Crusaders Retired

[valpo64]

The change is a joke.  Those if you who are offended need to get a life .  If you are offended, that is YOUR problem...not the University's, not mine.  Isn't it amazing how that for all of these past decades it wasn't as problem, or a very small one at best, for those who constantly find fault with something or someone.  I would guess that 90% or better of the student body, alumni and the public in general  don't even know what some people are talking about when it comes to the "crusader" being offensive.  I would guess that the next big name change will involve the Anaheim Angels Major League baseball team because surely some of those people affiliated with that organization don't and haven't always behaved "like angels".

It is a shame that some of those who think they know it all and want to impose their knowledge and themselves  on the rest of us have so much influence in today's world.

Oh, and by the way, have you heard about all those bad personal traits of Martin Luther?  Time for another name change.

[mp91]

The change is a joke.  Those if you who are offended need to get a life .  If you are offended, that is YOUR problem...not the University's, not mine.  Isn't it amazing how that for all of these past decades it wasn't as problem, or a very small one at best, for those who constantly find fault with something or someone.  I would guess that 90% or better of the student body, alumni and the public in general  don't even know what some people are talking about when it comes to the "crusader" being offensive.  I would guess that the next big name change will involve the Anaheim Angels Major League baseball team because surely some of those people affiliated with that organization don't and haven't always behaved "like angels".

It is a shame that some of those who think they know it all and want to impose their knowledge and themselves  on the rest of us have so much influence in today's world.

Oh, and by the way, have you heard about all those bad personal traits of Martin Luther?  Time for another name change.

You are incorrect – it is the University's problem. Universities are businesses. Education is the product of the business. Like any other company, if a business has a problem that is affecting its bottom line, it needs to make changes. Point blank. It's very simple. They are not changing the name just for fun, it has a purpose. They made the decision that the negative connotation/perception of the name was negatively influencing the University to the point that it needed to be changed to prevent further bad PR, student backlash, and economic damages. So yes, whether people are offended is in fact the University's problem. The Washington football team did not change their name until there were economic consequences, then they changed. Should they have changed sooner? Definitely. But the bottom line is the economics played a major factor. Similarly, here, the University has to look out for its future, both in terms of perception and economics.

It should also be the alumni's problem because you don't want your university being looked down upon. You're right, not everyone is offended, but that's not the point. Much like no one can tell you what to be offended by, no one can tell another person what NOT to be offended by. Context matters. History matters. Perception matters. The world doesn't revolve around one person or one group. Just because you're not offended doesn't mean your opinion means more than someone else who is offended. The University has to consider everyone's opinions.

And, for those talking about the "historic affinity" for the term "Crusaders." Not really sure where this is coming from. The University began phasing out the term on sweatshirts and promotions over two years ago and none of you guys noticed. So, your "affinity" must not be that strong.... Not to mention, fear of changing just because "that's the way it's always been" is usually not the strongest of arguments.

[JD24]

Humbleopinion - when Stephen F. Austin State University hired a marketing company to change their logo, it cost 1.6 million dollars. After expenses, you would have to have a delta of more like 50 students going 4 years to cover on this expense. Improve the overall quality and experience of the university and the finances, enrollment and status will improve. Changing the mascot name will have negligible impact in the near and long term. Valparaiso is not focused on the right issues.

Heard similar things about Virginia Tech and U. South Florida. 

University of South Florida? Was the cow population up in arms? USF has been the Bulls for, I think, the entirety of the existance of the sports programs. Perhaps you mean Florida State (Seminoles)?

[valpotx]

The transparency argument is weak. As has been stated by several people on this message board, the University has reviewed the name during each of the last three decades. And, there are several newspaper articles that have written about this review. So, this is not something new. The University has been transparent over the last three decades about reviewing the name. Not sure why everyone is suddenly surprised when it is finally changed.

Similarly, part of the reason the actual Crusader symbology was phased out was also because of marketing. The actual crusader symbol is not strongly tied to the University in the same way that  the term Valpo is. 50% of people watching us on ESPN probably don't even know the nickname if asked. It's not like we are the Blue Devils or a nickname that is popularized. Logically, if Valpo is your strongest branding, why not go with that on merchandise?

The so-called "political" argument is also very tired. Not really sure how eliminating a nickname partially tied to religious massacres and hate groups is political. Is there any politician in favor of religious massacre symbology? No. So, it's not political. It's cultural. If the nickname is turning away students, why not change it? Still haven't gotten a good answer. Cmack's points are very valid.

People should check out this article, lots of great points made
https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/college/valparaiso-university/watch-now-valparaiso-alumni-react-to-retiring-of-crusader-mascot-whats-the-problem-with-changing/article_06f06acd-dbe7-5b0f-9a33-253833d7f820.html

The political argument is very real.  It may tire you out, and I can respect that, but for many folks, it is real.  Do things only matter when you are offended, and are 'tiring' when you agree with a decision?  You can't have it both ways, where things make sense when you agree, and when you have discourse, it is unwarranted.  You are telling me that you feel it was necessary to include a far left political activist in the actual video for such a divisive message, when they are not an employee of the university?  In a best case scenario, that is really poor planning, as her political views are easy to access.  There was no reason to have a separate section just for her, if you didn't even have such a section for a Faculty representative, if the intent was to show Student & Faculty support.  Her role as the current SBP is inconsequential to such a decision that affects so many people, so the only reason I can see that she was needed on video, was that the university is potentially taking a turn towards the left end of the political spectrum.  I can tell you that the word Crusader is not listed as an offensive term in my company's Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion guidance, and when I asked other members of my HR team if they were offended by the word, the response was a resounding 'no, as it can mean something different nowadays, versus 1,000 years ago.'

As for others that question whether our/my stance would change on donations, if the message was delivered differently, yes, it would be different for me.  If it was just a simple worded statement that the student senate supports the change, versus having a political activist talk about how a Crusader can be tied to hate, etc, I would be more onboard with this direction.  As it was presented to me, this was a message that might be put out by an Oberlin College, Loyola (IL), etc, and I don't support institutions with such a liberal lean.  So yes, it can be political. 

[wh]

I hate the result, so I'll attack the process.

In all due respect, cmack, the same claim could be made about you:

"I LIKE the result, so I'll DEFEND the process."

In any problem solving model the validity of the process determines the validity of the solution. If the process is flawed, the solution is flawed. Even if the process is properly designed but isn't properly followed, the solution is flawed. If key stakeholders were in fact excluded from expressing their opinions, either intentionally or accidentally, the solution is invalid. Why? Because we'll never know if the decision reflects the true feelings of the majority of key stakeholders. The orchestrators will forever have a credibility problem. Honesty and integrity are hard to earn but easy to lose. Whether that translates into reduced financial support, only time will tell.

[humbleopinion]

Mention has been made on this board - several times - that the Crusader name has been tied to hate groups.  Which ones?  I'd like some specifics. I don't spend my time scouring the internet to see what is has to say about the name "Crusader."

The only hate group I'm aware of that has made mention of the Crusader name is the KKK, which apparently has a newspaper with that name.  But so does a Chicago publication that caters to African-American communities. 

Paul

If you really want to explore this, here is an article:

http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/641/pdf

[mp91]

First, Stephen F Austin is an entirely different situation. They changed a logo, not a nickname. This was a very minor change so it's no wonder that the result was minor. It was not related to the team's name and was not heavily influenced by controversial nicknames. So, it's really a false equivalency.

Secondly, Valpotx, I have no idea what you are referencing in terms of radicals on a video. And, not sure what that has to do with a name change. Seems like a completely different matter. In terms of the nickname, how is it political? If you believe liberals are against the nickname/symbol, then are you telling me conservatives like symbols that could be interpreted as symbols of religious massacres or hate groups? Of course not. Conservatives are not in favor of massacres. So, how is it political? The answer is: it's not. The name was changed because of its cultural perception to some and because of its impact on recruiting new students and because of PR. That's not politics.

Finally, Wh, not sure what process you believe was improper. The University publicly said it was reviewing the name each of the last three decades. Then, they sent out a poll to alumni. So, what is the great travesty of process you are talking about? They did not just change the name overnight. It was the result of several reviews and alumni input.

[wh]

Finally, Wh, not sure what process you believe was improper. The University publicly said it was reviewing the name each of the last three decades. Then, they sent out a poll to alumni. So, what is the great travesty of process you are talking about? They did not just change the name overnight. It was the result of several reviews and alumni input.

I was assuming everyone has been following this thread from the beginning, but maybe you haven't. Several posters have indicated that they did not receive any information about this, survey or otherwise. Let me add that neither my son nor I were invited to participate in a survey. My son is a graduate of the law school. My wife and I are longstanding donors, who make annual gifts and occasional 1-time gifts in response to special appeals. The university has my email address, my home address, my business address, and my cell phone number. Why weren't we extended the courtesy of being asked for our opinions?

[mp91]

Finally, Wh, not sure what process you believe was improper. The University publicly said it was reviewing the name each of the last three decades. Then, they sent out a poll to alumni. So, what is the great travesty of process you are talking about? They did not just change the name overnight. It was the result of several reviews and alumni input.

I was assuming everyone has been following this thread from the beginning, but maybe you haven't. Several posters have indicated that they did not receive any information about this, survey or otherwise. Let me add that neither my son nor I were invited to participate in a survey. My son is a graduate of the law school. My wife and I are longstanding donors, who make annual gifts and occasional 1-time gifts in response to special appeals. The university has my email address, my home address, my business address, and my cell phone number. Why weren't we extended the courtesy of being asked for our opinions?

All I can tell you is everyone I know got the survey. In fact, I didn't fill it out at first, I was even given a reminder email. In an ideal world, every alumni should have had input. But, it's probably logistically impossible. From everything I have read, nearly 8000 people did the survey. While it would've been nice if it was everyone, that's a pretty good sample size.

[valpofb16]

i'm telling you MP91 is Interim President Knotte! trying to save donations!

[JD24]

As a general rule, surveys/polls/votes are not necessarily good sources for decisions on changing mascots/nicknames, etc and for a variety of reasons.

[M]

It was those damn Dominion machines they used to tally up the surveys. 

[mj]

So, what is the great travesty of process you are talking about? They did not just change the name overnight. It was the result of several reviews and alumni input.

Right, the university started removing the Crusader in 2018 but wouldn't come out and admit that for fear of backlash. They then issued a survey but wouldn't release the results. They had a committee but haven't released the names of members or any reports that were generated. How is that an acceptable process? Can you see why some people might not appreciate the lack of candor Valpo displayed.

[valpopal]

I was assuming everyone has been following this thread from the beginning, but maybe you haven't. Several posters have indicated that they did not receive any information about this, survey or otherwise. Let me add that neither my son nor I were invited to participate in a survey. My son is a graduate of the law school. My wife and I are longstanding donors, who make annual gifts and occasional 1-time gifts in response to special appeals. The university has my email address, my home address, my business address, and my cell phone number. Why weren't we extended the courtesy of being asked for our opinions?

All I can tell you is everyone I know got the survey. In fact, I didn't fill it out at first, I was even given a reminder email. In an ideal world, every alumni should have had input. But, it's probably logistically impossible. From everything I have read, nearly 8000 people did the survey. While it would've been nice if it was everyone, that's a pretty good sample size.

Watch the announcement video. The only mention of the survey is that 7700 people responded—not even a complete sentence. As biased as it was, no details about results or analysis were offered, no comprehensive task force report delivered, no supporting data. There was no time for evaluation between the survey and the announcement. As others indicate, it was a sham, a pretense to give cover. The lack of respect for students, fans, and alumni who have served in various capacities under the name of the Crusader in numerous organizations and sports throughout the past 80 years was stunning. They were thrown under the bus as the Crusader was tied to hate groups or the KKK, yet not a single comment of appreciation for the 8 decades of good work by so many as Crusaders. In fact, the tone of the announcement clearly suggested anyone opposing the change or perhaps continuing to wear Crusader sweatshirts ought to be shamed. If you look at comments in social media, you see this happening. Some on here and elsewhere have mentioned their refusal to contribute to conversations online at the university site or apparently Paul Oren's Facebook page because of the toxic responses others have received. The Torch article about the announcement quotes a student athlete who opposed the change, but he would only speak under the condition of anonymity for fear of doxxing and backlash.   

[valpofb16]

Would a petition for a name return and president Knotte's resignation gain steam?

[Pgmado]

I was assuming everyone has been following this thread from the beginning, but maybe you haven't. Several posters have indicated that they did not receive any information about this, survey or otherwise. Let me add that neither my son nor I were invited to participate in a survey. My son is a graduate of the law school. My wife and I are longstanding donors, who make annual gifts and occasional 1-time gifts in response to special appeals. The university has my email address, my home address, my business address, and my cell phone number. Why weren't we extended the courtesy of being asked for our opinions?

All I can tell you is everyone I know got the survey. In fact, I didn't fill it out at first, I was even given a reminder email. In an ideal world, every alumni should have had input. But, it's probably logistically impossible. From everything I have read, nearly 8000 people did the survey. While it would've been nice if it was everyone, that's a pretty good sample size.

Watch the announcement video. The only mention of the survey is that 7700 people responded—not even a complete sentence. As biased as it was, no details about results or analysis were offered, no comprehensive task force report delivered, no supporting data. There was no time for evaluation between the survey and the announcement. As others indicate, it was a sham, a pretense to give cover. The lack of respect for students, fans, and alumni who have served in various capacities under the name of the Crusader in numerous organizations and sports throughout the past 80 years was stunning. They were thrown under the bus as the Crusader was tied to hate groups or the KKK, yet not a single comment of appreciation for the 8 decades of good work by so many as Crusaders. In fact, the tone of the announcement clearly suggested anyone opposing the change or perhaps continuing to wear Crusader sweatshirts ought to be shamed. If you look at comments in social media, you see this happening. Some on here and elsewhere have mentioned their refusal to contribute to conversations online at the university site or apparently Paul Oren's Facebook page because of the toxic responses others have received. The Torch article about the announcement quotes a student athlete who opposed the change, but he would only speak under the condition of anonymity for fear of doxxing and backlash.   

I enjoy starting conversations on Facebook because, unlike many friends and family I have, I have tried to build a network of people who have thoughts that spread across the political aisles. If you know me personally, you know that I'm always trying to get to the other side of a problem or a disagreement, so I can see how the other side views something. I think the fact I'm a child of divorce plays a big role in this. Very rarely in life do I believe things are black and white. I get criticized for this because people want me to take hard stands on issues, like they want me to throw Lottich under the bus. I spend most of my time in the middle. It's not that I don't stand for things, I stand for plenty, but I'm always more interested in the debate that comes before the resolution.

Now, as for the thread that Mark referenced on FB, here was my question...

"Many are saying that the "Crusader" represents oppression. The opponents of this are flabbergasted that a mascot or symbol could mean that much. They can't understand how someone might be offended.
Yet, many of these people are the same ones who were offended when athletes were kneeling for the anthem.
So help me out. Are symbols not worth getting offended over or are they?"

There are 87 comments and many of them are very civil. Like many social media conversations, there is/was an offshoot of people taking potshots at one another. I wouldn't call it toxic by any means. Mark and I, who have known each other for 20 years, have also been in contact and I'm hoping to further the conversation. 

[mj]

Would a petition for a name return and president Knotte's resignation gain steam?

No. President Padilla takes over in 2 weeks. VU isn't going to walk this back either. It's better to push for  an open and fair process in picking the new mascot.
Although they said a new committee will be formed, we've seen how that's gone in the past...

[valpotx]

First, Stephen F Austin is an entirely different situation. They changed a logo, not a nickname. This was a very minor change so it's no wonder that the result was minor. It was not related to the team's name and was not heavily influenced by controversial nicknames. So, it's really a false equivalency.

Secondly, Valpotx, I have no idea what you are referencing in terms of radicals on a video. And, not sure what that has to do with a name change. Seems like a completely different matter. In terms of the nickname, how is it political? If you believe liberals are against the nickname/symbol, then are you telling me conservatives like symbols that could be interpreted as symbols of religious massacres or hate groups? Of course not. Conservatives are not in favor of massacres. So, how is it political? The answer is: it's not. The name was changed because of its cultural perception to some and because of its impact on recruiting new students and because of PR. That's not politics.

Finally, Wh, not sure what process you believe was improper. The University publicly said it was reviewing the name each of the last three decades. Then, they sent out a poll to alumni. So, what is the great travesty of process you are talking about? They did not just change the name overnight. It was the result of several reviews and alumni input.

The Student Body President, a known far left political activist, was given prominent positioning on the video announcement, as to show tacit acknowledgement that her views are reflected by the university.  She would not take umbrage with my classification of her as a political activist, as I believe that she has used the term previously, nor is my use of those words tied to any bias against folks that are political activists for their causes.  However, her views are so far to the left, that it caused me to think of the political nature tied to the announcement, as if the university feels that her views represent the views of our university/alumni population.  It essentially seems like a victory parade for her and her far left views, which I do not support.  I don't see how that is confusing.  No one is saying mass murder is supported by any political party.  What I had thought that I was clearly saying, is that the SBP's presence on the video announcement, forces me to think of it in a political nature, as her presence was not required on that video message.  I don't care about the actual name of our mascot, but I do care about how my undergraduate program aligns on the political spectrum publicly.  My MBA program, TCU, is still very much aligned with my more moderate conservative views, and if Valpo is going to turn more liberal, my donations will move over to TCU.

[a3uge]

Would a petition for a name return and president Knotte's resignation gain steam?

No. President Padilla takes over in 2 weeks. VU isn't going to walk this back either. It's better to push for  an open and fair process in picking the new mascot.
Although they said a new committee will be formed, we've seen how that's gone in the past...

How do we push for a process that results in a name that isn't completely lame or generic? I guess the best course of action in 2021 is to make sure the people we disagree with or make dumb decisions lose their livelihood and lose their jobs.

[M]

Maybe reach out and ask how to be put in the committee.

[usc4valpo]

Mp91 - a mascot name change will have minimal effect on Valpo's business status. Since you brought the business perspective up, why doesn't the Valpo focus on getting the balance sheets sorted out and provide a basketball program and facility comparable to the MVC?

Too much energy spent on trivial matters. Valpo has bigger issues than this.

[cmack]

cmack, if you have an issue with the name crusaders being tied to KKK then Valpo should move all crosses from campus immediately?

See what we are getting at.

No, not at all. This is the most bizarre take I've heard yet.  Just wow.  🤦🏼‍♂️

[FieldGoodie05]

Mp91 - a mascot name change will have minimal effect on Valpo's business status. Since you brought the business perspective up, why doesn't the Valpo focus on getting the balance sheets sorted out and provide a basketball program and facility comparable to the MVC?

Too much energy spent on trivial matters. Valpo has bigger issues than this.

Our leaders (business & political) have run out of problems they feel they can tackle during their tenure.  It's altogether too easy to ignore the long and difficult projects in favor of quick hitting, inconsequential projects such as mascots (pro or collegiate).

In this one regard democracies fall short, short term solutions to long term problems.  We no longer have leaders who expect to be at the helm for careers, so what incentives do they have to effect '10-years out' if they'll be on their third job?

[usc4valpo]

Just because you are student council does not imply you are a bastion of wisdom. It was similar to when I was at Valpo almost 40 years ago, and honestly I didn't have time for that stuff working on a EE degree and preparing for Friday's Happy Hour.


Now let's starting the new arena and make Valpo basketball great again!

[valpotx]

Just because you are student council does not imply you are a bastion of wisdom. It was similar to when I was at Valpo almost 40 years ago, and honestly I didn't have time for that stuff working on a EE degree and preparing for Friday's Happy Hour.


Now let's starting the new arena and make Valpo basketball great again!

I'd be curious what the voting turnout is for positions such as Student Senate or Student Body President at Valpo.