Marquette’s Nickname Advisory Committee
If you read the University’s press releases, you might think that the Nickname Advisory Committee had a major role in deciding on the list of ten names that has been presented to University stakeholders.
In fact, it did not.
The Committee was presented with a very short list of “top choices” — with University bureaucrats having decided what was a “top choice.”
In fact, the Committee only changed one name on the list, added one, and struck two. They changed Knights to “Golden Knights.” They added “Saints.” What two names did they strike?
“Gold Rush” and “Gold.”
That’s right. The University presented “Gold” to the Committee as a choice they might want to put on the list.
It’s hard to know whether the Administration really honestly believed that “Gold” deserved another chance — after all, it’s just barely possible that Ford might introduce a new Edsel — or whether it was included on the list merely to allow the Committee to strike it and have the illusion that they had some power.
All this is not to say that the members of the Committee felt they were railroaded in selecting the list of ten nickname candidates. They felt that had they wanted to open up the process and toss most of the names on the list the University submitted they could do so.
One issue on which the Committee had no say was the rules for write-in votes. The process was simply dictated by the Administration. Just as the University refused to allow anybody to cast a vote for “Warriors” in the Fall survey, they continue to refuse to allow it in write-in votes.
They clearly know that “Warriors” would win hands down in any fair poll, and can’t allow that.
Fr. Wild and the University bureaucrats may actually believe that they are seeking “input” and want to give a “voice” to “stakeholders.” But they can’t escape their incessant impulse to manipulate.
[Revised 5/25 at 10:46 a.m.]
In fact, it did not.
The Committee was presented with a very short list of “top choices” — with University bureaucrats having decided what was a “top choice.”
In fact, the Committee only changed one name on the list, added one, and struck two. They changed Knights to “Golden Knights.” They added “Saints.” What two names did they strike?
“Gold Rush” and “Gold.”
That’s right. The University presented “Gold” to the Committee as a choice they might want to put on the list.
It’s hard to know whether the Administration really honestly believed that “Gold” deserved another chance — after all, it’s just barely possible that Ford might introduce a new Edsel — or whether it was included on the list merely to allow the Committee to strike it and have the illusion that they had some power.
All this is not to say that the members of the Committee felt they were railroaded in selecting the list of ten nickname candidates. They felt that had they wanted to open up the process and toss most of the names on the list the University submitted they could do so.
One issue on which the Committee had no say was the rules for write-in votes. The process was simply dictated by the Administration. Just as the University refused to allow anybody to cast a vote for “Warriors” in the Fall survey, they continue to refuse to allow it in write-in votes.
They clearly know that “Warriors” would win hands down in any fair poll, and can’t allow that.
Fr. Wild and the University bureaucrats may actually believe that they are seeking “input” and want to give a “voice” to “stakeholders.” But they can’t escape their incessant impulse to manipulate.
[Revised 5/25 at 10:46 a.m.]
posted by John McAdams at 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home