I don't understand the kerfuffle over the new University of California logo. In my view, the insignia is a forthright representation of the true state of the system.
For years the UC system has been sliding into mediocrity. The Board of Regents and administrators long ago lost sight of the values and principles on which the university was founded and have turned the system into a poorly managed business rather than preserving it as a highly acclaimed academic resource dedicated to the public good.
How better could this sad reality be expressed than by a logo showing the university's initials disappearing into a void?
I am appalled by this unwelcome, untraditional logo that appeared out of nowhere to replace our esteemed UC seal. This is an important systemwide predicament. I appreciate that The Times considers this situation newsworthy enough to be published on the front page.
A similar controversy happened a few years ago when "they" tried to change UC Berkeley's mascot, Oski, into a new, skinny Cal Bear. Alumni were not happy about that, and we got our pudgy Cal Bear (born in 1941) back. Now we want our seal back.
Susan Leslie Smith
Two years ago I retired from a 30-year career at the Port of Long Beach. Several years ago, the port also adopted a new logo design. Employees were herded into meetings so we could be introduced to it. When the new logo was unveiled, we were shocked at how ugly it was.
Unlike the logos for, say, Nike or Coca-Cola — which are so well designed that, when viewing them, you intuitively know just what it is those brands are selling — the new Port of Long Beach logo had to be explained so we would understand it. At the time we knew that if you have to explain a logo, it's not a good logo. And so it remains today, looking like a squashed fried egg atop port letterhead and on signage and advertising.