Receiving a high honor, but having it awarded by Trump (or someone you hate)

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

Say you won a Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, or Presidential Medal of Freedom, or Congressional Medal of Honor, or Teacher of the Year - and it is only to be presented by Donald Trump (or Sarah Palin, or some other person you hate). There is no other way to receive the award other than to have this person present it. Would you do it? You do not get to make any speeches, etc.

Can I piss on his leg, or something? (I’d gladly lose that silly handshake game to him in order to catch him unawares. :D)

if you dislike Trump, then wouldn’t it be ‘befitting’ to get a high honor presented to you by someone you dislike?

No. I don’t want to confer even a small smidgen of legitimacy on that disastrously horrible and ignorant person, and his legion of followers, by accepting an award from him.

[Helena330]

I would accept it and mock whoever it is during interviews and on social media. If it were something presented by Trump, I’d talk about how great Obama was. Along those lines.

[Colibri]

@Oredigger77

If I was on a Super Bowl winning team I would certainly decline this White House’s invitation the award was winning the super bowl and meeting the President is more a one of the perks of winning the award. In this case the perk is more like Here’s a million dollars and you can accept or decline getting kicked in the balls afterwards.

Now if this was something more like the Nobel prize or an Academy award where the guy handing me the trophy was incidental to getting it and the show was about my accomplishments I’d accept it from them and I’d probably even be gracious. I think the difference is what is the ceremony about me or them I have no need to attend a ceremony honoring someone I hate even if they are only 50% of the billing but I’m OK with it if they are incidental.

Pretty much my sentiments. If it was about my accomplishments, and had been awarded by a committee in recognition of them, receiving it from someone I hated would be incidental. The fact that I had received the award would be on record a century from now, while whom I received it from would be largely forgotten.

Winning the Superbowl is its own reward. An invitation to the White House would be a perk, but doesn’t affect the fact that I had won a ring. In that case I would decline.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I value my privacy far more than a useless piece of tin, tacked to a ribbon.
F-it.

[Mijin]

Go to the white house, and then decline the award.

[Quartz]

@Velocity

There is no other way to receive the award other than to have this person present it. Would you do it? You do not get to make any speeches, etc.

Trump - or whoever - is transient; the award is permanent. I’ll accept the award.

[actualliberalnotoneofthose]

I would go and pull a Craig Hodges.

[Fair_Rarity]

I would most likely decline. There is a chance I would accept and Cause A Scene, depending on the circumstances. I have a hard time being phony and giving someone else good press who is a monster is not something I could fake smile through… unless I had a (legal) evil plan up my sleeve.

[BigT]

The presenter isn’t as important as who is actually giving the reward. Of course, if I can accept the reward but refuse the presenter, then that’s what I do. And if the reward is one of those like the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and thus ostensibly from the presenter, I would decline.

But if it’s a reward I earned, rewarded from other people, and it’s just the person giving it who is a problem? It’s dumb to let them cheat me out of something I legitimately earned. This is especially so if the reward is historically presented by the officeholder, not the person.

Making the news isn’t the point. My refusal isn’t going to change minds.

[Quartz]

Here’s another way of looking at it: in 5 years’ time - hell, even next year - who is going to remember who presented the award?

[naita]

@Jim_Peebles

Let’s assume you have no other reason to decline the award. Then declining because of the presenter you hate is going to stay with you the rest of your life (not having the award to point to on a resume or whatever), and affect the community that feels the award is important (some of the less informed members might be unaware or less aware of your work). That is a big negative impact on both you and the community that has the award. If you decline because of the presenter, few people will hear about it, and even fewer will remember it. In the case of Trump, you have already got the news media and late night comedians in lock step bashing him ad nauseum. Your little “statement” will be a drop in the bucket that will add nothing. And further, you might become de-brainwashed or otherwise change your mind and think the presenter is ok, or even admirable at a later date. So definetly accept the award, unless you have another reason to decline.

Yeah, that’s a lot of assumptions with little to no basis in any possibly real life situation.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@Quartz

Here’s another way of looking at it: in 5 years’ time - hell, even next year - who is going to remember who presented the award?

Well, you’d remember. I’m a bit of a nutter, admittedly, but I believe I’d think less of myself for setting my principles aside to receive recognition. And that’s worth clarifying I guess. There are people I don’t like but still respect–I wouldn’t have a problem with them in the OP scenario. But with someone who disgusts me on a moral level, well, “Can’t shake the devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding”. That doesn’t wash off. I would forgo being formally recognized for a past deed if it meant knowingly elevating someone reprehensible.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I voted yes, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the award. If it’s something like the CMH which is actually within the POTUS’ gift, I would probably decline it if it came from Trump. If the person I hate just happens to be presiding over the award ceremony, I’d take it.

[jasg]

@Quartz

Here’s another way of looking at it: in 5 years’ time - hell, even next year - who is going to remember who presented the award?

Well, Master Chief Slabinski will probably remember that his CIC didn’t know the ceremony protocol - even though it was his third MOH ceremony.

(The medal is displayed by the commanding officer while the citation is read, then the President places the medal around the recipient’s neck.)

[Spiderman]

(Was away for the long weekend, this was the last thread up when I came back.)

@Ravenman

For an award of the status being mentioned, that’s something I would value for a lifetime. Well worth 20 minutes of my time, which would perhaps be spent rolling my eyes or whatever.

If it’s an award more like a “certificate of participation – yay everyone!” that would hold no value for me, I’d decline it on the basis that who cares.

I’m not big on awards in general. I’ve belonged to organizations where I only went to 80% of the annual banquets, skipping every 5th year when it was my turn for a 5-year award. My diplomas are in a box, only pulled out on the rare occasion that a new employer wants a copy of it. I don’t have office walls & I know I graduated, don’t need to frame them & display on a wall at home to remind me of that fact. I’d probably decline, irregardless of who was awarding it.

@Ludovic

The Nobel does. Plus, you have to make a [del]speech[/del] lecture. I do not know if they can revoke the prize if you make it a political lecture.

It came up recently, one of the state lotteries (NH?) not only requires you name to be published, they require you to participate in a press conference. I’d wear a ski mask & make Marshawn Lynch seem loose-lipped if forced to attend (rather than the lawyer associated with the trust I’d establish if I won).

[silenus]

@Spiderman

It came up recently, one of the state lotteries (NH?) not only requires you name to be published, they require you to participate in a press conference. I’d wear a ski mask & make Marshawn Lynch seem loose-lipped if forced to attend (rather than the lawyer associated with the trust I’d establish if I won).

The courts overturned that requirement.

[Spiderman]

@silenus

The courts overturned that requirement.

That’s about publicly disclosing the winner’s name which many states require on transparency grounds. What I was referring to was a requirement to participate in a press conference in order to receive your winnings. I’ve never heard of that one before. Looks like New York is one of them.

@Baltimore Sun

“In New York, people would sometimes come to the winner press conferences wearing hats and sunglasses and scarves, but we would still announce their names and present the ‘big check,’” Medenica said. “Occasionally, people would resist the requirement to appear at a press conference, but they would not receive their winnings until they appeared.”

• Granted it’s a 2016 article, but it’s referring to New York, not New Hampshire where the courts recently allowed the winner to remain anonymous.

[silenus]

I will bet you that the New Hampshire decisions gets cited in any number of future challenges to the disclosure laws of many states.