Addressing racism and refuting ignorance
I disagree with the Herald-Times editorial that simply adding William Garrett’s name to the Wildermuth Intramural Center was a “wise” move. It was not wise, it was a cop-out. A columnist for the Indiana Daily Student reported in 2007 that Ora Wildermuth had written several racist letters defending segregation and demeaning blacks, and there have been calls since then to have his name removed. Simply adding Garrett’s name does not erase the fact that Indiana University is honoring a racist.
Some would argue that we cannot hold Wildermuth to today’s standards on morality. (This argument is also often used when pointing out that Abraham Lincoln harbored white supremacist views.) That is silly. Fundamental principles of right and wrong do not change, shift and evolve with time. Those moral standards are unchanging and eternal. Either we live under an eternal, unchanging code of morality or we don’t. Arguing that standards have changes is to argue there are no fundamental moral standards at all.
That said, the Herald-Times made a grave and serious error by invoking the controversial Benton mural in Woodburn Hall. (For more on the mural, see editorials from February 4, 2002 and April 25, 2005.) Following is an email I sent to H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg on the matter.
(Read more after the leap)
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: The H-T’s portrayal of the Benton mural
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:16:02 -0500
From: Scott Tibbs
To: Bob Zaltsberg
Mr. Zaltsberg,
In your editorial today, you mentioned of the Thomas Hart Benton mural in Woodburn Hall that Indiana University “has allowed the mural to stand — despite its racist connotations.” Please allow me to share a picture of the mural with you.
You are correct in stating that the mural is “balanced by the many positive images that surround it.” However, you make the same error that many other people have made - some honestly and some otherwise - in focusing on the picture of the Ku Klux Klan to the exclusion of the other images around it. It is significant that below the image of KKK members burning a cross is a larger figure representing racial harmony - a white nurse caring for a black baby. The depictions of journalists are also historically significant, as it was a newspaper that helped bring down the Klan in Indiana.
To place emphasis on the image of the Klan presents a situation that is simply not accurate, in conflict with the Herald-Times stated purpose to strive for accuracy. Also, considering Mr. Benton was an opponent of the Klan, it is grossly unfair to associate his mural depicting historical images as having “racist connotations”. I believe the Herald-Times should apologize to both Indiana University and the Benton family for this characterization.
There has been far too much propaganda and far too many outright lies by shameless race-baiting demagogues regarding the Benton mural in Woodburn Hall. Your false and unfair characterization of the mural, unintentional though it may be, only aids this demagoguery. I strongly urge you to thoughtfully consider the true story behind the Benton mural before you publish any more editorials about it.
Scott Tibbs
This post is also available at ConservaTibbs.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Why do people from Bloomington always mistakenly assume that the whole world is sitting on the edge of it’s seat with concern about Bloomington’s constant bizarre self-examination?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 am
The issue with the Woodburn mural is an issue of free speech, a fundamental freedom under attack at too many universities today. Thankfully, IU had resisted the pressure to remove the Woodburn mural for several years now, but I fear it is only a matter pf time before Political Correctness wins again.
As to the other issue a prestigious state university should not honor a notorious racist.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
As to the other issue a prestigious state university should not honor a notorious racist.
George Washington was a slave owner. I suppose we ought to remove his picture from our postage stamps, coins and currency, and rename our nation’s capital….
You mention a “prestigious state university”. I thought you were talking about IU. They have a basketball team, a Calder sculpture, and the Kinsey report - but most people aren’t aware that they have the latter two, and I’m not sure how much prestige there is in a chair being hurled across the floor.
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 am
The chair-throwing incident was over 20 years ago, and the coach who threw the chair was fired for mistreating a student 8 years ago. If you’re looking for a relevant reason to criticize IU, find something newer.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Ora Wildermuth died 44 years ago.
If the passage of 20 years makes something irrelevant, then Ora Wildermuth’s statements are doubly irrelevant.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
The difference is, Knight was fired. Wildermuth still has a building named after him, and the question is whether IU should be honoring a racist and segregationist in 2008. Knight’s outbursts of temper aren’t the issue - honoring Wildermuth is.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am
He wasn’t fired for throwing a chair across the floor and he wasn’t fired for assault in the carribean.
A century ago, many women were married and having babies at 13 and 14 years of age. These days, we send guys to prison for screwing girls that young.
In the 1800s, Mark Twain was considered a dangerous radical because books like Huckleberry Finn called slavery evil. These days, Huckleberry Finn is being removed from libraries because it’s considered racially offensive.
In 1940, they lynched blacks in Marion, Indiana for raping a white girl - something that, upon further examination, turned out not to have happened. A couple of years later, Ora Wildermuth was suggesting that segregation was a good thing. Well, if keeps innocent men from being lynched, I’d have to agree with Wildermuth.
In the 1960s, Sammy Davis couldn’t take his wife, Mae Britt, with him when he was on tour, because in about 75% of the country, they couldn’t legally marry, and innkeepers would be arrested for renting a room to the couple.
Samson had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines. As your preacher if this is morally OK by today’s standards.
The bible holds high the example of a man who, haven given shelter to guests, has a mob gather outside his door. Rather than turn over his guests to the mob, he passes his daughters to the crowd to have sex with. Ask your wife if this is moral behavior by today’s standards.
Moral standards do change.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Solomon, not Samson. It actually wasn’t morally OK by the law of Solomon’s day, either. But it was what the world around him was doing and so he did it. You will note a couple of things: 1, the Bible never hold what Solomon did as being morally right. 2, the Bible never held up what Lot did as morally right. Lot was saved not because of his own morality, but because of Abraham’s.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Yes. My brain was thinking one thing, my fingers were typing another.
the Bible never held up what Lot did as morally right.
Taken a look at 2 Peter 2 lately? Lot is described as a righteous man.
Lot was saved not because of his own morality, but because of Abraham’s.
Abraham married his father’s daughter.
If this incestuous behavior was good enough to not only save himself, but to save Lot, then incest is morally correct, both then and now?
November 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I stand by what I said. 2 Peter 2 does not hold up what Lot did (i.e. the particular incident you were referring to) as morally right. It just says he was a righteous man. And so you understand where I come from on both Abraham and Lot here, I quote Genesis 15:6, “Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”
November 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
One thing that you are doing, Harl, is throwing one person’s (perceived) moral failings up as a reason to not oppose another’s moral failings.
Now I have no dog in this fight–I’m a Rose-Hulman guy married to a Purdue grad with parents and in-laws who attended Purdue. I couldn’t care less about what IU does–though I did think that Knight should have been charged with battery on more than one occasion.
But the argument for whether or not a particular person should be honored should stand on its own merits and not on the merits of another. Evaluating a man is a complicated endeavor since none of us are perfect.