Well. When Penn State took down the JoePa Statue they were serious about it -- they've now, I guess, removed the concrete landing area surrounding the statue and re-landscaped the area. That's an expert job of re-writing history and the landscape around it! This'll make it a lot easier to forget that the JoePa Statue was ever there. Reminds me for some reason of Thomas Cole's series on Course of Empire. Especially the fourth one, "Destruction," which has a monument that is partially destroyed in the foreground.
But what interests the trusts and estates professor in me is that an aggrevied donor, local businessman Eddie Lauth, has now turned to the courts. Mr. Lauth donated $25,000 towards the statue and his name was on a nearby plaque. Good luck; I don't think he has much chance of success; in fact, based on this story from the Centre Daily Times, it looks like he lacks standing. Nevertheless, I applaud his efforts. And depending on how far that case goes, I may add it to the next iteration of the "Law and Morality of Building Renaming."
My previous posts on why JoePa shouldn't have been removed are here and some other thoughts about the controversy before PSU took him down are here and here.
There is a governance issue as well. Having declared a new era of transparency and consultation, the decision makers in this case failed to consult anyone but themselves. Wrote a little about that at the Penn State University Faculty Senate Chair blog: "Removing the Paterno Statue--Statement of President Erickson" http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.com/2012/07/removing-paterno-statute-statement-of.html
Posted by: Larry Catá Backer | July 28, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Thanks for this, Larry. I should have focused, too, on the lack of input for this decision.
Posted by: Alfred Brophy | July 28, 2012 at 02:07 PM