|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 3, 2018 16:53:48 GMT -5
I suspect you are missing another possibility, Tom. With the change of the name/mascot Crusader, the College can expect an influx of donations both in numbers and totals, from all those alums and faculty members who don't give a dime now because of the offensive nature of the mascot and will now happily make donations that will more than offset the few who would be upset by a change. I am sure both of those donors will up their donations.
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Feb 3, 2018 17:13:30 GMT -5
I suspect you are missing another possibility, Tom. With the change of the name/mascot Crusader, the College can expect an influx of donations both in numbers and totals, from all those alums and faculty members who don't give a dime now because of the offensive nature of the mascot and will now happily make donations that will more than offset the few who would be upset by a change. I am sure both of those donors will up their donations.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Feb 3, 2018 17:19:02 GMT -5
I don’t really care if the newspaper is called The Crusader, The Spire, The SJW Post, or whatever. But what I do care about is that nobody in the administration has the cajones to stand up against this madness. There is a glaring lack of leadership in Fenwick. It's a student run organization. Is the administration supposed to tell them what to do? That would be a bad look and never work. Once we announce the nickname isn't going to change, we can all exhale and go back to watching Fox News and monitoring border crossings. There is no excuse for the lack of leadership from Fenwick on the issue. If someone actually defended the school against the SJWs, we would have never gotten to this embarrassing point.
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Feb 3, 2018 17:22:48 GMT -5
Good idea, Ignutz. Like many here, I have donated every year since my graduation but will want to do something if I don’t like the decision. I think the $1 donation makes the point well. I work for a matching gift company so I’ll only have to donate $0.50. I'm not sure which makes a bigger statement. The school is so proud of its percentage of alumni donors. That also gets calculated into things like US News & World Report rankings. They will definitely notice missing donors. -------------------------------- I heard that the newspaper name change made the channel 5, Boston news. Participation rates are great, but dollars and cents pay the bills.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Feb 3, 2018 17:30:36 GMT -5
I'm not convinced the "fix is in." Since the fall, letters, from classmates (‘72), re the “inappropriateness” or whatever of the Crusader mascot. All of these have come from the college. This would lead me to belive that “the fix was in”. Not that I really expected anything different.
|
|
|
Post by sader98 on Feb 3, 2018 18:35:49 GMT -5
Cooler heads prevailed
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 3, 2018 18:39:22 GMT -5
Again, has there been any official announcement? I am afraid some folks are confusing the name of the newspaper with the school nickname. PS: I understand the KKK may now change their newspaper to the Spire.
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Feb 3, 2018 18:42:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 3, 2018 18:43:25 GMT -5
Dear Members of the Holy Cross Community, Today our Board of Trustees engaged in an important and robust conversation about the appropriateness of our Crusader mascot and moniker. Our exchange was the culmination of a discussion we as a community have been undertaking for several months. Many of you participated in this discussion through submitting thoughtful and informed feedback via our website, letters, and emails or through campus listening sessions. Thank you for your input; it was immeasurably helpful in informing our deliberation. After a process of individual discernment over the past three weeks and then thorough group discussion this morning, the members of the Board reaffirmed that we at Holy Cross will continue to be known as the Crusaders. In 1925, our students chose the moniker “Crusader” to represent them. The literal definition of the word, “one who is marked by the cross of Christ,” was appropriate for our institution’s Jesuit and Catholic intellectual and spiritual tradition. Our students, faculty, staff, and alumni have continued in that tradition, and through their work and lives have defined what it means to be a Holy Cross Crusader: We are crusaders for human rights, social justice, and care for the environment; for respect for different perspectives, cultures, traditions, and identities; and for service in the world, especially to the underserved and vulnerable. We engage in dialogue between faith and reason and uphold the importance of reflective learning, critical thinking, thoughtful analysis and holistic education that encompasses the health of body, mind and spirit. With a rigorous Catholic and Jesuit liberal arts education, we prepare our students to make a difference in the world. While we acknowledge that the Crusades were among the darkest periods in Church history, we choose to associate ourselves with the modern definition of the word crusader, one which is representative of our Catholic, Jesuit identity and our mission and values as an institution and community. We are not simply crusaders, we are Holy Cross Crusaders. With this in mind, the Board also has asked the College administration to take this opportunity to assess how the visual representation of a Holy Cross Crusader can best align with this definition. As many of you know, earlier this week the editors of the student newspaper made their own decision regarding the name Crusader, choosing to move away from it in favor of a new name. It is important to note that the student newspaper is editorially independent of the College, and that their decision-making process was completely separate from the Board’s. In engaging in their own process of research and dialogue, these students have demonstrated a commitment to the kind of self-reflection and critical thinking we seek to nurture here at Holy Cross, and they have made a difficult decision with thoughtfulness and purpose. We put together the video above so that you could learn more about the Board’s decision and rationale. Thank you all for your thoughtful engagement in this process and your support as we move forward as a community. Sincerely, John Mahoney, Chair of the Board of Trustees and Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, S.J., President
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Feb 3, 2018 18:44:41 GMT -5
No way!!!!!! I guess the fix that was in somehow got unfixed.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Feb 3, 2018 18:49:36 GMT -5
Deo Gratias!
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Feb 3, 2018 19:14:07 GMT -5
No way!!!!!! I guess the fix that was in somehow got unfixed. It’s a Jesuitical compromise. Crusaders in, Knight out. Thinking about the letters I mentioned in a previous post, they left room open for this result.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 3, 2018 20:06:17 GMT -5
Congrats to 94, pp and Xmas. Also apology to fr b
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 3, 2018 20:09:01 GMT -5
Congrats to 94, pp and Xmas. Also apology to fr b
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 4, 2018 10:01:56 GMT -5
people this morning are confusing the paper with the mascot. I've talked to a few that heard the news about the paper and mistake it to think the school has abandoned the Crusader
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 4, 2018 10:14:20 GMT -5
I'm not sure which makes a bigger statement. The school is so proud of its percentage of alumni donors. That also gets calculated into things like US News & World Report rankings. They will definitely notice missing donors. -------------------------------- I heard that the newspaper name change made the channel 5, Boston news. Participation rates are great, but dollars and cents pay the bills. I don't deny that. The original statement was that a $1 donation would send a bigger message than none. Dollars and cents pays the bills and is more important than participation. Zero donation hits dollars and cents and participation and would be noticed. For the record, I would have contributed even if the BoT messed up. More like a theoretical discussion. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the point is moot
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 4, 2018 10:41:43 GMT -5
Probably the best solution to a self-inflicted and pc problem one can hope for.
I guess we can change the 'visual representation' (AKA mascot/logo/etc.) of the crusader to something that is sans medieval components (sword, shield, armor, cross, helmet, horse, etc.). Less focused on the Crusades ("among the darkest periods in Church history").
Of course these self inflicted and pc issues are not always easily resolved so I would not be shocked if 'Holy Cross Crusaders' is revisited in the near or distant future. We could one day become the 'Holy Cross Spires'.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 4, 2018 13:16:45 GMT -5
Congrats to 94, pp and Xmas. Also apology to fr b I felt it was a relatively easy call early on, provided you look at how it started and acknowledge that the Society of Jesus, writ large, is simply another hierarchical bureaucracy. I will draw an analogy. Do you think the New York field office of the FBI could start, on its own initiative, an investigation into the conduct of the Los Angeles field office? Hell, no. When I read that HC would 'investigate' the slave-owning history of the Healys, I immediately concluded that such a task would only be assigned with the approval of two provincials. With two provincials involved, and the investigations centered not just on any Jesuit(s), but the founder of one Jesuit college (Mulledy), and the so-called second founder of a Jesuit university (Healy), the two provincials, being good bureaucrats, would inform the Superior General in Rome. Normally, the Superior General would never get involved in what a college's nickname and mascot were, but the crusader has significant religious connotations, not all of them positive. Perhaps he took an interest in this instance, given that the crusades have been commented on by the Pope in recent years. I'll say its 50-50 on whether Fr. B. initiated the review of moniker and mascot on his own, or whether HC was 'encouraged' to do such a review by others who have an S.J. after their name.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Feb 4, 2018 13:19:56 GMT -5
As per usual, your extrapolations and assumptions are without grounding nor merit. You have no idea if the provincial has any say whatsoever in the day-to-day dealings of the college. The Board and Fr Boroughs run the show, and to imply, as if it is fact, did we are somehow beholden to higher powers is reckless.
As was noted in another thread the right decision was made here. SJWs, liberals, moonbats and anyone who ever voted for Obama lost and you won. This is a day for Fox News. Why can't we all just be happy and move on?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 4, 2018 13:41:11 GMT -5
As I posted somewhat recently, I had a conversation with the current Jesuit provincial at an IVC event at BC High. We talked at some length including about the IVC "partnering" with 4 Jesuit colleges and universities with HC being one of them. During that conversation, I asked the provincial about something and kiddingly referred to him as Fr. Boroughs' "boss." His reaction was immediate and said very emphatically that "I am not his boss but I have great respect for him." He made abundantly clear that as president of Holy Cross, the provincial had no say in the goings on at the College. The actual head of the Jesuits at any college or university is not the president but the rector. And they don't tell him what to do either.
Of course, all of that could conceivably changed in the interim, but I would bet not.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Feb 4, 2018 13:51:26 GMT -5
I’m offended by the HC newspaper which has changed its name to “Spire.” As a huge phallic symbol it is offensive to me. Hopefully the news Board is reading.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 4, 2018 14:19:46 GMT -5
As per usual, your extrapolations and assumptions are without grounding nor merit. You have no idea if the provincial has any say whatsoever in the day-to-day dealings of the college. The Board and Fr Boroughs run the show, and to imply, as if it is fact, did we are somehow beholden to higher powers is reckless. As was noted in another thread the right decision was made here. SJWs, liberals, moonbats and anyone who ever voted for Obama lost and you won. This is a day for Fox News. Why can't we all just be happy and move on? I believe the correct decision was made. The vast majority of people were in agreement. Somewhere it was posted here that 83 percent of the students wanted to retain the Crusader. In fact, it was such a large majority that it's not reasonable to assume it's a liberal vs conservative issue. I am sure there are lots of Obama supporters who watch MSNBC that are happy we're still Crusaders
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 4, 2018 14:22:04 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Feb 5, 2018 8:58:16 GMT -5
Congrats to 94, pp and Xmas. Also apology to fr b I felt it was a relatively easy call early on, provided you look at how it started and acknowledge that the Society of Jesus, writ large, is simply another hierarchical bureaucracy. I will draw an analogy. Do you think the New York field office of the FBI could start, on its own initiative, an investigation into the conduct of the Los Angeles field office? Hell, no. When I read that HC would 'investigate' the slave-owning history of the Healys, I immediately concluded that such a task would only be assigned with the approval of two provincials. With two provincials involved, and the investigations centered not just on any Jesuit(s), but the founder of one Jesuit college (Mulledy), and the so-called second founder of a Jesuit university (Healy), the two provincials, being good bureaucrats, would inform the Superior General in Rome. Normally, the Superior General would never get involved in what a college's nickname and mascot were, but the crusader has significant religious connotations, not all of them positive. Perhaps he took an interest in this instance, given that the crusades have been commented on by the Pope in recent years. I'll say its 50-50 on whether Fr. B. initiated the review of moniker and mascot on his own, or whether HC was 'encouraged' to do such a review by others who have an S.J. after their name. You may be right about the initiation of this process i.e. the Jesuit hierarchy was involved. From the beginning FrB has connected the Jesuit slave owning history controversy with the Holy Cross 'crusader' question. This question arose on campus most visibly among the faculty but also among some students and administrators. But it had implications beyond. To resolve it the process chosen was collegial. The risk was that this process might result in actions that not only impact the college but also have 'religious connotations'. The actor/decider, the BoT, was the most knowledgeable about the welfare of the college and understands the connotations beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2018 11:31:50 GMT -5
...... I'll say its 50-50 on whether Fr. B. initiated the review of moniker and mascot on his own, or whether HC was 'encouraged' to do such a review by others who have an S.J. after their name. You may be right about the initiation of this process i.e. the Jesuit hierarchy was involved. From the beginning FrB has connected the Jesuit slave owning history controversy with the Holy Cross 'crusader' question. This question arose on campus most visibly among the faculty but also among some students and administrators. But it had implications beyond. To resolve it the process chosen was collegial. The risk was that this process might result in actions that not only impact the college but also have 'religious connotations'. The actor/decider, the BoT, was the most knowledgeable about the welfare of the college and understands the connotations beyond. If one goes back to the history, the student newspaper at Georgetown started it all. The newspaper wrote an article about Mulledy having sold slaves. IIRC, the article pointed out that students of color might not want to live in a residence hall named for a priest who had sold slaves. Georgetown, having built a new Jesuit residence, was renovating the austere former Jesuit residence, which was one of the original buildings on campus, into student housing. (I was given a tour, and the original was more penitential than welcoming.) The name was being retained. With the word out about Mulledy's past, the President of Georgetown wrote, in August 2015, to the Georgetown community. Excerpts. The playbook may seem familiar. The President of Georgetown did not undertake this endeavor without letting the provincial know. And the President of Georgetown also gave a heads-up to his great and good friend, Fr. B. Its hard for me to believe the matter of the Healys did not come up early on. My sense is that the President of Georgetown was not inclined to having to rename Georgetown's Healy, so rather than Georgetown undertaking a review of the Healys slave-owning past, it was agreed that HC would take the lead. The fact situations were quite different, although both involved the institution receiving proceeds from slavery . Holy Cross allowed Mulledy's name to remain, on the basis that Mulledy was repentant and had several years of reflection before returning to the U.S. and founding HC. Two years after founding HC, Mulledy is back at Georgetown as President, but Georgetown chose not to give him credit for his several years of penance and reflection. And for good measure, Georgetown tossed McSherry over the side as well. (The building named for him was originally a small stable.) IMO, Georgetown took a hard line against these two Jesuits, most particularly with regard to McSherry. And perhaps unsurprisingly, HC's review cleared the Healys, and the Georgetown community never had to address that. An eight minute video of the views of the Georgetown working group.
|
|