Oh well, I guess I'm going to be unpopular. First, when people think "statue," too many of us still believe that a statue has to include, if not a full-body representation, then at least a face. We need to broaden our thinking.

No one had to "tell" me that the sculpture was beautiful. I formed that opinion when I first saw photos. I am a feminist, and I don't see phallic symbols everywhere. (And I was an English Major; I recognize phallic symbols in literature quickly enough.) Although the photo the Times shows can look awkward, if one wants it to, that photo shows the REAR of the statue. Even given that it's the rear, I can easily see a pair of shoulders being embraced by arms. From the FRONT, which Ralston could easily have shown, there is no mistaking the embrace, where clasped hands are obvious.

Even though I am married, my mother is probably still reluctant to admit that I've seen a penis. I have, however, and as far as I know, they don't wear suits with buttons on the cuffs or have hands with wedding rings. With all due respect to Coretta King's cousin, what his response is is his response. He didn't give any evidence that the statue is "woke" except for his calling it such. Why does he get so much print? And why include an obviously racist and offensive comment from Pedro L. Gonzalez, a right-wing nutcase? The author could just as easily have quoted the many black people who approve of the statue, including MLK III, who didn't rate having his words quoted.

And while we're doing our homework, what, exactly, is Woolf University? Look it up.