|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 27, 2017 18:44:39 GMT -5
As I remarked previously, I'm quite certain that the reviews of Mulledy, McSherry, and the Healys were coordinated with two provincials. And given that the Jesuits are highly structured, quite likely the Superior General was informed.
Holy Cross is out on an island among all the other Jesuit colleges and universities. I doubt that any of them will support HC's retaining the current mascot, and most, if not all, would probably favor getting rid of the nickname.
And if the Superior General were to pass the word that the current Holy Father considered the mascot to be inimical to his teaching, not even Fr. Brooks could save the mascot.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 27, 2017 18:59:09 GMT -5
Well said, Tommy.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Nov 27, 2017 19:00:00 GMT -5
As I remarked previously, I'm quite certain that the reviews of Mulledy, McSherry, and the Healys were coordinated with two provincials. And given that the Jesuits are highly structured, quite likely the Superior General was informed. Holy Cross is out on an island among all the other Jesuit colleges and universities. I doubt that any of them will support HC's retaining the current mascot, and most, if not all, would probably favor getting rid of the nickname. And if the Superior General were to pass the word that the current Holy Father considered the mascot to be inimical to his teaching, not even Fr. Brooks could save the mascot. What the other Jesuit schools think we should do is inconsequential. The Board is deciding this based on what is best for HC now and in the future.
|
|
|
Post by deep Purple on Nov 27, 2017 19:44:23 GMT -5
Just the fact we are going through all these gymnastics. Fr Brooks had none of that. He just said, "No." Fr B should, but will not, say the same. The fact that you can't understand the difference between 1991 and 2017 tells us all we need to know. The difference of course being that in 1991 if someone said their feelings were hurt because of a school mascot they were promptly laughed out of the room.
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Nov 27, 2017 20:25:32 GMT -5
I'll be stunned if they keep as is. It's gone. The only question is whether it's a total purge or put out to pasture in a less glaring fashion. I've asked the question in this space before: what specifically about the current President and Board of Trustees at Holy Cross lead you to believe that the Crusader nickname is going away? Well, they screwed up with the SAT decision, and only have watched as more and more schools surpass us academically. They almost assuredly will make the wrong decision here too. Call it a strong hunch. I hope I am wrong. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 27, 2017 20:36:35 GMT -5
Always trust someone named Tom to bring blunt common sense to the discussion
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Nov 27, 2017 20:45:33 GMT -5
It is time for people to simply tell the continuously outraged people to shut up. The silent majority that is sick and tired of polical correctness needs to start being more vocal.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Nov 27, 2017 20:46:06 GMT -5
I've asked the question in this space before: what specifically about the current President and Board of Trustees at Holy Cross lead you to believe that the Crusader nickname is going away? Well, they screwed up with the SAT decision, and only have watched as more and more schools surpass us academically. They almost assuredly will make the wrong decision here too. Call it a strong hunch. I hope I am wrong. Cheers. SAT decision was McFarland. Board has completely turned over since then.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 27, 2017 21:01:34 GMT -5
As I remarked previously, I'm quite certain that the reviews of Mulledy, McSherry, and the Healys were coordinated with two provincials. And given that the Jesuits are highly structured, quite likely the Superior General was informed. Holy Cross is out on an island among all the other Jesuit colleges and universities. I doubt that any of them will support HC's retaining the current mascot, and most, if not all, would probably favor getting rid of the nickname. And if the Superior General were to pass the word that the current Holy Father considered the mascot to be inimical to his teaching, not even Fr. Brooks could save the mascot. I agree that if the pope called and asked HC to change the name, they would. You could probably say the same thing about the President. However, since both men have sufficiently important jobs that HC's mascot should not even be a blip on the radar, the Crusader should be safe from their intervention I also doubt that that our Jesuit brethren would weigh in supporting a move that would clearly have way more negatives than any potential negative of keeping the Crusader. They don't want HC weighing in on their internal matters either
|
|
|
Post by ephoops on Nov 27, 2017 21:22:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 27, 2017 21:23:07 GMT -5
I've asked the question in this space before: what specifically about the current President and Board of Trustees at Holy Cross lead you to believe that the Crusader nickname is going away? Well, they screwed up with the SAT decision, and only have watched as more and more schools surpass us academically. They almost assuredly will make the wrong decision here too. Call it a strong hunch. I hope I am wrong. Cheers. The problem with regard to admissions is not that HC is SAT optional, its that not as many Catholics are interested in attending HC as they once did, and Ann (and the BoT) have yet to successfully deploy strategies to overcome that lessening of interest. This is compounded by an exclusive focus on the traditional liberal arts. Add to that a perception that HC is white, Catholic, and Irish, a demographic that is on the downslope, relatively speaking. If HC can't get more Catholic interest, then it will need to rely on increasing the interest of non-Catholics, and its student body will come to look more like Georgetown's. . .
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 27, 2017 21:41:40 GMT -5
As I remarked previously, I'm quite certain that the reviews of Mulledy, McSherry, and the Healys were coordinated with two provincials. And given that the Jesuits are highly structured, quite likely the Superior General was informed. Holy Cross is out on an island among all the other Jesuit colleges and universities. I doubt that any of them will support HC's retaining the current mascot, and most, if not all, would probably favor getting rid of the nickname. And if the Superior General were to pass the word that the current Holy Father considered the mascot to be inimical to his teaching, not even Fr. Brooks could save the mascot. I agree that if the pope called and asked HC to change the name, they would. You could probably say the same thing about the President. However, since both men have sufficiently important jobs that HC's mascot should not even be a blip on the radar, the Crusader should be safe from their intervention I also doubt that that our Jesuit brethren would weigh in supporting a move that would clearly have way more negatives than any potential negative of keeping the Crusader. They don't want HC weighing in on their internal matters either And if the tweeter-in-chief should tweet.....? HC 'adjudicated' the matter of the Healys for Georgetown. And HC would have done nothing about Mulledy if Georgetown had not acted first. And Georgetown might be sensitive to how certain institutions perceive a fellow Jesuit institution.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Nov 27, 2017 21:58:35 GMT -5
This is a remarkably well-written article that touches on all the key points. The mention of the crusader as a symbol of a then-embattled Christianity brought to mind a comment made about the Columbus statues that have recently come to the attention of the politically correct: they were mostly erected as a symbol of Italian-American pride in reaction to the anti-Italian bigotry that was pervasive in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 27, 2017 22:09:24 GMT -5
Re: tweets from the tweeter in chief.
Breitbart has an article titled "Crusade against the Crusader nickname divides Holy Cross College", written by a Daniel J. Flynn. .... So don't be surprised by the appearance of a tweet.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Nov 28, 2017 7:01:46 GMT -5
Just the fact we are going through all these gymnastics. Fr Brooks had none of that. He just said, "No." Fr B should, but will not, say the same. The fact that you can't understand the difference between 1991 and 2017 tells us all we need to know. My friend, methinks it is you who does not know the difference between 1991 and 2017. As some have suggested I too see the possibility of splitting the baby, perhaps an emasculated Iggy . Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Nov 28, 2017 7:24:47 GMT -5
Can't sweep things under the rug anymore. Too many experts out there and social media has given them a platform. Still not sure why folks are so scared of a discussion. Sort of what real schools of higher education, especially Jesuit ones, are supposed to foster.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Nov 28, 2017 8:31:58 GMT -5
A number of our posters were on campus when the lyrics to Mamie Reilly were changed in 1969 to delete a reference to "Old Black Joe." Do any of you have insight into how that debate went? Was there outcry from alums about tradition? Ought that inform your opinions about this controversy?
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Nov 28, 2017 8:43:24 GMT -5
Can't sweep things under the rug anymore. Too many experts out there and social media has given them a platform. Still not sure why folks are so scared of a discussion. Sort of what real schools of higher education, especially Jesuit ones, are supposed to foster. Yes, let’s have a discussion about the Catholic Church and it’s culpability for the atrocities committed in its name during the Crusades. Let’s study the Jesuits participation in Inquisition thinking.
|
|
|
Post by cmo on Nov 28, 2017 8:49:23 GMT -5
Professor Jorge Santos about to go on WEEI with Kirk and Callahan to discuss topic of name change
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Nov 28, 2017 9:07:10 GMT -5
Can't sweep things under the rug anymore. Too many experts out there and social media has given them a platform. Still not sure why folks are so scared of a discussion. Sort of what real schools of higher education, especially Jesuit ones, are supposed to foster. Has FR. B sent any correspondence lately to the student body along the lines of what UChicago sent a few months back to students? I do not recall seeing that. Maybe I am wrong. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 28, 2017 9:08:56 GMT -5
A number of our posters were on campus when the lyrics to Mamie Reilly were changed in 1969 to delete a reference to "Old Black Joe." Do any of you have insight into how that debate went? Was there outcry from alums about tradition? Ought that inform your opinions about this controversy? Song lyrics have been changed a number of times. The alma mater was changed from male only (thy sons...) to a more inclusive form. The portion of Mamie Reilly you speak about consisted of lines from poems and songs. “Old black Joe” was in that vein. I had no issue with being changed. So to answer your last question about the school nickname and mascot...no.
|
|
|
Post by carlin96 on Nov 28, 2017 9:09:48 GMT -5
Professor Jorge Santos about to go on WEEI with Kirk and Callahan to discuss topic of name change Clown
|
|
|
Post by lou on Nov 28, 2017 9:10:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 28, 2017 9:19:53 GMT -5
Professor Jorge Santos about to go on WEEI with Kirk and Callahan to discuss topic of name change As someone who is basically in step with Heinsohn's views on this topic, I find this a little embarrassing. I find the topic silly, but if the school wants to really have a dialog about the mascot, so be it. But does this really need to be played out in the media? I'm guessing the average sports talk radio listener doesn't care about what mascot any school has or want to hear a lecture on the evils on a war that took place before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. We've been through this in MA twice in somewhat recent history. U Lowell (now UMass Lowell) changed from the Chiefs to the RiverHawks. The process was quiet and there was little to no public discussion - before or after. It was just announced. In all fairness, it was a D-II school at the time. Prior to that, there was a movement to replace the Minuteman as the mascot of UMass, because some people thought the gun carrying mascot promoted a violent image. Like what is starting to happen now, this was played out in the media. Consensus was to laugh at UMass for actually taking this seriously. I really don't need to see this played out in the news or hear it on sports radio
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 28, 2017 9:44:56 GMT -5
“The College of the Holy Cross, where Heinsohn played basketball for four years in the 1950s, is in the process of reconsidering its “Crusader” nickname, amid concerns that the evocation of the actual Crusades, a series of medieval wars between Christians and Muslims, does not align with the Worcester university’s 21st century values.”
I guess if Boston based media refer to Holy Cross as a “university,” I shouldn’t get upset when a high school recruit does the same!😊
|
|