There were two stories on yesterday’s front page that were very similar on the surface, but have drawn strikingly different reactions.Bermudian actor Earl Cameron was honoured by the Corporation of Hamilton by having City Hal’s theatre named after him. This was both well received and uncontroversial.Mr Cameron has had a long and distinguished career on stage and screen, starring in films as wide ranging as like the James Bond hit ‘Thunderball’, ‘The Queen’ and ‘The Interpreter’. More significantly, he broke the colour bar in British film in ‘Pool of London’, a film which shamefully was not shown in Bermuda at the time, and also helped to integrate theatre here as well.It is striking that there has been almost no debate about this. There may have been a time when there would have been, but in Bermuda in 2012, it is wholly accepted and rightly so. This newspaper has expressed reservations about renaming institutions, but in this case, the naming of the Earl Cameron Theatre is entirely right because of his extraordinary career.The announcement in the Throne Speech that Clarence Hill will be honoured with a bronze statue at the National Sports Centre has been more controversial.Mr Hill is the only Bermudian to have ever won a medal at the Olympic Games, having captured a bronze in boxing in the Montreal Games in 1976.While there are those who argue that Mr Hill’s path was eased to the podium by the absence of some boxers and injuries to others, that is the nature of sport. The fact is that he won the medal.The deeper reservations are twofold. Some concern Mr Hill’s life since he won the medal, in which he has been convicted for a number of criminal acts and battled with various forms of substance abuse. It is not a pretty story.Mr Cameron, by contrast, has led a blameless life, and this is one reason why his honour has been accepted so widely.In Mr Hill’s case, he has struggled mightily in recent years to redeem himself and those efforts, which include helping the homeless and doing other good works, are worthy of praise. Some care has to be taken not to overemphasise stories of redemption; is it better to have sinned and forsaken or not to have sinned at all?But Mr Hill’s achievement remains singular, and his efforts to improve his life in recent years mean that he should not be denied the recognition he deserves from that day in Montreal.The second question concerns whether a statue is the most appropriate way to do this.Mr Cameron’s honour suggests another way. There are few better ways to recognise an actor than to name a theatre after him, but there is one — and that would be to name and to fund a scholarship in drama for him to enable other Bermudians’ footsteps.Similarly, in Mr Hill’s case, and this is own recommendation as well, it would be better to establish a proper training facility for boxers and name that for him. In that way, other Bermudians would have the chance to follow in his footsteps.To be sure, funding a gym or a scholarship will require more money in the long term than naming a theatre (free) or commissioning a statue (less free). But it would be a real investment in a better future for Bermudians, and that is something on which you can’t put a price.