Since when did our university education become a brand name—a mere commodity that can be bought or sold in the open marketplace? I can agree that the idea of pursuing some semblance of campus unity is a worthy one. Ever since the early 20th century, university presidents have focused on campus unity as a means to instilling common aims, unified purpose, and esprit de corps. Our fourth president, Daniel L. Marsh, even made “University consciousness” the focus of his 25-year presidency. If various schools/colleges/departments are using disparate logos and symbols, then it is reasonable to start bringing things under one roof (although the financial costs of contracting with an outside firm over 1½ years to remove a single line from our existing logo is a bit embarrassing). But what is lost in marginalizing the University Seal? Our first president, William F. Warren, sketched the original University Seal in the late 1800s as a means of connecting the university with its esteemed history, heritage, and foundation. He also used the seal as a means of conveying the venerated purpose of Boston University—a city upon a hill that provides equal opportunities to a higher education that illuminates the lives of all who enter. The claptrap of descriptors under our “Brand Personality” (Excellent, Modern, Dynamic, Confident, Progressive, Global, and Diverse) doesn’t even allow the voices of our history to speak! And our “Identity Platform” with its “Emphasis on Yourself” (a driveling reference to the acronym BU)…do we really want our students to graduate from this place even more self-indulgent than when they first entered!?! Of all social institutions, universities should continually return and learn from their history. Once upon a time, we prided ourselves on instilling Wisdom, Personal Responsibility, and Independence—core values that defined Boston University graduates. Are we now bowing down to the lowest common denominators of Consumerism, Convenience, and Coddling? Substance is timeless, but fashion is only here and now. Finally: Simply because a marketing firm invested tens of thousands of dollars in high-powered market research does not make it a legitimate exercise. In 1985, and after countless invested dollars in market researching gimmicks, Coca-Cola attempted to introduce “New Coke,” a sweeter version of its flagship soft drink. The result was a devastating market flop, and the public demanded a return to the classic Coca-Cola formula. Let’s all hope that the new BU brand name doesn’t taste as flat!!!