28 October—A painting of Elihu Yale and three white guys with a little black boy (presumably a slave because he’s wearing a collar, probably silver) in the foreground and Elihu’s presumed grandchildren in the background that had been removed from public display in the Yale Center for British Art a year ago has just been put back. Bravo. For nothing. And about time. It should never have been removed.

The excuse for removing the particularly and typically dull early 18^th-century portrait, painted at Yale’s home in London, probably on the occasion of his daughter Anne’s betrothal to Lord James Cavendish, was that the experts wanted to conduct a technical analysis to identify the slave as well as to confirm the identities of the other subjects.

(It’s worth noting, but only parenthetically, that Elihu Yale was filthy rich, just like the university, but the Cavendishes—the Dukes of Devonshire—were even richer. And the family motto, “Cavendo tutus,” is a delightful pun. It means “Safety through caution.”)

Identifying the subjects of the portrait could easily have been done without removing the painting from public view. And is it mere coincidence that the non-woke 18^th-century portrait was replaced by a totally woke 2016 portrait of that same slave boy—but not wearing a collar—by Titus Kaphar, who just happens to be a black Yale alumnus?

Truth be told, there’s nothing at all wrong with Titus Kaphar’s portrait of the little boy whom he emancipated artistically. In fact, it’s brilliant: sarcastic, nasty, executed with great skill. Much better than the hack portrait by John Verelst, a Dutchman working in London. But Kaphar’s brilliant portrait should have been hung beside the Verelst hack work, not instead of it.

Maybe it will be or has been. Wait a minute. The two paintings can’t be displayed together. Because Kaphar’s isn’t British art. So how come it was displayed in the Yale Center for British Art?

Keep in mind that Yale is the university that removed John C. Calhoun’s name from a college just because he was a proponent of slavery. Not because Calhoun, from South Carolina, was a proponent of nullification (I won’t go into it here, but that’s essentially a form of federalist anarchy), and possibly a disgusting but unquestionably brilliant person. He was also a Congressman, U.S. Senator, Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and Vice President. Not to mention an alumnus of Yale and—are you sitting down?—Tapping Reeve’s law school right here in Litchfield. Oh, the horror!

And while I’m on the subject, since Elihu Yale was a slave owner who made his fortune in a very non-woke way, why hasn’t Yale University changed its name to something like Jackson University after Jesse, Newton University after Huey, or X University after Malcolm? Washington University after Booker T. would be good, but that’s been taken. And people might think it was named after George. And he owned slaves . . .