|
Post by mcnsullivan on Oct 15, 2017 11:58:34 GMT -5
Greetings ~ I'm a reporter for the Worcester T&G hoping to do a story on alumni reaction to the Crusader question. I know there has been a running commentary on your forum on the issue, and I'd like to reach out to members of Crossports to invite their perspective for the piece.
What I’d like to ask:
Are you in favor of keeping the Crusader? Why or why not?
Are you active in a college giving society or as a class agent or other alumni activity?
What would be your reaction if the college did away with the Crusader? Would you stop supporting the college financially?
Your perspective would be most welcome. If you know of another alumni donor or otherwise particularly active alum who you think would wish to comment on this issue, please feel free to forward my query.
Thanks very much.
Mark Sullivan, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 508-793-9422, mark.sullivan@telegram.com
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 19, 2017 15:41:04 GMT -5
Hi Mark, welcome to the board. I'm sure you can find some posts here that outline rather extensively different posters' perspective on any said changing of the mascot. I saw that Bill Simmons (prominent HC alum) picked up on a tweet that Grant Welker of the Worcester Business Journal published, asking a similar question in short-- whether or not the Crusader mascot should be changed. This must be gaining traction among the locals if multiple Worcester-based publications are now doing their research on the topic.
I will flip the questioning back to you. Have you seen or reported in the local or larger community at-large that there were any issues with the Crusader mascot? Are your inquiries into the mascot on behalf of offended parties, or just general inquisitiveness? Are we seeing true outrage on behalf of the people, sponsors, or prospective students and their families? Or, I hate to think, is this a fabrication of outrage in the name of political correctness?
This all has to be coming from somewhere, and I'm curious to know what the local beat thinks.
RM '08
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 19, 2017 17:38:41 GMT -5
Mark contacted me personally. Wanted to use a post of mine. Told him to use my quote if he wished but I’m not trying to make a personal crusade out of this.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 19, 2017 18:02:16 GMT -5
The decision to examine the nickname and mascot was coincident with the review of Mulledy and Healy. And that review was an outgrowth of Georgetown's review of Mulledy, McSherry, and the Maryland province. These reviews were not undertaken without the knowledge of the provincials, and done presumably with their blessing. One is after all potentially stripping away the names of the leading Jesuits of that era. The mascot is antithetical to Pope Francis' continuing message. Here is a long epistle in America by Fr. Schroth, a former dean at HC. www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/07/12/pope-and-press-surprisingly-friendly-relationshipIn which there is this quote, (The article notes that in Brazil there are 1800 priests for 140 million Catholics. (About one priest for nearly 80,000 people.) If you are the leader of the church in Brazil what do you do?) If Francis were to tell his great and good friend Cardinal O'Malley the mascot must go, 'quod Papa non vult', would you expect Fr. B. to salute, or fall on his crusader sword?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 19, 2017 18:43:53 GMT -5
I don’t think there is a direct reporting line ecclesiastically, financially or in any other way from O’Malley to Boroughs. Now, if Francis were to call the Jesuit provincial, he has more influence over Fr. Boroughs but having met the new provincial, he made clear to me that he is NOT Fr. Boroughs’ boss. He did say he has great respect and admires Fr. Boroughs and pretty sure that he believes he will make the right decision but note that that decision will be made by the BoT.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 19, 2017 18:56:48 GMT -5
BTW, the provincial's name is Fr. John Cecero, S.J. and, like Fr. Boroughs, he shared with me that the reputation of Holy Cross alums' love of their College borders on fanatical. He will not be surprised that this would be a controversial discussion and there will be significant ramifications, financially and otherwise, if the mascot is jettisoned.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 20, 2017 7:20:30 GMT -5
sader1970,
The matter of the mascot is far too trifling for this Pope to get involved, but my hyperbole was to illustrate that some of the impetus for this review may be coming from the Jesuits themselves. I refuse to believe that HC unilaterally took up the matter of the Healy family. Healy Hall at Georgetown is a National Historic Landmark, and a far more important building than Healy Hall at Holy Cross.
And for HC to unilaterally decide that HC's Healy Hall would be renamed would certainly p*ss off Georgetown no end.
Marquette dropped its nickname, St. Louis moved a quite benign statue indoors, and USF re-named a residence hall originally named after a xenophobic politician, (With USF, you have to wonder what were they thinking at the time it was first named.) If these other institutions can make such changes, why can't Holy Cross? <<< A rhetorical question. .
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 20, 2017 8:00:58 GMT -5
Guess I must have missed something on the turn. When was HC even thinking of re-naming Healy (I lived there 2 years)? It is not named after anyone other than the first HC valedictorian and first black bishop in the United States, not after the Healy family. And heaven forbid we should ever p*ss off the folks at GU! Or am I missing your hyperbole again? But since you seem to be well connected ("I know a guy" as we say in RI), would be interested in your take as to the next steps as I've posted on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Oct 20, 2017 9:32:57 GMT -5
Guess I must have missed something on the turn. When was HC even thinking of re-naming Healy (I lived there 2 years)? It is not named after anyone other than the first HC valedictorian and first black bishop in the United States, not after the Healy family. And heaven forbid we should ever p*ss off the folks at GU! Or am I missing your hyperbole again? But since you seem to be well connected ("I know a guy" as we say in RI), would be interested in your take as to the next steps as I've posted on another thread. HC's Healy Hall is named after James Healy. Georgetown's after Patrick Healy, his brother, and a HC Alum. Patrick is also know as the second founder of Georgetown due to his work to restore Georgetown after the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Oct 20, 2017 12:23:54 GMT -5
sader1970, Marquette dropped its nickname, St. Louis moved a quite benign statue indoors, and USF re-named a residence hall originally named after a xenophobic politician, (With USF, you have to wonder what were they thinking at the time it was first named.) If these other institutions can make such changes, why can't Holy Cross? <<< A rhetorical question. . Any comparison of the above the above to the Crusader name is a poor analogy. The Marquette name and the St. Louis statue involved the perceived denigration of Native Americans, which is still a problem. Any complaints about the Crusader name is a rank exercise in presentism: judging the actions of long-ago persons by modern standards. The historic crusaders brutality to those they defeated was the standard practice of the time. To expect them to have acted in any other way is totally unrealistic. As has been pointed out many times, the Crusader name is arguably no more objectionable than such names as knights, Spartans, vikings, pirates, buccaneers, etc., which for some reason seem to have escaped the attention of the politically correct.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 20, 2017 14:55:27 GMT -5
The fact that president Bush referred to our initial victory in Iraq as victory in our "Crusade" may be part of the issue...at least for those immersed in PC causes and one political party (which shall not be named).
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 20, 2017 18:23:12 GMT -5
Guess I must have missed something on the turn. When was HC even thinking of re-naming Healy (I lived there 2 years)? It is not named after anyone other than the first HC valedictorian and first black bishop in the United States, not after the Healy family. And heaven forbid we should ever p*ss off the folks at GU! Or am I missing your hyperbole again? But since you seem to be well connected ("I know a guy" as we say in RI), would be interested in your take as to the next steps as I've posted on another thread. When HC announced it would study whether to continue naming Mulledy after Mulledy, it announced it would also study whether Healy ought to be re-named. The issue with the Healys was that the father owned slaves at the family's Georgia plantation. Ergo, they (the family) were as much slave owners as was the Maryland province. Slave owners bought and sold slaves. There was a slave market in Georgetown five blocks east of the main gate at GU that only ceased operating with the outbreak of the Civil War. Gonzaga High School students did research in the Georgetown archives this summer and learned their high school (then called Washington Seminary) also owned slaves (indentured employees). The students seemed somewhat appalled, perhaps mostly by the minuscule wages paid. HC commenced its study of Mulledy after Georgetown began its study. I can't recall, and I'm too lazy to look up, whether HC's study began after Georgetown had completed its study -- and decided to remove Mulledy's and McSherry's name from two buildings at Georgetown -- or while the GU study was still underway. Mulledy at the time of the sale was the provincial, and McSherry was the President of Georgetown. My belief is that GU threw McSherry under the bus simply to get past the issue. When HC announced, after completing its study, that it was re-naming Mulledy as Brooks-Mulledy (because of Father Brooks' leadership in integrating Holy Cross) it announced it had found no reason to re-name Healy. That announcement was also the first time that HC said publicly it was going to study the nickname and the mascot. __________________ My guess, as I've said before, is that HC will keep the nickname. My thinking on the mascot has evolved. I'll now guess there will be no mascot, and HC will announce that it will revisit whether there should be a mascot, and what the mascot should represent, in the indefinite future, --like five-ten years time. The shield will remain, sometimes with a cross in its field, sometimes not.
|
|
|
Post by breezy on Oct 21, 2017 19:27:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 21, 2017 20:13:09 GMT -5
Let me pose a scenario that I asked of a number of Crossporters at the game this afternoon.
For the sake of argument, let's assume the BoT decides the Crusader mascot/theme/symbol is offensive and is no longer acceptable at Holy Cross.
1. What will the BoT do besides that? Will they make an edict as to what the new mascot will be? 2. Will they turn the matter of a new mascot back to Fr. Boroughs? 3. Will they run a survey of a) students b) students and/or alums, faculty, etc. 4. If the BoT and/or Fr. Boroughs runs a poll for a new mascot, would the Crusader be excluded from the options? (after all, what if the BoT rejects the Crusader; runs a poll and the Crusader gets voted back in?) 5. Or, there is a rumor that Holy Cross will simply have no mascot.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 21, 2017 20:16:04 GMT -5
Well, the T&G did quote me accurately. Rob Stevenson '67
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 21, 2017 20:23:11 GMT -5
Whose the joker who got top billing and then the final word? But seriously, tomorrow morning is normally scheduled a breakfast speech by the College president to the assembled PC members. He also takes questions. Anyone think the Crusader issue might come up? Fr. B is most likely to take a pre-emptive stab at the subject before he even takes any Q&As.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 22, 2017 6:35:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 22, 2017 6:49:14 GMT -5
Fr. B. will discuss the issue pre-emptively. He may discuss the process in such detail that he answers most questions beforehand.
If one goes back to the Mulledy decision, Georgetown took far less time than did Holy Cross to come to a decision, and there was no poll, or outreach to alumni etc soliciting their views.
I'll go with #5. Or rather a 5A. with regard to a new mascot, HC will kick the can down the road for a few years, --until many of the old farts have died off or lost interest. ___________________________ A bit more on the Healys and Mulledy. As I recall the distinction drawn by HC, the Maryland province and Georgetown U directly benefited from the sale of the slaves. Mulledy, in an exuberant building campaign, had saddled Georgetown University with substantial debt. Despite the express instructions of the Superior General not to use the proceeds from the sale to pay down the debt, Mulledy did so.
Holy Cross was determined to demonstrate that none of the proceeds from the sale directly benefited HC, at the time of its founding. When it was established, HC was effectively a satellite of Georgetown and the Maryland province. (Remember that the early graduates of HC received Georgetown diplomas.) The Georgetown accounts were likely comingled, and not in a form that could be audited, so who was to ever really know. Mulledy was spared at HC.
For the Healys, the determination was that although the Healy family income was dependent on slave labor, this income did not directly benefit HC (or Georgetown). Whatever small tuition was paid was considered an indirect and immaterial benefit. IMO, HC approached its assessment of the Healys as would a lawyer questioning a witness on cross-examination; 'never ask a witness a question you don't know the answer to.'
Georgetown is making amends to the descendants of the slaves that were sold by Mulledy. When applying for admission, they are treated as 'legacies'. and the financial aid is apparently generous by Georgetown's standards.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 22, 2017 6:56:05 GMT -5
Worcester is proposing that Amazon build its new headquarters about three miles, as the crow flies, from the HC campus. 50,000 employees. Jeff Bezos will certainly underwrite the costs of branding the new HC mascot: the Amazonians or the Amazonia. Hope HC takes advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!!
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 22, 2017 8:28:52 GMT -5
"What are they going to call us? The Holy Cross Lollipops?”
They don't get any better than Togo.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 22, 2017 9:09:59 GMT -5
"What are they going to call us? The Holy Cross Lollipops?” They don't get any better than Togo. Under the no mascot scenario, HC would still be the 'Crusaders'. One can be a crusader for many things, including social justice, peace, and the American Way. The current mascot symbolizes (idealizes?) medieval knights who engaged in wars of religion (the crusades to the Holy Land, and elsewhere). That is the crux (no pun) of the matter. .
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Oct 22, 2017 11:03:42 GMT -5
How about the Inquisitioners for mascot?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 22, 2017 11:52:14 GMT -5
You are probably right, sloth. At minimum, the crosses on the back of the football helmets would have to go. Once you do that, how about removing the crosses from the buildings? And, why such an offensive name?
While it should not be a primary consideration, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that a Crusader thrown overboard will have a serious financial impact to the College as there will be a lot more donors who will stop giving than new ones that will start because we've removed the Crusader mascot. The coveted 50% alumni giving will go the way of the dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 22, 2017 12:24:52 GMT -5
The fact that president Bush referred to our initial victory in Iraq as victory in our "Crusade" may be part of the issue...at least for those immersed in PC causes and one political party (which shall not be named). 'Crusade in Europe' is a wonderful memoir written by another president, Eisenhower. Just a matter of time till that gem is discovered and triggers the same crew. Remember that D-Day speech (would probably be banned nowadays on campus)? Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
Definitely an 'othering' of the first order! Trigger alert!
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Oct 22, 2017 13:36:19 GMT -5
Seems like maybe that T&G article could have been more balanced by getting even a single comment from someone who graduated in the last 40 years... and I say that with absolutely no disrespect to any of you who were quoted.
|
|