Why don't all victims of violent crime get medals?

 

I guess I'm just a little unclear on the concept here. Don't get me wrong -- what happened to Sarah Collins Randolph and her sister and friends in 1963 is despicable, and the perpetrators deserve their place in hell.

 

Sarah is the lone survivor of the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in Alabama. The KKK planted a bomb in the wall of the church, and Sarah and her sister and friends were in a bathroom close to the bomb when it went off. Her sister and three other little girls were killed. Sarah lost an eye.

 

Congress is considering awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Sarah and awarding it posthumously to the other little girls. The medal is the highest civilian award that Congress can bestow. I just don't quite grasp why these people should be awarded a medal. According to the congressional website, the medal is to be awarded in recognition of "national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions." What achievement or contribution did these little girls make? I guess the argument could be made that the cause of civil rights advanced because of this crime, but those children had nothing to do with that -- they were the victims.

 

At any rate, Sarah is not appreciative of the gesture. She wants millions of dollars in compensation instead of the medal she says they want to "throw" at her. I agree wholeheartedly that she should be compensated, but she should be compensated by those who committed the atrocity -- not those who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

"Survivor says no to medal." The Dallas Morning News; April 11, 2013; p. 6A.