|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 11, 2017 10:20:18 GMT -5
this is a charade.
The fix is in.
I have contributed consistently and am a class agent.
If the PC crowd wins, I'm out.
There are too many other worthy (maybe they already were more worthy) causes.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 11, 2017 10:36:59 GMT -5
I concur. My lack of donation will move the needle not at all. But any communication I get from Holy Cross will be returned with a rude, no thank you.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 11, 2017 10:51:43 GMT -5
Let's not get like the left wing kooks who say with every major election that if the candidate they do not like is elected they will leave the country. (Sadly, they never do.) For some of us this is emotional, but we all love Holy Cross. HC is our baby as much as the label "Crusader." If this goes south, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Plenty of time to decide and enact a response if this is all a setup.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 11, 2017 11:16:37 GMT -5
Lose the Crusader; lose my support. Pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 11, 2017 11:16:47 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. The symptom of lacking true leadership in Fenwick. Perhaps instead of wasting all of this time discussing whether or not our mascot is "offensive" to the SJWs, we should be exploring whether we should continue having our #1 criteria for selecting a President as whether or not one is a Jesuit, and instead replace that with whether or not one is a Leader.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 11, 2017 11:26:16 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. The symptom of lacking true leadership in Fenwick. Perhaps instead of wasting all of this time discussing whether or not our mascot is "offensive" to the SJWs, we should be exploring whether we should continue having our #1 criteria for selecting a President as whether or not one is a Jesuit, and instead replace that with whether or not one is a Leader. Completely agree. When does "Holy" become offensive to the non-religious? When do we shut down the Chapel because one could associate The Church with Christians, who were a part of the Crusades ages ago? When do we take the name Mulledy off of the building because he was at one point involved in slave trade This could go on forever. This whole endeavor is one big exercise in futility and it's exhausting if not infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 11, 2017 11:37:41 GMT -5
If this were medicine, this would be an example of "over treatment." Often there are minor imbalances of pathology in the human body that are best left observed rather than removed surgically or otherwise aggressively treated. I feel that with this issue, as with many societal issues, observation and continued discussion, rather than immediate reaction, is the most socially aware and responsible path. I fear that we are headed down a slippery slope, where we'll all be left thoroughly free of blemish but, in the process, thoroughly eviscerated.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Oct 11, 2017 11:51:44 GMT -5
this is a charade. The fix is in. I have contributed consistently and am a class agent. If the PC crowd wins, I'm out. There are too many other worthy (maybe they already were more worthy) causes. Ditto!
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Oct 11, 2017 12:01:39 GMT -5
All of these comments are very disappointing, and other than possibly making you feel better, they accomplish nothing. Please assume the best intentions of our fellow Crusaders, respect the process, and participate with your honest opinion and concerns. We have way too much name calling in our national news, and Holy Cross should be a safe place for hard discussions.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 11, 2017 12:05:01 GMT -5
oh, a "safe place." Isn't that comforting?
This exercise will be pursued with the same "open mindedness" that that "athletic survey/way forward" was done a few years ago. That was a joke, a complete bag job. This will be different?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 11, 2017 12:07:00 GMT -5
The symptom of lacking true leadership in Fenwick. Perhaps instead of wasting all of this time discussing whether or not our mascot is "offensive" to the SJWs, we should be exploring whether we should continue having our #1 criteria for selecting a President as whether or not one is a Jesuit, and instead replace that with whether or not one is a Leader. Completely agree. When does "Holy" become offensive to the non-religious? When do we shut down the Chapel because one could associate The Church with Christians, who were a part of the Crusades ages ago? When do we take the name Mulledy off of the building because he was at one point involved in slave trade This could go on forever. Indeed it could. Then, when some realize that the Stars and Stripes was the only "American" flag that was flown by U.S. slave carrying ships to America, will we get rid of both the American flag and our national anthem at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 11, 2017 12:12:28 GMT -5
I have long ago sent in my objection to removing the Crusader as our mascot. I also made a reasoned argument why I thought this would start the slippery slope of giving up on a Catholic college run by Jesuits. I had engaged with no name calling nor do I intend to. It’s a simple decision on my part. I began as a holy cross crusader fan back in the 50s of the last century. I attended holy cross mainly because of that association. I now have a tenuous association with holy cross also tied in to the holy cross crusaders. Long ago people stopped asking me where I went to college. I recently returned to the workforce if you can believe that on a part-time basis. No one asked me where I went to college. They only asked me what my prior work experience was. If we lose the Crusaders, I lose my connection to HC.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 11, 2017 12:46:21 GMT -5
And what if HC kept the crusader nickname, and dropped the mascot?
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 11, 2017 13:00:04 GMT -5
Don’t split the baby. Grow a pair.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 11, 2017 14:43:45 GMT -5
"safe place for hard discussions."
I just winced reading this.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 11, 2017 17:51:14 GMT -5
Excommunicants line to the right.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 12, 2017 5:05:28 GMT -5
No hay Moros en la costa! From your friends in Nerja, Spain
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 12, 2017 6:36:01 GMT -5
No hay Moros en la costa! A la Inquisición, usted convertido Masonic!!
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 12, 2017 7:28:52 GMT -5
Realistically, I'll wager this is more of a "hard discussion" for the Crusader administration, who must confront a potential drop of in alumni donations as a result of an unwanted cognomen change. If a change is made, it will be interesting to consider how easily drastic change occurs on behalf of what I assume will be an overwhelming minority opinion, without too much effort or "crusade" by those commanding that change. Seems we all need to be aware of the temptation of using the term "take offense" as a means of bypassing what would ordinarily require a hard fought battle and an overwhelming effort to achieve a general consensus, where the minority opinion becomes the majority opinion through heartfelt reason and persuasion. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember who the vocal leaders of this mission are, exactly. Would be nice to attach faces and names to this agenda, so we can make this endeavor more human, and therefore give it a more personalized level of consideration. I'm assuming it is important enough to these individuals for them to enter the public eye. Or is this just being done via email? In layman's terms, today we are Crusaders, and tomorrow we might not be. Just like that? Did I miss the war? This should take a lot more than some emails, letters, and a quick focus group and meeting with the BoT. Unless the answer is a firm "No," this really should be a longer, more drawn out process than what it seems like is about to happen. Seems to me the way the process is laid out creates the illusion of a fair trial, but in reality it is a set-up for some kind of a quick compromise before sweeping this thing back under the rug. I hope the compromise, if any, is as small and anemic as the movement itself.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 12, 2017 7:49:01 GMT -5
You missed the skirmish. Vote for the Crusader with an email.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Oct 12, 2017 7:51:50 GMT -5
Realistically, I'll wager this is more of a "hard discussion" for the Crusader administration, who must confront a potential drop of in alumni donations as a result of an unwanted cognomen change. If a change is made, it will be interesting to consider how easily drastic change occurs on behalf of what I assume will be an overwhelming minority opinion, without too much effort or "crusade" by those commanding that change. Seems we all need to be aware of the temptation of using the term "take offense" as a means of bypassing what would ordinarily require a hard fought battle and an overwhelming effort to achieve a general consensus, where the minority opinion becomes the majority opinion through heartfelt reason and persuasion. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember who the vocal leaders of this mission are, exactly. Would be nice to attach faces and names to this agenda, so we can make this endeavor more human, and therefore give it a more personalized level of consideration. I'm assuming it is important enough to these individuals for them to enter the public eye. Or is this just being done via email?
At least one id's herself in the video of last winter's panel discussion... I hope all take the time to view the hour plus video
In layman's terms, today we are Crusaders, and tomorrow we might not be. Just like that? Did I miss the war? This should take a lot more than some emails, letters, and a quick focus group and meeting with the BoT. Unless the answer is a firm "No," this really should be a longer, more drawn out process than what it seems like is about to happen. Seems to me the way the process is laid out creates the illusion of a fair trial, but in reality it is a set-up for some kind of a quick compromise before sweeping this thing back under the rug. I hope the compromise, if any, is as small and anemic as the movement itself.
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Oct 12, 2017 7:54:57 GMT -5
Before you know it, the Boy Scouts will be accepting girls!
Oh wait.........what?!?
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Oct 12, 2017 8:01:36 GMT -5
Realistically, I'll wager this is more of a "hard discussion" for the Crusader administration, who must confront a potential drop of in alumni donations as a result of an unwanted cognomen change. If a change is made, it will be interesting to consider how easily drastic change occurs on behalf of what I assume will be an overwhelming minority opinion, without too much effort or "crusade" by those commanding that change. Seems we all need to be aware of the temptation of using the term "take offense" as a means of bypassing what would ordinarily require a hard fought battle and an overwhelming effort to achieve a general consensus, where the minority opinion becomes the majority opinion through heartfelt reason and persuasion. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember who the vocal leaders of this mission are, exactly. Would be nice to attach faces and names to this agenda, so we can make this endeavor more human, and therefore give it a more personalized level of consideration. I'm assuming it is important enough to these individuals for them to enter the public eye. Or is this just being done via email? In layman's terms, today we are Crusaders, and tomorrow we might not be. Just like that? Did I miss the war? This should take a lot more than some emails, letters, and a quick focus group and meeting with the BoT. Unless the answer is a firm "No," this really should be a longer, more drawn out process than what it seems like is about to happen. Seems to me the way the process is laid out creates the illusion of a fair trial, but in reality it is a set-up for some kind of a quick compromise before sweeping this thing back under the rug. I hope the compromise, if any, is as small and anemic as the movement itself.
Exactly! I've wondered who and how many are leading this "crusade"! From what I've heard, it's a few professors, department heads! As others have pointed out, this is indeed a slippery slope!
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Oct 12, 2017 8:04:14 GMT -5
Realistically, I'll wager this is more of a "hard discussion" for the Crusader administration, who must confront a potential drop of in alumni donations as a result of an unwanted cognomen change. If a change is made, it will be interesting to consider how easily drastic change occurs on behalf of what I assume will be an overwhelming minority opinion, without too much effort or "crusade" by those commanding that change. Seems we all need to be aware of the temptation of using the term "take offense" as a means of bypassing what would ordinarily require a hard fought battle and an overwhelming effort to achieve a general consensus, where the minority opinion becomes the majority opinion through heartfelt reason and persuasion. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember who the vocal leaders of this mission are, exactly. Would be nice to attach faces and names to this agenda, so we can make this endeavor more human, and therefore give it a more personalized level of consideration. I'm assuming it is important enough to these individuals for them to enter the public eye. Or is this just being done via email?
At least one id's herself in the video of last winter's panel discussion... I hope all take the time to view the hour plus video
In layman's terms, today we are Crusaders, and tomorrow we might not be. Just like that? Did I miss the war? This should take a lot more than some emails, letters, and a quick focus group and meeting with the BoT. Unless the answer is a firm "No," this really should be a longer, more drawn out process than what it seems like is about to happen. Seems to me the way the process is laid out creates the illusion of a fair trial, but in reality it is a set-up for some kind of a quick compromise before sweeping this thing back under the rug. I hope the compromise, if any, is as small and anemic as the movement itself.
Link to the video?
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 12, 2017 8:04:59 GMT -5
you mean the college pseudo intellectual elites who work 24/7??
24 hours/week; 7 months/year.
|
|