Running head: CASE STUDY 1

Case Study: Timberline University

Vicki Gerentes

Loyola University Chicago

CASE STUDY 2

Introduction

This proposal is a response to the case study entitled “Timberline University Case Study:

Art Gallery Faculty Exhibits Program Controversy” (NACUBO, 2012). In the workbook, this

case study is presented in a way that asks for participants to engage in a two-part activity. I have

combined the two parts of the challenge into one in order to fully address the problem in this

proposal. The initial case study asks that participants role-play immediate reactions to the

challenge. The participants are later provided with new information. This new information is

what has been incorporated as part of the overall challenge. I will first introduce the

controversial issue that arose at Timberline University’s Art Gallery and Museum. I will identify

the challenge and stakeholders that must be examined in order to resolve the issue. Next, I will

provide recommendations supported by research and theory. I will also address some of the

limitations of my recommendations, and then conclude the proposal. The final component of

this case study project will be a self-evaluation and reflection regarding what I still need to learn.

Background and Overview

As Director of the Timberline University (TU) Art Gallery and Museum for the past five

years, William B. Jefferson oversees an on-campus facility that is open to both the campus and

local community. Prior to working at TU, Jefferson was a curator of the Boise Civic Art

Museum, where he gained significant experience in cultivating community involvement and

fundraising. Jefferson created the Faculty Showcase, a month-long exhibit, which takes place

twice a year. This exhibit features artwork from two faculty members from the School of

Performing Arts, and has received recognition from students, faculty, and community members.

The current Faculty Showcase, featuring photographs from Marisa Johannson and watercolor

painting from Raul Mendoza, opened two days ago. Both Johannson and Mendoza are recently
CASE STUDY 3

hired tenure-track faculty in the School of Performing Arts undergraduate and graduate

programs.

Timberline University is facing a challenge that began with concerns from alumna Mary

Reba, who is a local business owner, generous donor, and former member of the Board of

Trustees. When Reba served on the Board of Trustees, she worked on a number of projects with

Jill Highstein, Vice President for Finance and Administration. Reba’s email expressed concerns

for the current Faculty Showcase, featuring the work from Johannson and Mendoza. Her letter

references two photographs by Johannson that depict what Reba described as two nude

females—one no older that 12 or 13 years of age—touching each other inappropriately. Reba

also expressed distress for Mendoza’s painting of Jesus dressed in work clothes and a shirt that

looks as though it has been fashioned from an American flag. Reba wrote that these three pieces

are “inappropriate” for an exhibit that is open to community members.

Jefferson reports to Ray Argery, who is the Vice President for External and Community

Affairs. Jefferson and Argery both received the email from Reba. A copy of the email was also

sent to the following administrators: Jill Highstein, Vice President of Finance and

Administration; Maria Bossa, Provost; Jeff Germane, Director for Development; and Jennifer

Smithers, University Chief Counsel. Argery informed Jefferson via a phone conversation that

Provost Bossa required an immediate response to Reba’s email. Jefferson was faced with two

options: 1) removal of the three pieces from the Faculty Showcase; or 2) close the exhibit.

Argery emphasized that Jefferson must move forward with one of the two options.

Jefferson called professors Johannson and Mendoza to share that he had been faced with

one of two options in order to respond to Reba’s concerns. Jefferson asked Johannson and

Mendoza to provide him with a preferred response within 24 hours. Art Fahn, Dean of the
CASE STUDY 4

School of Performing Arts, was approached by Johannson and Mendoza to discuss the situation

and how their academic rights and freedom had been violated. Dean Fahn did not know about

the alumna’s complaint until the professors approached him, which is why he wanted to speak

with the Provost Bossa to gain more insight and discuss the matter. The Provost would be in

meetings until noon the next day, so Dean Fahn left a message for her.

Professor Mendoza decided to call the editor of the local newspaper to report alleged

censorship being imposed by TU. Reporters left a voicemail message for the Provost asking for

comments on the “censorship issue.” They also tried calling the President’s office for a

statement on the matter. When the Provost Bossa checked her email message that evening, she

noticed a number of messages from community and school newspapers, as well as a message to

contact the President at his home that evening. Two days later, the newspapers published stories

about the censorship issue with comments from the faculty members. The articles also noted

how the President’s and Provost's offices failed to return the reporters’ calls. Likewise, Jefferson

failed to receive an answer from the Provost or President after calling for guidance on the issue.

Media coverage consisted of two newspaper editorials: one complementing the same concerns

Reba had about appropriateness for the community and the other critiquing administration for

failing to address the freedom of speech issues. Despite what has transpired from the email, the

Faculty Showcase has been met with great attendance and attention to the controversial pieces.

Challenge

As the Director of the Art Gallery and Museum, Jefferson must choose between closing

the Faculty Showcase or removing the controversial pieces from the show. Jefferson has not

received any guidance from the Provost or President, but has received directives from Argery to

make a decision. As a result of sharing the dilemma with the professors, Jefferson must also find
CASE STUDY 5

a way to mediate their frustrations, as well as the publicity created by their alleged censorship.

Beyond the relationship Jefferson has with faculty and administrators, his choices moving

forward cannot ignore Reba’s concerns for the community. Reba’s relationship to the University

is important given that she is close with the Jill Highstein, Vice President for Finance and

Administration, and that a copy of her email was sent to both the Chief Counsel and

Development Director. The resolution to the censorship issue must maintain TU’s reputation,

preserve relationships with faculty, administrators and alumni, and address the morality of the

artwork content.

Stakeholders

Alumna Mary Reba is the source of this concern. The department directly affected by the

concern is the TU Art Gallery and Museum. Similarly, the Provost’s and President’s offices

have also been affected as a result of the calls made by reporters for comments on the censorship

issue. As Director, Jefferson must with Argery, Vice President for External and Community

Affairs, who should be the one to publicly respond. Now that the community has been made

more aware of the nature of the artwork in the Faculty Showcase, there is potential for

community members and alumni to support Mary Reba’s concerns or protest the work. This

type of support for the concern could potentially threaten both the livelihood and scholarly

reputation of Professors Johannson and Mendoza, who are tenure-track faculty members.

Students who take classes from Professors Johannson and Mendoza will similarly support their

instructors or agree with the alumna, perhaps causing tension in the classroom. Art Fahn, Dean

of the School of Performing Arts, must also play a role in so far as that he did not learn about the

issue regarding his faculty members until they approached him about it. Finally, the President,
CASE STUDY 6

Provost, Chief Counsel, Development Director, and Vice President for Finance and

Administration must find a way to support the decision and work with Jefferson and Argery.

Recommendations

This challenge poses an issue that requires both short-term and long-term solutions. The

immediate solution has to be a choice between removing the three pieces or shutting down the

Faculty Showcase. The case study does not provide Mary Reba’s email, which means that the

nature of her letter and her request is not fully understood. Due to the lack of information about

the email and TU as an institution, I would like to take a risk in proposing that the pieces neither

be removed, nor the show be closed; rather, I would recommend that the Faculty Showcase

remain open as planed, until the end of the month. Professors Johannson and Mendoza have

rights as artists, and the content of their pieces does not violate any laws; however, the use of

trigger warnings would help to address the concern for the content Reba deems “inappropriate.”

Releasing a public holding statement with the short-term solutions will provide TU

administrators with some time to create a more comprehensive statement, addressing the issue

with details. A long-term approach to resolving the issue would be to devise artwork loan

agreements that allow Jefferson to be responsible for the artwork for the duration of the Faculty

Showcase. The loan agreements, depending on their terms, may prepare artists with better

understanding for the censorship or removal of artwork from a show. The overarching issue that

resulted from the initial complaint stems from the fact that TU administrators and Argery did not

have a crisis management plan in place. Jefferson has been working for the TU Art Gallery and

Museum for five years, and was lucky that he did not encounter a controversy like this sooner.

He and his TU colleagues will need to devise a crisis management plan for the future. The final
CASE STUDY 7

recommendation will be to issue a public apology statement in order to remedy the effects of the

media coverage.

Short-Term: Addressing the “Censorship Issue”

Professors Johansson and Mendoza feel as though their freedom of speech has been

compromised. According to NCAC (n.d.), the following are considered protected under the First

Amendment: paintings, sculptures, prints, installations, drawings, and photography. Yet, there

controversies surrounding religious, sexual/nudity, or political content of the artwork still arises

(NCAC, n.d.). The artists also have some basic rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act of

1990 (VARA). Also, Professor Johannson’s photographs do not violate the PROTECT Act of

2003, which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of

Children Today." Thus, Johannson’s photographs of the nude women are not illegal and should

not be censored. In this case, censoring would include the removal of the work or the closing of

the show. Jefferson can use this information to better inform the public, administrators, and the

alumna about how the artwork should not be censored. A holding statement can be issued to the

campus and local communities before a more comprehensive statement about the situation is

released (Honeysett, n.d.).

As the Director, Jefferson must agree upon the pieces that will be shown in the Faculty

Showcase. Jefferson also has the authority to include or not include artwork in any show.

According to Caroline Stearns, Director of The Mission—a Chicago-based art gallery—the TU

gallery must select work and administer some sort of consent or agreement in how the artwork

will be presented for a set period of time (personal communication, April 29, 2017). If there is a

written agreement, then, “if anyone questions any aspect of the agreement at any future point,

you'll have an actual document that clearly delineates the ground rules” (ArtBusiness.com, n.d.).
CASE STUDY 8

Additionally, removal of any artwork requires written consent from both the gallery or

institutions and the artist.

Short-Term: Utilizing Trigger Warnings

Jefferson should approach the Professor Johannson and Professor Mendoza about

creating trigger warnings for their pieces as a courtesy to both the on-campus and local

communities. Trigger warnings are “potentially lifesaving for people who have dealt with

traumas like sexual assault, hate crimes or violence” (Holmes, 2016). Rape Victim Advocates

refers to trauma triggers as “any stimulus that serves as a reminder cue of the traumatic event a

person has survived” (2016). When a person is triggered, automatic neurological responses

occur. Jefferson and the professors, particularly Professor Johannson, would better serve

students and the community with the use of trauma trigger warnings, as their function “is to

accommodate survivors of traumatic events so that they may participate in activities as fully as

possible” (Rape Victim Advocates, 2016). The image of the two nude females touching each

other may trigger someone who has been sexually assaulted or traumatized. The religious nature

of Mendoza’s painting also requires a trigger warning. Perhaps “[r]eligion can be an immensely

important part of one’s identity—for many, more important than race or sexual orientation”

(Levinovitz, 2016). Religious affiliation of the institution or town is unknown, which is why I

also believe that the work should remain in the show, as it does not pose a widespread issue for

students or local community members.

Long-Term: Implementing Artwork Loan Agreements

If the artists had signed artwork loan agreements, then Jefferson would have been able to

work around Reba’s concern in a more organized way. In a sample artwork loan agreement from

Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, the contract states, “The work
CASE STUDY 9

shall remain in the possession of the Institution in the Exhibition for which it has been borrowed,

for the time specified in this agreement, but may be withdrawn from Exhibition at any time by

the Institution” (“Artwork Loan Agreement”, 2006). Jefferson would have to work with Jennifer

Smithers, University Chief Counsel, to devise an agreement tailored for the institution and

faculty artists. Had there been an agreement between TU and the professors, then Jefferson

would have been able to justify the pieces in the show to the alumna or take them down without

the professors growing as frustrated as they did. The agreement provides him with the discretion

to consider the campus and local communities so as to preserve the institution’s mission or

reputation.

Long-Term: Crisis Management Planning

A crisis is a form of reputational damage (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000, p. 77). We can

also understand how “Relational damage is a form reputational damage because the reputation

arises from the relational history. Any threat to the relational history is a threat o the reputation”

(Ledingham and Bruning, 2000, p. 77). In other words, alumna Mary Reba has a history with

TU in the same way that TU has a reputation as a result of its history. As the Vice President for

External and Community Affairs, Ray Argery must engage in some measures to manage the

crisis and prevent it from happening in the future. If the University has a crisis management

plan, then it likely would outline how to approach the media and recover from the attention

brought by newspaper publications. The plan would also outline which administrators should

take action for low- or high-level crisis situations. If Jefferson is the Director, then he needs to

be supported and guided by Argery in the decisions that affect the local community. Likewise,

Argery and Jefferson must work alongside Jill Highstein, Vice President for Finance and

Administration, as well as the Provost, Development Director, and University Chief Counsel. In
CASE STUDY 10

this particular challenge, an engaged alumna’s email is the source of the current controversy.

Since the artists are TU faculty, the administrators must also work with the professors to manage

the culture and resolution to the crisis. Jefferson received directives from Argery without any

other guidance. Jefferson was transparent in his effort to consult Johannson and Mendoza,

considering Jefferson did not receive any guidance from the administration. Jefferson took a risk

when he informed the artists. A crisis management plan would have provided Jefferson with a

better understanding of what steps to take to avoid disrupting the culture amongst faculty and

administrators.

Releasing a Public Apology Statement

As a result of the media coverage in this case, TU must not only address Mary Reba’s

concerns, but also the concerns of the campus and community at-large. After the holding

statement regarding the censorship is posted, TU can begin to focus on a more comprehensive

statement to outline what happened and apologize to the affected individuals or involved parties.

Argery should release a public statement, identifying the short- and long-term solutions to the

issue. As the Vice President for External and Community Affairs, Argery should be the one to

address the issue; however, the letter will hold more weight and support if it is also signed by

Jefferson, Dean Fahn, the Provost, and President. The letter should address how the content of

the artwork was called to the University’s attention after receiving concerns about the artwork

being too inappropriate for the local community members. Thus, the statement should also

explicitly state which pieces were of concern and how trigger warnings will be put in place so

that the viewers and audience can be more informed about what they will encounter in the

artwork. Additionally, the statement should apologize to Professors Johannson and Mendoza for

the attention they received as a result of this incident and the way it was handled. Despite
CASE STUDY 11

knowing that the media will read this statement, it is important to make sure that the campus

community and local community are taken care of first (Honeysett, n.d.).

Limitations

First and foremost, Jefferson is risking his position as Director of the TU Art Gallery and

Museum, as well as the reputation of the University. Argery tasked Jefferson with making a

choice, and I am proposing that Jefferson challenge situation by keeping the Faculty Showcase

and the alleged pieces open to the public. Administrators may reject the option to keep the show

open in an effort to keep alumna Mary Reba happy. Additionally, if the professors did not sign

any loan agreements with Jefferson and the TU Art Gallery and Museum, then Jefferson must go

back to his original dilemma of whether to remove the pieces or close the show. Considering

how the professors reacted, it would be in Jefferson’s best interest to remove the three pieces that

the alumna mentioned in her email. Closing the show would discourage Professors Johannson

and Mendoza, who may continue to turn to the media as a way to communicate their concerns

about censorship. If there are more pieces that can remain in the show, then the faculty should

not face any further consequence of ruining their artistic reputations. This issue could possibly

deter future professors from participating, creating a lack of support for Jefferson and the Art

Gallery and Museum, as well as the Department for Performing Arts.

When Jefferson put the decision on the faculty, he took a major risk that resulted in

media coverage of the issue. Jefferson must be careful as he moves forward with Professors

Johannson and Mendoza, as faculty members sometimes have their own agenda (A. Goodno,

personal communication, March 20, 2017). For instance, putting the alumna and the professors

in the same room to discuss the matter could turn into the professors attacking the alumna for her

concern. The University could lose a donor. The public statement should not point fingers to the
CASE STUDY 12

alumna; rather it should detail dates and concerns, as well as apologize to the communities and

professors for the lack of care given to the integrity of the content and its receipt.

Conclusion

Rather than being forced to choose one of two options, Jefferson should do his best to

address Reba’s concerns whilst supporting the Faculty Showcase featuring Professor

Johannson’s photographs and Professor Mendoza’s painting. Short-term solutions to the issue

include releasing a holding statement and implementing trigger warnings for the artwork. The

holding statement would address the concerns about censorship and Freedom of Speech.

Legally, the artwork is not required to be censored; however, the implementation of trigger

warnings would allow viewers to make more informed decisions about the whether or not the

artwork is appropriate for them. Long-term recommendations include organizing artwork loan

agreements, as well as a crisis management plan. If the professors and Jefferson had signed

artwork loan agreements, then he would have been able to remove the pieces at his discretion or

share with Reba that the pieces have been approved for the show. Although Jefferson has served

as the Director for five years, this situation is first time TU has experienced media coverage and

a crisis. The lack of support or guidance from administrators is unacceptable. A future crisis

management plan developed by Argery would better prepare all constituents for next steps. In

short, Reba’s email was sent to a number of administrators who play a key role in the leadership

and success of the institution. Each email recipient should be involved in the review and signing

of the public apology statement, addressing the situation with specific dates and sequence of

events. The statement will also apologize to those who were affected by the content, as well as

the artists involved. The risk in keeping the show open will provide support for the faculty and
CASE STUDY 13

serve as a learning moment for the gallery. The relationship with Mary Reba can also be

maintained through the support of administrators whom she trusts.

Self-Evaluation

This case study was particularly interesting because it dealt with controversy, rather than

explicit financial or budgetary issues. Granted, the support from alumna Mary Reba appears to

be important to TU; however, this case study lacked some background information about Mary

Reba as an alumna and donor. What is her donation history? How do administrators value her

relationship to the University? There is no way to understand the motive behind Reba’s email or

her point of view without any information about her and her values. A copy of the email was not

provided in the case study. The language of the email would have been helpful in determining

what Reba intended to accomplish.

Likewise, there is little-to-no information about TU as an institution. I do not know if it

is a public or private university, which would have been helpful given that the greatest difference

between private and public institutions is the degree of control on matters outside the campus

(Barr and McClellan, 2011a). What is the institution’s mission? If TU is a conservative,

religious university, then perhaps the alumna’s concerns are important. If TU is a liberal arts

school with emphasis on innovation and critical thinking, then perhaps the faculty’s artwork

promotes that. Without the information about the institution, it is hard to determine exactly what

Jefferson and the administration should have done to resolve the controversy and address Reba.

How does TU support and/or fund the Art Gallery and Museum? Does the facility

function as an auxiliary service? If annual giving from alumni and donors is the sole way that

the facility continues to share artwork the campus and local community, then an immediate

response to Reba’s email is warranted. If identifying and obtaining private financial support
CASE STUDY 14

from alumni and local businesses is essential to the facility’s success, then these gifts are vital to

the fiscal health of both the gallery and the TU (Barr and McClellan, 2011b). Without any

knowledge about TU’s history or mission, it is hard to determine whether or not my

recommendation would work or if it would cause more damage to TU’s reputation.

Considering I am a first-year master’s student in the Higher Education program at Loyola

University Chicago, I have a different lens through which I am able to assess this case study. I

have not taken ELPS 459: Organization and Governance in Higher Education, which would have

improved my ability to understand the administrative and leadership systems in place at TU.

Beyond that, I am not aware of how legal counsel or alumni relations would get involved in this

type of situation. I would imagine that legal counsel would need to be involved in the artwork

loan agreements, as well as the development of a crisis management plan. Although I am

familiar with risk management as it pertains to students and student organizations, I am not

familiar with how to implement risk management for an institution at-large. Who should

respond first? What is the flow of communication? Does this case study qualify as a low- or

high-level crisis? Understanding administrator and faculty culture at TU would also be vital to

the way in which TU moves forward with the concerns and scholarly reputation that the artists

experienced as a result of this case. Overall, the lack of knowledge surrounding the University

and the donor combined with my lack of experience in certain functional areas in higher

education contribute to my gaps in learning.

CASE STUDY 15

References

ArtBusiness.com. (n.d.). Artist, gallery and dealer contracts, agreements and relationships.

Retrieved from http://www.artbusiness.com/artist-gallery-dealer-contracts-agreements-

relationships.html

Artwork Loan Agreement. (2006, May). Retrieved from http://www.bcn-

nshe.org/downloads/riskmgmt/urm010artworkloanagreement.pdf

Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2011a). The fiscal context and the role of the budget manager.

In Budgets and financial management in higher education (pp. 1-28). San Francisco, CA:

John Wiley & Sons.

Barr, M. J., & McClellan, G. S. (2011b). Primary elements of the budget: Revenue and

Expenses. In Budgets and financial management in higher education (pp. 29-54). San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Department of Justice. (2003, April 30). Fact sheet: Protect Act. Retrieved from

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm

Holmes, L. (2016, August 26). A Quick Lesson On What Trigger Warnings Actually Do.

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/university-of-chicago-trigger-

warning_us_57bf16d9e4b085c1ff28176d

Honeysett, A. (n.d.). Crisis communications 102: What to say and how to say it. Retrieved from

https://www.themuse.com/advice/crisis-communications-102-what-to-say-and-how-to-

say-it

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public Relations As Relationship Management : A

Relational Approach To the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah, N.J.:

Routledge.
CASE STUDY 16

Levinovitz, A. (2016, August 30). How trigger warnings silence religious students. Retrieved

from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-

on-campus/497951/

National Association of College and University Business Officers [NACUBO]. (2012). Leading

in tough times workbook: Case studies for higher education leaders. Washington, DC:

Ruben and Jurow.

National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC]. (n.d.). Visual Art. Retrieved from

http://ncac.org/issue/visual-art

Rape Victim Advocates [RVA]. (2016, September 28). Ah, September. Crisp fall air. Pumpkin

Spice. A new school year. Renewed hysteria over trigger warnings. Retrieved from

http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/ah-september-crisp-fall-air-pumpkin-spice-a-new-

school-year-renewed-hysteria-over-trigger-warnings/