|
NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive |
Staff Editorial: New logo a disappointmentAfter more than a year of deliberating and taking suggestions from students, faculty and alumni, the College released its new logo yesterday, and everyone should be extremely pleased with the result. Unless, of course, you don’t find Microsoft Word TextArt engaging. It is hard to imagine any way that the Logo Committee could have produced a more bland new logo. While we respect the work of the committee, the result is uninspiring. The new logo — a ‘W’ and an ‘M,’ neither of which looks quite like the intended letter, separated by an ampersand — is sterile and should have been thrown out in the early planning stages. While the intent was that the new logo should represent “an evolution rather than a revolution,” the committee produced a meaningless logo that is not an evolution, but rather a disappointing regression. The variations of the new logo will be more than suitable for admissions office literature, notebooks from the book store or other symbols of the College. However, the reason for the creation of the new logo was never to reform these symbols, but to redefine the College’s athletic identity after the NCAA found the feathers to be hostile and offensive to American Indian groups. This was an opportunity to consolidate the history and identity of the College and unveil a new brand for the College, one that could be emblazoned on the floor of Kaplan Arena, on the 50-yard line at Zable Stadium and on the uniforms of our athletes. In this regard, they have failed. It is understandable that such a process would take longer than many people expected. The challenges of copyright and patenting laws are complex and certainly important. Yet it is for this very reason that such a minute change from the previous logo — simply spreading the letters, changing the yellow to gold, and adding an ampersand — is such a let down. Given a year’s time, is this the best option for the College? We are concerned that the level of bureaucracy demonstrated in this case seemed to be counter-productive. While the Logo Committee and College President Gene Nichol are ecstatic, the College’s athletic programs still lack a proper symbol. Perhaps the difficulty was that the College was so adamant about keeping the Tribe moniker. Given this determination, it becomes extremely difficult to find a logo or a mascot that does not pertain to American Indians. The committee could have planned to reform our mascot, nickname and logo all at the same time — a popular suggestion among students has been something in the colonial or historical vein, since this clearly defines our College and the community in which we live. Now, however, it will be extremely difficult for the committee to come up with a suitable mascot that is representative of our athletic teams. In fact, the group may not come up with one at all, but at this point, nothing should surprise us. Nichol said in a statement on WM News that he was grateful that the committee had brought “welcome consistency to those symbols used to represent the College.” Consistency at the expense of creativity is hardly a rational explanation for why the logo committee dragged its feet for more than a year to produce such a mediocre result. The bright side for students is that we know exactly who to blame. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
You’re right. It does look like somebody – I’m guessing a 9 year old – spent about 20 minutes playing around with Word Art.
Is there some reason the whole College can’t use the business school “cipher” logo? It’s attractive and in keeping with the historical/colonial theme.
— alum Dec 7, 05:58 PM #
I like how the different variations use pieces from the college’s past.
— dave s Dec 8, 02:36 PM #
A terrible disappointment. I’m assuming the reason they delayed the announcement (originally scheduled for halftime at Homecoming) was to avoid having alumni and students boo the results out of Zable.
— senior Dec 8, 03:14 PM #
I still can’t believe the feathers are gone, and I find the new logo totally unsurprising. We live in an uninspired age. If anyone ever deserved to fly feathers other than Native American Indians, it would be the College of William and Mary, which began as an institution for training them.
This whole administration has been uninspiring. I wonder at everyone’s surprise over this. We all want change? We want to rally under a new banner? Here you are:
Uninspiration: The New Inspiration. Go Tribe. Hark Upon The Gale.
— Matthew Latham Dec 9, 10:56 AM #
Agree completely with the editorial…it’s a boring, unimaginitive logo. Like it or not, branding does have an effect on college recruitment and how we are perceived. Hopefully alums got all their tribe apparel before this whole ridiculous episode began. For current students, you’re pretty much screwed.
— Jonathan Dec 9, 01:49 PM #
Nothing is more revolting than the dissolution of the traditions and history of the College. There is a marked difference between bringing the school into the modern age and modernizing the school. The former allows the school to keeps its identity, yet update the practices. The latter, what the school is currently experiencing, changes the persona entirely. No longer do students attend classes at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, but rather at William and Mary, the nondescript, uninspired, burnt-out shell of a university formerly possessed of great glory and honor.
It is the fault of many that our beloved College has been reduced to a mockery, but the audacity of Gene Nichol (not my president!) to so unabashedly tear down the greatness erected by the presidents before him earns him not only poor marks on leadership, but also a swift kick out the door. Because of his counter-productive measures, the College now stands no better than it does when he started – the task of a president – and much worse than when President Sullivan left.
All that can be done to restore the luster to the College’s reputation needs to be done.
Restore the glory of our school by keeping the official crest, the same as engraved on the rings of the multitudes of alumni. Unite the students under one single logo, without the cross-topped crown if you must, the royal cipher of King William and Queen Mary, our founders. Leave chapels as chapels, managed by the clergy of the Church and the rectors of the building as a historical site since it is neither a classroom, nor part of the public expanse of the College. Remove politics from the administration and restore a belief in truth and integrity.
Each small chip off the College’s reputation – such as this terrible logo and waste of several thousand dollars – is one chip closer to undermining the base on which the College’s reputation stands. If we bend here, then we break altogether soon. Preserve the College of William and Mary inviolate for future generations to learn within her blessed halls.
— Nicholas Smith, BA '07 Dec 9, 02:08 PM #
What did that guy say in the Flat Hat back in February? “Under Nichol, we are at risk of becoming a bland, hollow, characterless and soulless institution like 99.9% of the other schools in this country.” Unfortunately, that guy was right.
— MacSuile Dec 9, 06:32 PM #
The new “logo” looks almost like the one for that trash company, Waste Management.
— MacSuile Dec 9, 09:08 PM #
I don’t like the new logo either. But really? Is this REALLY Nichol’s fault too? The grass is not longer green at WM. Is that Nichol’s fault as well? (or could it be the lack of rain this summer.) MacSuile, we get it, you HATE Nichol.
— Tom '04 Dec 9, 09:25 PM #
Mr. Latham, I challenge your characterization of the Indian school at WM. When you say WM was an “institution for training them”(Indians) don’t you really mean ‘civilize’ and ‘Christianize’ them. Native American parents resisted sending their children here. Many of the first students at the Indian school were captives from enemy tribes. Not sure if that’s something we should be particularly proud of.
— Tom '04 Dec 9, 09:32 PM #
Tom: You had captive Indians when you were here? What year was that, 1804? I’d be ashamed of that too, if I had done something like that. However, I don’t recall every doing anything to Native Americans, unless finding their history interesting is some sort of crime too. At some point, everyone’s ancestors have done something barbaric – including those of Native Americans. Let’s give this idiotic multi-generational guilt trip a rest. What’s next? Hang all of John Wilkes Booth’s ancestors? I suspect that what you really like is blaming Christians for something. They must have done some powerful reforming if you have to go back 200 years to find something to complain about. Or is redemption out of the question for sanctimonious holier-than-thou dunderheads like you? If you feel that bad, instead of trying to score lame political points, why not try to put your ancestoral guilt to good use? It worked for Nathaniel Hawthorne.
— pingpong Dec 9, 10:33 PM #
oops – make that JWB’s “descendants”, not his ancestors!
— pingpong Dec 9, 10:35 PM #
Pingpong, do you mean to say that Native Americans have always been treated fairly at William & Mary? All that Tom was saying is that we cannot praise the school for its history of “instructing the savages”.
If it’s in the past in your mind, that’s fine – we don’t have to talk about it. But no one wants to glorify the forced baptisms and other crimes that were committed in the name of the College.
— John Camm Dec 10, 12:45 AM #
1) To be fair, the College is a completely different entity today than it was 300 years ago, and the way it treated Native Americans back in the past was probably somewhat above the norms at the time, even though it would certainly be unacceptable in modern times…
2) Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past three years, the choice to shed the feathers was not ours to make, and we fought it as best as we could. We didn’t have enough clout in the NCAA to fight their decision, and it simply wasn’t worth risking expulsion over a logo. We’re also a bit too strapped for cash to afford a lawsuit frivilous against the NCAA in what is a legal grey-area…
3) Please, please, please stop pinning everything the college does on Gene Nichol. Although I do wish that he (or anybody else for that matter) would have stood up, and asked the committee to choose another design, accusing him of “robbing the school’s heritage” is absurd. (And for crying out loud, you “£*£”*ing beloved cross wasn’t even old enough to be considered part of “our heritage” any more than that ugly aluminium sculpture on New Campus is.)
4) Finally, I don’t believe that the crest and royal cipher are being “decomissioned” — the new logo will be used for intercollegiate athletics, and not necessarily for the college in general, as the use of the “feather” logo was exclusively restricted to athletic use.
(Correct me if I’m wrong on this one…)
— andrew Dec 10, 05:59 AM #
Nichol, with Powell’s OK, let the NCAA pluck the Tribe’s feathers while Central Michigan University, Florida State & Utah fought for their logos, won, and were reimbursed by the NCAA for their legal costs. There were also no reprisals against their student athletes. Nichol claimed in his statement to the College community that we were at risk of paying legal fees and NCAA threast to our student athletes. As usual, none of that was true.
— MacSuile Dec 10, 08:53 AM #
The schools that fought the logo decision were able to do so because the tribe of native americans that they were named after was still around to sanction the use of their name. So the FLorida State Seminoles were ok because the Seminole tribe supported them. Yet the Fighting Illinis of Illinois were not able to keep their name because all of the Illinis had been killed off. WM has no name-sake tribe and there are no federally recognized tribes that WM can claim a connection to and thus get sanction.
Hell, I bet that if Nichol had fought the issue with the NCAA, the same folks who attack him now would attack him then, saying he was wasting money on the lawsuit. Probably something akin to “a frivolous lawsuit by Trial Lawyer Nichol.” You guys are sad.
— dave s Dec 10, 09:46 AM #
MacSuite is Right. Dave S — the Native American tribes near Williamsburg had no problem with the logo or the “Tribe” name. Nichol caved, despite the fact that any incurred legal fees would have been the responsibility of the NCAA to pay, not W&M. Just another example of his PC agenda
— GoTribe Dec 10, 10:17 AM #
Come on, Dave. Quit demonstrating your lack of life experience. Nichol is not worthy of your blind support. W&M can easily claim a connection to the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indians. They are the descendants of the Powhatans. Besides, all of this PC-driven espongement of Indian symbols in athletic team logos is driven by white, ACLU lawyers in DC, not by Indian tribes.
— MacSuile Dec 10, 10:31 AM #
Maybe I’m too young to understand how fun the culture wars can be and am guilty of a “lack of life experience,” but could somebody explain why working to make every American feel welcome in this country is an evil agenda?
The second word in the acronym PC is “correctness,” which implies to me the restoration of minority rights.
— John Lightfoot Dec 10, 10:36 AM #
I have not decided yet how much I care, but the new logo is boring, out of proportion, and definitely lacks mass appeal. The M is merely an upside-down Caslonesque W, and the ampersand is too small and smushed. In the chosen typeface the W has distinctive slopes not seen in the M of the same genre. Making the W into an M, or visa versa, looks funny because we have seen these letters all of our lives and our eyes recognize them as wrong. And the ampersand is a full-height character normally, so it looks odd to have it be half-sized. If the logo wants to be traditional, it should follow the rules of design for that era. If the logo wants to be modern, that is fine too, but this version just looks like a bad marriage of the two styles. It does indeed look like a high school kid was set loose on a PC loaded up with lots of fonts. On second thought, a high school kid would have done a better job. Maybe we should go minimalist and have no logo at all — like the Beatles’ white album (or Spinal Tap’s Smell the Glove)? That is ultimately where this trend leads. Or how about just a big green dot on each helmet? No one could objective to that. Maybe put a gold dot on the other side of the helmet. Voila! Problem solved (unless some people object to those colors or feel left out by the oversight of not including certain other colors).
— Dirk Dec 10, 10:51 AM #