Dishwasher at Yale destroys "racist" art

[Victorian Gray]

Yes

Your turn.

That's all I wanted, a simple answer. Thanks.

 

[Bitek]

I don't agree with it- and I get that just destroying art people don't like is the absolute DEATH of art itself if such were to become acceptable in any case...


... but on the other hand, a stained glass window of slaves carrying bales of cotton?

eeeh. No loss.

Seriously, it's hard to feel too outraged over the loss of such grand tackiness. I know, I know, slippery slopes and all... but still. No loss.

Agreed.

Should not have destroyed it, but should have lodged his legitimate complaint. Yale should have had the sense to remove it earlier.

 

[glenn1]

Just to be clear, the 'yes' means that you see them as exactly the same act?

Yes, I thought I made that clear earlier. I don't care if you're destroying a priceless Ark of the Covenant, a cheap sketch of slaves someone bought at the Farmer's Market for $1, or a modern fine art piece expressing a political view about Palestinians and Israelis. If you destroy it because it offends your precious fucking sensibilities you're an asshole and should be tried and hopefully convicted, both for punishment and hopefully as warning to others not to be an asshole as well. I don't care if you're an ISIS fighter, the guy who scrubs the grease off frypans, or the ambassador from Israel and I sure as hell don't care what your fucking stupid motivation is for being an asshole.

 

[thraashman]

Agreed.

Should not have destroyed it, but should have lodged his legitimate complaint. Yale should have had the sense to remove it earlier.

Pretty much, though I'm not sure if I feel Yale should have removed it. He has every right to be offended. He has every right to lodge a complaint. And Yale would have the right to remove or leave in place the window. At which point he has the right to accept it or change jobs. I don't think Yale necessarily needed to remove it because even the bad parts of history need to be remembered, though they should have at least considered any complaints. This man's choice to resort to destruction is unwarranted and only hurts his position and that of others who might feel like him.

 

[bshole]

Pretty much, though I'm not sure if I feel Yale should have removed it. He has every right to be offended. He has every right to lodge a complaint. And Yale would have the right to remove or leave in place the window. At which point he has the right to accept it or change jobs. I don't think Yale necessarily needed to remove it because even the bad parts of history need to be remembered, though they should have at least considered any complaints. This man's choice to resort to destruction is unwarranted and only hurts his position and that of others who might feel like him.

I agree to the point that we should not destroy our own history or pretend that it did not happen. Destroying the relics that prove those events happened is generally the first step to rewriting history. That can never be a good thing.

 

[Mursilis]

Pretty much, though I'm not sure if I feel Yale should have removed it. He has every right to be offended. He has every right to lodge a complaint. And Yale would have the right to remove or leave in place the window. At which point he has the right to accept it or change jobs. I don't think Yale necessarily needed to remove it because even the bad parts of history need to be remembered, though they should have at least considered any complaints. This man's choice to resort to destruction is unwarranted and only hurts his position and that of others who might feel like him.

I agree to the point that we should not destroy our own history or pretend that it did not happen. Destroying the relics that prove those events happened is generally the first step to rewriting history. That can never be a good thing.

I agree with these statements. As Americans, we're quick to pat ourselves on the back for our exceptionalism as a nation, and we're not necessarily wrong to do so. The US has done a lot of good in the world, and we should be proud of that, but also need things like this window showing slaves to remind us that we've had our moral failures as well.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Agree to both points. We need to preserve our history: the good, the bad, and the ugly. That's why I didn't like the hysteria of 'deconfederacizing' that occurred after the Dylann Roof tragedy, which was obviously a bad / ugly event.

Pretty much, though I'm not sure if I feel Yale should have removed it. He has every right to be offended. He has every right to lodge a complaint. And Yale would have the right to remove or leave in place the window. At which point he has the right to accept it or change jobs. I don't think Yale necessarily needed to remove it because even the bad parts of history need to be remembered, though they should have at least considered any complaints. This man's choice to resort to destruction is unwarranted and only hurts his position and that of others who might feel like him.

I agree to the point that we should not destroy our own history or pretend that it did not happen. Destroying the relics that prove those events happened is generally the first step to rewriting history. That can never be a good thing.

 

[Phynaz]

That's all I wanted, a simple answer. Thanks.

Ok, will you answer my question?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ok, will you answer my question?

What question? When's the next book burning? I dunno, I read books, not burn them.

 

[glenn1]

What question? When's the next book burning? I dunno, I read books, not burn them.

No do you think he was justified in destroying the art because he was offended?
Or do you feel it would be a mitigating circumstance from him receiving punishment?

 

[Victorian Gray]

No do you think he was justified in destroying the art because he was offended?
Or do you feel it would be a mitigating circumstance from him receiving punishment?

Not particularly (something that he himself acknowledged). I also think that comparing what he did to what the Taliban did is beyond absurd.

As for punishment, that's up to Yale and they made their decision.

 

[thraashman]

Agree to both points. We need to preserve our history: the good, the bad, and the ugly. That's why I didn't like the hysteria of 'deconfederacizing' that occurred after the Dylann Roof tragedy, which was obviously a bad / ugly event.

I absolutely feel that no state should have a confederate flag as part of their state flag. Remembering our history and honoring traitors to the country are different things.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I absolutely feel that no state should have a confederate flag as part of their state flag. Remembering our history and honoring traitors to the country are different things.

I'm ok with that.

 

[werepossum]

I don't even care if it's equivalent damage. He could have damaged someone's black velvet painting of Elvis and he should still face charges and be required to pay restitution. That goes whether what was destroyed was a $1 print of a kitten with the logo "hang in there" to many priceless fine artworks depicting servitude like Michaelangelo's "The Awakening Slave." And we do this because otherwise every moron with their own ideas about what's "wrong" with a piece of art can damage or destroy it like this assclown or the Israeli ambassador.

Agreed, and well said.

There are plenty of times a business declines to press charges and simply fires an employee who purposely did damages, assuming the damage was minor enough. They don't make the news however

But you can rest easy. Despite Yale declining to press charges if he resigned it looks like the state will go ahead and charge him with a felony.

This will of course work out poorly for the dishwasher as well as Yale. They've already had several petitions over the years to remove the window and change the name of the school. (Yales Calhoun college was named for an ardent slave owner and defender. The stain glass windows in the cafeteria depict his life. In fact they've already modified or moved other art showing slaves kneeling before Calhoun or eating watermelon).

My guess is by declining to press charges Yale was hoping to limit negative publicity. Instead Yale will now get to answer questions from the press about why they had bucolic images of slavery in the lunch room in 2016.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/yale-cafeteria-worker-resigns-after-breaking-racist-one-of-a-kind-stained-glass/

I agree with your analysis, and I really could not care less whether Yale or the state prosecutes this particular asshole. However, I care very much that the principle that "he quit his job, that should be punishment enough" gains no legitimacy. The world has lots of assholes and I do not wish to see them given free rein to destroy whatever offends them.

Pretty much, though I'm not sure if I feel Yale should have removed it. He has every right to be offended. He has every right to lodge a complaint. And Yale would have the right to remove or leave in place the window. At which point he has the right to accept it or change jobs. I don't think Yale necessarily needed to remove it because even the bad parts of history need to be remembered, though they should have at least considered any complaints. This man's choice to resort to destruction is unwarranted and only hurts his position and that of others who might feel like him.

I was going to agree with Bitek, but this is well reasoned. So . . . agreed.

 

[DigDog]

found it

 

[Svnla]

Look like the dishwasher could get his job back - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ffe82-4e13-11e6-bf27-405106836f96_story.html

.

 

[michal1980]

Look like the dishwasher could get his job back - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4ffe82-4e13-11e6-bf27-405106836f96_story.html

.

good to know that if your a liberal, destruction of private property means there are no consequences for your actions.

 

[Joepublic2]

I'm sure he'll go on to have a long and illustrious career as a dishwasher with that felony on his record.

 

[michal1980]

I'm sure he'll go on to have a long and illustrious career as a dishwasher with that felony on his record.

Yale doesnt want him charged.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yale doesnt want him charged.

It's not up to Yale. They take public money and tax breaks from the state which means it was partially the state's property:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ebc...estroys-stained-glass-window-depicting-slaves

State prosecutors plan to meet with lawyers for the school and Menafee and will have the final say as to whether to pursue the criminal case.

The state can still prosecute.

 

[IronWing]

It's not up to Yale. They take public money and tax breaks from the state which means it was partially the state's property:

No.

 

[mizzou]

Such a shame. Destroying anything of historic value, especially art, should not be taken lightly.

 

[Joepublic2]

No.

Okay, Mr. Internet lawyer.

 

[brycejones]

It's not up to Yale. They take public money and tax breaks from the state which means it was partially the state's property:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5ebc...estroys-stained-glass-window-depicting-slaves



The state can still prosecute.

Your link does not support your assertions in the first part of your post.

 

[Joepublic2]

Your link does not support your assertions in the first part of your post.

I know you're probably a product of the public education system so I'll go easy on you and Ironwing:

State prosecutors plan to meet with lawyers for the school and Menafee and will have the final say as to whether to pursue the criminal case.

By what other legal mechanism would they be able to decide if they will pursue charges? It's a public university. I wouldn't care at all if he vandalized some private art gallery and they decided not to press charges, that would be between them. Public resources were destroyed in this case, however.