The hot topic lately as a result of recent protests has to do with who we honor and what statues should remain standing vs. taken down. Trevor Noah seemed to encapsulate the mood best when he asked why we have any statues anymore — as he spoke in front of a homemade set featuring the Statue of Liberty — the one statue no one seems to have a problem with at the moment. Generally it seems we name things after people or erect statues for one of two reasons:

1. They accomplished something great that should be celebrated

2. They gave a lot of money and want to be recognized for it

The challenge of deciding what statues should stay and go — other than respecting some element of historical precedent — is that it seems there are no objective reasons why any statue should be removed or kept and those on each side of each debate seem to have their own reasons of talking past each other with strong reasons, but no common criteria to rely upon. And like in all debates, we start with easy decisions to make, like removing statues of Confederate Generals in the center of southern cities (at least in my opinion) and end up with some really silly ideas that go to far. So in thinking over the past few weeks, I’ve thought of three questions to ponder when considering whether to keep or remove names or statues:

1. Why was the statue or name used in the first place?

2. What is the imagery of the statue or building?

3. Did the person honored do something so morally repugnant that it completely clouds all of his/her other accomplishments? Years ago we would call this the OJ Simpson rule, but I think Bill Cosby did him one better.

To test my thinking, there some case studies that I think are useful:

The confederate monuments in Richmond, Virginia — The first time I drove down Monument Avenue, I was uncomfortable. I was shocked to find so many large statues honoring Confederate figures with such reverence. Admittedly there was a certain recognition that should be due given that Richmond was the capital of the confederacy, but the first statue of Robert E. Lee was built 25 years after the end of the Civil War and most of the monuments where built in the first decades of the 20th Century, ostensibly by members of the “Lost Cause” to honor Civil War heroes. Those who built the original monument claimed to build it “as a testament to ‘personal honor,’ ‘patriotic hope and cheer,’ and an ‘ideal leader.” That doing so meant taking arms against the United States of America in my view makes such monuments completely intolerable based upon Question #1.

The Roosevelt Statue outside the American Museum of Natural History — This one is much more complicated because Roosevelt wasn’t considered to be a divisive racial figure and was being honored in the statue for his efforts at promoting Wildlife Conservation. However, it’s the imagery (Question #2) that it so problematic. Roosevelt riding on a horse above his Black & Native American compatriots is not a good look and could be resolved through a less problematic replacement statue of similar message. It’s hard to be sad about its departure.

Civil War Monuments at Battlefields — This in my view is less problematic than monuments at the center of southern cities. I visited Gettysburg and other monuments and have no problem honoring the Rebel soldiers and their generals, along with those of the Union army. It’s an appropriate way to remember those who fought for their respective causes and in my view, does nothing to subjugate others with their imagery or be overly hurtful to minorities. No one seems to be debating the merits of these statues and I hope that continues

The statue of William Rice Marsh — As an alum of Rice University, the debate over the future of the statue on the main academic quadrangle of the University’s namesake and first benefactor is somewhat personal and I was surprised to see a Facebook post by a tenured professor there supporting it. But after asking the 3 questions, Rice's statue should remain. Rice was a businessman who used his fortune from the cotton trade to endow the University. The statue is only of him so its imagery is not problematic and though his death was under mysterious circumstances, there were no other disqualifying actions by him to ultimately justify removing his name from the University or removing the statue.

The arguments to remove the statue rest upon three arguments, none of which are valid in my view:

1. That Rice was founded as a segregated institution. Not many weren’t and almost none in the South. Harvard didn't matriculate a black student until after the Civil War.  Though Rice was slow to integrate and lagged SMU by 10 years, it did so before the University of Texas or other public universities. No one denies that Rice's history of segregation was deeply problematic, but he himself was not involved in the founding of the University, which came after his death.

2. Rice's money came from slavery -- Rice played both sides of the Civil War (hence that the school colors Blue & Grey) but he was more amoral than immoral in my view. Are we now evaluating the money from all who give to Universities? By that standard, half of the Board of Directors and more than a majority of money funding the school should be returned as most of it either comes from Fossil Fuels or the Kraft family.

3. Rice owned slaves --Rice’s slaves came primarily from others who paid in slaves in lieu of cash for other debts. By this standard, the names and monuments of most early presidents including Washington, Madison & Jefferson would need to be removed as well.

Columbus Circle and the statue in the middle of it - Columbus has been one of the most divisive in history. Italians claim Columbus as a hero for his founding of the “new world” and see both Columbus Day and statues of him as a marker of Italian pride. However, Columbus’ discovery effectively unleashed the wholesale extermination and subjugation of Native Americans and himself enslaved and violently treated natives on the lands he conquered. It’s hard to separate Columbus & the Italian pride many feel about him from America, but the history is complicated. In my view, celebrating his discoveries with appropriate monuments isn’t problematic, particularly if a point of Italian pride. Sadly there aren’t enough Native Americans still surviving to make the persuasive appeal to remove them, but I am sensitive to the argument.

The naming of the Major League Baseball MVP trophy after Kennesaw Mountain Landis - No figure is more revered in Major League Baseball given that he saved the sport in the wake of the Black Sox Scanadal and acted as its first commissioner. Recently, certain MVP’s have argued that the trophy shouldn’t be named for someone to presided over a segregated sport. But there is little evidence that Landis did anything to perpetuate the segregation of the sport and fined many who engaged in acts of overt racism. It would have been better if he had taken a principled stand to integrate baseball but it is notable that the contract of his successor was not renewed due in large part to his support for welcoming Jackie Robinson into the sport. Arguing that the MVP trophy has a negative implication for any of the three questions is a bridge to far.

The Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton — This is an argument for having the third question and it’s easily understood why they renamed the school. On the surface and particularly to any student to US history taught in US school, it seems natural that the former Princeton President, who went on to successfully lead the United States to victory in World War I and ultimately architect the Lease of Nations should be recognized for a school of foreign affairs. But a single act, his re-segregation of the Federal workforce stood out as particularly racist even in his time and disqualifies him in my view from overt public recognition.