The Observer, March 2, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 19
Free Speech Zone: Case/CWRU name debate indicative of superficiality
Last week the university took another step towards effacing all memories of our previous president's mistakes by ostensibly settling the semantic embroilment which has ensued over the university's name of reference and logo. The fat man will be gone soon enough, and the standalone name "Case" will be willed out of existence.
The original decision to change the name and logo was foolish and motivated by the imprudent notion that a university could and should be marketed, like laundry detergent or electronics. But I think that it should be readily apparent by this point that this most recent policy change is less about level-headed decision making and more about placating angry alumni who are still bitter about the union of Western Reserve University (WRU) and Case Institute of Technology (CIT) in 1967.
Whereas most questions and criticisms of the previous administration were perfectly legitimate, one must wonder at the inordinate amount of rage directed by alumni at the name change. In order to account for the well-intentioned blunders of the past five years, the present administration has been forced to return to the familiar tactic of patching up the situation on the surface, while a deeper wound remains. Although such a move may be inevitable at a university such as Case (a federation of several previous institutions), this decision seems to be only the latest example of the defining feature of our university's recent history: superficiality.
This recognition is perhaps the most valid criticism of the Hundert era. That is, there was such a focus on presenting an image that the administration forgot to back it up with substance. New dorms, fancy logos, and a vice presidential debate will only get this institution so far. At some point there needs to be the academic dedication to back it up. One would hope and expect that those days are behind us. On the other hand, the impassioned and persistent denunciation of the new name and logo is the height of frivolity.
As an institution, we face a real conundrum. On the one hand the university wants to move forward and improve, but on the other it is held back by petty bickering over trite and trivial issues. This situation is exacerbated by the university's pusillanimous and unremitting kissing of the alumni's collective derrière.
It is utterly absurd that Interim President Gregory Eastwood would have to create a taskforce and hire a marketing firm, Lipman Hearne, to settle such an inconsequential manner. It really causes one to question how much certain individuals care about their former university if they would devote so much energy and attention to such a shallow matter instead of focusing on the quality of academics or the allocation of the university's financial resources (lest we forget that the logistical task of changing all the signs and letterheads around campus costs time and money).
Last Thursday, The Plain Dealer quoted Eastwood as saying that this decision "is going to make a lot of people feel good, and very few people feel that that wasn't the right thing." Well isn't that nice; it almost sounds like this whole matter wasn't completely ludicrous.
So much for principles; superficiality and public relations win out again. And all for the sake of retrieving the withheld donations of some peevish alumni! There's a lesson in reality for you.
Pieragastini is a senior History and International Studies major involved with Catalyst: Students for Social Justice, Case-ACLU, and the Philosophy Society.
