Crusaders Retired

[valpo64]

Ah yes...those comments definitely prove why we needed a new mascot and kickname.

[wh]

IMO, Valpo's student diversity is minimally acceptable. That said, Valpo's faculty racial mix is deplorable, at best. Black and Hispanic professors are so underrepresented (1.7% and 2.1%, respectively) that the numbers look like what I would have expected 30 or 40 years ago.

How ironic that the very people championing the cause about a mascot name under the banner of religious sensitivity are in fact poster children for "white privilege." Oh, and let me not forget to include the all-caring white male campus reverend that's been chirping about this.

These people should be a living example of workplace diversity. They should set the tone and lead the charge on hiring diversity. The number of minority staff members should be well above legally mandated levels in order to show true commitment to the cause of organizational diversity.

They should be that "beacon light that guides freedom loving people everywhere." But they're not. They're just run-of-the-mill workplace complainers, cherry-picking a minutiae social justice cause while daily benefiting from social injustice on an infinitely larger scale.

BTW I would love to know the racial demographics of the neighborhoods where these social justice warriors live and their children attend school. I'll guarantee they have white privilege written all over them.

[mp91]

Statistics discussed on here about struggles of diversity specifically at Valpo and also across all campuses actually support the name change. If diversity is a problem, why not try to change that by as many means as possible? Why just sit idly by and be like "well, other places are super white too, so let's do nothing about it"? That's not the type of values the University preaches, so if they are going to stand by these principles, they should also act to further them. And yes, faculty should be more diverse as well, great point on here. A mascot change should just be the tip of the iceberg and should be supported by other initiatives, like more diverse faculty.

Just to explore the diversity point a little more. Here are some actual facts that show schools Valpo competes with for students and how they are stacked up in terms of  student population diversity:

Valpo: 71% white
UW-Milwaukee: 66.7% white
Evansville: 65.7% white
Southern Illinois: 64.6% white
Indiana State: 63.9% white
Detroit Mercy: 60.5% white
Bradley: 56.9% white
Loyola Chicago: 56% white
Depaul: 54% white
Washington University-St. Louis: 53.2%
UIC: 32% white

As you can tell, Valpo is still on the wrong side of the spectrum. Now, don't get me wrong, there are certainly schools that are worse than Valpo, like Missouri State, Ball State, and St. Louis University to name a few. But, this clearly shows that Valpo should still continue to prioritize diversity. A mascot/nickname change is no panacea. It's not suddenly going to make up for other mistakes made by the administration. But it is a symbolic step in the right direction to try to make the campus more inclusive.

So, why not change? Taking out the process argument for a second because I understand that perspective (although I disagree with it because whether the review took two more years or two more months, the outcome was still going to be the same given the support for the name change from students/alumni overall). But, leaving that aside for right now... If you can do something small, why not? Why not take positive steps to change the University's public perception? Not sure how this is a bad thing.

[valpo95]

IMO, Valpo's student diversity is minimally acceptable. That said, Valpo's faculty racial mix is deplorable, at best. Black and Hispanic professors are so underrepresented (1.7% and 2.1%, respectively) that the numbers look like what I would have expected 30 or 40 years ago.

This discussion should be about the mascot.

There is a diversity problem in higher education, yet it is not easy to fix for any college or university. Although the USA is about 18.5% Hispanic/Latino and 13.4% Black/African American, the numbers in the sciences are much lower. For example, according to the NSF https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/sere/2018/html/sere18-dt-tab004.html from 2008-2018, the fraction of Bachelor's degrees in Engineering awarded to US citizens was 10.2% (Hispanic/Latino), and 4.3% (Black/African American). If you look at Physics, the numbers are 7.6% (Hispanic/Latino) and 3.0% (Black/African American). This means that the pool of potential applicants to PhD programs in such fields (and hence future professors) is going to look far less diverse than the average population.

[valpopal]

Just to explore the diversity point a little more. Here are some actual facts that show schools Valpo competes with for students and how they are stacked up in terms of  student population diversity:

Valpo: 71% white
UW-Milwaukee: 66.7% white
Evansville: 65.7% white
Southern Illinois: 64.6% white
Indiana State: 63.9% white
Detroit Mercy: 60.5% white
Bradley: 56.9% white
Loyola Chicago: 56% white
Depaul: 54% white
Washington University-St. Louis: 53.2%
UIC: 32% white

As you can tell, Valpo is still on the wrong side of the spectrum. Now, don't get me wrong, there are certainly schools that are worse than Valpo, like Missouri State, Ball State, and St. Louis University to name a few. But, this clearly shows that Valpo should still continue to prioritize diversity. A mascot/nickname change is no panacea. It's not suddenly going to make up for other mistakes made by the administration. But it is a symbolic step in the right direction to try to make the campus more inclusive.

As we learned in statistics classes, you must look at underlying causes before coming to conclusions. Otherwise, the numbers are basically meaningless. If you look at the examples shown, almost all the other schools are in larger urban areas: Milwaukee 590,000; Evansville 120,000; St. Louis 300,000; Detroit 3,550,000; Chicago 2,700,000; Peoria 115,000. Only Terre Haute (61,000) and Carbondale (30,000) come close to Valparaiso (33,000), but both of those are state universities rather than religious private universities. Additionally, some of those cities have large percentages of African American residents—Detroit is 78% compared to Valparaiso's 3.5%—including Carbondale at 25%. None of this is going to be impacted in any way by a change of mascot. Empty symbolism is nothing more than virtue signaling.

[mp91]

IMO, Valpo's student diversity is minimally acceptable. That said, Valpo's faculty racial mix is deplorable, at best. Black and Hispanic professors are so underrepresented (1.7% and 2.1%, respectively) that the numbers look like what I would have expected 30 or 40 years ago.

This discussion should be about the mascot.

There is a diversity problem in higher education, yet it is not easy to fix for any college or university. Although the USA is about 18.5% Hispanic/Latino and 13.4% Black/African American, the numbers in the sciences are much lower. For example, according to the NSF https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/sere/2018/html/sere18-dt-tab004.html from 2008-2018, the fraction of Bachelor's degrees in Engineering awarded to US citizens was 10.2% (Hispanic/Latino), and 4.3% (Black/African American). If you look at Physics, the numbers are 7.6% (Hispanic/Latino) and 3.0% (Black/African American). This means that the pool of potential applicants to PhD programs in such fields (and hence future professors) is going to look far less diverse than the average population.

This discussion is about the mascot. One of the reasons why the mascot should be changed is to be more welcoming to people of diverse backgrounds. They are directly linked. Having a mascot that makes some from diverse backgrounds uncomfortable is directly juxtaposed to improving diversity.

And yes, it is a problem for nearly every school. There are also geographical and population influences. Although, just because it is a problem for many should not alleviate Valpo from trying to be better in that area. And, if you look at the statistics, from student population to faculty, Valpo is struggling with diversity in comparison to comparable universes. That's just a fact. This mascot change is a small step in trying to be more inclusive. Again, it's just one of many steps they need to take. But it's a start.

[VUOR63]

Scrolling through the comments it reads to me that alumni who don't like the change are critical of the weak administration bending to the desires and feigned outrage of a small group of people.  The virtues being signaled by the outspoken group wanting the Crusader to go away have very little substance behind them.  Somehow the problems that these people face are so very severe that the solution is a small college in Northwest Indiana changing its mascot?  Boy, there are people I've come across in my adult and professional life who would love to have problems with solutions like that!

Fact of the matter is, this modernist movement that has infiltrated VU and many other established institutions is a perpetually offended group of people who will only be happy when their actions are accepted by people who are morally opposed to what they are doing.  When the key to your happiness is being accepted by others, you will never be happy and, furthermore, you have likely not accepted yourself.

The best action the University could have taken is to level up and be honest with these people by saying that the offense they are taking is a choice and they need to choose not to be offended and, if necessary, part ways.  Unfortunately, they chose the path of least resistance and catered to this perpetually offended group of people.  This mascot change just kicks the proverbial can further down the road as the anti-Crusaders will only be appeased for a short time before finding another more substantial aspect of the university to be offended by and attack. 

We'll only know for sure in time but I think the University is unaware that their chosen path is communicating a choice to part ways with many of the alumni who are silently going about their lives being the best professionals, spouses and parents--basically the new age Crusaders crusading by example.

[mp91]

Just to explore the diversity point a little more. Here are some actual facts that show schools Valpo competes with for students and how they are stacked up in terms of  student population diversity:

Valpo: 71% white
UW-Milwaukee: 66.7% white
Evansville: 65.7% white
Southern Illinois: 64.6% white
Indiana State: 63.9% white
Detroit Mercy: 60.5% white
Bradley: 56.9% white
Loyola Chicago: 56% white
Depaul: 54% white
Washington University-St. Louis: 53.2%
UIC: 32% white

As you can tell, Valpo is still on the wrong side of the spectrum. Now, don't get me wrong, there are certainly schools that are worse than Valpo, like Missouri State, Ball State, and St. Louis University to name a few. But, this clearly shows that Valpo should still continue to prioritize diversity. A mascot/nickname change is no panacea. It's not suddenly going to make up for other mistakes made by the administration. But it is a symbolic step in the right direction to try to make the campus more inclusive.

As we learned in statistics classes, you must look at underlying causes before coming to conclusions. Otherwise, the numbers are basically meaningless. If you look at the examples shown, almost all the other schools are in larger urban areas: Milwaukee 590,000; Evansville 120,000; St. Louis 300,000; Detroit 3,550,000; Chicago 2,700,000; Peoria 115,000. Only Terre Haute (61,000) and Carbondale (30,000) come close to Valparaiso (33,000), but both of those are state universities rather than religious private universities. Additionally, some of those cities have large percentages of African American residents—Detroit is 78% compared to Valparaiso's 3.5%—including Carbondale at 25%. None of this is going to be impacted in any way by a change of mascot. Empty symbolism is nothing more than virtue signaling.

Of course, there are several factors at play, from geography to population demographics. But, these are the universities Valpo is competing with. No matter their location. So, that's why they were chosen. You have to look at Valpo's competition. Most of our competition is not private religious institution, its other Midwestern institutions of similar stature. That's what most of these universities are. Similarly, most of Valpo's students don't come from the town of Valparaiso. They are drawing people from Milwaukee, St. Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, etc. Another reason why the schools were chosen.

When you're comparing institutions, you can't just compare the demographics of the city they are in. You have to look at the bigger picture. So yes, you are right, you have to look at specific comparables. That's what I did. (PS – that's not what virtue signaling is).

And, as for vuor63, telling people that they should just "choose not to be offended" is ridiculous. We have no right to tell someone else how they should feel. That's like saying people who are LGBT should just "choose to be straight." Or that people who are Republican should just "choose to be Democrats." You are what you are and everyone has a right to their own opinions.Much the same way everyone has an opinion on this matter. Everyone should respect another person's opinion and feel free to debate the merits in a respectable way. You can't just say being offended is your problem so we should just ignore every single person who was ever offended.

It's also funny that you are complaining about people being offended when you are in fact are  offended, complaining about the mascot change. You say it's a "modernist movement" but the name has been reviewed dating back to the 90s, it's nothing new. The name change has a purpose. You act like people just wake up in the morning looking for something to protest against. That's not true and it's belittling to those who have been ignored.

You say you have seen little substantial arguments but the same could be said for you. You have offered no substantive argument. All you have said is we should ignore people's opinions.

[Pgmado]

https://omny.fm/shows/union-street-hoops/bonus-interview-kaitlyn-steinhiser

[valpopal]

None of this is going to be impacted in any way by a change of mascot. Empty symbolism is nothing more than virtue signaling.

(PS – that's not what virtue signaling is).

Empty symbolism absolutely fits the "virtue signaling" definition in the Urban Dictionary: "To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are."

[vu72]

The new President is Hispanic.  A coincidence?

[mp91]

None of this is going to be impacted in any way by a change of mascot. Empty symbolism is nothing more than virtue signaling.

(PS – that's not what virtue signaling is).

Empty symbolism absolutely fits the "virtue signaling" definition in the Urban Dictionary: "To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are."

I know what the definition is lol. I'm saying changing the mascot has nothing to do with proving moral superiority and is not a useless action. Changing the mascot has nothing to do with virtue signaling.

[valpotx]

For the umpteenth time, the mascot has not been 'reviewed' since the 1990s.  A news article here and there, or small numbers of upset students/faculty, does not constitute a review.

[mp91]

For the umpteenth time, the mascot has not been 'reviewed' since the 1990s.  A news article here and there, or small numbers of upset students/faculty, does not constitute a review.

You can ignore it if you want. But, if you think reviews in multiple decades means there wasn't writing on the wall, then you just haven't been paying attention.

[wh]

None of this is going to be impacted in any way by a change of mascot. Empty symbolism is nothing more than virtue signaling.

(PS – that's not what virtue signaling is).

Empty symbolism absolutely fits the "virtue signaling" definition in the Urban Dictionary: "To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are."

I know what the definition is lol. I'm saying changing the mascot has nothing to do with proving moral superiority and is not a useless action. Changing the mascot has nothing to do with virtue signaling.

I have intentionally avoided criticizing the student champion of the mascot justice crusade (pun intended). I'm sure she's had her head filled with things like critical theory, the allure of socialism 101, the evils of capitalism, how Marxism is good; it just hasn't been managed right in the past, on and on. Now she's trying to put her newfound wisdom into practice, hoping to save the country from people like me and my ilk. So, she's doing a lab titled "Save my school from its systemic bigoted self." Once she gets out in the real world and matures, most likely she'll grow out of it. The people I find disgusting are the adults, who are intentionally and publicly throwing their employer under the bus for 15 seconds of fame and a desperate attempt to fill the void in their bottomless narcissistic supply tank. Shallow, self serving, myopic, bad mannered, rebels without a (legitimate) cause.

[JD24]

Agreed with the above.  There is only so much that you can do, short of giving away scholarships specifically targeted to underrepresented populations.  Around 7% black is not too far off from the 13% of US population metric, but the Hispanic percentage can definitely use work, as it relates to the % of the US population.  Room to improve, but I wouldn't say 'low.'

Isn't 7% nearly 50% lower than the 13% black population? That's actually a fairly large differential.

Which amounts to 100 students, so not a large gap overall from an actual student count perspective. Mick, you roomed with Giancola?  Your circle of friends wasn't that far off from my circle of friends.  I know that James Park used to hang out with Giancola a lot, as well as a few other baseball players.

So because your percentage differential argument didn't work, you move to pure numbers. Nice.

[JD24]

Agreed with the above.  There is only so much that you can do, short of giving away scholarships specifically targeted to underrepresented populations.  Around 7% black is not too far off from the 13% of US population metric, but the Hispanic percentage can definitely use work, as it relates to the % of the US population.  Room to improve, but I wouldn't say 'low.'

Isn't 7% nearly 50% lower than the 13% black population? That's actually a fairly large differential.

Although the US black population is 13%, the national high school graduation rate for African Americans is 10% lower than for whites. In some states from which VU obtains its enrollment, like Wisconsin, it is nearly 25% lower. Also, 10% of African American students attend Historically Black Universities, reducing the pool for other institutions. Add the fact that Valparaiso is an expensive religious-affiliated private university not located in an urban area and situated in a conservative state, plus competing with nearby Notre Dame, Butler, IU, and Purdue, all with more national recognition, and you can see that the number of realistic possible applicants is closer to the 7% than the 13%. VU should be applauded for prioritizing diversity with numerous outreach programs, recruitment and retainment strategies, on-campus organizations, scholarship funding, and other efforts.

You can summon up all the justification you want but the poster's point about a differential of nearly 50% being "close" or whatever term was used is simply wrong or some walked past the Math building without walking in.

[valpopal]

Agreed with the above.  There is only so much that you can do, short of giving away scholarships specifically targeted to underrepresented populations.  Around 7% black is not too far off from the 13% of US population metric, but the Hispanic percentage can definitely use work, as it relates to the % of the US population.  Room to improve, but I wouldn't say 'low.'

Isn't 7% nearly 50% lower than the 13% black population? That's actually a fairly large differential.

Although the US black population is 13%, the national high school graduation rate for African Americans is 10% lower than for whites. In some states from which VU obtains its enrollment, like Wisconsin, it is nearly 25% lower. Also, 10% of African American students attend Historically Black Universities, reducing the pool for other institutions. Add the fact that Valparaiso is an expensive religious-affiliated private university not located in an urban area and situated in a conservative state, plus competing with nearby Notre Dame, Butler, IU, and Purdue, all with more national recognition, and you can see that the number of realistic possible applicants is closer to the 7% than the 13%. VU should be applauded for prioritizing diversity with numerous outreach programs, recruitment and retainment strategies, on-campus organizations, scholarship funding, and other efforts.

You can summon up all the justification you want but the poster's point about a differential of nearly 50% being "close" or whatever term was used is simply wrong or some walked past the Math building without walking in.

You have made one assumption too many since you are addressing someone who spent a lot of time in math classrooms as a major and learned how mathematical numbers, especially statistics, ought to be understood in context when applied to real-world situations, otherwise they are basically meaningless. Given the stipulations I explained in what you call a "justification," 13% of the population translates to less than 10% when considering available possible student recruits for Valparaiso. As a result, 7% is closer than the unexamined 13% number suggests. Simple numbers are not always what they appear to be. For instance, if you have a 200 sq. foot dorm room of 20 ft. by 10 ft., that is quite different from a 200 sq. foot dorm that is 100 ft. by 2 ft. One is comfortable while the other is unusable: context can matter in math. 

[valpotx]

Agreed with the above.  There is only so much that you can do, short of giving away scholarships specifically targeted to underrepresented populations.  Around 7% black is not too far off from the 13% of US population metric, but the Hispanic percentage can definitely use work, as it relates to the % of the US population.  Room to improve, but I wouldn't say 'low.'

Isn't 7% nearly 50% lower than the 13% black population? That's actually a fairly large differential.

Which amounts to 100 students, so not a large gap overall from an actual student count perspective. Mick, you roomed with Giancola?  Your circle of friends wasn't that far off from my circle of friends.  I know that James Park used to hang out with Giancola a lot, as well as a few other baseball players.

So because your percentage differential argument didn't work, you move to pure numbers. Nice.

My argument works regardless, but thanks for your opinion.  It is the same problem that companies have in hiring black STEM Engineers of various career types (I live this, if you really want to play rough).  If everyone is targeting the same D&I initiatives to increase their representation, and as Valpopal correctly points out, there is not a full representation in these career fields versus the actual US %, you can't just say 13% of the US is black, so you should have 13%+ students of that background.  As an example, if you think that 13% of Software Engineers in the US are black, you are sorely mistaken, so you have companies competing for an already small pool of candidates, thus lessening the % possibility that you can attain.

[valpotx]

https://omny.fm/shows/union-street-hoops/bonus-interview-kaitlyn-steinhiser

Always willing to listen to the other side, but the timeline that she describes will not help the thinking of those folks that thought the process was rushed lol.  I do really wish that you would have broached the topic of her sending a campus-wide email, doxing a fellow student, because of a 'like.'  That is just downright absurd, and I would love to hear why she had to name the student, versus just a general announcement tied to supported and non-supported free speech.  I would not care as much about her far left viewpoints, if it wasn't also tied to the whole doxing movement. 

[may know]

SBP says she'd refute the notion that athletes support the Crusaders based on the survey data, then immediately notes she hasn't the survey data.

Which implies the interim president told her the survey data indicates athletes don't support the Crusader, but the interim president won't share the data even with her. 

[valpotx]

Just as an fyi, I also just listened to the Hail Redacted episode, and found it funny that Kris Serra mentioned at the end, to let his kids 'see the Crusaders,' after having the opposite opinion of the mascot for much of the episode, and instead representing Valpo

[wh]

Interesting podcast interview. I did not realize she is from the Michigan City Steinhiser family, (a large clan I might add). Nice people, good citizens, hard workers. She articulated her position effectively without sounding overtly confrontational.

That said, we live in the most divisive period certainly in my lifetime. People have had a bellyful of political correctness, cancel culture, etc. To think they wouldn't connect "cancelling" the name Crusader to this radical socialist/Marxist movement is either naive or disingenuous. Whether this issue may (or may not) have been a bone of contention for 20 years or 2 years is immaterial. It's no coincidence that the university's resident social justice warriors chose to ride the current wave of radical social change to pull the trigger. Its political to its very core.

[mj]

If people keep citing the survey as one of the main reasons that mascot was changed then VU should release the results. Seems like a good way to be transparent and build up goodwill. 

In the alternative, maybe the media can find someone to leak a copy of the results to them.

[Pgmado]

If people keep citing the survey as one of the main reasons that mascot was changed then VU should release the results. Seems like a good way to be transparent and build up goodwill. 

In the alternative, maybe the media can find someone to leak a copy of the results to them.

If the SBP, who was on the video, hasn't seen the results, I highly doubt those results are getting leaked.

Honestly, I'm so over this survey. What I'd be focused on is who decided in 2018 to tell athletics to dial back using it on the website. Where did that directive come from? Because that came before all the resolutions, petitions and task forces.

I've got one more bonus episode on this coming next week.