At a time when the scope of political correctness is under constant fire, why not thrust symbolism into the debate as well? Resmiye Oral, a UI clinical professor of pediatrics, has raised the contentions that Herky (yes Herky, the famed UI mascot) should “display a wider array of facial expressions in university publications.” In an email sent to UI Athletics Department officials, Oral argues that Herky’s demeanor can promote violence and be interpreted as aggressive; therefore, we should change Herky’s presentation to be more warm and welcoming.

I can understand that our university should take steps toward making a more inclusive campus climate to combat such issues as suicide and sexual assault, but I struggle to come to terms with the prospect of altering the university’s iconic symbolism by making Herky appear less confrontational. Before we condemn Herky, let’s step back for a second and analyze what the purpose of a mascot is and what the specific story is behind Herky’s creation to see if there is any precedence for action.

Already more than 60 years old, Herky was conjured by a UI journalism instructor in 1948 to serve as the symbol for the school’s athletics teams. Ever since then, Herky has grown from the face of the university’s sports teams to the signifying public persona of the university. From T-shirts to coffee mugs, both Herky and the Tigerhawk logo function as images similar to how a company such as Nike uses the brand image of a swoosh.

Furthering this line of thought, let’s use star athletes who appear on boxes of Wheaties cereal as a frame of reference. These athletes represent the championship pedigree that Wheaties proclaims to foster. Herky also represents a brand, and that brand is the UI and all of the endeavors associated with it. So in a sense, Herky is one of the quintessential symbols of the UI, meaning that Herky’s demeanor can be interpreted as reflective of the larger UI community. Subsequently, Herky’s scowl could then reflect poorly upon the UI in the eyes of some.

With all this in mind I can agree with Oral in the sense that perceptions people have of Herky can have ramifications, yet I think it is a stretch to believe that Herky’s demeanor has substantial adverse effects. I can see the validity in making a mascot more comforting and friendly, but where do you draw the line? Do we have one Herky for one occasion and another Herky for other occasions?

At his inception, Herky was designed to symbolize the UI sports teams, yet as time has gone on, his name and likeness have proliferated to many other aspects of the university so much so that it seems there is hardly a UI-sponsored event that doesn’t have Herky involved. In this regard, it would be quite problematic to have numerous characterizations of Herky that are tailored to fit specific occasions.