Parsing the University response …
Daniel M. Dooley, senior vice president for external relations at the University of California Office of the President, made the following statement today (Dec. 14):
A controversy has developed over an element of an integrated visual identity designed for use by the University of California's systemwide office. This controversy has created a major distraction for the UCOP External Relations Division as it pursues its broader mission: communicating to all Californians the vital contributions UC makes to the quality of their lives and the prosperity of the state.
The controversy has been fueled in large part by an unfortunate and false narrative, which framed the matter as an either-or choice between a venerated UC seal and a newly designed
In fact, the graphic element in question was never intended to replace the official seal that still graces diplomas and other appropriate documents. Rather, it was to provide a graphic cue to
distinguish systemwide communications materials from those of individual campuses.
The monogram was only a piece of the visual identity system- a new approach to typography, photography, colors and the like- that was developed by UCOP design staff.
Since it debuted in the past year, this new "look" has served the UC system well, replacing what was a clutter of dated materials that varied from UCOP department to department.
And it has received praise from an array of accomplished design experts not affiliated with the university.
And yet, while I believe the design element in question would win wide acceptance over time, it also is important that we listen to and respect what has been a significant negative response by students, alumni and other members of our community.
Therefore, I have instructed the communications team to suspend further use of the monogram. For certain applications, this process could require a measure of time to complete. In due course, we will re-evaluate this element of the visual identity system.
My hope going forward is that the passion exhibited for the traditional seal can be redirected toward a broader advocacy for the University of California. For it is only with robust support
from the citizens of this state that the university will be able to serve future generations of Californians as well as it has those of the past.
The logo (aka “element of an integrated visual identity) is a piece of crap, no matter what the experts (an array of accomplished design experts) say as the rush to praise work similar to their own graphic art charades.
And you have no choice but to listen to the students, alumni and other members of the community because we are the ones that are paying your bloated salaries. Yes, the University of California has given us many wonderful things – but it is also an out-of-control institution whose never-ending building program and upward-spiraling costs contribute to California’s significant budget deficit.
But, in the final analysis, I am pleased that they suspended the “toilet seat” logo and are willing to consider alternatives … perhaps from the students in the arts program, rather than the “experts” in the UCOP design staff.
Original post …
It is one thing to want to upgrade a logo to improve your image, but the University of California has gone the other way – producing a meaningless logo which conveys absolutely no emotion or information. Spending more than one millions dollars to upgrade stationary and signage with the piece of crap is pure waste. This is an exemplar of the type of fuzzy-headed thinking that pervades a 114-year old billion dollar institution run by politically-correct socialists with their groupthink committees.