In an op-ed in The Art Newspaper, former Rose director Michael Rush reflects on the recent settlement.
I'll note in passing that, unlike a lot of the press reports at the time, he correctly characterizes the settlement as falling "short of a binding statement that [the university] will not sell," and adds:
"Brandeis’s language in the lawsuit resolution may be intended to keep the door open for future sales. Having no 'aim, plan, design..to sell any artwork…' could be translated as their having no 'aim, plan, design' to sell any artwork today. Why didn’t they say 'Brandeis agrees not to sell artwork?'"
That's obviously tangential to the main points in his piece, but I think it's important to have a clear record of just what the settlement provides.