The editorial (ODT, 21.3.23) comment that there are risks in the university’s idealistic pursuit of change concerning its visual identity should set the alarm bells ringing in the hallowed halls of academia.
The University of Otago’s re-branding proposal includes a new Māori name and a replacement of the traditional coat of arms with a tohu (emblem).
Based on the ODT’s non-scientific straw poll, 77% of people were against the University of Otago rebranding, and commentary and letters to the ODT suggest that the move would be counter-productive.
Acting vice-chancellor Prof Helen Nicholson says the proposal is a "bold change" representing the university’s aspiration for the future. We want to reflect a modern Aotearoa New Zealand, to continue to lead at the forefront and, to have a visual identity which speaks to our place in the world, she said.
When it comes to university branding, change is not always a good thing. The current hierarchy of the University of Otago are "standing on the shoulders of giants" who have built a world-class university based on the current branding and logo. Tread carefully.
The University of Otago is ranked in the top 1% of universities in the world. Ninety five percent of Otago graduates go directly into work or further study. They are the recipients of 5 stars plus, the highest possible rating for teaching and research. They are New Zealand’s No 1 university for educational performance and they have an unmatched record in National Teaching Excellence Awards — and there is much more.
With such achievements, the University of Otago reflects a modern New Zealand. They are already at the forefront of teaching and research and have a visual identity acknowledged and instantly recognised world-wide.
In short, they are a well-respected and esteemed academic institution. Change for the sake of change can be more damaging than no change at all. Therein lies the problem for the University of Otago.
Prof Dominic O’Sullivan (ODT , 22.3.23) notes that universities occasionally change logos. However, he suggests "Otago is taking it a step further". Styling the relationship is significant and is not an assurance of commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi or the prime function of a university, he said.
O’Sullivan’s comment is a red light and hints at proceeding with caution.
It is envisioned that a te reo version of the logo would be used internally or where appropriate, while the coat of arms would be retained for ceremonial events.
Confused? Or is it a dollar each way?
How then does the university rationalise such a transformative pursuit and why does it feel the need to change its logo without fully appreciating the value of what it already has or may lose?
Prof Tony Ballantyne (ODT, 17.3.23) says it is important that our institutions are spaces in which all people of all backgrounds can flourish and work together.
Have I missed something here? Ballantyne’s comment should not come as a modern-day revelation nor should it be deemed aspirational. It has been the bread and butter of what the university has and continues do very well locally, nationally and internationally.
Rebranding is not to be taken lightly and does not come without consequences. A logo is not just for today’s students. It is also for those who have gone before and those who have a sense of connection with long-established traditions. Consider the impact on the alumni and those who generously bequest to the institution. The current branding is instantly recognisable.
"Tradition, honour and stability are signs of prestige. The more venerable the institution, it seems, the less often it changes it logo."
The University of Otago now finds itself in a conundrum. Is a "bold change" imminent or will protestations cause a rethink?
Change is not a forgone conclusion, Prof Ballantyne said, and we want to hear from our community as to whether we think the proposed changes align with the future of the university.
While further consultation is to take place, an unequivocally clear message is emerging.
"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."
- Dr Darrell Latham is a retired senior lecturer from the University of Otago College of Education. He worked in the Centre for Educational Leadership and Administration and his research interests included the politics of education.
