Menu CATEGORIES

Connect with us

CATEGORIES Menu
All Articles

The Second Coming?

There’s something different about Columbia’s homepage, and it’s not wittier news headlines. A few days ago, eagle-eyed website watcher Chris Szabla noticed that the two spades on Columbia’s crown logo have morphed back into crosses, prompting our tipster to wonder whether the Campus Crusade for Christ had paid off or if there are more divine forces at work. If the latter, He could move a little faster: the secular crown is still visible on many University webpages. Today, CU Public Affairs explained in a note that they made the “very slight” change “in order to maintain a simple design while also more accurately echoing the classic crown that is distinctively ‘Columbia.'” Bwog reached Vice President for Communications David Stone as he was leaving for the weekend–let us know what you’re thinking and we’ll relay questions when we talk to him next week.

Meanwhile, one Bwog staffer recalled a comment made by one professor last year about the pre-spade iteration: we should obviously remove the crosses since we are all no longer Christians, but keeping the crown seems quite fine as the majority of students remain staunch monarchists.

Amen to that!

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.

 

20 Comments

  • god says:

    @god secularism is indeed the new religion

  • well as of now, says:

    @well as of now, the logo on the Columbia homepage is the bottom-aligned spade one

    1. CA$H says:

      @CA$H No, it’s not; you need to clear your browser’s cache.

  • to be fair says:

    @to be fair i’ve never had problems w/financial aid. they offered me a pretty good deal and along w/a couple other state scholarships they really made coming here feasible

  • Stephen says:

    @Stephen the spade could be a tilted cross, you know… angular distortion.

    the new logo only bothers me because it’s not in alignment with the text and just looks stupid.

  • in somewhat related news says:

    @in somewhat related news religious intolerance in delaware forces a family to move away, and the resulting costs mean a girl is forced to drop out of columbia:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/us/29delaware.html

    1. shame says:

      @shame on Columbia’s financial aid office for dropping the ball.

      1. um? says:

        @um? Huh? One line in the entire article without explanation and you blame Columbia’s financial aid office? It ought to be more like “Shame on the New York Times” for repeating a claim like that without any further information.

        1. anecdotally says:

          @anecdotally they didnt bother to read my documents properly when i applied to columbia and gave me no aid. i was heartbroken, figuring i’d have to go to a suny. i forced my parents to go to the fin aid office and demand an explanation. “oh, so you don’t have access to millions of dollars that arent indicated anywhere on your forms? well then.”

    2. i read says:

      @i read that article in the times and it somewhat suprised me. i never thought delaware was such a haven for pro-christian, anti-separation of church and state rhetoric. anyone care to comment from the area, or explain why. being from upstate new york, i can’t imagine a pro-jesus prayer in the public schools, much less any prayer referencing a god.

      1. there are still some says:

        @there are still some functions in public high schools where mention of god, jesus or even public prayer is allowed (they’re limited and depend on the scope of the mention, what figure mentions god, and the nature of the reference, etc). But i think that in this particular case, the graduation speech is clearly unconsitutional. school prayer invocations at graduations are unconsitutional–any student who has taken con law can refer to lee vs. weisman to prove that

        in fact, the santa fe opinion only 6 years ago reaffirmed the broad reading of the establishment clause http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html

  • Aesthete says:

    @Aesthete Regardless of whether it uses crosses or spades, the new logo is uglier. The crown looks like it’s floating in space…it should be grounded in line with the bottom line of text like it was on the old version. I hope you’ll try to get Stone to reconsider the change.

    1. Thank god says:

      @Thank god someone else noticed that. A friend at CUIT pointed it out to me and it’s been bothering me since.

  • antidisestablishmentarian says:

    @antidisestablishmentarian god save the king!

    now to revert back to our true title, king’s college…

  • Erf says:

    @Erf Non-believer here. No qualms with the crosses.

  • also says:

    @also the website seems to still have a spade. what is the true version. lets have a secular vs. religious war.

    1. anglican says:

      @anglican the school was anglican affiliated with trinity church downtown when it was founded. was more or less unofficially connected thereafter.

  • the cross is religious says:

    @the cross is religious but i think it was always tradition. i’m very suprised they went back to the cross, but also very proud. personally the spade just looks tacky. and the comment about renouncing the perils of christianity while still retaining the trappings of monarchy is quite appropriate.

  • should says:

    @should yale remove the hebrew from its crest because they’re no longer religiously affiliated?

    I don’t mind the crosses. The cross is not a purely religious symbol.

  • Ad

    Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    Counterpoint: Have you actually eaten there? The point about the disappointing sushi is right on. (read more)
    If Columbia Dining Halls Were Reviewed By CULPA
    September 29, 2020
    Mayo is totally weird but it totally works, definitely seconding that tip. Ditto the lid, it helps melt the cheese (read more)
    CWB: Grilled Cheese
    September 29, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation