possibility of future archaeological research…. “

And noting some of the scholars who will lose their jobs, the letter says: “We feel that the firing of these researchers in this financially strained environment is unfair since they may not be easily employed elsewhere at this time with their laboratory and facilities needs. Additionally, the administration’s financially motivated decision not only violates academic ethics of respect to such scholarly accomplishments and intellectual labor, but also ignores the institutional memory of the University Museum all together.”

The Penn museum was founded in 1887 and boasts that it has sponsored more than 400 expeditions around the world. The museum has a curatorial staff of about a dozen, many of whom also hold faculty titles at Penn and teach and are tenure eligible. The curatorial slots aren’t being touched. It is 18 research scientists who work on anthropology and archaeology, conducting original research all over the world and publishing the results, whose jobs are being eliminated.

Richard Hodges came to the museum as director in 2007, moving from Britain, where he was director of the Institute of World Archaeology at the University of East Anglia. He repeatedly described the changes he is leading as being about moving the museum “into the 21st century.” To do that, he said, the museum needs both money and a change in attitude.

“What we hope is that as a museum we will focus not on the personal research of the range of individuals, but essentially concentrating on the museum’s extraordinary collections and getting those out to a world audience,” he said. By eliminating the salaries of the 18 researchers, the museum will save about $1 million a year, he said.

Told that some of those whose jobs are being eliminated have said he is trying to run the museum like the Wharton School, with the assumption that anyone good can find money, he doesn’t balk at the comparison with Penn’s acclaimed business school. “Why not?” Hodges said. Many scientists of course must win grants to cover salaries if they want to win tenure. Hodges said that in his position in Britain, if he didn’t land grants, his team members would lose their jobs.

Of the prior approach at the Penn museum, he asked, “Why are we sustaining a tradition that believes that all we do is go out and do research for our ends?” He said that the current researchers “through no fault of their own” have been working in an outdated model of following their research interests and not raising money. “They have been in a different kind of institutional structure,” he said.

He added that “the critics are saying we should be frozen in time, speaking a language which is different from the language I speak.”

One idea being discussed — and much criticized by the scholars angry over the job eliminations — is adding an upscale restaurant to the museum. Hodges said that people are making too much of this, and that the changes he is pushing involve a commitment to high quality research and outreach — just funded in a different way. But he said that given poor financing of museums in the United States, and the reality that Penn can only pay for about 40 percent of the museum’s budget, there is nothing wrong with considering the amenities at museums.

“You need to get the right kind of people to take a genuine interest in the place,” he said. “We have a perfectly serviceable canteen at the moment, but wouldn’t it be better to have a better place and then [would-be donors] would support us more wholeheartedly?”

To many scholars, such talk of fund raising and priorities masks what they view to be really going on at Penn: an unceremonious dismissal of scholars who have done outstanding work. One Web site that has been created features links to letters about the work of some of those who would lose their jobs.

One of the scholars whose position is being eliminated after more than a decade and who asked not to be identified for fear of offending potential employers said the problem is one of differing perspectives over the role of a scholar at an archaeology museum.

“I think archaeology is a not-for-profit enterprise. Given the way archaeology is underfunded, to expect it to produce income like the medical school produces income is unreasonable,” the scholar said. Museums like the one at Penn have three missions, the scholar added. “They have stuff to care for, they have outreach through exhibits and education, and they have research — and not just research on existing collections. I do not understand why the people who run the university do not appear to value the research that many of us do.”

Gunder Varinlioglu, who finished a Ph.D. at Penn last year on the art and archaeology of the Mediterranean world, is one of those who have been involved in organizing to protest the changes at the museum.

“They say research will continue at [the museum], but research has so many components. Of course certain types of research will go on, but the people they are laying off are scientists, working on scientific archaeology, and their labs are being dismantled. The scientific component is being murdered,” said Varinlioglu. “Yes, there will be nice collections, but does that mean the museum is becoming an art museum rather than a museum of archaeology and anthropology?”

Tom Berger, who teaches museum studies at George Washington University, said that while the Brandeis and Penn situations are different in many ways, they may also point to a common need for university museums. Berger, who has worked on the finance side of such museums as the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, said that a museum may be vulnerable financially whenever its supporters’ sense of its mission differs from that of the leaders of the university. At Brandeis and Penn, what some view as an essential role others see as something that may not be essential, at least if there is not a budget for it.

“Everything starts with the mission of the organization,” he said. At Brandeis, everyone at the art museum and many others saw its role as a key part of the liberal arts environment. At Penn’s museum, the scholars whose positions have been cut saw their wide ranging studies as essential to the university’s research mission. “I think it’s incumbent to understand clearly how the museum’s role fits within the context and mission of the university,” Berger said. “Is your view in congruence with the university’s view?”

— Scott Jaschik

The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/29/penn.

For Turkish speakers: Recent newspaper article on Patrick McGovern’s work

ALTIN DOKUNUŞ

Aylin Öney Tan

Cumhuriyet Pazar 18 Ocak 2009

Toz, kir, pas, süprüntü. Çöpün dibini boylamaya aday torbalarca pislik. Yıllardır raflarda bekliyor. Neredeyse niye saklandığını hatırlayan kalmamış. Oysa bu torbalarda gözle görülemeyen bir hazine gizli. Torbalardaki toz toprak süprüntüleri çil çil altın değerinde. Bu hazine Anadolu’nun binlerce yıllık yemek serüveninin ipuçlarını sunan son derece değerli kalıntılar.
Anadolu’nun eski uygarlıklarından günümüze uzanan zengin kültürel miras göz bebeği gibi korumamız gereken bir hazine. Kazılarda çıkan her türlü kalıntıda binlerce yılın sırrı gizli. 1957 yılında Ankara Polatlı’daki Gordion kazılarında ortaya çıkan birbirinden gösterişli kapların içindeki kalıntıları, toz toprak diye atmayıp itina ile saklayan uzak görüşlü bilim insanlarına şapka çıkarmak gerek. Onların özenli dikkati sayesinde kapların içindeki yiyecek ve içecek kalıntıları sonsuzluğa gömülmekten kurtulmuş. Efsaneye göre tuttuğu altın olan Frig Kralı Midas’ın mezarı olduğuna inanılan Gordion kazısında çok miktarda kap kacak ortaya çıkarılmış. İşte 2700 yıl öncesinin yemekleri bu kapların sayesinde bugün bilinebiliyor. Kapların ve kazanların içinde cenaze töreni sırasında verildiği düşünülen ziyafetin artıkları bulunuyordu. Yarım asır önce kazı ekibi tarafından saklanan ve günümüze dek Amerika’da Pennsylvania Üniversitesi Müzesi depolarında korunan bu izlerin sırrını çözmek için bilimin ilerlemesini beklemek gerekiyordu. Kalıntıların keşfinden kırk yıl kadar sonra arkeo-kimyager Patrick McGovern gizin sırrını çözecek altın dokunuşu gerçekleştirdi. Kalıntılar raflardan laboratuar tezgâhına indi, mercek altına alındı ve gizler tek tek çözülmeye başladı.

Kazıda yaklaşık yüz kadar içki kabı ve üç büyük kazan bulunmuştu. Her bir kazan yaklaşık 130 litre içki alabilecek büyüklükteydi. Kapların içinde bulunan tartarik asit, kalsiyum oksalat ve balmumu kalıntıları şarap, bira ve bal liköründen yapılmış bir içkiye işaret ediyordu. Besbelli cenazeye katılanlar üzüntüden olsa gerek epeyce kafayı çekmişlerdi. Ancak içkiyi aç açına götürmemişlerdi. Cenaze yemeğinde etli, mercimekli bol baharatlı bir yahni de dağıtılmıştı. McGovern ve ekibi yemek artığındaki yağ asidi, kolesterol ve triglisidleri inceleyerek koyun veya keçi eti ve hatta kuyruk yağı kullanıldığını buldular. Karbon izleri etin yemeğe katılmadan önce ateşte çevrildiğini gösteriyordu. Kullanılan bakliyat büyük bir olasılıkla zamanın baş gıda kaynaklarından mercimek idi. Cenaze yemeğinin tadı yavaş yavaş şekillenmeye başlamıştı. Tohum artıklarından uçucu yağların analizi ile anason veya rezene türü bir baharatın, belki biraz da kimyonun yemeğe bolca katıldığını saptadılar. Soğan, bal, şarap ve zeytinyağı izleri yemeğin lezzetini tamamlayıcı malzemeler olarak tespit edildi. Bütün bu analizlerde üst düzey teknoloji kullanılmıştı.
Bugün ise trajik bir kararla karşı karşıyayız. Tüm bu kalıntılar en sonunda çöpe gidiyor. Bu bilgileri kültür hazinemize katan üst düzey teknoloji ve özveriyle çalışan bilim adamlarıyla birlikte. Universite araştırma merkezini ve laboratuarları lağvetme ve bilim insanlarını işten çıkarma kararı aldı. Patrick McGovern kadar değerli araştırmacı arkeo-etno-botanikçi Naomi F. Miller da araştırmalarını durdurmak zorunda. Kendini Anadolu yerli otlarını arşivlemeye adayan, eski çağlarda kullanılan yiyecekleri tespit eden Naomi Miller’ın araştırmaları da apayrı bir yazı konusu. Daha nice araştırmacı topun ağzında.
Bunu durdurmak için bir imza kampanyası başlatıldı. Destek vermek için bir altın dokunuş da sizden gelsin. Bir tık ile bu yazıyı inceleyin ve imzanızı gönderin. http://www.petitiononline.com/Penn2009/petition.html. İngilizce bilenler bilmeyenlere yardım etsin. Umarım bir göndereceğiniz bir tek tık, Midas’ın altın dokunuşu kadar etki gösterir, kültür hazinesini titizlikle koruyanların tuttuğu altın olur.
aylinoneytan@yahoo.com

Midas’ın Mercimekli Yahnisi

Yıllar önce Amerika’da laboratuarda sırrı çözülen yemeği bizzat kazı yerinde İngiliz yemek yazarı Fuchisa Dunlop ile birlikte Patrick McGovern’ın yönlendirmeleriyle yeniden canlandırmıştık. Rahmetli Tuğrul Şavkay yahnimize tam puan vermiş, Patrick ise baharatta cimri davrandığımızı düşünmüştü. Bu tarifi gazetedeki ilk yazılarımdan birinde Gordion kazı alanında yaptığımız biçimiyle vermiştim. Şimdi ise ev koşullarına daha uygun, gündelik mutfağınızda yer alabilecek şekliyle yeni bir tarif veriyorum. Bu yahnide o zamanlar Anadolu’da olmadığı için domates veya biber salçası yok, yanına patates püresi koymak içinse tarihte iki bin yıl ileriye gitmek gerekiyor. Ancak o zamanlarda Anadolu’da yetişen ve hala yaşayan ilk buğday türlerinden yapılan siyez bulgurundan bir bulgur pilavı yaparsanız otantik bir lezzet yakalarsınız.

1 kg. kuşbaşı kuzu veya keçi eti
½ kg. yeşil mercimek
3 adet soğan
5-6 diş sarımsak
1 çorba kaşığı bal
½ bardak sızma zeytinyağı
2 bardak kırmızı şarap veya esmer bira
1 lt. kadar su
1 çorba kaşığı tane kimyon
1 çorba kaşığı tane kişniş
1 çorba kaşığı yabani kekik
1’er tatlı kaşığı tane rezene ve/veya anason
2 çorba kaşığı keçi boynuzu pekmezi
2 tatlı kaşığı tuz

Soğanın birini ve 2-3 diş sarımsağı rendeleyin veya robotta püre haline getirin. Bal ve 1-2 çorba aşığı zeytinyağıyla karıştırın ve kuşbaşı eti geniş cam bir kap içinde bu karışım ile iyice ovalayın. Üzerini örtün ve bir gece buzdolabında bekletin. Bu arada mercimeği de ıslatın.
Ertesi gün eti terbiyesinden alın ve hafifçe mutfak havlusuyla kurulayın. Kalan yağın yarısını geniş bir tavada iyice kızdırın ve et parçalarını yüksek ateşte iyice renk alana kadar hızla kavurun. Bu işlemi ortalama üç seferde yapmanız gerekebilir aksi takdirde et çok su salabilir. Et su salarsa tekrar çekene ve rengi kahverengileşene kadar çevirmeye devam edin. Kavrulan etleri bir kenarda bekletin. Geniş bir tencerede kalan yağda ince doğradığınız soğan ve sarımsağı çevirin. Baharatları havanda azıcık ezilecek kadar kabaca dövün ve kavrulan soğana ekleyin. Kavrulmuş etleri de ekleyin ve üzerine şarap veya birayı ve iki kaşık pekmezi dökün. Şarap kullanıyorsanız etin üzerini bir parmak geçecek kadar su ekleyin, bira kullanıyorsanız tamamını bira ile tamamlayabilirsiniz ya da su ekleyerek eti tamamen örtecek kadar sıvıya tamamlayabilirsiniz. Eti kısık ateşte bir saat kadar pişirin. Bu sürenin yarısında tuzu katabilirsiniz. Et kısmen yumuşayınca mercimekleri süzün ve yemeğe ekleyin. Bu aşamada yemeğin suyunu sıcak su ekleyerek ayarlamanız gerekir. Yemeğin suyu mercimeğin pişmesine elverecek şekilde bir-iki parmak üste çıkmalıdır.
Tencereyi kapatın ve bir saat daha kısık ateşte pişirmeye devam edin. Mercimek ve etler iyice yumuşayıp hemhal olunca Midas usulü mercimekli yahniniz hazır demektir. Yanına pişirdiğiniz siyez bulguruna bir tatlı kaşığı toz zerdeçal katarak Midas dokunuşunun altın sarısını kral sofranıza katabilirsiniz.

A Museum slips up badly (Archaeology magazine blog)

by Heather Pringle (January 16, 2009)

http://archaeology.org/blog/

In a time of darkening financial gloom, when the hedge fund industry is collapsing and sales of Kraft Dinners are booming, and everyone from GM to Microsoft and Motorola are threatening major layoffs, you may not have paid much attention to a brief news story coming out of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. There, on November 19^th, a month before Christmas, director Richard Hodges announced that the museum would be disbanding its MASCA division, and terminating eighteen senior researchers, effective next May.

I should state flat out that I think this is a real error, one the museum will have cause to regret in years to come. Penn Museum has long been a mecca of archaeological research in the United States, and its renowned MASCA division (the acronym stands for Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology) has won kudos in fields as diverse as archaeological chemistry and faunal analysis.

Even the most cursory look at the accomplishments of the researchers in question speaks volumes about their contributions to the archaeological community. Archaeological chemist Patrick McGovern, for example, has led the way in developing new techniques for detecting residues of the earliest known fermented beverages, including grape wine and barley beer, and a type of “grog” blended along China’s Yellow River as early as 7000 B.C. Epigrapher Simon Martin is one of the world’s leading Mayanists, a researcher who has devoted his career to deciphering hieroglyphic inscriptions and chronicling the rise and fall of Maya kings. Zooarchaeologist Kathleen Ryan is an expert on the early domestication of livestock, and her work has shed fascinating new light on humanity’s transition from hunting to animal herding.

I realize that times are tough and that our major public institutions have to worry, like many private corporations, about balancing budgets, tightening belts and cutting costs. But these layoffs seem misguided to me. In the not so distant past, archaeology was largely a field science. It consisted of long months of excavation at a major site, followed by weeks of analysis in an archaeological lab. But today, given the steep costs of excavation, archaeologists are spending far less time in the field, and trying to extract much more data from old museum collections, auger samples, remote sensing photos and the like. This means that they depend increasingly on analyses conducted by archaeological specialists—chemists, faunal experts, computer scientists, remote sensing experts, botanists and so on. MASCA and many of the newly fired museum researchers were devoted to just this kind of research: they will soon be gone.

I wonder why a museum that places “research excellence” at the top of its priorities in its online mission statement couldn’t have found a better way to economize. Other businesses in extremis have managed to do so. In the news yesterday, I read that New York Magazine, which has been hammered by declining ad revenues, took a much more sensible approach to its problems. Its managing editor called each of its staff writers, one by one, into her office, laid out the dire financial picture and asked for salary cuts. In this way, the magazine seems to have avoided layoffs of vital staff members.

I wish someone at Penn Museum had tried something similar before handing out those pink slips so freely.

Petition opposes museum layoffs: Daily Pennsylvanian article 01/16/09

Petition opposes museum layoffs

Kathy Wang

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2009/01/16/News/Petition.Opposes.Museum.Layoffs-3587841.shtml

These days, finding a balance between academics and economics is crucial.

That balance motivated the museum’s administrators to discontinue 18 research specialist positions at the Penn Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology last November, effective May 31.

But more than 2,000 people in a variety of fields around the world signed an online petition, posted Jan. 7, claiming the museum went too far.

The museum defends its restructuring as necessary to maintain fiscal stability and its missions.

Gunder Varinlioglu, who received her Ph.D. in Art and Archaeology in the Mediterranean World from Penn, created the petition with Omur Harmansah, professor of Archaeology and Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies at Brown University.

“There was such a public outcry over the issue that it had to be brought together,” said Varinlioglu.

Several archaeology blogs and letters circulating in academic listservs have also questioned the museum’s actions.

The museum “has always been about research and not really exhibits, and that’s what differentiates it from others,” said Varinlioglu, who said the move made the museum seem “like a business rather than the non-profit it is supposed to be.”

Varinlioglu also criticized the lack of transparency behind the museum’s actions, since its finances are not public.

“We don’t know if they tried to do any fundraising or approached any alumni or exhausted all their resources,” she said.

“The broader underlying concerns are how you treat your own employees,” said Paul Zimmerman, a research associate whose position has not been affected and who wrote a personal letter to museum director Richard Hodges and Penn President Amy Gutmann protesting the decision.

Zimmerman and Varinlioglu also raised concerns that those laid off may not be able to find new employment.

But Hodges stressed that the museum has worked personally with each of the 18 researchers to try to help them secure other sources of funding. He added that the Museum announced the restructuring in November to give researchers enough time to explore new positions – even though the timing exposed the museum to criticism.

“If you don’t work in a museum, you have to put a lot of effort into understanding what’s necessary to maintain these high standards,” said Hodges. “But the more time I spend with [petitioners and journalists], the less time I’ve had to support these researchers.”

In a letter sent to researchers, he emphasized that research remains “central to the mission of the Penn Museum,” and that five of the 18 researchers laid off will continue to work with the museum in some capacity.

The letter goes on to explain that one of the original goals of the soon-to-be disbanded Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology unit – to raise income – has not been met.

As a result, the museum is pursuing a new five-year strategy to better adhere to its original missions of being a research center and a museum while still generating sufficient revenues.

“We are the largest research entity in the U.S. and have more expeditions than any other universities,” said Hodges. “We’re trying to sustain in difficult times, and it isn’t always easy.”

KYW radio interview with Richard Hodges and Samuel Taylor

You may listen to the interview at

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/3569402.php?

Penn Museum Criticized for Staff Cuts
by KYW’s Pat Loeb

The University of Pennsylvania’s Museum of Archeology and Anthropology is attracting criticism for its plan to lay off 18 researchers, in the midst of an effort to make the museum more attractive to visitors.

It’s not that scientists are unsympathetic with the Museum’s situation. Samuel Taylor of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History says he’s faced the same onerous choices:

“The reason that this has become such an issue is what’s at stake if the choice they’re making is the wrong choice.”

Taylor says if the museum gives up researchers and puts resources into exhibits, it risks losing its legacy as a leader in the field, to focus on something it’s admitting is a weakness.

Museum director Richard Hodges says he’s not abandoning research but wants to make the museum a greater force in the cultural life of Philadelphia:

“What needs to be done is to make our exhibits more appealing to the city as a whole.”

Hodges says he wants better exhibits and research but the current economic climate makes it challenging.

ScienceInsider article

U Penn Museum Criticized for Staff Cuts (Updated)

Archaeologists around the world are condemning the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology for laying off 18 researchers, in particular one of the world’s leading archaeobotanists, Naomi Miller, who has been in the field for 30 years. News of the planned layoffs, announced late last month, has ricocheted through the global archaeology community, with help from several academics who have notified more than 1000 of their colleagues…………………………

The complete article can be found at:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2008/12/u-penn-museum-c.html