Student involvement shouldn't stop with logo change
Tweet
Despite the movement toward change in the U.S., change will not come to MSU in the form of a logo.
A revised logo found on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web site a few weeks ago was met with large public outcry and protesting. Athletics Director Mark Hollis announced in an open letter Friday that “after careful consideration,” the athletics department will use the current Spartans logo design “to build (MSU’s) visual brand identity.” Although many students are excited their beloved logo will not be tampered with, others are excited to see their voices being heard.
As the ones that will be wearing the new designs to games and around campus, students are especially defensive of the current logo. Hollis said the logo change was part of a “comprehensive brand and identity project” to fully be revealed in April, which the athletics department will continue to develop. Although a new look seems to make many Spartans uneasy, the idea of a unified brand should be embraced. It’s well-known that of the 25 varsity teams, few share a unified look when it comes to uniforms. Hollis has the right idea by trying to unify the teams’ looks, and students should continue to wait until the final package is unveiled in April before making their final judgements. Until then, the excitement for a new look should stick around long enough to see what Hollis and Nike have in store for MSU sports teams.
Although Hollis and MSU athletics might have underestimated the outrage the new logo caused, Hollis handled the issue in a responsible and objective manner. Without making the decision an issue of pride, Hollis chose to react in a responsive and calculated way. He clearly took the time to make the decision he did, while continuing to stay on the path to making a stronger national identity for MSU.
Hollis also seems to have taken the opinions of the students into consideration when making his decision. This is a positive sign that students should have faith that the athletics department has their best interest at heart.
For many students, the issue might not have been about the logo, but rather about students getting their voices heard for decisions that directly affect them. The decision to retain the old logo shows that the administration will listen if students vocalize their opinions instead of just getting angry. But although Spartans might be patting themselves on the back for unifying in the fight against the new logo, all the Facebook groups, letters to the athletics department and letters to The State News are part of only one fight.
If students feel strongly about a particular issue, more effort needs to be put into getting their views across. The level of persistence and enthusiasm used to keep the old logo also should be applied to pressing issues such as MSU’s dropped academic programs and financial aid cuts, for instance.
Hopefully, when student action is needed in the future, students will respond in the same way. They should take note the power of their voice and band together to see that major changes at MSU don’t go unnoticed.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
student activist
(02/09/10 9:19pm)Report
So, let me make sure I have this right: yesterday’s editorial blasted students for protesting budget cuts to higher education and unfair cuts to particular disciplines on campus. And today’s says that students need to get MORE involved…in our logo. As though what matters most on this campus is what our logo looks like. We’ll have a respectable looking Spartan head even if we don’t have any programs left to enroll in, or people left to teach our classes.
A little perspective, please??
KJ Green
(02/10/10 3:54pm)Report
@student activist:
You must not have read the same editorial I did. The one I read suggested that students offer the same passion and energy on other important issues as they did on the logo. I didn’t see anything that suggested “that students need to get MORE involved…in our logo” as your comment did.
There is no inconsistency between the two editorials — they both make extremely valid points regarding students making an impact on today’s issues.
August Spies
(02/10/10 4:49pm)Report
@KJ Green
Care to elaborate on just what, “extremely valid points,” the state news has made? To me, they’ve only reemphasized the points that a) they’re in bed with administration and b) they’re as detached as ever from the student body.
Your incapacity to see the blatant irony in denouncing student activism one day, and calling for more of it the next, perhaps stems from the recent cuts to the humanities: i.e. you never learned how to be a critical thinker. ;]
I’m tickled by the psychoanalysis of Hollis’ decision making process. The man is making a decision to, “build visual brand identity.” There was no consideration beyond economics – dollars and cents… just like everyone at the administrative level.
KJ Green
(02/10/10 6:46pm)Report
@August Spies:
What editorial did you read yesterday? Although it questioned the effectiveness of the protests, it did not denounce student activism or protest. In addition to suggesting alternative channels to voice concerns, it suggested getting more focused and organized in messaging in order to be more effective. I see no blatant irony between the two columns.
To help you understand what I viewed as valid points let me summarize to what I was referring.
Main point of yesterday’s op-ed: Effective protests need to be focused, informed, and organized.
Main point of today’s op-ed: Students need to bring the same level of passion to advocate on future issues as they did with the logo issue.
Both columns suffered from using far too many words to make their points. Taken individually, some of these words may be interpreted as contradictory. However, in my opinion, the overall points of the two editorials seem to supplement and not oppose the other.