ast fall, the Park Service was faced with the difficult decision of choosing between a great cause and a great monument. Representatives from May Department Stores and Estee Lauder cosmetics approached officials at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri, with their interest in illuminating the Gateway Arch pink to promote their cause. Estee Lauder had sought out similar publicity in previous years, illuminating major landmarks like the Empire State Building and Niagara Falls, but this was the first time they'd approached the National Park Service, which quickly rejected the initial appeal. Not to be dissuaded, savvy organizers behind the cause then turned to Congress, enlisting the help of Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), whose mother had died of breast cancer in 1988.
As Talent introduced legislation to move the matter forward, Ernest Quintana, regional director of the Midwest region, issued a memo to National Park Service Director Fran Mainella noting his concerns that the move would likely diminish the significance of the memorial and set a troubling precedent: "If allowed to occur, the Arch in essence becomes a billboard to be used for purposes not consistent with the intent of the Memorial," Quintana said. "We have had dozens of requests over the years to light the Arch in a variety of colors to support various causes, such as red for Heart Association month and a rainbow for Gay Pride… [and] we have successfully fended off all requests to date by citing the national significance of the monument. Many visitors to the park get only one opportunity to see the structure, and we believe they should see it as the architect intended."
The Arch became a slippery slope, quite literally.
"Our concerns are wrapped around the precedent that might be set," said Dave Barna, a spokesman for the National Park Service. "In a way, it's similar to people talking about carving another face in Mount Rushmore-these sculptures by these artists, architects, and engineers are also pieces of artwork, and we don't feel it's appropriate to modify their interpretation."
In spite of the Park Service's objections, Congress passed Senate Bill 2895 requiring that the Arch "be illuminated by pink lights for a certain period of time in October to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior." President Bush signed it into law on October 20, 2004.
Once the decision was made, the Park Service was quick to throw its full support behind a special event that saw the Arch lit for several hours on the evening of October 25. Dozens of supporters and breast cancer survivors turned out for the event, wearing pink T-shirts and pink ribbons; many expressed the hope that women who saw the Arch lit in pink might seek out early testing that could save their lives.
But not everyone in the movement was happy. The National Breast Care Coalition criticized Congress's decision to focus on publicity efforts while the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, seeking $150 million in funding, continued to languish.
In the end, the controversial decision drew more media attention than the event itself. In the weeks leading up to the event, newspapers generally presented both sides of the argument and, in many cases, included public comments from visitors and editorials siding with the Park Service.
Even so, just as they'd predicted, the Park Service has received applications from other nonprofit groups hoping to advertise their cause, including a request from the Salvation Army, which was turned down.
In many ways, the Park Service was fortunate enough not to be cast as the villain in a public debate that pits it against a noble cause. But the issue is one that may pose a challenge in the future. Put another issue before hundreds of senators and representatives, and see how many of them leap forward to vote against breast cancer, or children in poverty, or AIDS research, and there's a good chance the nation's monuments may be seen in a different light yet again.
