|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 2, 2017 14:58:10 GMT -5
When you go to give your input, the introductory comment from Fr. B provides, in part: In what ways do you think the Crusader moniker and mascot are appropriate, or inappropriate, representations of the College, given our mission, values and identity? For our purposes, “moniker” is the name or the word, “Crusader.” When we refer to the “mascot,” we are referring to the visual representations of the character (the knight with the shield and sword), either graphically or as a live character. The fact that they are viewing the "moniker" and any imagery involving swords and shields as distinct issues makes me want to bet someone a lot of money that, at the end of this process, we will still be called the Crusaders but won't have any mascots or imagery with shields and swords. I would be shocked by any other outcome. Very interesting. Alas, I don't share your confidence that the two (moniker & mascot) can be separated...............
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Oct 2, 2017 15:04:19 GMT -5
When you go to give your input, the introductory comment from Fr. B provides, in part: In what ways do you think the Crusader moniker and mascot are appropriate, or inappropriate, representations of the College, given our mission, values and identity? For our purposes, “moniker” is the name or the word, “Crusader.” When we refer to the “mascot,” we are referring to the visual representations of the character (the knight with the shield and sword), either graphically or as a live character. The fact that they are viewing the "moniker" and any imagery involving swords and shields as distinct issues makes me want to bet someone a lot of money that, at the end of this process, we will still be called the Crusaders but won't have any mascots or imagery with shields and swords. I would be shocked by any other outcome. Very interesting. Alas, I don't share your confidence that the two (moniker & mascot) can be separated............... Trust me. It's happening. We will soon have a beautiful white dove named "Crusader" as our mascot.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 2, 2017 16:05:04 GMT -5
I was thinking a gorgeous white snowflake mascot named sparkle or something.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 2, 2017 16:42:13 GMT -5
Well, we could always go to "Crusader Rabbit" - the friend of Rags the Tiger. (PS: Yes, broader shoulders would have helped show it off properly. )
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 2, 2017 16:46:32 GMT -5
I was thinking a gorgeous white snowflake mascot named sparkle or something. Yes, maybe there will be a wave of new politically correct mascots: Snowflakes, Millenials, Social Justice Warriors, Protesters, Secular Humanists...
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 2, 2017 20:46:37 GMT -5
Pakachoag Hill College, the Rockets
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 3, 2017 8:26:52 GMT -5
Pakachoag Hill College, the Rockets I'm offended. That gives me microagressions about Rocket Man in North Korea. Please convene a subcommittee and consider deleting.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 3, 2017 9:31:58 GMT -5
smoke
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 3, 2017 9:32:08 GMT -5
mirrors
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 3, 2017 9:55:45 GMT -5
Pakachoag Hill College, the Rockets I'm offended. That gives me microagressions about Rocket Man in North Korea. Please convene a subcommittee and consider deleting. I take offense at your taking offense at my post. I am going to my quiet place to be safe from the likes of you. 😭 Btw has the association of the term rocket to Un rendered that term offensive in all contexts?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 3, 2017 10:26:03 GMT -5
LOL Thanks for helping to get some some laughs out of all of this.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 3, 2017 12:15:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beerseach on Oct 3, 2017 12:24:29 GMT -5
This is beyond ridiculous. The Crusaders and the logo is the best in all of college sports. This can't be allowed to happen! Flood those in charge and let them know Crusaders yesterday, Crusaders today, and Crusaders everyday from here on out!
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Oct 3, 2017 16:50:11 GMT -5
Interesting article!
"In addition to Alvernia and Susquehanna, Clark, Wheaton, and Eastern Nazarene are no longer the Crusaders. Holy Cross and Valparaiso, two of the better-known schools whose teams bear that name, are studying the issue."
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Oct 3, 2017 20:59:11 GMT -5
On the substantive issue, I am in favor of retaining both the moniker and the mascot. My reasons are generally encompassed in the posts in this thread by td128 on 9/28, RGS318 and sader1970 on 9/29, Joe on 10/1 and the Thomas Madden article referenced in a post on 10/3.
I have two other concerns related to the process. I don't believe that it is right/fair/reasonable for this issue to ultimately be decided by the Board of Trustees. I fully understand that the Trustees are technically the governing body of the College similar to the Board of Directors of a for profit corporation. However, in many for profit corporations or limited liability companies, certain actions may only be taken after the affirmative vote of shareholders or members holding a majority of the ownership interests in the entity (e.g. sale of substantially all of the assets of the business, merger, change in the fundamental nature of the business).
In my view, the "shareholders" or "members" of HC are every living alumnus/alumna and every current student, faculty member and administrator. While the College's by-laws may not require a vote by these "shareholders" on the moniker/mascot issue, I believe that the Trustees should conduct such a vote and abide by its results. IMO, a decision reached by the Trustees without such a vote, however well researched or well intentioned, may not reflect the views of the majority of "shareholders" each of whose opinions on this subject is worthy of the same consideration, no more and no less, than any one Trustee.
My second procedural concern relates to the nature of the questions asked---moniker and mascot enhancing the College's mission or detracting from the mission vs. should the moniker and/or mascot be changed? If so, why? And what specific changes would you suggest? It seems to me that before a change is made, the Trustees and "shareholders" should know what the intended/recommended changes will be. Perhaps some parties would not favor a change to Banana Slugs or Rockets but might favor one to, for example, Purple Knights. Without attempting to get political and incur the censure of Dean Wormer, a vote to change the moniker or mascot without knowing the proposed replacement is, to me, akin to a vote to repeal/revise the Affordable Care Act without knowing what the replacement/revisions will be. My vote very well may be 180 degrees different based on the proposed replacements/revisions.
Having made the two points above, I have to say that I'm skeptical that either one will be taken to heart by the Trustees. IMO, if the moniker and/or mascot is changed after the process announced by Fr. B, we'll end up with a result that we may regret for years (sorta like rejecting 2 invites to the Big East---shout out to HC 87🙂).
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 4, 2017 6:33:42 GMT -5
I was researching excommunication and the crusades -- a family member had been excommunicated by Thomas a' Becket, and the Bishop of London would undo the excommunication, provided he went on a crusade (he never did but, yet on his death, the monks of Battle Abbey wanted to bury him in consecrated ground).
From Professor Madden, I read that the Pope excommunicated every participant in the Fourth Crusade.
And I discovered that earlier, through a papal bull, Pope Urban (he of the Deus Vult) awarded plenary indulgences and a priori general absolution to those who went on the First Crusade. Subsequent popes re-issued similar bulls.
I'm certain this wasn't covered in the Baltimore Catechism, but my understanding is that an a priori general absolution is a license to kill without having to worry about heavenly consequences. _________________ I know several here have cautioned about using Wiki as a source. Here's another example of a Wiki error.
In its list of participants for the Second Crusade, Wiki lists King Stephen of England. Stephen is described by chroniclers as pious and religious, and favoring the church over his Anglo-Norman barons, particularly in the early years of his reign. And Stephen's father, Stephen, Count de Blois, (son-in-law to William the Conqueror, making King Stephen 'my' third? cousin) had participated in the First Crusade, and was killed in the Minor Crusade of 1100-1101. King Stephen would seem to be just the sort of exemplar you'd want for a crusader.
Except, --King Stephen was busily engaged in The Anarchy, a familial civil war that raged in England/Normandy for 18 years, overlapping the timeframe of the Second Crusade. He never went on that crusade.
Back home in England, during the four years of the Second Crusade, King Stephen feuded with the Pope, feuded with St. Bernard de Clairvaux, banished the Cistercians, seized the estates of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was refused entry back into England after the archbishop, against Stephen's wishes, had gone to Rome to consult with the pope. And so on.
.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 4, 2017 7:31:24 GMT -5
Life is too short for this crap.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 4, 2017 7:59:10 GMT -5
Pakachoag Hill College, the Rockets As a private institution, HC would be exempt from this, but legislation has been proposed in MA that would make this illegal for a public school. Some people think it's offensive to have a school with a Native American word in its name. Although I would never want to change the name of the school, I don't find anything offensive about the name Pakachoag Hill College. Auburn has a Pakachoag grammar school on the other side of the hill. That doesn't offend me either. Still, even though theses names don't offend me, there's always someone out there who will manage to find a reason to be offended.
disclaimer - to the best of my knowledge this bill is not even close to getting out of committee
|
|
|
Post by crusader1970 on Oct 4, 2017 10:22:01 GMT -5
On the substantive issue, I am in favor of retaining both the moniker and the mascot. My reasons are generally encompassed in the posts in this thread by td128 on 9/28, RGS318 and sader1970 on 9/29, Joe on 10/1 and the Thomas Madden article referenced in a post on 10/3. I have two other concerns related to the process. I don't believe that it is right/fair/reasonable for this issue to ultimately be decided by the Board of Trustees. I fully understand that the Trustees are technically the governing body of the College similar to the Board of Directors of a for profit corporation. However, in many for profit corporations or limited liability companies, certain actions may only be taken after the affirmative vote of shareholders or members holding a majority of the ownership interests in the entity (e.g. sale of substantially all of the assets of the business, merger, change in the fundamental nature of the business). In my view, the "shareholders" or "members" of HC are every living alumnus/alumna and every current student, faculty member and administrator. While the College's by-laws may not require a vote by these "shareholders" on the moniker/mascot issue, I believe that the Trustees should conduct such a vote and abide by its results. IMO, a decision reached by the Trustees without such a vote, however well researched or well intentioned, may not reflect the views of the majority of "shareholders" each of whose opinions on this subject is worthy of the same consideration, no more and no less, than any one Trustee. My second procedural concern relates to the nature of the questions asked---moniker and mascot enhancing the College's mission or detracting from the mission vs. should the moniker and/or mascot be changed? If so, why? And what specific changes would you suggest? It seems to me that before a change is made, the Trustees and "shareholders" should know what the intended/recommended changes will be. Perhaps some parties would not favor a change to Banana Slugs or Rockets but might favor one to, for example, Purple Knights. Without attempting to get political and incur the censure of Dean Wormer, a vote to change the moniker or mascot without knowing the proposed replacement is, to me, akin to a vote to repeal/revise the Affordable Care Act without knowing what the replacement/revisions will be. My vote very well may be 180 degrees different based on the proposed replacements/revisions. Having made the two points above, I have to say that I'm skeptical that either one will be taken to heart by the Trustees. IMO, if the moniker and/or mascot is changed after the process announced by Fr. B, we'll end up with a result that we may regret for years (sorta like rejecting 2 invites to the Big East---shout out to HC 87🙂). Many excellent points brought out here by Xmassader. I wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 4, 2017 10:40:53 GMT -5
On the substantive issue, I am in favor of retaining both the moniker and the mascot. My reasons are generally encompassed in the posts in this thread by td128 on 9/28, RGS318 and sader1970 on 9/29, Joe on 10/1 and the Thomas Madden article referenced in a post on 10/3. I have two other concerns related to the process. I don't believe that it is right/fair/reasonable for this issue to ultimately be decided by the Board of Trustees. I fully understand that the Trustees are technically the governing body of the College similar to the Board of Directors of a for profit corporation. However, in many for profit corporations or limited liability companies, certain actions may only be taken after the affirmative vote of shareholders or members holding a majority of the ownership interests in the entity (e.g. sale of substantially all of the assets of the business, merger, change in the fundamental nature of the business). In my view, the "shareholders" or "members" of HC are every living alumnus/alumna and every current student, faculty member and administrator. While the College's by-laws may not require a vote by these "shareholders" on the moniker/mascot issue, I believe that the Trustees should conduct such a vote and abide by its results. IMO, a decision reached by the Trustees without such a vote, however well researched or well intentioned, may not reflect the views of the majority of "shareholders" each of whose opinions on this subject is worthy of the same consideration, no more and no less, than any one Trustee. My second procedural concern relates to the nature of the questions asked---moniker and mascot enhancing the College's mission or detracting from the mission vs. should the moniker and/or mascot be changed? If so, why? And what specific changes would you suggest? It seems to me that before a change is made, the Trustees and "shareholders" should know what the intended/recommended changes will be. Perhaps some parties would not favor a change to Banana Slugs or Rockets but might favor one to, for example, Purple Knights. Without attempting to get political and incur the censure of Dean Wormer, a vote to change the moniker or mascot without knowing the proposed replacement is, to me, akin to a vote to repeal/revise the Affordable Care Act without knowing what the replacement/revisions will be. My vote very well may be 180 degrees different based on the proposed replacements/revisions. Having made the two points above, I have to say that I'm skeptical that either one will be taken to heart by the Trustees. IMO, if the moniker and/or mascot is changed after the process announced by Fr. B, we'll end up with a result that we may regret for years (sorta like rejecting 2 invites to the Big East---shout out to HC 87🙂). You are calling for a democratic vote of all interested stakeholders. That sounds nice and fair and all that stuff on its face, but it really doesn't fly for me. If we require a vote on this, what should the College do on matters which really matter? For instance, are we going to demand a vote on whether a non Jesuit can be President, whether a new dorm should be built, whether a new major ought to be added, whether football ought to be dropped? You get my point. In the grand scheme of things, this question is hardly the most important in the history of the College. My second objection to this plebiscite is the equal weighting of every vote. I am not sure that the vote of an alumnus from 1971 (not 1970 since we know that is the greatest class of all time per many of our posters) who pays little attention to the College and does not even contribute ought to count the same as a current student, a long time faculty member, or a forty year coach. Since the Crusader attributes are really only athletic in nature, why not offer a vote to loyal non alums who are more interested in HC sports than many/most students (calling NAD, for example.) I am completely in favor of a survey and it ought to inform the decision making process, but at the end of the day, this is a decision for either the administration or the Board and ought not be the subject of a referendum.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 4, 2017 11:10:30 GMT -5
This reminds me a lot of an article I recently read with regard to capitalism:
"Capitalism is an endangered economic system, Georgescu says. He sees a dearth of demand across the global economy, even as American corporations record their highest profits ever. “How does this magic happen?” he asks rhetorically. “You engineer it. You buy back your stock at 4% and change. Your earnings per share go up and the market says, ‘We like that.’
I feel like this retroactive name change debate serves to inflate our uber-righteous, social media warrior society -- However, in reality it advances almost nothing moving forward with regard to true equality, tolerance, etc. If we have to go back and right every past wrong, or not accept that some good people made mistakes that were influenced by the environments they were a product to, I don't see how we'll actually have the time and focus to accomplish much and actually move the needle going forward.
To me, these sound like very cheap "wins" that don't serve to accomplish much other than lip-service.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Oct 6, 2017 16:56:40 GMT -5
FYI I just saw on Twitter that Ole Miss is officially adopting the Landshark as its new mascot. Colonel Reb had been retired in 2010 (I believe) in favor of Rebel the Bear. The bear is now also retired.
EDIT: The Colonel was retired in 2003. Ole Miss athletic teams will remain the Rebels.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 6, 2017 19:59:13 GMT -5
r] I feel like this retroactive name change debate serves to inflate our uber-righteous, social media warrior society -- However, in reality it advances almost nothing moving forward with regard to true equality, tolerance, etc. If we have to go back and right every past wrong, or not accept that some good people made mistakes that were influenced by the environments they were a product to, I don't see how we'll actually have the time and focus to accomplish much and actually move the needle going forward. To me, these sound like very cheap "wins" that don't serve to accomplish much other than lip-service. The word for empty gestures (usually by the left and in the direction of social justice) to make oneself feel good is 'virtue signaling'. Here is the definition by way of Google: vir·tue sig·nal·ing noun the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. Urban Dictionary (examples mirror crusader criticism): www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Virtue%20Signalling
|
|
|
Post by ts1970 on Oct 10, 2017 7:32:39 GMT -5
The college is quite highly rated. Also alumni donations have broken records for giving and the percentage of alumni giving puts HC up there high on the list of colleges in the nation. So why rock the boat with this Crusader name change issue of political correctness? Just a lot of hooey to me, which will create an issue with many alumni and their future donations. Keep the name and mascot and let this non issue die of its own accord. Does the American public really care about what our college’s teams are called? Come on now.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Oct 10, 2017 8:12:58 GMT -5
The name change is being driven by a small of group of ideologues. Unfortunately, they are clustered on the faculty and in the administration. The school has become increasingly PC, and the "Crusader" name itself is embarrassing to their multicultural, sophisticated tastes. "Sure, some alums will protest, but they'll get over it," will be the mantra. The school will either keep it or put the Crusader out to pasture (like we did with standardized tests) in some way or form -- which is, by far, the most likely outcome.
|
|