Published: September 15, 2005 02:01 pm      

End debate over Flight 93 design

Name change is a good start

The chosen design for the Flight 93 National Memorial at Shanksville is elegant, somber and moving.

It is also flawed.

Which is why we support designer Paul Murdoch’s decision Wednesday to change the name of the design, and his willingness to consider other modifications that could bring an end to a swirling contro-versy.

The last thing anyone wants is a Flight 93 memorial that is so embroiled in debate that we lose sight of the plan’s purpose, which is to honor the 40 innocent people who died when that plane crashed near Shanksville on Sept. 11, 2001.

Even as the federal advisory commission was giving unanimous approval to Murdoch’s “Crescent of Embrace” design, its members were acknowledging that there could be a problem.

Then, a day after “Crescent of Embrace” was unveiled as the choice for the memorial, a Somerset County preacher began raising a ruckus, saying the use of “Crescent” in connection with the memorial is inappropriate.

The Rev. Ron McRae argued that a crescent is an image associated with Islam, and since it was Islamic extremists who hijacked and crashed United Flight 93, a memorial to crash victims should not include that connection.

McRae was right.

In fact, the jury that originally pondered design proposals for the permanent memorial urged planners to consider changing the name of the design, if Murdoch’s vision ultimately became the blueprint for the site.

“Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event,” the jury wrote in its report. “The ‘Crescent’ should be referred to as the ‘circle’ or ‘arc’ or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography.”

Henry Cook, president of Somerset Trust Co. and a member of the second-stage jury, said: “We suggested the name be changed. Someone did point out that the crescent had certain religious overtones.”

It’s not too late to do the right thing.

Certainly, it shouldn’t take a lawsuit by McRae or someone else to bring clarity to this situation.

Murdoch’s design is lovely, and visually appropriate.

It focuses on the courage of those aboard Flight 93 who gave their lives in an attempt to thwart a fourth tragedy, knowing that hijackers had already flown planes into the Pentagon and the two towers of the World Trade Center.

Indeed, the crescent image in the design is actually a circle of maple trees, which is “broken” to represent the path of the airplane.

“It’s a disappointment there is a misinterpretation and a simplistic distortion of this,” Murdoch said. “But if that is a public concern, then that is something we will look to resolve in a way that keeps the essential qualities.”

That’s good.

When completed, the memorial will be a fitting tribute to those 40 heroes. And it will serve as a stirring reminder of their sacrifice to those of us who visit the site.

Cook, who noted the problem with the design’s name, also pointed to its strengths when he said, “I think this particular design spoke more strongly to unity and healing.”

Carole O’Hare of Danville, Calif. – whose mother, Hilda Marcin, was killed on that United flight – said of the design: “It’s simplistic, yet sends a very strong message.”

That message will resonate from the landscape of the memorial, will ring from the chimes at the entranceway.

And it will be heard on the wind as it moves through the line of red maples – in an arc, or some other formation – near the hallowed ground of the crash site.

Let’s make sure that message of unity and sacrifice is not drowned out by a clamor over semantics and religious imagery.

Changing the name is a start. If the design must be tweaked, we should be willing to do that, too.