 |
| RBG is not amused. |
We can quibble over whether those women were the best available choices, and we can notice that “stinking rich” seems to be at least as important a criterion as leadership, but at the very least we can understand the rationale behind those selections. Gund has made significant contributions (monetary and otherwise) in a variety of fields. It has become increasingly clear of late that Queen Elizabeth pretty much single-handedly held together not merely the British monarchy, but the country. Von Fürstenberg not only rose to fame and fortune in the fashion world, she has made significant charitable donations in a variety of areas; her DVF awards, established in 2010, honor women “who have had the courage to fight, the power to survive, and the leadership to inspire.” Streisand is not merely a world-renowned artist; her contributions to cardiac research in particular are no less significant for being relatively speaking under-publicized.
OK. Fine. But why is Curmie writing about these awards now? Well, this year, the Opperman Foundation decided to change the rules. Big time. First off, they decided to give five awards instead of one. OK, fine; it’s their award, after all. Then, they decided to include men: “Justice Ginsburg fought not only for women but for everyone,” quoth Julie Opperman, the Chair of the Foundation named for her deceased husband. That’s enough to raise an eyebrow, given that RGB herself was involved in establishing the award and presumably wanted to restrict the recipients to one woman (not one woman and four men) per year.
But it was the list of recipients that really got people’s attention. Opperman was, after all, a venture capitalist, and this year’s slate was a wet dream for those of a similarly predatory, hypocritical, and malignant disposition. The fact that Curmie regards the least objectionable of the five honorees to be Sylvester Stallone, a mediocre-at-best actor who managed to build a career around portraying the exploits of a pair of inarticulate “patriots,” and who has little if any history of philanthropy, rather says it all.
One step up would be the two convicted felons, Michael Milkin and Martha Stewart: the former convicted of securities violations and tax evasion, the latter of insider trading. But it was the other two awardees, Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch, that made Curmie choke on his coffee.
Curmie would have trouble naming many people less deserving of recognition—well, Donald Trump, maybe Mitch McConnell or Clarence Thomas… The point, however, is that who Curmie might choose to get an award couldn’t be much less relevant. The Opperman Foundation is giving the award; they choose the recipients. Ah, but no. The award is intended to honor Justice Ginsburg as much as the annual award-winners, and there is literally no doubt that RBG would have been horrified at a minimum of three of this year’s awardees.
It’s not just Curmie saying that, of course. It’s the Ginsburg family, as well. Justice Ginsburg’s daughter actually indulges in a bit of understatement in declaring that “This year, the Opperman Foundation has strayed far from the original mission of the award and from what Justice Ginsburg stood for.” “Straying,” after all, suggests a lack of intentionality, and this action by what has become a right-wing propaganda outlet was anything but accidental. But Jane Ginsburg’s assertion that the choice of honorees was “an affront to the memory of our mother” is simultaneously less polite and more accurate.
Ginsburg’s son, Jim, wrote that apparently the newly adopted criteria mean that “people like Murdoch and Musk who are antithetical to everything Mom stood for, qualify…. Speaking only for myself, I would say that those who foment hatred and undermine democracy do not stand for the ideals of equality, respect, and engagement my mother strived to advance.”
Please note here, Gentle Reader, that the fact that the Ginsburg family regards Murdoch and Musk (at least those two) as abhorrent, or that Curmie regards them as among the most detestable creatures ever to slither across the cultural landscape, doesn’t mean that the Opperman Foundation should be prevented from giving them awards. But to invoke the name of Justice Ginsburg in the process, without even notifying the family of the change of direction prior to the announcement of the recipients, is as ham-handed as it is hubristic. It’s a good way to bring about the end of the awards altogether… which is precisely what happened after both the family and last year’s winner, Barbra Streisand, made some rather scathing remarks about the process.
In announcing the cancellation of this year’s awards (or at least of the awards ceremony; it’s unclear which), Julie Opperman declared—Wait, Gentle Reader, put down that beverage, lest your spit-take cause damage to your phone or computer—that “We thought RBG's teachings regarding EQUALITY should be practiced. We did not consider politics.” Ms. Opperman thereby sets the new world record for disingenuousness.
She continues in the self-congratulatory and defensive vein: “Keeping in mind that our goal is only to do good, the Foundation is not interested in creating controversy. It is not interested in generating a debate about whether particular honorees are worthy or not. And while Justice Ginsburg's concept of EQUALITY for women was very controversial for most of her life, the Foundation does not intend to enter the fray.” Translation: “We got busted, we have no legitimate defense, and we’re going to sulk for a while because if we say anything more we’ll be shown as the partisan hacks we truly are.”
An award honoring Justice Ginsburg makes sense. Recipients needn’t be liberals; indeed the non-partisan approach the selectors pretend to have taken (but obviously didn’t) has much to recommend it. The honorees should, however, be folks who wouldn’t send RBG screaming into the night. The reactionary yahoos at the Opperman Foundation chose a different strategy and rendered their awards irrelevant at best. It’s a shame, but it’s the way it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment