|
Post by td128 on Sept 28, 2017 15:36:00 GMT -5
Once I saw the shield being more prominently embraced and promoted, I immediately thought of the Greek saying of "with it or on it" as the best phrase to promote the ultimate commitment necessary to achieve excellence. In the same context of "dying to self" as highlighted above.
I'd be good with that.
η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ
I'll know the college is making strides when they have these Greek letters inscribed in the endzones at Fitton and along the baseline in the Hart Center . . . without anybody having to ask what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2017 15:44:06 GMT -5
Most of us here are at a disadvantage for taking Latin, not Greek (and I'll bet the youngin's took neither). In the good old days when the Tomahawk was still the name of the student newspaper, all Holy Cross students took BOTH Latin and Greek. But, I guess you tipped your hand, Larry, with how you will answer the questionnaire when it comes to the question of the Crusader displaying a sword.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Sept 28, 2017 15:52:04 GMT -5
Any questions regarding commitment get answered right here. All in . . .
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Sept 28, 2017 15:58:13 GMT -5
HC needs to be careful here. That slope they're stepping onto is awfully slippery.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Sept 28, 2017 16:03:15 GMT -5
Clearly most folks think the fix is in. Fascinated what about behavior/decisions at HC under Fr. Boroughs leads them to assume this. I'm not saying a fix is in. However, if I did, I would point to an alumna I know who was invited to one of the discussion groups about Mulledy. She said there was no opportunity for input in her meeting. She wanted to speak in favor of keeping the name but was not allowed. She walked out with the impression her presence was simply so the school could claim there were alumni involved in the discussions. It is my opinion that in 2017, society in general quickly bends to all claims of being offended - whether reasonable or not I'm actually hoping the fix is in the right way and this is just to placate the minority out looking for something to be offended by. I know at least one person on the committee that knows there are lots of jouts77's and there would be serious backlash from a name change. They wound up splitting the Mulledy baby and not totally caving on something with far less downside than getting rid of the Crusader I find the first paragraph extremely troubling. If the College is going to go through any exercise like this, whether it's the Mulledy issue, the Crusader, whatever, and is going to put together a committee to fully examine the question, let the people who want to talk, talk. From the HC mission statement: If the first paragraph above is accurate, then that's extremely disheartening considering the very values delineated in the mission statement.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 28, 2017 16:38:54 GMT -5
Well, given the "split the baby" response to the Mulledy issue, I expect a compromise. See the Identity Standards and Guidelines here www.holycross.edu/college-marketing-and-communications/identity-style-guidelines for current guidelines. It is not entirely up to date. I predict that the College will keep the name Crusader but will drop the athletic logos that feature a Crusader (which is already used much less frequently.) You will never see a sword again. They will keep those logos which feature a shield. Iggy the Crusader is going to have to go. I also think that they have been setting this up for some time with the new logos. To be honest, I really don't care that much. I concur. The weaponized crusader, emblematic of the church warring against all manner of opponents, will 'fade away', as MacArthur put it. ____________________________________ And I don't know what is gained by re-litigating the religious wars of Europe. I can look at my 'family', Catholics to the end (losing side of the War of the Roses) who were closely allied with Henry II, he who wanted riddance of the meddlesome priest, and also with the hot-headed Thomas Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare, who rose up against Henry VIII. Becket excommunicated Alan de Neville (my family) for arresting Becket's chaplain. Fitzgerald allegedly directed the slaying of John Alen, Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Alen was allied with Cardinal Wolsey, Lord Chancellor of England, and Wolsey had imprisoned Fitzgerald in the Tower some years before. So a family that indirectly participated in the murder of two archbishops over a span of about 350 years. And a family that went on the First, Third, and Ninth Crusades. Which part of the family would you care to lionize?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2017 19:52:06 GMT -5
Holy Cross has just posted on LinkedIn about the Crusader mascot study. So, they are not hiding this from the general public but rather are being very transparent.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2017 19:54:42 GMT -5
Gonna get a nose, nipple or at least an ear piercing next?
|
|
|
Post by crusader1970 on Sept 28, 2017 20:32:08 GMT -5
I bet the name HOLY CROSS is offensive to some people with strong anti religious feelings.
Should we change that too?
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Sept 28, 2017 21:06:06 GMT -5
Looks like it's finally happening. A formal inquiry into the implications of the Crusader moniker. Alumni check your emails.
Good grief.
I believe that many of the nickname changes in college sports in recent decades have resulted from publicly voiced objections to monikers like "Indians" (Dartmouth, Stanford), "Fighting Sioux" (N.D. State), and "Redmen" (St. John's). In some cases, the groups supposedly offended by certain names have let it be known that it's OK with them (e.g., Fla. State Seminoles). If concerns have been expressed about the word "Crusaders" by folks who are not members of the HC community, the College ought to let the HC community know the content of those concerns and by whom they have been expressed. If there is nothing to report on that front, this looks like a self-induced exercise in political correctness organized by a guy who himself had no connection with Holy Cross before being named its President. If that's what's happening here, I can only quote the Twittering man in the Oval Office. Sad!.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Sept 28, 2017 21:44:59 GMT -5
Looks like it's finally happening. A formal inquiry into the implications of the Crusader moniker. Alumni check your emails.
Good grief.
I believe that many of the nickname changes in college sports in recent decades have resulted from publicly voiced objections to monikers like "Indians" (Dartmouth, Stanford), "Fighting Sioux" (N.D. State), and "Redmen" (St. John's). In some cases, the groups supposedly offended by certain names have let it be known that it's OK with them (e.g., Fla. State Seminoles). If concerns have been expressed about the word "Crusaders" by folks who are not members of the HC community, the College ought to let the HC community know the content of those concerns and by whom they have been expressed. If there is nothing to report on that front, this looks like a self-induced exercise in political correctness organized by a guy who himself had no connection with Holy Cross before being named its President. If that's what's happening here, I can only quote the Twittering man in the Oval Office. Sad!. Amen. The time spent on this nonsense by anyone on that ridiculous committee or in any other role at HC would be far better spent volunteering at a local soup kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Sept 28, 2017 21:51:42 GMT -5
Well, given the "split the baby" response to the Mulledy issue, I expect a compromise. See the Identity Standards and Guidelines here www.holycross.edu/college-marketing-and-communications/identity-style-guidelines for current guidelines. It is not entirely up to date. I predict that the College will keep the name Crusader but will drop the athletic logos that feature a Crusader (which is already used much less frequently.) You will never see a sword again. They will keep those logos which feature a shield. Iggy the Crusader is going to have to go. I also think that they have been setting this up for some time with the new logos. To be honest, I really don't care that much. I disagree. The history of Holy Cross...indeed its brand, in marketing parlance...is intimately connected with the "Crusader" nickname. The nickname should not be consigned to the trash heap absent compelling reasons to do so. As someone else on this board has asked, if "Crusader" is offensive to some unidentified parties, what about "Holy Cross." Maybe we need to substitute "Knights" for "Crusaders" (as was done on a Dartmouth source last week...perhaps with foreknowledge of the outcome). Better yet, steal a leaf from our Jesuit confreres down the Pike and rename the school "Worcester College". Yes, the "Worcester College Knights". "WC" for short. Whoops. Never mind! I was in the first class to inhabit Mulledy. When the G'town slavery situation broke into public view a year or two ago, HC's response should have been immediate. Strip Mulledy's name from the building, regardless of his role in HC's early years. But no. Things had to be fudged. It is hard to understand how the administration of an institution could accept leaving the name of an acknowledged seller of blacks "down the river" in the 1830s on one of its major buildings, but feel the need to question the "Crusader" nickname. The alumni community deserves a much fuller explanation from Buroughs of the considerations that supposedly require this study.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Sept 28, 2017 22:17:41 GMT -5
I sent a response to Fr. Buroughs stating that I will sever all ties to HC if the Crusader is eliminated and this after being a class agent for nearly 40 years. I further stated this is a result of political correctness and the effete mindset permeating campuses. Tough words but that's how I feel, too bad. I await the decision. If it is the wrong result, you won't see me on Crossports anymore. Interesting. So you ASSUME the decision has already been made and this process is window dressing. It is hard not to ASSUME that a study preceded by a drum beat roll-out like this and managed by a committee made up almost exclusively of members of the current administration doesn't have a pre-ordained outcome. Window dressing indeed. Do you really think they will conclude that the "Crusader" nickname is OK? Of course they won't. On the question of committee membership, note the complete exclusion of alumni/ae not directly tied to the administration and dependent on the College for their livelihoods. The whole thing stinks to the highest heaven.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Sept 28, 2017 22:18:05 GMT -5
I don't think that the name of Mulledy dormitory holds a special place in the hearts of many alums. On the other hand, the name "Crusaders" is beloved by many. Therefore I don't believe "TPTB" will change the name if they discern tremendous opposition from the community
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Sept 28, 2017 23:57:35 GMT -5
This is an example of the madness that got Trump elected
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Sept 29, 2017 4:56:36 GMT -5
Interesting. So you ASSUME the decision has already been made and this process is window dressing. It is hard not to ASSUME that a study preceded by a drum beat roll-out like this and managed by a committee made up almost exclusively of members of the current administration doesn't have a pre-ordained outcome. Window dressing indeed. Do you really think they will conclude that the "Crusader" nickname is OK? Of course they won't. On the question of committee membership, note the complete exclusion of alumni/ae not directly tied to the administration and dependent on the College for their livelihoods. The whole thing stinks to the highest heaven. Turn on Fox News, lock the doors and have plenty of peanut brittle on hand. They're coming.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 29, 2017 5:28:11 GMT -5
JKH, you had me up to the point in purple above. First, Fr. Boroughs was on the Holy Cross Board of Trustees for a number years before he became president. Indeed, he has publicly stated that one of the main reasons he accepted the post was because of his (relatively) long affiliation and knowledge (and respect) for the College. I have heard him tell the story multiple times that when he was posted at Georgetown how he heard from multiple sources that the Holy Cross alumni were unlike any other he would ever encounter - I think he used the term "fanatical" (but he said it in an admiring way). He is intimately familiar with Holy Cross and a lot more so than his immediate predecessors, Frs. McFarland and Reedy. He is more closely tied to Holy Cross than almost all of us here in that we spent 4 years on campus as students and while some of us are long-standing legacies with Crusader purple in our blood, you are being much too dismissive of a man who truly has the best interests of alma mater at heart.
I have also heard him speak on a couple of occasions about the Crusader situation. He did not initiate this discussion but he would be derelict in his duties to ignore the situation. My impression is like some others here, that he is looking to get enough background and input in order to come to a reasoned response to those who would like to change the mascot who has represented Holy Cross for multiple decades. I have little doubt that he does not want to change the Crusader but he also doesn't want to simply say: "I am the president. We are not changing the mascot regardless of what anyone else says."
He is also personally aware of the survey that the Class of 1970 did on this subject and the financial ramifications of any change.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Sept 29, 2017 5:35:32 GMT -5
Money should have no impact on the decision. It is right or it’s wrong. The principle is what’s at stake here.
Not that an 80-20 support for the Crusader wont save him, I believe there is no need for this exercise but to favor excommunication on the part of the current administration.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Sept 29, 2017 5:41:12 GMT -5
The question has been called by some members of the HC community. Why is everyone so scared to have a discussion and debate on the topic? The paranoia and fear that some boogie man is in the background orchestrating this is laughable. As the product of Jesuit education I was taught that this is what you do with important topics - face them head on. Am I the only one who remembers this from my days on Mount Saint James?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 29, 2017 5:45:18 GMT -5
Money should have no impact on the decision. It is right or it’s wrong. The principle is what’s at stake here. Not that an 80-20 support for the Crusader wont save him, I believe there is no need for this exercise but to favor excommunication on the part of the current administration. What exactly is the principle at stake?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 29, 2017 6:12:19 GMT -5
Not sure the committee chosen is large enough or diverse enough. Not enough older athletic alumni who have identified as Crusaders for most of their lives. What people might not get is that for some people this is like being told you have to change your own name.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Sept 29, 2017 6:13:19 GMT -5
The committee is simply an aggregator of information. The Board of Trustees will make the final decision.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Sept 29, 2017 6:20:30 GMT -5
If that were true the committee would be made up of third party individuals with no horses in the race. I'm sure the overall attitude of the committee will shape the manner in which recommendations are made to the trustees. Seems they tried to pick a cross-section of the HC community and half succeeded. I only hope the absence of old school Crusaders was not deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Sept 29, 2017 6:25:26 GMT -5
I'm confident that the Board of Trustees, which is comprised by definition of highly successful men and women and whose role it is to further the College, isn't going to be influenced by some administrator who's been picked to serve on a committee. Do you seriously think that the former CFO of Staples or EMC is going to be swayed by some middle manager from Student Life?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Sept 29, 2017 6:37:27 GMT -5
The College will be able to make the argument that Crusaders are notorious in popular culture for violence and are quite well known for their mistreatment of Jews and Muslims. Notwithstanding other significant accomplishments. And can double down that some people might be offended by the Crusader image and moniker. This combo may seal its doom.
I admit I stole this line of argument from Yale's protracted and public decision to remove Calhoun's name from one of their residential colleges. (He was notorious in his day and even today because of his staunch and public support of slavery and well known for publicly praising it as a moral good... notwithstanding his other accomplishments...people might be offended by his name on one of Yale's residence colleges).
Father Mulledy, unknown in public culture, and not prominent (to those who even know of him) because of his participation in the slave trade would pass muster in the Yale test. Thomas Jefferson, by the Yale test, also passes muster (prominence firstly as Declaration of Independence author and President of the United States). Not withstanding his ownership of a large number of slaves. As popular culture shifts, of course, this may change.
Of course the transparency, deliberations, and pronouncements at Yale may have been a contrivance to rid themselves of a problematic association.
|
|