By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Proposals to rename the Kennedy Center and its opera house after President Trump and Melania Trump face legal challenges, as the center’s founding legislation prohibits renaming facilities beyond the Eisenhower Theater. A Republican amendment to rename the opera house after Melania Trump has been proposed, but would require congressional approval to become law. The former president has shown increased interest in the arts, including ordering different programming and installing portraits of himself and the first lady. Trump’s actions also included replacing the board, and removing all references to diversity, equity and inclusion from the Kennedy Center’s website.
Read the original article here
Renaming the Kennedy Center for Donald and Melania Trump would violate the law that created it, and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where this wouldn’t be the central point of concern. The very essence of the Kennedy Center’s existence is tied to honoring the memory of President John F. Kennedy, assassinated in service. To arbitrarily swap that legacy for a different name, especially one associated with figures who have not demonstrated any comparable public service or sacrifice, would be a slap in the face to the original intent and the spirit of the institution. It would be a profound betrayal of the principles the center was established to uphold.
The core issue goes deeper than mere aesthetics or personal preference. The creation of the Kennedy Center was enshrined in law, and that legal framework is what currently protects its name. Changing the name would mean essentially rewriting that law. While it’s true that laws can be changed, and that legislative bodies have that power, to do so in this specific case, particularly to honor individuals who have been repeatedly associated with controversy, and who have demonstrated an utter disregard for established norms, would be a truly appalling act. It’s an act that underscores a deeper problem, the seeming erosion of established legal and ethical boundaries.
Of course, some might argue that a simple legislative act could circumvent the existing law. But that is not the point. The more significant problem isn’t the ease of altering the legal document, it is the principle of the matter. The Trump administration, as demonstrated by their actions in the past, hasn’t exactly shown a great deal of respect for established rules or traditional ways of doing things. This disregard for the law, the constitution, and the norms of decorum has created a climate where seemingly anything is possible. The fact that the legal hurdle is a matter of changing a law doesn’t negate the underlying issue of how such a move would be perceived by the public, and what it would say about the values of the people in power.
If a renaming were to occur, it would also open the door to widespread condemnation, boycotts, and possibly the exodus of talented artists. Performers, who are known for their sensitivity to ethical and moral considerations, could refuse to work at a venue associated with these individuals. One can imagine the immediate and lasting damage to the Kennedy Center’s reputation, and the very real decline of the center’s prestige.
Furthermore, the potential for ridicule and unsavory nicknames, like “The Dirty Expensive Hooker Center for the Arts,” or “Pedo Circus” would only serve to further cheapen the legacy of the institution and the ideals it was created to represent. These labels are not just about crass humor; they’re also indicators of the level of disgust many feel towards the idea of associating the Kennedy Center with these figures. The negative attention drawn by such a change could overshadow the center’s artistic achievements and undermine its role as a place of cultural enrichment.
Ultimately, the attempt to rename the Kennedy Center is symptomatic of a larger problem. It’s about challenging the very foundations of what the center represents: a dedication to the arts, a respect for history, and a commitment to honoring those who have served the nation. If changing the name were to happen, it would be a stark reminder of how much the principles once held sacred have been compromised. It’s a clear indication that there are many who are willing to discard longstanding traditions to achieve their own personal goals and elevate their own perceived status, even at the expense of the values and the legacies of those who came before them.