Bias Marks Semitic Museum Coverage

Over the last several weeks The Crimson has been attempting to provide coverage of the developments at the Semitic Museum. As the main source of information on this topic available to students, staff and faculty outside of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (NELC), it is your responsibility to maintain a high degree of journalistic integrity and to report these developments accurately. This has not been the case so far. Your articles have presented biased accounts, misrepresentation of information, factual inaccuracies and have on numerous occasions verged on libel. As [graduate] students in NELC, we feel that it is our responsibility to inform the Harvard community of information which has not been reported in a responsible and impartial manner.

The current restructuring of the Semitic Museum has come about following an official report by an Advisory Committee, headed by Dorot Professor of Archaeology Lawrence E. Stager, director of the Museum, to the Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles concerning the position of the Semitic Museum within Harvard University. The committee concluded that the Semitic Museum's role should focus upon "the educational needs of Harvard students and faculty." (Advisory Committee Report, p.2) The museum staff's response to Dean Knowles states that the report "[g]ave too much weight to academic needs of the NELC department and too little to the `public component of the museum."' This statement is ludicrous.

The museum is part of Harvard University, and, as such, its main goal should be the education of Harvard students. The core of the museum's collection is composed of more than 40,000 ancient and medieval artifacts. Much of this collection is uncatalogued, poorly maintained and inaccessible to students, faculty and the public as a result of the current staff's preoccupation with enlarging the Photo Archives. While these archives are a valuable resource, they should not be maintained at the cost of the rest of the museum's resources. The 10,000 or so visitors to the museum in a given year will learn far less about the Semitic world from photos taken at the turn of the century than we as students of the field could learn if we had access to the materials controlled by the museum. The changes proposed by the committee are designed to alleviate these problems--not to shut the Semitic Museum.

Any threat concerning the closure of the museum stems not from Professor Stager's actions but from the financial distress incurred by Father Carney Gavin (Curator and Executive Director) and his staff. The current staff of the museum consists largely of individuals untrained in museum studies or conservation. Furthermore, the level of pay garnered by these individuals ($375,000 divided among 6.34 employees) is vastly out of proportion to their training and the pay of similar position at other University museums, where generally such positions are filled by faculty or specialists in museum studies. It seems that many of the financial problems encountered by the museum stem from such overpayment.

In the coverage of these recent events, Professor Stager has been misrepresented in opinion pieces and editorials that verge on libel. In an editorial on Nov. 9 regarding Professor Stager's transcription of faxed documents and the alleged invasion of the museum staff's privacy, The Crimson said: "...Stager's compulsive need to keep tabs on his staff seems a personal problem, not a business concern. Clearly, this is a sign of a serious inability to supervise the museum and a lack of respect for his staff." However, it was the responsibility of the museum staff to see that any document written on Semitic Museum stationery, particularly documents dealing with fundraising, should be passed over the Director's desk. With the staff fully aware that this was expected of them, any attempts to circumvent the proper chain of command is an act of insubordination. In fact, Professor Stager's actions demonstrate his capability to act quickly to prevent further improprieties by individuals who have already run up more than a million dollars in debts.

Furthermore, the opinion piece by Martin Peretz of The New Republic on Nov. 28 was purely offensive. His not-so-subtle implications that Professor Stager is an anti-Semite are absolutely unfounded. Professor Stager has dedicated his life to the study of the ancient Semitic world and in the year that we have known him he has never in any way indicated signs of anti-Semitic thought or action.

As for his being an "extraordinarily narrow specialist," anyone who is familiar with either Professor Stager's work or the program of the Harvard NELC Department (from which Professor Stager received his A.B. and Ph.D.) would know that this statement is utterly preposterous. Professor Stager is an accomplished archaeologist, historian and biblical scholar with numerous years of experience in education and excavation. In short, the personal attacks upon Professor Stager have been unfounded, inappropriate and indicative of The Crimson's Knee-jerk response to actions of the Harvard administration.

In summary, as NELC students and as individuals personally experienced with the day-to-day operations of the museum, we would like to show our support for the initiatives taken by the committee and particularly for Professor Stager. The changes being implemented can only improve interactions between the Semitic Museum and the Harvard community. Aaron J. Brody   Susan L. Cohen   David R. Lipovitch   Todd K. Sanders