Well, that’s a whole other discussion – the contributions to music that had a world-wide impact and fueled gospel, rock, jazz, the blues, r&b, rap – arguably the most influential musical forms of the 20th century – by people of color who, during their lifetimes were maligned, belittled and exploited by whites until their contributions could no longer be ignored… well, that’s as American as apple pie and slave-owning founding fathers…
@katliamom But why does it have to be a replacement? Isn’t there enough room on the walls for new portraits without removing the old?
Because they ran our of walls? I’m serious. We’re not talking about a curriculum change here. We’re talking about decoration. Who hasn’t seen that Shakespeare image? Who hasn’t seen a photo of Beethoven? Rest assured, they’re still taught, and performed, in every university in the country.
@Zinhead, would Shakespeare’s portrait have been taken down if he wasn’t white?
I am fine with adding 1,000 portraits of people of color to any university’s walls, but portraits of people who have contributed immensely to culture, such as Shakespeare, should not be taken down, regardless of their backgrounds.
I revere Shakespeare and don’t see how this diminishes his legacy in the least. As long as there are actors, there will be Shakespeare, and lots of him.
The breathless hand-wringing about “NO MORE SHAKESPEARE!!1!!eleventy-one!1” is hilarious. You bold protectors of the canon, you steadfast guardians of our literary legacy, you staunch sentinels of the neck-ruff have nothing to worry about–Shakespeare’s in no danger; it’s not a zero-sum game; Audrey Lorde is great and deserving; the canon skirmishes have been over for decades.
Hundreds of commonly used English words like ‘lonely’ and ‘bedroom’ were coined by Shakespeare. Many of our commonly used expressions originated from Shakespeare’s pen. His plays have been continuously performed for four hundred years.
To place some sort of false equivalency with this woman whom few had ever heard of, who has had almost no impact on English literature is not education. It places skin color, gender, and sexual orientation ahead of merit.
No one is creating ANY SORT OF EQUIVALENCY here. None. What they ARE doing is exposing college kids to a writer “whom few had ever heard of.” Because that’s the role of a university. To teach people things, and not just old things.
Again, TatinG – Shakespeare is taught. Shakespeare is revered. Shakespeare is performed. Shakespeare is not suffering from neglect at Penn or anywhere else. His merit means he’s central to the study of English literature. No one is taking anything from him. It’s not a zero sum situation.
Think of it as food. Food for the mind. You can’t eat the same thing all the time, not matter how nutritious it is. At some point, you’re going to have to have some fish instead of the steak. Or some broccoli instead of the green salad. And just because you’ve chosen the potatoes of color for your Thanksgiving dinner doesn’t mean you can’t have the plain white ones for Christmas. Or – shocking! – both.
@TatinG - where did you get the equivalency idea? (Answer: you made it up)
BUT THIS BIG MAC HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME! THE PC POLICE NOW WANT TACO FAST FOOD? DECLINE AND FALL OF WESTERN VALUES OMG!!1!11!
The photo of Lorde that was put up was small enough that it could have been added anywhere–along with numerous other photos of people of color. There was no need to remove Shakespeare.
Clearly Shakespeare was removed due to his race and gender. If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. He certainly wasn’t removed due to lack of talent.
Again, I’m all for inclusion: adding diverse perspectives/photos/voices/etc. is all good, but in this case, not everyone was included.
I hesitate to wander into this discussion, especially given the silly title, but here goes. I am an English professor, and I have been an English professor for 30 years.
- Digital students are having a hard time finding relevance in the classics. I think that they should still love Billy Budd and Antigone, but believe me, they struggle to read them (on their iPhones). The world changes. This semester I had three transexual students; I don't remember ever having one before. If I want to engage my students, I try to acknowledge their interests.
- Depending on the course title, I teach a variety of authors and length of texts to keep students engaged. Most English majors are still required to take single author courses of the early greats (Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare), but really that approach (great man) is a very limited way to understand literary history. It makes more sense to teach how authors interact and influence each other and how English literature changes with culture. Seeing Shakespeare as part of English literary history, not all of literary history, is part of being truly well read.
- You are carrying on about a picture. Right? Do I have that right? Removing some tired old print is not an attack on history, the canon, white privilege. It has nothing to do with race or politics and everything to do with home decorating. We try to decorate our halls on the cheap and change the decorations to give students (and ourselves) something new to view. Maybe you never change your wall hangings, but I try to every 4 or 5 years.
Obviously a portrait is a mark of honor. So who did they choose to honor and who did they choose to stop honoring?
TatinG, you might want to ask yourself why you find some change of decor so threatening. Not a year goes by that I don’t see a Shakespeare production (can you say that same?). Maybe this is why I see it as a non-issue. If you lived in an English department, you wouldn’t have such extreme anxiety about a shift in pictures. You would see it as housekeeping.
Here’s another way to think about it: who would you put up instead? Given that English departments should be about more than Shakespeare (you do agree with that?), who else is worthy? Should s/he have to have a Nobel prize? Or is a large readership enough? Does s/he have to be dead? Should students vote and pick, or is it a faculty decision? Or should the secretary just pick from what portraits are available?
Man, Shakespeare has fallen farther than I thought if his legacy and “honor” are dependent on a picture on a wall that nobody’s ever even seen or cared about until it was replaced. Hilarious, seriously hilarious.
Methinks Shakespeare has far more to worry about from Richard III displeasure at being “slandered” and Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans than he does from all this…
“Clearly Shakespeare was removed due to his race and gender. If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. He certainly wasn’t removed due to lack of talent.”
@HappyAlumnus, You need to get a grip.
Watch some videos of unarmed black men being shot – shot to kill, no less, in the back, multiple times – by white cops.
Listen to the song “Strange Fruit.”
Watch movies of blacks sitting at a Woolworth’s counter and being attacked by whites for… sitting there.
Read up about lynchings. Or about about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
THAT’s racism.
FWIW I teach Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets every semester. They’re still great. I teach Lorde’s poems, as well. Also great. Pretty sure if the two were coeval they wouldn’t feel threatened by each other.
Also, Shakespeare is heavily taught in high school and even junior high school English lit classes.
The way some folks are reacting is akin to a spoiled well-off kid who has plenty of toys throws a temper tantrum because his well-grounded parents encouraged him to share his toys with other kids temporarily FOR A FEW HOURS during playtime at their home.
If you have a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the wall, you don’t randomly replace it with a picture of the mayor of Ames, Iowa, circa 1923.
The singular portrait of Shakespeare was intended to represent the best in English literature. Lorde is OK but she is no Shakespeare (or Bob Dylan).