|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 22, 2017 14:14:02 GMT -5
( ) Did you write to Mark when he asked? P. S. I didn't think about it but I guess I was the youngest guy edging out Rob for that honor!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 22, 2017 15:53:35 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. Your observation is clearly less offensive than the earlier post that said this would be easier when the "old farts" died off. Maybe the poster will live long enough to understand just how mean that comment is.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Oct 22, 2017 16:49:24 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. . Phreek, That IS the point. A nickname/mascot is typically selected becasue of one or two specifc ideals or characteristics they represent not everything about the selected person, place, or thing or everything they did/are. Pirates, 49ers, Yankees, Knights, Friars, Chiefs, Bison, Leopards, Raiders, Midshpmen, Trojans, Spartans, Toreros, Dons, Devils (of any color), Cardinals (as in the clerics not the bird ) ....
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 22, 2017 17:31:59 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. Your observation is clearly less offensive than the earlier post that said this would be easier wen the "old farts" died off. Maybe the poster will live long enough to understand just how mean that comment is. As the poster is an 'old fart', he includes himself in that group. The poster considers it a more endearing phrase than 'Medicare eligible', but acknowledges that others may not.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Oct 23, 2017 12:36:18 GMT -5
No Iggy mascot? He looks about as divisive and threatening as a cartoonish superhero. Speaking of superheroes, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles look far, far more like the real thing than Iggy does to the historic crusaders.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2017 17:04:39 GMT -5
I still can't believe people get this worked up over a mascot. It has no effect on your degree, your education, or your past experiences as students and alums of the college. To withhold donations because a nickname was or wasn't changed seems -- to put as delicately as I can -- childish.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 25, 2017 17:05:55 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. It's funny, I emailed back and forth with the reporter, as he specifically asked for younger perspectives, and I put him in touch with some female friends from school as well. And yet the only perspectives that made it to print were those of old men.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 25, 2017 17:24:29 GMT -5
Perhaps the writer was seeking wisdom??
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 25, 2017 18:08:05 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. It's funny, I emailed back and forth with the reporter, as he specifically asked for younger perspectives, and I put him in touch with some female friends from school as well. And yet the only perspectives that made it to print were those of old men. Perhaps he wanted keen insight and was not as biased as some to the experience that age can bring. OR, maybe he just wanted some opinions that would stir things up.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 25, 2017 18:11:19 GMT -5
I still can't believe people get this worked up over a mascot. It has no effect on your degree, your education, or your past experiences as students and alums of the college. To withhold donations because a nickname was or wasn't changed seems -- to put as delicately as I can -- childish. Imagine how silly it is when your opinion may be ignored by a school you love and ridiculed by fellow alums and it is thought to be personally offensive...childish indeed. Also, isn't donation to HC voluntary? If it is, and you feel the school has ignored you, why is it so childish to think that some may now ignore the school?
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Oct 25, 2017 18:34:14 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. Nah. As per usual, you make assertions with no facts. I predict a decision is actually made whether to keep or remove the Crusader in late January or early February. Under no possible scenario will the can be kicked down the road as this would benefit nobody. I'm quite confident that we will Remain the Crusaders, but the iconography of a knight on a horse will go once and for all. To suggest at the cross on the back of the helmet will be removed is downright silly and inflammatory.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Oct 25, 2017 18:38:10 GMT -5
Surprised that none of the zealots on this board have attacked Bob Cousy for his stance on the issue. How dare he.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 25, 2017 19:40:13 GMT -5
94:
Not sure if the zealots you refer to are pro or anti Crusader. But in either case, it appears that the Cooz is trying to be "open" with a personal preference to retain the Crusader but understanding why it might be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 25, 2017 19:44:27 GMT -5
I still can't believe people get this worked up over a mascot. It has no effect on your degree, your education, or your past experiences as students and alums of the college. To withhold donations because a nickname was or wasn't changed seems -- to put as delicately as I can -- childish. For starters, I don't anticipate changing my giving pattern based on a mascot decision. That being said, a small minority of people voice displeasure with the mascot, so the school enters into a thoughtful evaluation. If after that evaluation, the school decides it doesn't want to be associated with a symbol of doing good (if some can focus on a violent historical interpretation of Crusader, I can focus on a 21st century interpretation), is it unreasonable for me to question if the school that is taking a radical step to not be associated with doing good might not be the same school of men and women for others I remember and enter into a thoughtful evaluation about my donations. As I said, my giving will not change,but I won't judge someone who decides differently than I do. Actually, I kind of like that people think that way because the pragmatic powers-that-be aren't likely to purposely throw away donors, likely drop below that magic 50 percent, drop in all the rating systems (that factor in percent of alumni giving) without a darn good reason. Sure there are few people who consider this a principle worth the sacrifice, but I think they are very few and far between
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 25, 2017 19:51:35 GMT -5
It has been publicly noted that the BoT will be addressing the issue in their February meeting. I doubt that they will actually make a decision right then but better come up with with a specific plan. In the spirit of compromise that the administration showed with the Brooks-Mulledy cutting of the baby in half, I just have to believe since a hornet's nest has been stirred up that they have to do something and soon and will most likely be a change to Purple Knights so that the logo can remain and the offending name goes away. Those who want to keep the Crusader can still look at the logo and Iggy and say (to themselves) "we are still Crusaders." The ones who are offended can say "we won, no more Crusader."
If some of those faculty members who objected to the Crusader are still offended, perhaps we will see them tender their resignations?
I do think that while this controversy festers, there will be a drop in the number of donations.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Oct 25, 2017 20:04:36 GMT -5
94: Not sure if the zealots you refer to are pro or anti Crusader. But in either case, it appears that the Cooz is trying to be "open" with a personal preference to retain the Crusader but understanding why it might be changed. I was referring to the folks who have been horrified and offended that the college is even willing to discuss the issue.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:03:30 GMT -5
It's funny, I emailed back and forth with the reporter, as he specifically asked for younger perspectives, and I put him in touch with some female friends from school as well. And yet the only perspectives that made it to print were those of old men. Perhaps he wanted keen insight and was not as biased as some to the experience that age can bring. OR, maybe he just wanted some opinions that would stir things up. No one is diminishing your or anyone else's opinion on the basis of age (even though diminishing younger opinions is certainly a time-honored tradition on this board). Surely a Jesuit-educated college professor can appreciate the value that differing perspectives can add to a discussion, regardless of which side of the argument they may fall.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 26, 2017 9:05:17 GMT -5
"No one"? Have you read some of the comments on this board about older alumni (and the need for us to "die off" so that more rational views can prevail)? As to the second point, I both can and do.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:10:35 GMT -5
"No one"? Have you read some of the comments on this board about older alumni (and the need for us to "die off" so that more rational views can prevail)? As to the second point, I both can and do. I've seen plenty of resentment over the perception that older alumni's opinions are the only ones that get voiced or carry any weight (which I imagine gets misinterpreted as being hostile towards the older generation). And no, I've seen nothing that looks forward to the eventual death of older alums. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I also think that if you really do, you would agree that it was a mistake to only include opinions of one demographic in an article about a topic that spans many demographics.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 26, 2017 9:22:06 GMT -5
I feel I just did attempt to enlighten/remind you , but I will not be going back through months of comments to cherry pick those that support my opinion. Of course, you did say "No one" so even one such remark would disprove your comment. Please feel free to look through the comments yourself. Yes, as a former reporter, I would have made sure to have a few more opinions from other demographics (including current students, recent graduates and women, who might have a different perspective) but that is just my opinion. It seems the bulk of the comments were from prominent Crusader alumni, and space is often a factor when cuts are made. Also, there is no way to know if any younger alums responded to the request from the Telegram.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 26, 2017 9:24:34 GMT -5
BTW, we may need to drop any reference to "Zealots" who seek to retain the Crusader nickname. That could be offensive to any who know the term came from the name of a group of Jews who fought anything they saw as an attempt to undermine their faith.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 26, 2017 9:26:45 GMT -5
I feel I just did, but I will not be going back through months of comments to cherry pick those that support my opinion. Of course, you did say "No one" so even one such remark would disprove your comment. You are free to look through the comments yourself. Yes, as a former reporter, I would have made sure to have a few more opinions from other demographics (including current students or recent graduates and women, who might have a very different perspective) but that is just my opinion. It seems the bulk of the comments were from prominent Crusader alumni, and space if often a factor when cuts are made. Also, there is no way to know if any younger alums responded to the request from the Telegram. There is. I know at least two besides me. All this said, yes, space limitations and editorial decisions outside of a reporter's control often undermine even the best efforts to bring more opinions to the table. I'm more disappointed by the reaction to the exclusion than the exclusion itself.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Oct 27, 2017 7:18:58 GMT -5
I feel I just did, but I will not be going back through months of comments to cherry pick those that support my opinion. Of course, you did say "No one" so even one such remark would disprove your comment. You are free to look through the comments yourself. Yes, as a former reporter, I would have made sure to have a few more opinions from other demographics (including current students or recent graduates and women, who might have a very different perspective) but that is just my opinion. It seems the bulk of the comments were from prominent Crusader alumni, and space if often a factor when cuts are made. Also, there is no way to know if any younger alums responded to the request from the Telegram. There is. I know at least two besides me. Sorry, CL. Once you’re out more than 10 years, you’re no longer a younger alum. Sort of middle alum. Soon, you’ll be at your 25th and become an old alum like me.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Oct 27, 2017 9:49:34 GMT -5
There is. I know at least two besides me. Sorry, CL. Once you’re out more than 10 years, you’re no longer a younger alum. Sort of middle alum. Soon, you’ll be at your 25th and become an old alum like me. The Church discontinued Limbo, 92. Gotta pick one.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 27, 2017 10:36:29 GMT -5
I think 92 meant you were not in limbo but purgatory, which we still believe in, right?
|
|