Leave It Up
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Writing as a guest columnist for the New York Times, Ta-Nehisi Coates
argues against removing the statue
of Joe Paterno from the entrance to Beaver Stadium, where Penn State plays its
home football games. For anyone who hasn't followed the Penn State
child sexual abuse scandal, the calls for removal come after the findings from the school's internal
investigation, headed by former FBI director Louis Freeh, noted Paterno's role
in a cover-up.
While the desire to demolish a statue created to honor Paterno is
understandable, Coates holds, removing the statue would actually be a mistake.
Coates ends the piece as follows:
Arguing for the statue's removal, the legendary coach Bobby Bowden said he wouldn't want [Jerry] Sandusky's crimes "brought up every time I walked out on the field." That's the point. Sandusky's crimes should never be forgotten, nor should the crimes of the broader community. It is shameful to deify men who put nationalist ritual before children. But it is more shameful to pretend that this elevation was achieved by Joe Paterno's singular hand.I agree. Tearing down the statue will not magically change for the better the cultural problems that enabled this atrocity any more than looking the other way while mouthing pieties about character meant that Jerry Sandusky had never harmed anyone or would cease his predations. If leaving the statue in place pleases a few Paterno loyalists, so be it: The very fact that it might would be an integral part of the lesson.
Removing the Paterno statue allows Happy Valley to forget its own compliance in a national crime, to expunge its own culpability in its ruthless pursuit of glory. The statue should remain, and beneath it there should be a full explanation of Sandusky's crimes, Paterno's role and some warning to all of us who would turn a pastime into a god and elect a mortal man as its avatar. [bold added]
-- CAV
12 comments:
This is EXACTLY why I've been saying for years that the Germans need to put up a statue of Hitler.
I'll ignore the bait and note that the Germans, have learned their lesson for the most part.
How were the people in the community complicit? By liking Penn State football? By aasuming that Paterno was a good guy, when there was no evidence that he wasn't?
Of course not, but when evidence arises, and people are afraid to speak up, as Coates noted in the case of the janitor witness, there is a problem.
Fair enough, but without giving it any deep thought, I would think that the purpose of a statue is to communicate what the wider culture values, not simply the values of the organization to which the person being immortalized belonged.
Yes, but...
The statue is situated AT Penn State, and it is there that there is a local culture with a problem. Furthermore, as Coates notes in his article, he recommends some note being made at the statue of his role in this scandal.
While Louis Freeh's report undoubtedly uncovers corruption in the Penn State Culture, I find it historically ironic that such a man could use the term, "coverup" without his own personal head exploding from the contradiction, given the quality of his investigations of his own agents' misconduct during his tenure as FBI director.
c. andrew
Perhaps you misunderstand me: I think the statue should be TAKEN DOWN. Unequivocally. Paterno doesn't deserve to be immortalized. The purpose of statues shouldn't be to educate, but to inspire. Art is a selective recreation of metaphysical value judgments, correct? What is essential or important about human evil? Yes, human evil can - and probably always will, to one degree or another - exist, but so can human virtue. THAT is what is important about life. THAT is what heros - those who deserve to be immortalized through statues - remind us of. Just what virtue can achieve. I agree that some sort of permanent fixture - an exhibit or a memorial to the victims, perhaps - should be at Penn State in order to remind people about what happened (and the wider lesson: that one breech of morality, if significant enough, can wipe out an otherwise flawless life), but not at the expense of the meaning and dignity of statues as such. To turn Paterno's statue into a sarcastic reproach to his legacy is not only tacky, but also in a way disrespectful to the victims of Sandusky's crimes (and Paterno's cover-up). It's saying, basically: "Your suffering isn't important enough to have it's own memorial. Instead the only way we think we can get people to appreciate it is by tricking them into looking at a statue of a person they (wrongly) admire, and then and only then, hitting them with the truth - and hoping that sticks."
No. I realized you disagreed with leaving the statue up as soon as you left your first, sarcastic comment.
I can understand and respect someone disagreeing with me on this point. However, your characterization of Coates's suggestion as mere sarcasm and trickery is absurd.
How is advocating that Paterno's statue be taken down at all implying that he was solely responsible for the cover up? If they ever put up a statue of the janitor, I will be advocating that it be taken down as well.
The only thing that's absurd here is Coates' claim that to be opposed to one injustice (Paterno being honored, at worst - or the dignity of statues as such being undermined, at best) is to be okay with - or even complicit in - others.
Where are you getting the idea that I or Coates imagine that demolishing statue of Joe Paterno would somehow imply that he alone, was responsible for the cover-up?
The implication that the Penn State football program and it's supporters are isolated from the larger society having a unique culture ignores too many aspects of the wider culture that actually contribute to the situation. What broader cultural phenomenon, for example, contributes to the continued idolization of Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton or the somewhat creepy defense of Roman Polanski? I think Penn State was affected as much or more by the culture at large as any desire to promote or protect it's football team.
Post a Comment