We all know that there are but four functions to management... plan, organize, direct, and control...
with decisions being required in each. Specific to the adoption of a new mascot, The College has failed to manage and decide,
which is solely its responsiblity.
The effect of this indecision has been all negative! Confused and alientated alums... frustrated
students expending energies in blogs, discussion, efforts, etc., and I believe a bruised eye for the numerous administrations
that have punted on this decision.
It's amazing to watch The College, committed to developing individuals and prominent leaders, fail
to lead by example! Moreover, it's absolutely befuddling to see Tuck currently offering a 2 day, $2,800 seminar on "Branding"
this while the mascot, culture, college colors, and uniforms are uncoordinated. Where's the campus credibility?
Dazed 'n Amazed... Confused 'n
Contused!
The College has missed the obvious: THE STUDENTS AND ALUMS NEED ... YES NEED...
A MASCOT. They must! Thirty years have not attenuated their drive to find one... nor will and another thirty
years, even though by then all the alums who knew the old symbol and culture will be dead.
Excepting the ever-fewer-"Reviewers," the issue at this point isn't about replacing
the Indian symbol, it's about making the student and alumni bodies whole.
In the United States... teams and schools need mascots, symbols, and resulting cultures. That's
just the way it is! Frivolous perhaps... nonetheless mascots are apparently "must have," not a "nice to have."
People, more educated than I, can debate the origins of this inner American need; who knows, perhaps it would be a great future
course on campus.
But for now, it's time to end the discussion...
It's time FOR THE COLLEGE to decide...
( Let's do it, or not do it for X years, or forever)
And, it's time to move on!
Post WWII Europe and Japan were totally rebuilt far sooner than the 30 years that have past since
Dartmouth stripped itself of the Indian symbol... Moreover, the Korean and Vietnam Wars raged during this same time duration.
Gosh! In ONE THIRD this time, our country went from failed missle launches to two men on the moon.
And consider this: Within this time,The U.S. normalized relationships with North Vietnam, the once-enemy that killed
classmates and contemporaries.
Thirty plus years is not a blink
in history...
It's a lifetime... and for some,
an eternity.
Here's a humbling thought for consideration while The College still stumbles over a mascot after 30-32
years of indecisions: Regardless of your faith, there is little doubt that a guy named Jesus was born and crucified
in about this same time-span for whom there is now a worldwide belief.
Here's another... 30 years x 1,000 students/class = 30,000 alumni, ranging in age from
54 years and younger, would now either be content with, or at least accustomed to a post Indian TRADITION & CULTURE.
As a percentage of all living alumni, this is huge.
Regarding the mascot, there have many "voices crying in the wilderness," but there's also been The
College with an unstructured decision process (a deafness of sorts) to interpret these cries.
In College news article after article, the oneness that is striking is how this-or-that alum / student
/ or group PRESENTED TO THE COLLEGE.
Clearly, this is a reversal of stewardship
that provides strategy and governance.
Could it be that the College really doesn't wants to make this decision?
Could it also be that The College's overall decision is an "unofficial" no decision until all old
alums die off and/or something spontaneous happens --- you know, just the last time... when sports reporters coined a moniker
that stuck.
It takes more than footballs and sports writers to make a decision. It requires "Puck" and a
lot of courage. In every college where there has been a mascot change, there has been student and alumni unrest, with
even some mega-donors extorting the college through threats to withhold support for athletic facilities. (Any college
that folds to this pressure isn't worthy of instructing youth.) One may read of this in the links.
There's no questioning that mascot change is in a hard-ball, fast-pitch league.
The only question is who's stepping up to the plate to meet the blistering challenge when the ump barks, "Batter-Up!"? The
College... or self-designated hitters of which I'm one.
As a living experience, Dartmouth's indecision proves indeed that "Nature really does abhor
a vaccuum," which is exactly what the College has allowed to exist with its unstructured decision process.
Perhaps started as a spoof, the fun-loving, irrepressible "KEGGY" is an object which human-Nature found
that fills that vaccuum . Is Keggy a slap in the face to The College, which has sought to de-emphasis
a drinking image? If it's not, it should at least a slap across the face, alerting The College that it is
time to decide... or expect more KEGGY's, mascots du jour, and unfavorable press.
So... let's bang clean the cleats and dig in for a home run, touchdown, hole-in-one.
I encourage all to read on. Answers to unresolved problems follow in this one
site, with supporting links to satisfy most all questions.
