News

 

 

DC board approves controversial
new logo despite campus uproar

The battle is over and the other guys won.
Despite overwhelming support from students and faculty to chee the current Douglas
College logo as the symbol of this college, the college board has agreed with the
recommendation of the Visual IdentificationReview Committee, and is now
implementing the new college logo at all three DC campuses.

=

by Paul Andrew

Even though the decision is now final, and
in the words of Bob Buzza, college board
chair, “the decision is going ahead and won’t
be revisited by the board,” the battle to save
the old logo created some bitter feelings
between two departments on campus that are
normally not at odds with one another.

Denigrating language, defamation of
character, personal harassment and
“confrontational attitudes” might not be

situations normally associated with the
internal operation of a community college, but
according to Brad Barber, 41, of the
communications office at Douglas College, he
felt he was the victim of a personal attack by
at least one member of the regular staff on
campus in New Westminster. “We were given
the impression that the old logo made us look
out-dated and out of touch,” Barber said. “In
my mind, there is no controversy. Testing
showed that the old logo was working against
us, and might be discouraging students to
apply at Douglas.”
- However, Tom Childs, of the learning
resources centre at Douglas, adamantly
disagrees with Barber and the VIRC, which
was formed over a year ago and recently
unveiled a new logo they say is “at once bold
and recognizable yet versatile and timeless.”
Buta couple weeks prior to the July 18 college
board meeting, Childs, 50, circulated a
college-wide memo that said, among other
things, the new logo is a “warrior-like emblem
for some neo-Nazi paramilitary group.” As a
result, Barber issued a cease and desist order
against Childs and alerted the personal
harassment officer at Douglas of Childs’
activities.

“If formal harassment charges are brought
against me, I will counter with a personal
harassment charge against the use of taxpayer
money,” Childs said at the time. “I’ve been
ordered to cease and desist my activities, but
unless there’s a ban on public opinion, I’m
going to continue what I’m doing.”

Tom Childs gathers signatures on campus early in July for a petiton to
halt the implementation of the new logo.

The new logo, which is a sharp contrast to
the current DC logo, has many people shaking
their heads in bewilderment because of the
$14,500 price tag, and the fact that it took
almost two years for the VIRC to conduct their
research, and an off-campus graphic arts
company at least three months to come up with
a design that college insiders say is simplistic
in nature and fails to symbolize the dynamics
of Douglas College,

“Most people have alluded to it being like a
Klingon logo,” Childs said, referring to the
fictional characters from the Star Trek TV
series. “The triangle was used by people who
were being persecuted. . . what got me angry
is Brad Barber said we may be discouraging
students from the college because of the
(current) logo. We base our identification on
the level of learning that’s available here —
students don’t come here because of our sign,”
explained Childs.

On the other hand, Henry Vilamek of Praxis
Design, which is the firm responsible for the
creation of the new logo, disagrees with
Childs. “There’s clean graphics and cluttered
graphics,” Vilamek explained. “And
something that has to be applicable to many
different applications, like T-shirts, hats and
stationary.” Praxis was mentioned in Childs
college memo when he asks; “Have any
principal artists at Praxis any art education past
grade eight geometry?” Vilamek, who
ironically is a 1974 graduate of the graphic
design course once offered at Douglas,
dismisses Childs’ question. “To comment on
something like that would be lowering myself
to his level,” Vilamek said.

Childs is not alone in his criticism of the
new logo. Student Society President Katrina
Lennax, and college board members who were
present at the unveiling of the new college
symbol en June 18 are also expressing
disapproval of how the VIRC reached their
decision. In a memo addressed to the other
board members at Douglas, Shirley McKinley,

 

Paul Andrew Photo

 

 

 

circa 1973

the
current
DC
symbol

 

$14,500
and two
years of
research
for the
new logo

Douglas College

douglas college

} » Douglas College

 

 

general nursing instructor, states: “I was one
of those who voted in favour of accepting
the work of the (VIRC) committee. In
retrospect, I believe that my decision was a
poor one — perhaps even a wrong one.”
Lennax said she was neither asked to join
the VIRC, nor was she asked her opinion of
the new design. “We didn’t get a say on
whether we liked the logo or not,” Lennax
fumed. “The first time the logo was presented
to me was June 18 at a special management
meeting. I was not asked to join any
committee.” Lennax pointed out that it was
her predecessor, Troy Townsend, who was
asked to participate
in the creation of
the new college

In the meantime, Childs had begun
soliciting signatures for a petition that was
presented to the college board at the July 18
meeting . He says despite the fact there were
over 400 signatures asking for a halt to the
implementation of the new logo, the board has
no plans to stop the incorporation of the
triangular college symbol. 5

“I wasn’t allowed into the meeting,” Childs
said. “But it’s my understanding that my
petition and the opposition of the new design
was discussed at great length.”

College Board Chair Bob Buzza said he
appreciated the emotion of the staff and

students at the
college regarding
their persistence to

symbol, and that the ...the new logo is a “warrior-like keeping the old
current student emblem for some neo-Nazi design, but he said
society was not or ” the decision is
consulted. par amilitary group. final.

“T don’t think Tom Childs “TAG decision
Troy even was made in the

responded,”
Lennax explained. “Because if we were
asked, we would have been there.”

But Barber said most people who were
asked are voicing their concerns now that the
design is finished, rather than when the logo
was in the planning stages.

“We invited the chair from each department
to delegate someone, and three separate
meetings were called. Focus group testing
was done in and outside the college, and the
message we got was that the old logo wasn’t
serving the college properly,” Barber said.
“The important thing is we had a perfect time
to update our logo with the opening of the
David Lam campus (in Coquitlam), where
there is significant signage going in. We’ll
be saving $15,000 by changing the logo now
rather than three years down the road.”

best interest of the
college, ’Buzza explained. “I did see what can
be done with the new logo, and I like it. Some
of the uses are quite innovative.”

Terry Leonard, director of facilities for
Douglas, says they won’t have to spend any
more money than is normally budgeted for
maintenance of signage on campus. Leonard
says there is $4,000 in the annual budget for
the upkeep of signs on campus, and it will be
spring of 1997 before all the signs are changed.
The most notable changes, Leonard says, will
be the large logo on the floor of the concourse,
and the two-way sign located at the corner of
Royal Avenue and 8th Street.

“Whether it’s the old logo or the new logo,
signage has to be maintained,” said Leonard.
“There won’t be any added projected cost to
implement the new logo.”

 

The Other Press August 1996 3