Oregon State Naked Mole Rats . . . Or, The New OSU Athletics Logo

Because The Barometer already has a sports columnist (or so they tell me) the column I originally wrote to address the new Benny logo won't be published regularly.  While this would normally disappoint me, I probably have greater readership here than in print media.  So here you go.  Let me know what you think.

***

With the unveil of the new uniforms, Oregon State University athletics look a little sleeker, a little fiercer, and a lot more styling.  The same, however, cannot be said of the new Benny logo.  I’m sure Kim Possible loves this, but if comments on the University athletics Facebook page are any indication, students don’t. 

Most commenters seem puzzled by the direction the administration has taken the new logo, while others voiced concerns that students’ opinion were not sufficiently solicited—especially since students are expected to wear what looks decidedly un-beaverlike at nationally-televised games. 

Kim Possible Naked Mole Rat

Athletes at least have financial incentives to brandish the new logo; students are being asked to pay for the privilege of looking ridiculous.

Beyond what seems like a pretty major fashion gaffe, students remain concerned that the administration and athletics departments are attempting replace substance with style.  It appears that the new direction is a concerted effort to bolster support and encourage enthusiasm about Beaver athletics.  The concern, however, is that athletics is doing so at the expense of substantive improvements in the athletic program itself. 

Encouraged by U of O’s rebranding in the 1990s, OSU has unsuccessfully tried to rebrand itself, following trends instead of setting them.  Even though nifty uniforms and a rebranded logo are nice, and demonstrate a willingness to consider new strategies and reorient means to accomplish goals, OSU athletics acknowledges that uniforms don’t win games—which is the ultimate recruiting tool.

Despite Nike’s insistence that the new logo doesn’t deviate too far from tradition, one need only look at the friendly Benny that represented Oregon State for over forty years and wasn’t retired until 1999.  That looks like tradition to me.  What’s more, “Angry Benny” was an acknowledged marketing ploy to help shore up support for construction of Reser Stadium.  Bearing that in mind, Nike would have stuck to tradition by returning to something resembling the acknowledged mascot.

1951-1999

I have a sense that the new uniforms aren’t really about students, or even student athletics, however.  The sequestration debate is only the most glaring example of fiscal responsibility at the federal level, but across the nation state spending on institutions of higher learning has been on the decline.  State universities have been hit especially hard and have turned to alternative forms of income. 

Football especially, but collegiate sports in general, attracts incoming freshman and national recognition; the sales of sports apparel help shore up budgets increasingly weakened by fiscal cuts. 

OSU’s billion dollar fundraiser relies on the enthusiasm of donors and a winning athletic program is the most obvious way to generate that enthusiasm.  Certainly, the administration has demonstrated its commitment to academics, and we lead the state in research grants; our nuclear engineering and forestry programs especially are world-renowned.  While these are exciting, they fail to communicate the University’s success the way a winning football team does.

And that excitement is only bolstered by a dynamic new uniform, and a logo that better represents the spirit of the institution.  Which is where the new Benny logo simply falls flat. 

Perhaps it’s a matter of generating false buzz—like Crystal Pepsi, or New Coke these were genuine attempts to reinvigorate flagging sales and create heightened consumer demand.  But in both those instances, the effort backfired. 

Well, sort of. 

In each case, consumer demand for the original product actually boosted sales of original Coke and regular Pepsi.  So maybe that’s the strategy OSU Athletics have adopted in concert with Nike, who designed new Benny. 

Fearing this is the logo I’ll be stuck with next year, I’m planning to hit up the Beaver store in the spring before the old logo is phased out.  And I know many of you are doing the same.  Perhaps they’re expecting sales to skyrocket, after which, buckling under pressure from alumni and students, Student Athletics will release the real Benny redesign.  I don’t want to speculate as to their motives, since this scenario seems particularly Machiavellian, but at least it makes a measure of sense.  The alternative is that the redesigned Benny is meant to look like a cross between a nutria and a naked mole rat.  That, or it’s part of a strategy to re-brand Oregon State University as the Rats.

Sports, What Are They Good For? . . . Or, My Article in the Daily Barometer

You can find my op-ed in the Daily Barometer on their website now.  I look at the definition of sport and how that definition influences funding decisions and ultimately legitimizes or delegitimizes an athletic activity.  Take a look and let me know what you think.

Kelsi Blalock on the beam

The Sport of News . . . Or, My Other New Job

I've recently begun writing for my college newspaper, the Daily Barometer.  We've had our differences in the past, and I've often been critical of them.  Student papers have a tendency toward decadence, and rarely do the business of journalism on college campuses.  For instance, a good college paper should focus on the business of being a student.  The newspaper ought to create and maintain and ongoing conversation of the administration and offer constant criticism of it.  And just as government in general should be the constant topic of journalism in a public newspaper, student government (such as it is) ought to be the constant topic of a college paper.  Tuition, student guidelines, campus policies and the continuing discussion about the proper role of public institutions in the educational system should be the primary focus of student newspapers.

Is Cheerleading a sport?

That being said, I haven't joined them to make news.  I'm writing a column for the forum, an ongoing series of op-eds that I've tentatively themed "The Good, The Just, and the Beautiful."  While also playing off a famous spaghetti western, these have the benefit of being the things over which men and gods have often argued.  Socrates says that people only really argue about what is good, what is just, and what is beautiful, and I want to add to that conversation.  In a practical sense, what that means is that I'll be looking at local issues (mostly University related themes) and molding them into conversations about what it means to live a good life, what it means to be just, or even which things are and aren't beautiful. 

In my first article I've chosen to tackle sports.  It's an issue of increasing controversy, as schools dedicate greater amounts of money to sports, especially football.  But I'm less interested in how schools devote energy away from education toward sports, and more in the very definition of the thing itself.  What is a sport?  I'm sure you'd know it if you saw it, but that's really the point.  What if you didn't see it?  What characteristics define sports, and how can we better determine which activities should be funded with state money (less each year if Oregon State University hits its billion dollar fundraising goal), and which should be left as clubs or something less than a sport.

I'll post links as I get them, but in the meantime, how do you think about sports?  When I say that word, what comes to mind?  Is football a sport?  What about golf, or cheerleading, swim team or track and field?  Let me know in the comments.

The Daily Barometer Wants Your Kid to Drink? . . . And Satire

Satire is the first defense of the inept.  I don't mean that satirists are themselves inept; instead, I propose that whenever someone says or writes something that they didn't quite mean--which might have been intended as sarcastic, rhetorical or ironic and is instead taken literally--they retreat behind the defense that they were simply being satirical.  Indeed, many of their defenders will quickly leap on the satire bandwagon.

Satire has long held a privileged place in political discourse.  Its ability to mock without pointing fingers or directly insisting upon illegal or unpopular courses offers satirists protection from prosecution, or worse.  The refrain, "But it was only satire," is a shield that has effectively protected political protestors throughout history.  Yet that privileged position, the shield of satire, is like the proverbial skirt behind which one can hide when chased by schoolyard bullies.  It indeed has the power to protect, but used too often, or ineptly, it opens the would-be "satirist" up to contempt.

Last week, the editors of the Daily Barometer, a university newspaper published at Oregon State University, published what they called "A freshman's guide to college."  Much of the advice in the newspaper insert was pointed toward popular follies of the university experience--how to socialize, how to pass your classes with the least amount of effort, how to avoid spending hundreds of dollars on books which might never be opened.  What drew the ire of the public, and of this writer, was the photograph on the front of the guide--depicting simulated acts of underage, binge drinking (as well as a young woman playing video games, and a young man perusing a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition)--and the promotion of underage, binge drinking in the "advice" section.  

Offered in bullet-pointed lists, their section on drinking included the admonition "Liquor before beer;" advised freshmen to chase cheap vodka with Tampico or Sunny D; and suggested freshman try locally brewed beers instead of the cheap beer they normally shot-gunned.  Let's be clear about this, the first piece of advice was not to make responsible decisions about drinking, but if one chose otherwise, one should at least try to be safe.  Instead, the editors blatantly promoted an illegal and dangerous activity.  

Some have defended this section by pointing out that some freshman are of legal drinking age.  Perhaps.  But the overall majority of incoming freshman are straight out of high school and  by targeting minors specifically for their insert--remember that it is a freshman's guide to college--the editors chose to address their advice to members of the community who cannot legally consume, purchase, or possess alcohol.

By far, however, apologists for the article have complained that it is satire--both the editors themselves, and students in letters to the editor.  Satire is itself a strict literary genre comprised of specific elements with the intent to be perceived as satire.  What's more, to be satire, a perceived vice or folly must be held to ridicule with the intent to shame an individual or group into change.  Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" is satire because it exposed deeply-held class prejudices through a reasoned approach to cannibalism.  No one regarded his proposal as an honest attempt to cure hunger by eating children.

If the editors of the Daily Barometer intended their guide as satire, it should have held underage, binge drinking (itself a problem on campuses across the nation) to ridicule by shaming university administration, students, or society in general.  It did none of those things.  Instead, by offering advice on how best to avoid arrest for underage drinking, on which fruity beverages made the best chasers, and how to get drunk quickly (the carbonation in beer releases alcohol already present in the stomach to the bloodstream so that a person's metabolism is quickly overrun), the editors have crossed both the line of decency and journalistic integrity.

Sensationalism for its own sake, the last defense offered by the editors (though perhaps not in those words), is the opposite of journalism.  Stirring up controversy to promote dialogue about underage drinking on campus is shameful to journalism and detrimental to the conversation, as emotion quickly eclipses the substance of the argument.

The editors of the Daily Barometer have failed the test of satire, and its protection cannot be afforded them as they attempt to defend their actions.  They've done a disservice both to the university and to themselves and instead of offering a legitimate examination of a dangerous excess on campus they have distracted attention.  By advising people to engage in illegal activity, they've exceeded the protection of free speech and should tender their immediate resignation.

If you agree with anything I've said, let your voice be heard.  Share this with friends, link it to your own website.  You can write to the editors expressing your disapproval, or address your concerns to the University.  Let President Ray know that this is an issue you care about.  If you're an Alumnus, get in touch with the Alumni Association.  If you're the parent of a current student, or thinking about putting your kid (and a lot of your money) here, consider how this article affects the campus environment, and what it says about the University as a whole.  But the best thing to do is get in contact with the advertisers whose ad money supports the newspaper.  By expressing your disapproval to them, perhaps we can leverage a positive change in the discussion.



Daily Barometer:

• Editor-in-Chief
• Don Iler
• (541) 737-3191
  editor@dailybarometer.com

The Daily Barometer
c/o Letter to the editor
Memorial Union East 106
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-1617
or e-mail: editor@dailybarometer.com

President Edward J. Ray
Mailing Address:
President
600 Kerr Administration Building
Corvallis, OR 97331-2128
541-737-4133 (phone)
541-737-3033 (fax)


Oregon State University
Alumni Association
204 CH2M HILL Alumni Center
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
541-737-2351
877-OSTATER (877-678-2837)
OSUalum@oregonstate.edu