Crusaders Retired

[valpotx]

I don't remember if it said Crusaders or Victory, during my time on campus.  PO?  I also don't remember it being a central part of the culture, by the old student union.  I can only remember a few folks ringing it as a joke, but not necessarily after a win.

[crusader05]

Its' definitely changed since my time as well but now it's a pretty common occurrence to see all students ringing it and it part of the graduation pictures a lot of them take.  Its location has also helped with athletics cause they will ring it when they get off the bus or walk over there after games. I wonder if the location change really helped since that's where graduation is held and it's actually on the athletic facility's land.

I know they used to have the mini one they'd roll out on the court during Bugg and Broekhoff's tenure that would ring too.

[bbtds]

I believe that picture of the victory bell goes back to 1968 when Robert Kennedy, former AG for his brother, John Kennedy, made a campaign speech at VU. The students camped out to get good seats in the Great Hall of the old student union. The union was where the Arts & Sciences Building is now. Robert Kennedy was assassinated weeks after this campaign stop by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles. Rosie Greer of the Rams & Rafer Johnson, a great Olympian, were the ones who tackled Sirhan after he shot the presidential candidate.

Anyway the Victory Bell is a historic and neutral political symbol that Valpo could use.

[covufan]

But who is the 2d spitter?

That is one magic loogie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[covufan]

I don't remember if it said Crusaders or Victory, during my time on campus.  PO?  I also don't remember it being a central part of the culture, by the old student union.  I can only remember a few folks ringing it as a joke, but not necessarily after a win.

I don't remember it being part of the culture in the 1980's either. But, then again I remember the Smith years and the Lonesome Polecat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pgmado]

I don't remember if it said Crusaders or Victory, during my time on campus.  PO?  I also don't remember it being a central part of the culture, by the old student union.  I can only remember a few folks ringing it as a joke, but not necessarily after a win.

The Victory Bell wasn't anything special during my time as a student from 1999-2002. It was by the old union and I think I'd be afraid of tetnus from going near it. Once they moved it over to the ARC, it became huge. The football team runs over as a team to ring it after victories. The bowling team gathered at the victory bell the night they earned the No. 1 ranking in the country. Women's Basketball has bought into it. It's huge at graduation. I love it. What women's basketball has done has been great. Hell's Bells is now the theme song when coming to the court.

[crusader05]

My time slightly overlapped with Pauls' and it was the same for it. It was over there but it wasn't a "thing" but now it's huge and I've grown to love it. I know when the athletic department did a mini victory bell giveaway it was a bit hit. It's be great to have a little mini victory bell on my desk to ring. It also is something that bridges the student-athlete to student gap.

I don't remember much about the crusader while i was there other than us thinking it looked like a cheap knock off of notre dames fighting Irish but I do think it also speaks to how things change on campus, symbols raise and fall in relevance and salience. Traditions take off and then die off and/or are discouraged by the university (rip spring weekend).

[covufan]

I'm not a language person, but bellringer in German might be Glockner or zvonar. The Valparaiso Glockners or Zvonars?

Or just incorporate Bellringers into Valpo culture to mean when a person/teammate does something above and beyond, others refer to them as "you aced that final/presentation, you're a real Bellringer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vu72]

I believe that picture of the victory bell goes back to 1968 when Robert Kennedy, former AG for his brother, John Kennedy, made a campaign speech at VU. The students camped out to get good seats in the Great Hall of the old student union. The union was where the Arts & Sciences Building is now. Robert Kennedy was assassinated weeks after this campaign stop by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles. Rosie Greer of the Rams & Rafer Johnson, a great Olympian, were the ones who tackled Sirhan after he shot the presidential candidate.

Anyway the Victory Bell is a historic and neutral political symbol that Valpo could use.

Except the speech was delivered in Hilltop, not the Union.  I know, I was there.

[bbtds]

I believe that picture of the victory bell goes back to 1968 when Robert Kennedy, former AG for his brother, John Kennedy, made a campaign speech at VU. The students camped out to get good seats in the Great Hall of the old student union. The union was where the Arts & Sciences Building is now. Robert Kennedy was assassinated weeks after this campaign stop by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles. Rosie Greer of the Rams & Rafer Johnson, a great Olympian, were the ones who tackled Sirhan after he shot the presidential candidate.

Anyway the Victory Bell is a historic and neutral political symbol that Valpo could use.

Except the speech was delivered in Hilltop, not the Union.  I know, I was there.

Was it Dem presidential candidate John Lindsay who spoke in the Great Hall?

[vu72]

I believe that picture of the victory bell goes back to 1968 when Robert Kennedy, former AG for his brother, John Kennedy, made a campaign speech at VU. The students camped out to get good seats in the Great Hall of the old student union. The union was where the Arts & Sciences Building is now. Robert Kennedy was assassinated weeks after this campaign stop by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles. Rosie Greer of the Rams & Rafer Johnson, a great Olympian, were the ones who tackled Sirhan after he shot the presidential candidate.

Anyway the Victory Bell is a historic and neutral political symbol that Valpo could use.

Except the speech was delivered in Hilltop, not the Union.  I know, I was there.

Was it Dem presidential candidate John Lindsay who spoke in the Great Hall?

I didn't hear that speech but I do remember seeing his car pulling up to the union so I'm guessing that he did speak in the union.

[Chitwood]

I just wanted to pop on here because if I was considering Valpo a lot of comments here would completely turn me off from the school. So, I just want people to know not all alumni agree with people on here. The vitriol for the mascot change is outrageous. I can see maybe being a little upset, but calling people Marxist and blatantly saying that people who are offended should be ignored/marginalized is ridiculous and wrong. Not sure if it's a generational thing or if some on here live in an echo chamber where they shut out diverse viewpoints or what, but I'm really surprised by some's reactions. People on here act like the administration wakes up thinking "how can I sabotage the University today?" – It's just absurd.

People seem to be stuck in the past and refuse to acknowledge that universities, like people, must always adapt with the times. I loved the Crusader nickname, but it's time for it to go. It used to be a great mascot, now it's not. Just like how the Uhlan was a great Valpo mascot, until it wasn't. Just because the mascot was never intended to offend, doesn't mean it doesn't offend or make some uncomfortable. You have to focus on the present and its current perception.

The bottom line is: why would you want your university to be associated with religious oppression? Especially when the University preaches faith. Why would you want your university to be associated with a term co-opted and used by the KKK and other hate groups? Especially when the University tries to symbolize intellectual progress and doing good in your community. It's that simple. Because whether you see it this way or not, the term Crusader is associated with oppression and bigotry to some portion of the population. It is. Those are the facts. So, why?

Do a simple cost-benefit analysis. The University has a lot to lose in terms of PR and very little to gain by keeping the old name. Look at Washington, think about the negative press they endured the last decade because of the refusal to eliminate the Redskins terminology.

Whoever posted the statistics about diversity are completely correct. While diversity is a problem all over, Valpo is falling behind their competitors in terms of population and faculty diversity. These are facts. So if you can improve your public perception to try to promote inclusivity, why not?

The process argument is just a red herring. Everyone knows the name has been reviewed several times across the last several decades. People on here disputing these reviews either were not paying attention or are just trying to spread fake news. Just like their conspiracy theories about how the University was lying about the surveys. Come on guys, let's not engage in this type of reckless and unfounded rhetoric. A great deal of students and alumni have been supporting a change for a long time. Let's not pretend everyone is suddenly against a change. That's not reality.

And, finally, I am a conservative. So don't try to dismiss me or marginalize me by misusing politics to pretend my viewpoint doesn't matter. Because I'm on the same political side several people on here are. Not all conservatives are in favor of ignoring people's opinions on offensive language. By the way, what about the Valpo mascot change in the 1940s , was this because people were "woke" or they "gave in to the libs" – no, they did it because it was the right thing to do. So let's focus on the merits and not try to misuse politics just to use it as a crutch to ignore others. This type of "get off my lawn" rhetoric is not useful.

Okay, carry-on with the victory bell discussion.

[valpotx]

Why was the Uhlan offensive, in your view?  The mascot itself was not offensive, but it was simply that it was tied to Germany in a time of war.  Technically, the Uhlan was a Polish-Lithuanian calvary unit from the 1700/1800s, which then became adopted by several European countries.  Do we ban words nowadays, just because they are tied to a North Korea or Iran?  No.  The Uhlan isn't any different than a Knight, Musketeer, or other common army unit of the past. 

Also, you are quick to criticize those on this board and in general that have the opposite opinion of you, as 'outrageous,' for expressing their viewpoints around something they are passionate.  You also mention that they are stuck in the past, implying that they are old.  I don't see your views as being any more or less productive than the views of the folks that feel differently than you do. 

I would also like someone to point me to any official reviews of the mascot that happened in the previous 20 years.  I will admit it if I am wrong, but I don't remember hearing of such things.  An article here and there, or passionate student/faculty opinions in The Torch, do not constitute a review. 

Just an fyi, the Redskins versus Crusaders argument is not the same thing.  Redskins is a blatantly racist name, whereas Crusader is not. 

[Chitwood]

Why was the Uhlan offensive, in your view?  The mascot itself was not offensive, but it was simply that it was tied to Germany in a time of war.  Technically, the Uhlan was a Polish-Lithuanian calvary unit from the 1700/1800s, which then became adopted by several European countries.  Do we ban words nowadays, just because they are tied to a North Korea or Iran?  No.  The Uhlan isn't any different than a Knight, Musketeer, or other common army unit of the past. Also, you are quick to criticize those on this board and in general that have the opposite opinion of you, as 'outrageous,' for expressing their viewpoints around something they are passionate.  You also mention that they are stuck in the past, implying that they are old.  I don't see your views as being any more or less productive than the views of the folks that feel differently than you do. I would also like someone to point me to any official reviews of the mascot that happened in the previous 20 years.  I will admit it if I am wrong, but I don't remember hearing of such things.  An article here and there, or passionate student/faculty opinions in The Torch, do not constitute a review. Just an fyi, the Redskins versus Crusaders argument is not the same thing.  Redskins is a blatantly racist name, whereas Crusader is not.

1. You're kind of making my point. The Uhlan was not a bad mascot until World War II. It was eliminated because, as you say, it was linked to German soldiers and the University did not want to be associated with German soldiers during the war. Seems pretty reasonable, right? The name itself is not outwardly offensive but only became questionable because of the context of the era. But, this is the same situation with the Crusader. The context of the current time we live indicates that the term is frequently used by hate groups. So, just like in the 1940s, the name was changed(At least in part)[/font][/color][/font][/size] to disassociate with said groups.
2. I said the "vitriol" and accusations were outrageous. I'm totally fine with constructive conversations and debates back and forth. But, claiming someone is Marxist just because they have a different viewpoint than you is outrageous, in my opinion. Some people on this board are acting like people supporting the change are radicals, when that's just not true.... When I say "stuck in the past" it does reply to time, but not necessarily someone being old. My point is that the Crusader mascot has a different contextual meaning today than it did 5 years ago or 10 years ago or 30 years ago. While the name was reviewed in different decades, the mascot's connotations have certainly ratcheted up over the last 10 years and that's why it was ultimately changed. Whether you graduated three years ago or 50 years ago, you can't judge the name based on the past, but the present. That's what I was trying to get across. 3. You can't say show me evidence of reviews, except for articles posted here and there lol. That's like going to trial and saying show me the evidence, but not the murder weapon or witness testimonies. 4. Indeed, the Redskins name is probably more inflammatory than Crusaders (although Crusaders is inflammatory). But, I mentioned the team because as a parallel it's important to consider how keeping a name with negative connotations can do more harm than good. Imagine if Washington had changed their name in 2010. They would have saved themselves massive public relations disasters and been praised for considering other cultures. Instead, they became the subject of jokes, criticism, and businesses began pulling sponsorships. I think Valpo should take note and make proactive changes instead of being stubborn and accruing potential damages.[/font]
[/size]

[vu72]

As I've written before, this doesn't have to be expensive or heart wrenching. It is simply a name. So, as with the change from the Uhlan to the Crusader, was simply a name change to match the political posture of the time as well as a certain war, that's all it was.  A guy on a horse still wore armour, still looked the same, it simply was a name change.

So I'm proposing changing the name from the Crusaders, to the Golden Knights.  It is relatively unique, still wears armour, and probably wouldn't even need a design change.  There are Knights of various nature representing Army, Central Florida and others.  The only Golden Knight I can find is referencing the Las Vegas hockey team.  That is very recent and thus presumably well researched to not offend others.

Pretty simple. I'll be passing along my thinking when the correct party is identified.

[valpotx]

Why was the Uhlan offensive, in your view?  The mascot itself was not offensive, but it was simply that it was tied to Germany in a time of war.  Technically, the Uhlan was a Polish-Lithuanian calvary unit from the 1700/1800s, which then became adopted by several European countries.  Do we ban words nowadays, just because they are tied to a North Korea or Iran?  No.  The Uhlan isn't any different than a Knight, Musketeer, or other common army unit of the past. Also, you are quick to criticize those on this board and in general that have the opposite opinion of you, as 'outrageous,' for expressing their viewpoints around something they are passionate.  You also mention that they are stuck in the past, implying that they are old.  I don't see your views as being any more or less productive than the views of the folks that feel differently than you do. I would also like someone to point me to any official reviews of the mascot that happened in the previous 20 years.  I will admit it if I am wrong, but I don't remember hearing of such things.  An article here and there, or passionate student/faculty opinions in The Torch, do not constitute a review. Just an fyi, the Redskins versus Crusaders argument is not the same thing.  Redskins is a blatantly racist name, whereas Crusader is not.

1. You're kind of making my point. The Uhlan was not a bad mascot until World War II. It was eliminated because, as you say, it was linked to German soldiers and the University did not want to be associated with German soldiers during the war. Seems pretty reasonable, right? The name itself is not outwardly offensive but only became questionable because of the context of the era. But, this is the same situation with the Crusader. The context of the current time we live indicates that the term is frequently used by hate groups. So, just like in the 1940s, the name was changed(At least in part)[/font][/color][/font][/size] to disassociate with said groups.
2. I said the "vitriol" and accusations were outrageous. I'm totally fine with constructive conversations and debates back and forth. But, claiming someone is Marxist just because they have a different viewpoint than you is outrageous, in my opinion. Some people on this board are acting like people supporting the change are radicals, when that's just not true.... When I say "stuck in the past" it does reply to time, but not necessarily someone being old. My point is that the Crusader mascot has a different contextual meaning today than it did 5 years ago or 10 years ago or 30 years ago. While the name was reviewed in different decades, the mascot's connotations have certainly ratcheted up over the last 10 years and that's why it was ultimately changed. Whether you graduated three years ago or 50 years ago, you can't judge the name based on the past, but the present. That's what I was trying to get across. 3. You can't say show me evidence of reviews, except for articles posted here and there lol. That's like going to trial and saying show me the evidence, but not the murder weapon or witness testimonies. 4. Indeed, the Redskins name is probably more inflammatory than Crusaders (although Crusaders is inflammatory). But, I mentioned the team because as a parallel it's important to consider how keeping a name with negative connotations can do more harm than good. Imagine if Washington had changed their name in 2010. They would have saved themselves massive public relations disasters and been praised for considering other cultures. Instead, they became the subject of jokes, criticism, and businesses began pulling sponsorships. I think Valpo should take note and make proactive changes instead of being stubborn and accruing potential damages.[/font]
[/size]

My point was that they were overreacting in 1940, as well.  The Uhlan was not a German word to begin with lol.  It was a type of Calvary utilized throughout Europe by many countries, and originating in Poland-Lithuania, and actually often made up of many Turkish soldiers.  If anything, since Poland was attacked in WW2, you would have been showing more solidarity with Poland by keeping the name.

On the reviews, a reporter typing up an article for The Torch, is not a review, sorry.  Laugh all you want, but someone just reporting on a vocal minority bringing up the Crusader mascot as offensive every few years, does not constitute a review.  I am talking about actual reviews across multiple spectrums.  I don't see how that is hard to grasp, to be honest.  This would be similar to any 360 feedback session that you might get in your place of employment, not just some offhand comment that a Project Manager on your team thinks that you are the 'best!'  In what seems to be your stance on reviews, if my teammates and co-workers were to mention how well I performed on a specific work assignment, and it occurred every few years, then I was thoroughly reviewed by my co-workers based on those specific occurrences.

Vu72, Knights won't work.  The Knights Templar also took part in the Crusades.  Inflammatory!! 

[valpo95]

Well, at least this thread has returned to a discussion of the mascot, and we should all be in favor of more grace and charity toward those who may have a different opinion.

At this point, my larger concern is not exactly about the mascot. (The main reason to make the change is sensible given the negative baggage, the direction has been clear for some time, and the timing of doing this under an interim president is logical.) I lack confidence in the leadership of the University:  The prior leaders, including the President and the Board, utterly failed with the demise of the Law School. The interim president who made the mascot decision and annoucement was selected by the board and a board member herself. These are the same leaders who selected our new president - I hope he succeeds, yet time will tell.

Back to the mascot, even if making the change is the right thing to do, it was poorly handled. Several posters have pointed out the flaws in the "survey" and the shortcomings in the announcement. I'm still surprised that there is no acknowledgement of the positive history of the mascot. Instead, the announcement seemed to be geared toward those who were already supporting the change rather than finding ways to reach out to friends and alumni who had an affinity for the old mascot. There was little that pointed toward a positive future for the University. Apparently, neither our interim President, incoming President or Board seemed to care about these issues.

[wh]

I just wanted to pop on here because if I was considering Valpo a lot of comments here would completely turn me off from the school. So, I just want people to know not all alumni agree with people on here. The vitriol for the mascot change is outrageous. I can see maybe being a little upset, but calling people Marxist and blatantly saying that people who are offended should be ignored/marginalized is ridiculous and wrong. Not sure if it's a generational thing or if some on here live in an echo chamber where they shut out diverse viewpoints or what, but I'm really surprised by some's reactions. People on here act like the administration wakes up thinking "how can I sabotage the University today?" – It's just absurd.

People seem to be stuck in the past and refuse to acknowledge that universities, like people, must always adapt with the times. I loved the Crusader nickname, but it's time for it to go. It used to be a great mascot, now it's not. Just like how the Uhlan was a great Valpo mascot, until it wasn't. Just because the mascot was never intended to offend, doesn't mean it doesn't offend or make some uncomfortable. You have to focus on the present and its current perception.

The bottom line is: why would you want your university to be associated with religious oppression? Especially when the University preaches faith. Why would you want your university to be associated with a term co-opted and used by the KKK and other hate groups? Especially when the University tries to symbolize intellectual progress and doing good in your community. It's that simple. Because whether you see it this way or not, the term Crusader is associated with oppression and bigotry to some portion of the population. It is. Those are the facts. So, why?

Do a simple cost-benefit analysis. The University has a lot to lose in terms of PR and very little to gain by keeping the old name. Look at Washington, think about the negative press they endured the last decade because of the refusal to eliminate the Redskins terminology.

Whoever posted the statistics about diversity are completely correct. While diversity is a problem all over, Valpo is falling behind their competitors in terms of population and faculty diversity. These are facts. So if you can improve your public perception to try to promote inclusivity, why not?

The process argument is just a red herring. Everyone knows the name has been reviewed several times across the last several decades. People on here disputing these reviews either were not paying attention or are just trying to spread fake news. Just like their conspiracy theories about how the University was lying about the surveys. Come on guys, let's not engage in this type of reckless and unfounded rhetoric. A great deal of students and alumni have been supporting a change for a long time. Let's not pretend everyone is suddenly against a change. That's not reality.

And, finally, I am a conservative. So don't try to dismiss me or marginalize me by misusing politics to pretend my viewpoint doesn't matter. Because I'm on the same political side several people on here are. Not all conservatives are in favor of ignoring people's opinions on offensive language. By the way, what about the Valpo mascot change in the 1940s , was this because people were "woke" or they "gave in to the libs" – no, they did it because it was the right thing to do. So let's focus on the merits and not try to misuse politics just to use it as a crutch to ignore others. This type of "get off my lawn" rhetoric is not useful.

Okay, carry-on with the victory bell discussion.

You accuse those who offered up opinions contrary to yours as being "outrageously vitriolic" because some used derogatory social justice buzz terminology in referring to orchestrators of the Crusader name change initiative, some have claimed that people who are offended should be ignored/marginalized, and that in general they are "attempting to shut down diverse points of view."

So, what do you do to elevate the dialogue? You viciously attack the same people you call "vitriolic." You call them reactionaries and conspiracy theorists. You discredit and dismiss their opinions as reckless and unfounded. You claim they're out of touch and living in the past, including dismissive "get off my lawn" code for the "racist," close-minded, boomer generation.

Finally, you regurgitate some unconvincing, overtly simplistic arguments made previously and throw in a little "credibility by association" by referencing a business 101 buzz term "cost-benefit analysis" with no evidence to support it.

Let me offer you some free advice.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yours is no more legitimate than anyone with whom you disagree simply because you feel strongly about it or just because the answer seems obvious to you. Most of what you call facts aren't; they're opinions that you accept as facts because they support your one-sided view of the world. Lastly, you have an arrogant, condescending tone that resonates throughout your diatribe that is inconsistent with someone who claims to be a voice of reason. Your tone needs to be more conciliatory and your comments above the fray.

[Chitwood]

Valpotx– I'm not talking about opinion articles. I'm talking about news articles about University reviews.

Wh –I am totally for diversity of views. What I am not for is reckless accusations. You even said several people used derogatory terms. That's what I was referring to. The "vitriol" as I said was in reference to calling people with diverse viewpoints as Marxist. That's just not fair. I think saying "get off my lawn" is nowhere near as ridiculous as calling someone a Marxist because they support a mascot change.The term "get off my lawn" is used for when people act like someone yelling at kids who cross their front yard. That's how a lot of people on this message board sound. A lot of people on here are standing on their proverbial porches, virtual signaling and yelling at people with opposing views. Saying "let's just ignore those students, they are a bunch of Marxists" is prototypical get off my lawn, virtue signaling moral superiority type of behavior. We should stick to arguments, not accusations and conspiracy theories.

Overall, I agree with you, we should take the high road on these message boards. I'm sorry if I came across as overly confrontational. It just seems like the minority viewpoint on this message board is not being heard.

[valpotx]

Valpotx– I'm not talking about opinion articles. I'm talking about news articles about University reviews.

Wh –I am totally for diversity of views. What I am not for is reckless accusations. You even said several people used derogatory terms. That's what I was referring to. The "vitriol" as I said was in reference to calling people with diverse viewpoints as Marxist. That's just not fair. I think saying "get off my lawn" is nowhere near as ridiculous as calling someone a Marxist because they support a mascot change.The term "get off my lawn" is used for when people act like someone yelling at kids who cross their front yard. That's how a lot of people on this message board sound. A lot of people on here are standing on their proverbial porches, virtual signaling and yelling at people with opposing views. Saying "let's just ignore those students, they are a bunch of Marxists" is prototypical get off my lawn, virtue signaling moral superiority type of behavior. We should stick to arguments, not accusations and conspiracy theories.

Overall, I agree with you, we should take the high road on these message boards. I'm sorry if I came across as overly confrontational. It just seems like the minority viewpoint on this message board is not being heard.

Right, that was my question.  Can someone point me to university reviews that occurred, prior to 2018?  Everyone keeps saying that it has been reviewed for decades, but opinion articles and sidewalk chalk are not reviews.  Any prior articles that I can remember, just speak to the reporter's or small number of student/faculty opinions, versus an actual university review of the name. 

Also, 'get off my lawn' is tied to calling out older people, and you know it.  There is no way around that aspect.  You don't have Gen Z kids saying, 'get off my lawn, you whippersnapper!'  That is where it comes from.  That was a microaggression .

[Chairback]

I can't see them changing the school colors.  It has to be a significant cost to do so.  We don't have the money or it should be spent elsewhere.     

I bet the shield will be incorporated with the new mascot.  Too much money already invested in that also. 

But nothing surprises me with this university anymore. The impact of closing the law school sent shockwaves to prospective students and parents and hurt the Valpo brand for significant years to come.  Even if the % of law students was low vs undergrad it still hurt the Valpo image big time. 

For a small private school that is very expensive to go to with low enrollment I worry about it's viability. One thing everyone should agree on is that they better get their sh*t together quickly. If the new president is not successful they are screwed. 

   

[Pgmado]

I would also like someone to point me to any official reviews of the mascot that happened in the previous 20 years.  I will admit it if I am wrong, but I don't remember hearing of such things.  An article here and there, or passionate student/faculty opinions in The Torch, do not constitute a review. 

I'll have a podcast tomorrow/Thursday going deep into the last review of the mascot.

[NativeCheesehead]

To be fair, I'm in my early 40s and have yelled at people to "get off my lawn" a lot in the past year.

[valpopal]

I would also like someone to point me to any official reviews of the mascot that happened in the previous 20 years.  I will admit it if I am wrong, but I don't remember hearing of such things.  An article here and there, or passionate student/faculty opinions in The Torch, do not constitute a review. 

Here is a brief history of this issue as I recall it. Please feel free to add or amend. The university examined reactions to the Crusader as part of a larger study of VU's image conducted in the mid-nineties. Despite a few negative responses, the positive responses were far more numerous, and it was clear that changing the mascot would not be beneficial, so it was not seriously considered. In 2000, the issue was raised again by a faculty member and some students. The university responded that the mascot was not going to be changed, and if it ever were, there would have to be an extensive study over a long period of time. In 2008, a group called Students Against the Crusader Mascot was formed. At that time, Mark LaBarbera stated he would prefer keeping the logo but changing the "Crusader" name. Heckler replaced Harre in the summer of 2008. In spring of 2017, a small faculty group formed a "Compassionate Campus Faculty" to have a teach-in and write a letter to the editor in the Torch demanding removal of the Crusader. Perhaps coincidentally in 2018, it was clear the university, obviously with Heckler's approval, had decided to quietly phase out the Crusader image and nickname, as has been mentioned elsewhere on the board, especially in non-athletics situations. Then in 2020, taking advantage of the current social atmosphere and knowing that past arguments against the Crusader would still not be effective, a group began the Coalition to Retire the Crusader and this time emphasized co-opting of the Crusader by "hate groups"—as mentioned by the Interim President, who also used their "retire" term, in her announcement—as a new tool to attack the mascot, add members caught up in the news of the day, and intimidate opposition. Moreover, having the decision made during the six-month Interim Presidency seemed opportune as neither Heckler nor Padilla would have to take the heat. (Also, due to Covid no fans or alumni would be on campus during this period.) Nevertheless, one could argue no openly transparent and comprehensive study was really conducted in this latest stage. For instance, deadline for completing the survey was only two weeks before the announcement was made.   

[valpotx]

Thanks Valpopal, and PO, I look forward to seeing if your research lines up with the above.  If it does, it would seem that there wasn't any official review from the mid-90s until 2018, which would sync with my awareness of the issue, unless there were some background reviews happening that were not as publicized.