Interesting Times

It's said to be a curse to live in "interesting times". I was born near the high-water mark for liberalism: for the gains that ordinary people won against the oligarchy after they'd wrecked the country in the Great Depression. For thirty years, I watched as the right turned the country into a kleptocracy where government served only to protect and funnel money to the extremely rich. I had hopes when the evil klepocrats finally ran the country off the rails that we might have a chance to reverse the worst of the changes. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case. In a very short period of time, in spite of having absolute control of every branch of government in my state and in the country, the Democrats have shown themselves unwilling and incapable of effecting any substantive change in government. Obama has improved the U.S. brand, without actually changing the substance of government. But that's what modern corporate culture is all about.

Ten years ago, Naomi Klein wrote the book "No Logo" about the hollow practice then emerging in business of focusing on enhancing the value of the brand. This practice is a move toward a completely hollow, unproductive model for business where you develop and sell an image, rather than focus on the fundamentals of your business. In fact, you don't need any products at all: just find the cheapest crap, put your logo on it, and -- if you can control the message and the brand -- it won't matter, because people are paying the big money for the brand. When Naomi wrote her book, she included a chapter on corporatism moving into education. At that time, the threat was business trying to make money in the educational space through advertising. Now, however, the University is becoming the corporation.

In a long email to the University, the chancellor announced his new branding initiative, that was also reported in the loop. The new slogan for the University is: "THIS IS UMASS AMHERST. THIS IS NEXT. We're Wide Open." He said, "Only through a consistent and collaborative application of this identity campaign will we build a compelling identity for the University, one which does indeed evoke a unique and competitive image in the minds of our constituencies." Really?

I think a better solution would be to have greater openness: to show the campus as it really is. It's a great and wonderful place with dedicated people working very hard even under difficult circumstances. The richness of what's really here is its greatest selling point, in my opinion. If you try to control the message, you're going to get into a battle with anyone who tries to tell the truth: that's not a proposition you can win. But if you simply open up and try to show what's here -- everything that's here -- people can see the good stuff for themselves. And you can invest your effort in actually solving the problems on the ground and making things better -- and not just people's perceptions. But I guess that's why I'm not CEO.