Hi. I know this is old hat, but I've decided to start getting some feedback/releasing some of these crazy papers I write for classes. In this piece, I am focusing on the January 2002 incident where John Ashcroft covered "
The Spirit of Justice" because of its exposed breast. I concede that what I'm writing will not change the reason for why John Ashcroft covered the statue: his religious conviction plays a major role in this, as a member of the Assemblies of God, as I outline below. However, there is some incredible importance within the statue itself. The implications within the statue itself will be explained more in Part II, which I'll post sometime late tomorrow/early Thursday.
I'm posting these here to get some discussion going, because considering I'm leaving the whole grad school thing behind, I might as well get some good feedback going forward. So any constructive comments will not only be helpful, but are absolutely welcomed.
Enjoy!
When new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ordered the removal of the blue draperies covering two statues in the back of the Great Hall of the Justice Department in June 2005(i), he reversed a policy under previous AG John Ashcroft that had been generally ridiculed, though not very well-understood. This ridicule came not for having blue drapes up in the Great Hall, but rather in what the drapes covered. Though the reason behind the drapes were justified by the Justice Department as being based upon improving production quality for television cameras capturing press conferences in the Hall(ii), many speculate that the rationale was more morally based, resulting from the need to cover the statue of the Roman Titan Justitia. "The Spirit of Justice", the statue in question, is unlike most sculptures of Justitia in that its clothing does not cover the entire body, leaving in the open an exposed right breast. The media, among others, have made the assertion that the draperies were put into place because Ashcroft viewed the exposed breast as something morally outrageous and would counter his own religious beliefs as a member of the Assembly of God church.
On its face, morality seems to be a viable reason, particularly when dealing with someone like John Ashcroft. Other Attorneys General had dealt with the statue in the past by covering it briefly during events. In the case of Edwin Meese, there was the special strangeness of presenting a report on pornography in front of the breast. However, unlike Ashcroft, none of the former occupants had ever left the statue covered for an extended period. For these individuals, the statue itself does not represent lowered moral standards, or morality at all. The true purpose of the statue is focused upon the law itself, personalizing what the sculptor believes to be the modern conception of justice through what it shows (the breast and its eyes), as well as what it does not show (the scales or sword). For the true meaning of the statue, it is important that the statue exposes some aspects of Justice while hiding others, because while Ashcroft has issues with the breast, the other parts are equally interesting, both because of how they fit into Ashcroft's faith (in the case of the eyes as well as the breast), as well as in what ways they may fit in (in the case of the lack of scales and sword).
Ashcroft's Moral Obligations: The Assembly of God and Exposure
To understand John Ashcroft's objection to "The Spirit of Justice", we must understand John Ashcroft in terms of his moral upbringing. We can find this through his religious faith. As a member of the Assemblies of God Church, Ashcroft is particularly susceptible to being offended by a statue such as "The Spirit of Justice", due to the church's stance upon both sin and nudity. On sin, the Assembly of God looks to their doctrines on the "security of the believer", or the chances one has to receive salvation. The church, while sympathetic to some aspects of Calvinist doctrine (including the importance of God in determining those who are to be saved), reject the notion of predestination, instead believing in the free will of man to follow their own destinies. Therefore, the church believes that those who wish salvation must be vigilant in their fight against deviation from the faith. At the same time, they acknowledge the fallibility of man, and therefore are sympathetic to isolated incidents of sinning. However, the church frowns upon repeated sinning as a sign that the individual has slipped away from God, and therefore cannot be saved(iii). In the case of Ashcroft, the question of sin could become quite important. If gazing, or allowing individuals to gaze, at the breast is something that could be considered a repeated sin, then Ashcroft's very soul is at risk of being lost to Hell, something that would likely worry him greatly. So, in order to understand whether the church sees the breast as something needing to be covered, we should discover whether the breast would be considered a sin, something the Assembly addresses when discussing pornography.
On pornography, the Assembly states that porn "violates the sexual and moral integrity of human beings."(iv) While their understanding of pornography is not uncommon among Christian denominations, the Assembly of God extends their view further, taking a much more conservative view on classical nudity. This view, and the fear of even the more classical form, is where we find Ashcroft's moral indignation towards "The Spirit of Justice". On more classical nudity, the Assemblies of God refuse to accept it as something that is not a sin, noting,
"Blanket approval of "mere" nudity has its dangers. When
does "mere" nudity begin to take on clear suggestions of
sexual activity? The impact of such material on children,
on attitudes about women, and on the relationship between
the sexes must be seriously considered."(v)
Therefore, in the eyes of the Assemblies of God, tame and classical nudity, such as that in "The Spirit of Justice", is something that needs to be hidden, as a result of its power and impact upon women and children. The nudity's potential for harm outweighs its potential for good, regardless of what conception the artist was attempting to address. So, considering that Ashcroft is a very active member of the church(vi), the covering of the statue, regardless of what it actually addressed, is a justified move designed to protect women and children from potential sin. Therefore, Ashcroft can follow his faith, and can reach salvation by remaining ever vigilant against whatever sin could come from the exposed breast of "The Spirit of Justice".
To this point, I have fleshed out a potential reason for why Ashcroft would act in the manner he had in regards to "The Spirit of Justice". However, there is one other possibility for taking the measures that he took in January of 2002. It is possible that his actions are as a result of his office, the Office of the Attorney General. What historical precedents have been set by past Attorneys General to cover up the statue for an extended period? Could a period of unrest call for a metaphorical covering of justice, in response to the changes in how justice is perceived? In order to answer these questions, we must explore how past Attorneys General have understood the statue, and more importantly, whether they too covered up "The Spirit of Justice" for extended periods.
Historical Interpretations of the Spirit of Justice: The Attorneys General Before Ashcroft
To understand whether Ashcroft's decision was unique to him, and unlike anything done previously, we must put it into the context of the office of Attorney General itself, and those who have previously held the position. How did the Attorneys General view the statue in the period up until Ashcroft became Attorney General, and how was the statue portrayed in their interpretations of its meaning?
Since the opening of the of the Justice Department building, only Ashcroft has covered the statue for an extended period of time. For the most part, the Attorneys General ignored the statue, or briefly covered it during specific events within the Justice Department building, as Reagan appointee Richard Thornburgh had done during his tenure. Even Edwin Meese, who likely had the most controversial moment with the statue in 1986, never covered the statue, regardless of the controversy that had been brought about by waving a report of pornography in front of an exposed breast. The only person who felt that the statue needed to be covered consistently, or that blue curtains would help the television cameras, was John Ashcroft. Even Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales, took the draperies down early into his term, Gonzales rejecting Ashcroft's belief that the statues were obscene and offensive(vii). The fact that Gonzales acted where Ashcroft did not, though is also a sign of Ashcroft's uniqueness in this situation, in that he was willing to risk negative publicity in order to make his personal point.
What can we say about Ashcroft's actions then? In terms of the Attorneys General, Ashcroft's decision to cover the breast is unique. Rather than letting Justice expose herself, as nearly every other Attorney General had done; Ashcroft removed her ability to interact with the gazes of those who would see her. Furthermore, to take the argument made by the Justice Department, no previous Attorney General had a need for a blue curtain to help the television cameras. Because of these points, his unique action could not be as a result of his place as Attorney General. His religious upbringing, which calls for him to take it down, seems to have played a much larger role than his place as Attorney General, which did not see covering the statue as important.
With the establishment that his religious upbringing must play a larger role in his decision to clothe the statue, we shall turn our attention to the statue itself, its place in terms of Washingtonian architecture, and finally what the artist was trying to say through the piece, in order to contrast all of this with Ashcroft's belief in the obscene.
The Statue's Home: The Supreme Court and the Justice Department Buildings in Context
Ashcroft's interpretation of the statue offers us an interesting look into how he sees the statue. Due to the exposure of the breast, the statue's value as a tool of law has been overthrown in favor of the moral obligation on the part of the religious man to remain vigilant against sin. While Ashcroft is not concerned with the sculptor's meaning and purpose of the statue, it is something we should be concerned with, if only to see whether Ashcroft's worries are well-founded, or even if the statue could potentially agree with the doctrine of the Assemblies.
The creation of "The Spirit of Justice" was just one piece in a much larger process within Washington, D.C. in the 1930's, when justice itself was finally given their own buildings to be housed within, buildings that would symbolize a nation that could still persist even as a massive depression was underway. The most notable of these were the Justice Department building, later named for Robert F. Kennedy, and the Supreme Court building, which were built in 1934 and 1935, respectively. The structures themselves are actually quite similar in terms of the use of columns in the design, though the Supreme Court is not nearly as large as the Justice Department building, which has its columns attached to the building rather than out in the open.
The design and materials of the building echo an era of classical antiquity, recalling Ancient Greece through its uses of columns and marble, among other aspects. These designs, and their revival of styles used in classical Greece are not simply used for aesthetic purposes. The marble halls, the columns, and the statues all point to one motivation, the expression of the ideal form of justice. With regards to the Supreme Court building, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes noted that, "The Republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith"(viii) . While Justice Hughes was not directly involved in the design of the building, which was begun during the tenure of Chief Justice and former United States President William Howard Taft, Hughes does have a sense of Taft's mission. Former President Taft had hoped to see the building of a permanent house for the third branch of the United States government, one that would remove the Court from its previous place within the US Capitol building, and give the Court a true space of its own. Taft's idealism came through within the building of the courthouse. The usage of white marble, as well as the use of the inscription on the top of the Supreme Court building, "Equal Justice Under Law", emphasize an idea of an ideal form of justice, one that is clean and pure (through the use of the pure marble), as well as a just form of justice (through the inscriptions). The statues in front of the Court further the reverence and idealism, showcasing Justice's eyes rather than a blindfold in their depiction, and furthermore depicting modern individuals as part of the sculpture (Taft, Hughes, Chief Justice John Marshall, and chief architect Cass Gilbert all appear in the western pediment, just above the inscription).
The Justice Department building furthers these points. Built in 1934, the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building stretches across 9th and 10th Avenue in Washington, imposing upon the street below. Like the Supreme Court, it also has columns on the outside, though these are more closely attached to the building. Unlike the Supreme Court, the building itself does not merit much discussion. Furthermore, the statues on the inside reflect this ideal of law. The depictions of Justitia on the outside of the Supreme Court reflect their counterpart in the Justice Department, showing Justice's eyes as a part of the overall depiction. As we shall see, this view of Justice, with the eyes shown, is important to the overall theme of the ideals of justice and the law being reflected through the use of "The Spirit of Justice".
References for part 1:
i. Harris, Francis. "Cover-up of Justice is Ended." The Daily Telegraph. 27 June 2005. p. 012
ii. Kamen, Al. "Gonzales's Curtain Call" The Washington Post. 5 January 2005. p. A15.
iii. "Security of the Believer". Assemblies of God. http://ag.org/...
iv. "Pornography". Assemblies of God. http://ag.org/...
v. Ibid
vi. Wikipedia notes in their article on Ashcroft that "Whenever he was sworn in to any political office, he had himself anointed (using cooking oil when no holy oil was available)." (from "John Ashcroft". http://en.wikipedia.org/...)
vii. At the same time, it could also be argued that Gonzales may have agreed with Ashcroft, but wanted to deflect criticism of the department for worrying about the statues rather than about the state of the Justice Department and justice within the United States
viii. "The Supreme Court Historical Society." http://www.supremecourthistory.org/...