and, HuffPo has assembled some links to more coverage.
NBC Bay Area's Monte Francis went around the Cal campus last night and talked to many ol' Blue and new Blue alike and the comments were all negative toward the new logo-- and they said things like "it sucks", "it does not look professional or quality" etc. (Diane Dwyer a Cal alum, I House board of directors member, and Cal lecturer introduces Monte Francis' piece)
View more videos at: http://nbcbayarea.com.and the write up:
University of California Adopts New Logo, 144 Years Later
The new, modern logo drops the "Let there be light" script on the 1868 version
Also, there are comments from readers at the LA Times piece that make clear the PR (in house or otherwise) team at UCOP has some of their own hostility toward the 144 year old seal, the book in the seal and the current modes of instruction-- but, this same team is telling the online petition creators to 'make sure your people are nice to us, our feelings are getting hurt' kind of stuff... surreal.
Here is one reader comment from the LA Times story to note:
"Nope, I recognize the seal is still going to be in place for official documents. I am well aware of that. I recognize a potential need to have a symbol that is better for marketing. Trust me, I have worked on marketing campaigns and with graphic design. But to quote something that I saw posted on a friend's wall:
"The University of California recently changed it's logo. You can watch an advertisement about it. Here are some funny but telling moments: at one point, you can literally see a hand brushing away the book from the old fiat lux seal. It may seem like a hyperbole to suggest that this change is a reflection of a greater emphasis on marketing, branding, and business on the part of UC administrators, but it is worth noting that this change in design also came with a new statement of intent from the University of California office of the president.
The first sentence of the paragraph listing priorities under "Our Mission" says: "Our employees manage multibillion-dollar fiscal and business operations with a clear focus on strengthening the financial health of the whole system."
The word education does not show up once in said mission statement."
The new logo clearly does not embody the mission of the UCs-- or at least not the mission I thought the UCs once had" the comment goes on with many replies to clarify on the mission on UCOP vs the mission of each campus etc. - this is precisely the issue at hand: OP management of the portfolio vs management of education -- and which side represents their management of each piece to the public, and how.
More from LA Times here.
So many alumni have also commented that they were never asked or informed- many faculty saying the same btw. Is UCOP just relying on feedback from the same old group of boosters they usually mingle with, or what?
Why is the UCOP handling of the logo important in the great scheme of things? Read on:
Changing Universities is covering another side of the not so stealth-soft launch- on the downlow PR narratives being created for (this time) a UC Online world --that does not and will not ever exist in the way UCOP is telling the tale.
UCLA Faculty Blog has an update on the UC Academic Senate's project on Rebenching. This has to do with how much $$$$$ each campus gets for students so it might be worth the while to read it - they gotta come up with some other way of describing it - rebenching...
Daily Cal on Necessary Non Residents - (they also had a news story on this same subject last night but apparently pulled it by this morning for some reason.)
New Motto for UC (to go along with the logo)?: 'Don't h8 the player, h8 the game.'