Fairly persuasive.

Because it's visually attractive

And those whose minds are unable to differentiate between the morals of the 1400s and our morals today are not people the University should be catering to.

That's certainly pithy.

But isn't it more a practice of today's morals, rather than catering to the minds that are unable to differentiate between today's morals and those of the 1400s?

Is taking offense at something in itself a moral judgement?

Or is it an expression of one's personal preferences or politics?

Certainly every reasonable person can agree that Columbus's treatment of the native population was amoral using today's standards. But not every reasonable person would choose to be offended by the painting.

That's a fair enough question. *

Fr. Jenkins: “Difference must be acknowledged, and...."

...in some cases even cherished".

Of course, that was in defense of bringing a pro-abortion President to receive an honorary degree at commencement.

I wonder why only certain "differences" need to be acknowledged and cherished in plain view of the entire world while others need to be hidden from public view as dialogue obviously cannot be facilitated in that regard.

It's odd isn't it. Rampant disease and abortion both cause mass deaths in the New World, but only one deserves respectful understanding and dialogue.

I'm not exactly clear.

What's the defense of leaving the murals there? That there is a difference of opinion as to whether they lack sensitivity to the consequences of Columbus' actions and legacy?

I had no intention of making this about Jenkins, but rather this particular decision.

Are they regarded as significant art or are they tradition?

I do not know how art historians regard them.

If they are significant art, I see the argument for their display. Particularly as the message says they cannot be relocated.

If they are just old and a tradition, I don’t mind covering them.

Personally, I couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. But I have no eye for art.

They’re not particularly noteable from an art historical

perspective. I personally think that they’re fairly well done for the genre (essenially late 19th century American Catholic ecclesiastical art), but there’s not a lot of historical significance to them.

I can go either way with the University’s decision.

I've heard they're supposed to be uncovered...

..when Florida State visits Notre Dame stadium.

It says they'll be covered, but optionally displayable.

ND appears to be preserving their value as art, including viewability within the proper context, while removing the traditional aspect of being casually viewable on a walk through that Admin building.