Letter from Richard Sundt regarding UO Logo

Peter:

I sent the following memo on the logo to Nathan Tublitz and Allan Price. Following the former's suggestion, I would like to place this missive on the Senate's web site. Thanks. Richard Sundt, Art History

14 February 2002
To: University of Oregon Senate
From: Richard Sundt, Art History
Re: University Logo

Although I have already commented via email on the proposed logos (the single O and the interlocking U and O), I would like to re-iterate my earlier observations and add some additional ones in response to the presentation on the university logo in yesterday's senate meeting:

1. One of the problems with the O logo is the meaning that "O" itself carries, and not unrelated to that is its shape or form. This may not be obvious to those accustomed to thinking of O as standing for Oregon. But O by itself also means zero and we often say o for zero. For someone outside the University of Oregon, out in the East Coast let's say, where very few know of our existence, an O on the letterhead, even with the caption "University of Oregon," can strike the receiver as a blank, a zero, owing precisely to the particular nature of O and the meaning this of all letters in the alphabet carries. Seeing a letterhead with a W or an H does not convey zeroness, as an O can.

2. Related to the O as discussed above is another problem, one that engages the university seal-it happens to be round, so the O is in some way like a seal, but now gutted out of all academic meaning, and the only obvious content or thing you can attach to it is athletics, which created the O. The heart of what the university is about, mens (in the motto), mind, has been taken out, not to mention the ivory peak.

3. The special challenges and difficulties that O of all letters poses are nothing to sneeze about. I can tell you this from experience. Those of us who have been at this university for a long time will remember the logo in our stationery just prior to the current one (I will send via campus mail a copy of the old letterhead): a U and directly below it an O with the seal inside it. This image was known as the toilet seat. Had a similar arrangement been concocted with U and W, or U and I, etc. nothing so foul would have been associated in the mind of those looking at our older university logo. Points number 1 and 2 above are meant as a caution to the potential negatives of a simple O, a sort of gutted out seal. Remember that not everyone in New York got the same meaning out of the Harrington billboard--one can interpret things in more than way.

4. One of the things that I suggested in my earlier e-mail is to keep the seal, but to update its design -- make it simpler, sleeker, cleaner, etc. If you look at the seal in the "toilet seat" logo, you will notice that it is quite different from the current one. The present seal lacks the ferry on the Willamette, the river looks more like a river than a lake, the date is in Roman numerals, and the mountain is rendered in a graphic or linear (rather than in a painterly) style. It should be possible to update and modernize this seal (after all it has been modified and tampered with already, as the above indicates) without committing heresy.

5. The stated aim of this logo venture is to have commonality rather than uniformity, but Mr. Price's presentation contradicts his proposal. One reason for retaining the seal for some stationery is that a number of faculty felt this would be more appropriate than an O for letters dealing with tenure and other weighty matters. But if faculty can choose the O or seal for the letters they send, this does nothing to solve the problems that prompted the move for changing our emblem. Professor X at the University of Wisconsin could possibly receive a letter recommending a University of Oregon student written by me using the stationery with the seal logo, and another from one of my departmental colleagues employing the O logo. So doesn't this send a confusing image/ message to the Wisconsin professor? From a visual point of view Professor X would have to look twice to see that both letters, although very different in appearance, are from the same institution.

6. The university O (but frankly now closely associated with NIKE, whether we like it or not) is appropriate for placing on helmets and uniforms. Clearly the seal is not; it is too complicated for that, but it is just fine on envelopes and stationery and well represents our academic mission. It would not hurt the athletic department to use the same seal-embossed stationery given that it claims it is part of the university and is vitally concerned with the academic well being of its student athletes. While in this context I think it is fine and proper for the athletic department to use the seal logo, I don't think it is at all appropriate for us in academics to employ an emblem designed to catch the eye on the athletic field. I think we DO need two different symbols; each has its place. What we should not do is to athleticize further our academic image.

I will send separately, by campus mail, the old "toilet seat" logo and my logo design using the U and the O, although personally I would like us to retain the seal, either in its current form or "modernized." (After writing this memo I had to go to a faculty meeting and to my surprise the logo proposal was handed out for all to see. Instantly and before any discussion, one new faculty member looked at it and exclaimed, "O, a big zero!" To me this simply proves