The value of an award can vary greatly. Who is it from? What is it for? Why is that important? Awards recognize some sort of accomplishment or merit — or at least they are supposed to. Awards can also reveal how different people value different things — even different systems of value.

For instance, until today I had never heard of Numismatic Guaranty Company or its annual awards for coin collections. But coin collectors care enough about its rankings that it was able to dispense some $30,000 in prizes this year. As a cycling fan, I care more that the captain of the American team won this year’s Most Combative Rider award in the Tour de France. Non-cycling fans probably didn’t even know such an award existed.

But some awards are more consequential still. And two recent anecdotes reveal two antithetical systems of value vying for ascendancy in Western public squares.

On November 10, the Historical Society (“Hist”) at Trinity College Dublin presented a Gold Medal for “Outstanding Contribution to Public Discourse.” The award is prestigious because it comes from Ireland’s oldest and foremost university, and specifically from the oldest student debating society in the world, which predates the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, this particular award lost some of its prestigious luster because of an unconvincing answer to the second question, “what is it for?” The recipient of the award was Hunter Biden, son of the previous American president. Various reporting of the award left unstated what Biden had actually done to earn the reward.

“Hunter received the award mainly because of his advocacy on behalf of those suffering from various addictions,” wrote Irishman David Quinn, “but it looked more like a sympathy award designed to grab headlines than anything else. Little embarrassments such as that laptop, and his convictions for gun and tax offenses, were largely ignored.”

Indeed, Americans mostly remember him for federal drug and gun crimes, avoiding alimony payments to the mother of his child, receiving special treatment from federal prosecutors, and finally receiving a presidential pardon from his father. If the reader is vainly racking his memory for any contribution the younger Biden has made to public discourse, he is not alone.

To Ireland’s most prestigious debating society, this was waved away as so much partisan lawfare. In an opening statement, Auditor Jane Freyer noted that Hunter’s “personal struggle” had been “co-opted” and “exploited” by Republicans in Washington. She also praised him for “regaining control” of his narrative by appearing on the podcasts of such hosts as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.

Is that, then, his “outstanding contribution to public discourse” — going on an anti-Semitic podcast tour to refurbish his image? It sounds like a basic tactic of crisis PR management; perhaps The Hist should give out such awards much more frequently.

The week before, The Hist presented an identical medal to veteran investigative journalist and author Patrick Radden Keefe. He has written books such as “Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty,” “Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland,” and “London Falling: A Mysterious Death in a Gilded City and a Family’s Search for Truth.” Although far less of a household name, Keefe holds the distinction of, well, actually having done something to contribute to public discourse.

Thus, one cannot resist the suspicion that Hunter Biden received the award not because he had made a contribution to public discourse more outstanding than that of others, but simply because of his famous name — or rather his father’s famous name — a tactic that matches the son’s behavior at least since his father was vice president.

If so, then The Hist’s decision to grant their prestigious award to the younger (though still aging) Biden only serves to cheapen its value. The long-lasting debating institution appears to be hawking its reputation for momentary political celebrity. Worse, it seems to be coddling the same sort of political nepotism that so angered American voters in the last two elections. It reveals a value system that seems to prioritize popularity over principle.

The good news is that Trinity College Dublin is not entirely shameless. The press release announcing Hunter Biden’s award is no longer on the college’s website (although it still appears in Google search results). Still, some mistakes cannot be undone.

Back on this side of the pond, a different sort of award came about under quite different circumstances.

Following a Veterans Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, a group including War Department Secretary Pete Hegseth, his wife, and several senior advisors posed for photos in front of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Someone laughed loudly, prompting the soldier guarding the tomb to shout, “All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times.”

The media jumped at an opportunity to embarrass the secretary whom incoming Democrats have said they will target. “Hegseth and staff reprimanded by guard at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” read the AP title.

The implications of this framing write themselves: the military leader has less respect for military dead than an ordinary soldier. The ordinary soldier has so little respect for his boss that he publicly reprimands his group for breaking propriety.

But this framing ultimately failed because it ignored Hegseth’s real character. Apparently, Hegseth considered what the media did not: what was the guard thinking after the incident?

It must have been an unsettling 24 hours for Specialist Thomas Iglesias, for that is the soldier’s name. He went to work on a rather boring assignment and came home with possible doubts about his future. He just shouted at a group of high-ranking Pentagon officials. Could he be tried for insubordination? He may have heard of firings at the Pentagon. Could he lose his job? If Iglesias happened to glance at a newspaper and notice how the media was using his conduct to pillory his boss, any trepidation he felt would certainly have only grown.

Then Hegseth did something unexpected — at least from the media’s vantage point. Hegseth “welcomed the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, the Old Guard, to the Pentagon” on Thursday, a Pentagon official said, and “he proudly awarded Specialist Iglesias the Joint Service Commendation Medal for the execution of his duties at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on November 11, 2026.”

Hegseth publicized the honorific ceremony with pictures on X, adding, “We love soldiers. We love standards. Well done, Specialist. Carry on Patriots.”

This award ceremony communicated a much different set of values. Instead of currying favor from celebrity politicians, it praised an ordinary soldier for not being intimidated by their presence. It rewarded a man for doing his duty, regardless of who it might embarrass in the process. In so doing, it sent a message: in Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon, the way to recognition is through merit, not lobbying.

That is how to rebuild a military based on a “warrior ethos,” as Hegseth likes to say. That is how to give awards that actually have value, because they reward actions taken for the right reasons.