Claire Gould’s recent editorial about getting used to change was well-intentioned, but I disagree with the message. The argument was based on the fact that many alumni and students get angered at any drastic change in the college, but eventually get used to it. Thus, we should relax and just accept the new logo, just as we’ve eventually accepted other changes, because traditions are fluid. The problem with this is that this ignores one fundamental thing: change can be good or bad, and sitting back and getting used to bad change is foolhardy, regardless of traditions.
I have some serious issues with the new logo. Besides the fact that neither ‘fierce’ nor ‘sea monster’ are included in ‘proud’, ‘strong’, and ‘dignified,’ I struggle to see why we need a new camel mascot at all, especially if it comes with a substantial price tag.
There are many things that the college spends money on, and many of them are good. The campus is being renovated at a rapid rate, improving the area both aesthetically and functionally. There are still parts of campus left behind, however. Take Greer Music Library, which contains treasure troves of music, but still doesn’t even have Apple computers, which are required to log onto the music server. I could go on, but the idea is clear and has been stated before: there are many parts of the college in need of more resources and attention.
But instead of attending to these things, we spend a great deal of money on a new camel logo, ignoring our own art department (and their lower price), and we also create a new casual logo (the new tree in the square on college vans), because we don’t want our seal to appear on shot glasses and other unofficial things.
WHO CARES? College Relations, apparently. I’ve worked with them in the past, and I’ve found them to be friendly folk, who have great intentions and do some good work, but they still have flawed methods in the end. If all you do is talk about branding, and how bad our current situation is with our vague college name, then the drastic changes will seem worth it. If, instead, you take a step back and pay attention to the state of the college, you can focus your time and energy on improving it, instead of lying about it. Excuse me, polishing the truth.
As I see it, there are two conflicting theories here. The first, used now, is that if we re-brand and polish our college’s look as much as possible, more students will come. It works in the short-term at least, until students come here and discover that not everything is as it seems. The opposing theory is this: improve the college as much as possible, listening to and communicating with the students and address the flaws. If this is followed, then our positive aspects will increase, and we can be openly honest about the greatness of the college. If we focus on improving our academics and facilities, transfers will decrease, students will be happy, and prospectives will know how great we are without any polished truth.
Let’s stop wasting money on rebranding, and instead spend our money on reworking. And let students have their official shot glasses – if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. We have bigger problems.
