Despite over 50,000 signatures on the petition and overwhelming anger from students and alumni, we are still in deadlock. It appears as if this nonsense will keep on going, as no movement seems to be coming from tone-deaf UC leadership.
Instead of coming up with a contingency plan or show any sign that they're interested in anything more than just discussion, the University of California seems happy with their ridiculous little logo, and plans to leave all the alumni that have been publicly railing against it twisting in the wind.
We've been listening intently to the feedback on the UC symbol, and we wanted to make sure people saw that it is just a part of a richer picture. Here's a little bit of the before and after: http://
www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ news/documents/ uc_brand_large.pdf.
Here's the thing: It's not replacing anything. There wasn't a logo before, and the UC seal isn't going anywhere. The symbol also isn'tnew. It's been on websites, brochures, advertising and other places for nearly a year now.
Did we consult people and test it? Of course. And we also used it in a mobile exhibit that stopped at all 10 campuses and nearly 30 other locations throughout California from September through November. More than 60,000 people came to the tour stops, letting their voices be heard on what really matters: ensuring that Californians understand the value and commitment UC has to making our state better.
Does everyone like the new symbol? No. That's very clear. But strong differences of opinion and energetic debate are part of what's made UC such an amazing place. This system reflects that diversity of thought: All of the elements (not just the symbol) were designed to be flexible, so it may evolve over time.
So instead of treating us like adults (most of us already know that this is not replacing our school logo, come on now), the UC is talking down to us and making us feel like we're all stupid or something. "Oh it's been out there for a year, why did you start raising a fuss about it now?"
Out where? Exactly?
Even the designers are entering their echo chamber. Those involved in the logo project like art director Kirill Mazin and creative director Vanessa Correa have been retweeting articles justifying how good their logo is from various other individuals that share their worldview.
"Change is hard. In a year, this will die down and the benefit will outweigh the legacy logo."csmonitor.com/USA/Education/…— Kirill Mazin (@kirillmazin) December 12, 2012
This is the same sort of institutional logic that enables crappy businesses to trudge ahead with their cluelessly out-of-touch ideas. Instead of paying attention to the wide public outcry, the University of California believes that in the end they will push their vision alone and hope it works.
These people don't get it. Just because this logo has been in places doesn't mean squat. Just because a "great debate" is occurring doesn't mean anything if nothing comes out of it. Now that we notice it and indicate how much it blows, the UC is using post-hoc rationalizations to justify their design. It's basically their way of dismissing the problem. "Let's have a debate, wait until it dies down, and then move on as scheduled."
This is simply unacceptable. No one is happy about this logo, and it needs to be detonated now, or people need to be fired, starting with the UC President and moving down the Regents and through the creative team. Listen to us, or we will not let this matter die.
Please direct your criticism upward at the university leadership, starting with president Mark Yudof. Contact him via email at email@example.com and talk to him on Twitter, and let them know how displeased you are with this logo. Do the same with the regents by flooding their inbox at firstname.lastname@example.org; find their contact info here and voice your displeasure.
Please be respectful and constructive in your criticism to all parties.