Moose-scot: A Call to Arms
Issue   |   Wed, 02/04/2015 - 00:33

At this point, it’s hard to defend keeping the Lord Jeff as our mascot. Lord Jeffery Amherst advocated genocide against Native Americans. By celebrating him as our mascot, we tacitly condone both the man and his actions. Not only does this conflict with the values of any modern-day liberal arts institution, our designation as the Jeffs is a cruel irony in the face of increasing pushes for more diversity and representation from Native American students.

Amherst is not alone in the legacy of racist college mascots. Dartmouth College abandoned their unofficial mascot, “the Indians,” in favor of “Big Green” (or “Keggy the Keg” depending on who you ask). Stanford University also went by the “Indians” before officially dropping it for the Cardinal in 1981. But unlike its peer institutions, Amherst is still just as stubbornly tied to our racist mascot as the Washington Redskins.

Many on this campus understand that the Lord Jeff’s time is long over but don’t yet believe we have a viable alternative. The Moose is more than a viable alternative; it is the community solution we’ve been waiting for. For starters, the Moose has already gained more than 1,100 likes on Facebook. The Moose-scot (the official spelling is up for debate) would fit nicely within the NESCAC: In addition to the Ephs, who are in actuality purple cows, we compete regularly against bobcats, polar bears, white mules, camels, panthers and large elephants (Jumbos). It’s easy to imagine first-years excitedly putting on antlers, running to the field on homecoming day and taking selfies with a student in a moose costume. A moose isn’t silly. What is absurd is the Wesleyan University Cardinals competing against an embodiment of colonialist ideals.

Tradition is not an excuse for something so indefensible. If given the choice today for a new mascot, one would hope that the whole student body would pick the Moose over the Lord Jeff. Then why can we not replace him today? Is the fact that “moose” isn’t easily pluralized a good enough reason to continue implicitly celebrating our racist legacy as an institution, town and country?

The Moose may not be perfect, but no alternative will be right for every single member of the student body. The Moose has united students, faculty, staff and administration more than any other potential mascot, and it is hard to believe that any alternative mascot will attract a stronger following in the foreseeable future. Now what we need is a final push from all of us to reject the legacy of racism, colonization and exploitation that the Lord Jeff represents.

Albert Bard '88 (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 12:30

“Lord Jeff” as Amherst’s mascot can only be appreciated in the context of Charles Hamilton 1906’s song. Hamilton composed “Lord Jeffery Amherst” to lampoon the pomposity of Harvard and Yale apotheosizing their respective, lackluster namesakes on behalf of their football chauvinism (“Forget your Johnies and your Elis.”). His invocation of “Lord Jeff” as the College mascot was tongue-in-cheek. Sophisticated readers will catch his implicit lyrical critique of the historical figure. The default choice of Lord Jeff as the College’s mascot reflected a turn-of-the century Amherst student culture that was anti-“rah-rah,” nonchalant in its observance of then imperative collegiate conventions (such as mascots) and averse to hysteria, athletic or otherwise. It is the apparent extinction of those hallmarks of Amherst College character, more than any fantasized injury to contemporary sensibilities, that perhaps argues most forcefully for a new mascot. That being said, “Lord Jeffery Amherst” makes a catchy little tune, one of the more famous in the repertoire of “College Songs”, and one of the few that does not valorize excessive alcohol consumption, as the analog Williams song “Come Fill Your Glasses Up” does. What fun would making us Mooses bring, apart from Facebook likes (does any serious person really ascribe authority to these in 2015?) and another mess left on President Martin’s lawn? It would at least amount to a material loss of nuance in Amherst College identity to efface or supplant Lord Jeff as our mascot. But, in any event, the proposal strikes this history major as Stalinist in its justification, evidencing only the most rudimentary command of post-colonial theory (a failure of the Amherst classroom) in its political grandstanding, and begging more rigorous and capacious cultural analysis than its advocates have summoned to date.

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Fri, 02/06/2015 - 09:13

As long as Albert Bard is around to explain the nuances of Amherst College student culture circa 1906, there's no reason to change the mascot. Anyone who finds Lord Jeff offensive simply lacks adequate education and critical faculties to grasp the implicit critique of Anglo-American colonialism.

Or, to put it more directly: if you're offended, that means you're stupid. Right?

anonymous (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 12:44

I'm completely in favor of changing the mascot, but I we should be hesitate to interpret all the likes on the facebook page as support specifically for the moose rather than general support for the idea of a less offensive mascot. People might like the page to signal that they like the idea of changing the mascot, not that the moose would necessarily be their non-genocidal mascot of choice.

The majority opinion (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 13:59

"If given the choice today for a new mascot, one would hope that the whole student body would pick the Moose over the Lord Jeff" Nah buddy, check the poll results: /?q=poll/do-you-think-amherst-should-ke...

elk_l (not verified) says:
Mon, 02/16/2015 - 15:22

I find myself now, at least in one respect, like Robert Frost who thought all men wanted to be poets until on the boat to England he met a businessman who thought all men wanted to be businessmen. I had expected that a poll like this recent one on Lord Jeff would very quickly confirm the presence of overwhelming support in the Amherst College community for finally exorcising the stigma of an odious as well as quite accidental mascot who has been falsely honored far too long by a great college. A close vote, never mind a losing vote, is to my mind a disconcerting judgment.

Lord Jeffery Amherst made a mark in history by, at the very least, enthusiastically embracing and advocating for genocide/extermination. He was a man so thoroughly reprehensible that he has made his way onto the the short-list of the most despicable men in the history of Canada. How does he remain more or less lionized elsewhere? How can anyone or any community knowing about him tolerate the image of this grisly character as a mascot or any kind of representative at all?

The poll results put one in a mood to cast about for blame. That, perhaps, would be a distraction. I place the blame on what might be aptly termed a banality. I say it's the charming Lord Jeff song. We all have partaken in the great fun of taunting opponents with it, sassy (a tongue-in-cheek "we are superior" conceit) in its essence as a delightful anti-fight fight song that mocks the overused but ever loved sturm und drang, strutting, beer chugging march songs of most college sports encounters.

Through most of the past we were able to assume that Lord Jeffery Amherst must surely have done great and noble things, though, in truth, we knew not any. That was the full extent of our involvement with him so singing his song was able to evoke a sense of self-satisfying virtue and is, I suggest, at the core of the emotional clinging to Lord Jeff.

The song, however, has very little to do with the vile man it pretends to celebrate and a similarly satisfying song could be attached to a more worthy, genuinely enjoyable bearer. That would seem to make great sense since nowadays the ugly truth is much more thoroughly known revealing Lord Amherst to be an unseemly image representative of institutional racism and all its abhorrent accoutrements.

The Lord Jeff phenomenon does evoke a hint of the nested Russian dolls, not quite "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" but, perhaps, a sketchy anachronism inside a sketchy anachronism wrapped under a now somewhat shabby, gamy Red Coat being dragged into the 21st Century.

The setting in which Amherst College first gained recognition was that of a Norman Rockwellian narrow world of primarily white, indeed WASP, small-town, male dominated, rustic New England folk. Somehow the smaller doll of Lord Jeffery Amherst, parasite like, snaked into the nest and found a good, if strange, fit.

Amherst College has evolved and flourished far beyond the provincial context of its early move to prominence but, apparently, not without the encumbrance of an unwholesome nostalgic fog which seems to weigh upon the atmosphere like a not quite gone virus clouding perception and placing a drag against full consciousness and conscience.

LBJ said to Martin Luther King "Martin, make me do it." With respect to getting rid of Lord Jeff, we could, in the recent poll, have helped to "Make Martin do it." but the odd loss of perspective or failure of imagination tarnishes the vision.

Sad it is since anyone who has been at Amherst can (one way or another) view the Holyoke Range from behind the War Memorial and reflect on how many (Native Americans and vast numbers of others) through history have lost their lives to the efforts of men addicted, in pursuit of personal conceit, to power and gone bizarrely mad in avid promotion of and indulgence in the horrors of genocide/extermination.

Yet, it seems certain Lord Jeffery Amherst will one day be gone. A sad remaining question is whether it will eventually take outside pressure to force that change. It would be much more heartening to see the Amherst community bring this about from the core of its own morally responsive character, one able to cut through a small-minded, smug, silly mascot hubris to a vision in resonance with a fuller, more humane sensibility, perhaps strengthened by overcoming this banal, accidental, seductive interloper who has provided, yes, "good old boy" fun but also the burden of rough strife when faced with necessary passings through the eye of the needle and chastising rubs against the rusting gates of life along a hardscrabble road less travelled by in the messy, lurching journey bending towards wisdom.

SadJeff (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 14:29

Transfer to Hampshire College melvins

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 15:01

Firstly, as an alumnus, you must take our voices into account. Amherst College is a much larger community than just the students who currently attend.

Despite my connection, as a former athlete, to Lord Jeff, his actions deem him inappropriate as our mascot. However, the Moose is not the answer. There is no significance to the Moose. It created a stir around campus for a day, but it neither has meaning nor an inherent source of pride.

Although Bowdoin and Tufts have animal mascots, they are rooted in historical significance of their schools. Middlebury designated their mascot to be a Panther, a mascot unrelated to their school, and students have since called for a change due to its lack of relevancy.

I urge the authors or any students who feel strongly enough to research into the school's history and find an animal, dinosaur, or public figure who the entire Amherst family can support. We can publicly denounce Lord Jeffery's actions, but we should not rush into this choice.

The majority opinion (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 15:23

"If given the choice today for a new mascot, one would hope that the whole student body would pick the Moose over the Lord Jeff. " Nah buddy check the poll: /?q=poll/do-you-think-amherst-should-ke...

The Lord Jeff (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 15:45

The Moose is a terrible alternative. The poll that this publication held shows that the Amherst community is split down the middle on this issue. Unless there is an overwhelmingly large majority in favor of change, the college should do nothing. If you didn't like the mascot, you shouldn't have come here. Stop whining. Most of the people advocating for change are non-athletes who have never represented this school in athletic competition and never will. You will be shocked once you enter the real world and realize that this place is a politically correct dystopia.

Someone with ears (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 16:04

"The Moose has united students, faculty, staff and administration more than any other potential mascot, and it is hard to believe that any alternative mascot will attract a stronger following in the foreseeable future."

Please list the alternatives that have been proposed - because to my knowledge, and I'm sure others (particularly first-years) will agree with me, there have been none thus far. Also, I believe it is very possible to imagine that another mascot could gain a larger following as there are plenty of other pairings that don't sound as goshdarn ridiculous as "the Amherst Moose(s?)." Quite honestly, that is both painful to say and to hear. I support replacing Lord Jeff as our mascot, but until something considerably less silly sounding is proposed I believe no change should be made.

"Is the fact that “moose” isn’t easily pluralized a good enough reason to continue implicitly celebrating our racist legacy as an institution, town and country?" Nope, but good luck convincing people otherwise. I sincerely believe that a cooler mascot alternative would shift a number of students away from their pro-Jeff views and facilitate change.

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Thu, 02/05/2015 - 21:57

Yeah, ok, but can anyone claiming the moose is "lame" actually come up with a better alternative? None of these commenters have offered up anything. Trust me, I've been trying to think of something for three years and have not come up with anything better.
Let's try alliteration...Amherst Aardvarks? Acorns? Amherst...Athletes? Ok, moving on.
Mammals endemic to MA? Bats, Seals, Foxes, Wolves, Bears, Lynx? Lynx are interesting, but don't pluralize well...also, honestly, Moose is more relevant than any of these (we've seen a moose on campus, and everyone thought it was really really cool).
Birds? Well, this could be promising...we DO have a bird sanctuary...Amherst Sparrows, Thrashers (kinda cool), Warblers?
Plants? I have a feeling there aren't any viable candidates, so never mind.
Beneski specimens? Ok, the most memorable things in Beneski are probably the Irish Elk, Mammoth and Dire Wolf (if I remember correctly). None of these are bad, but elk is awfully similar to moose.
Maybe to make up for the Lord Jeff, we could pick a Native American of historical significance. But then, we'd have to go through the effort to pick someone appropriate, rally for them, and really dedicate this school to that concept (which frankly, I don't see happening. Sorry, but if we have to pull teeth to get rid of a genocidal Englishman, I'm having a hard time seeing the student body get excited over the people he was killing).
Purple? Amherst Purple People Eaters? Unfortunately, nothing else intimidating comes in purple. I think there are indigo snakes, though.

If anyone else has viable alternatives, please post them. A whole bunch of people already love the Moose, and honestly it's a cool mascot (Moose aren't overdone, they're big and scary but also lovable...imagine little baby Amherst legacies running around in moose hats. It's cute.)

Anon (not verified) says:
Fri, 02/06/2015 - 10:40

From a neutral perspective - fortunately or unfortunately, poll results favor keeping the jeff as the mascot. What the school wants - is what the school wants. Considering not even a minor majority wants to change the mascot, there appears to be no reason to. Plus, as all the people before - the moose is the nonsensical - a damned deer visits the campus for a few hours, is mistakenly killed, and now you want it be mascot - because 'Facebook likes it'. Get serious, you're a college student.

an alum (not verified) says:
Fri, 02/06/2015 - 17:18

I largely agree with Bard's comments above. Amherst's mascot was a default "anti" mascot in the early era of football boosterism. And the song is tongue-in-cheek, a feature lost on current students who, when they sing it, add mocking words and sounds as though the song actually was meant to praise the British general.

Why not look further back into the college's history, pre-football, for an appropriate mascot? Given Hitchcock's importance as a pioneering geologist, president, correspondent with Darwin, etc., etc. and the area's rich palentological history, what about some kind of dinosaur? Given, Lord Jeff's dinosaur status, those in the know could see an actual dinosaur mascot as continuing the college's tongue-in-cheek tradition.

Due Diligence (not verified) says:
Sat, 02/07/2015 - 21:05

No one hid the identity of the Amherst College mascot to those on campus now (or to those who once were on campus). If the mascot is offensive to you, you are at liberty to transfer to another school. I suggest you perform due diligence on the mascot of any college you apply to in order to make sure the new school's mascot meets any requirements you may have -this will save you much time and agitation.

Anonymous (not verified) says:
Sun, 02/08/2015 - 17:06

I don't find the arguments for replacing our mascot convincing, nor do I believe a moose is an appropriate mascot for Amherst College. My motivation for writing, however, comes less from my opposition to the moose as a mascot and more as a result of what I believe is a very troubling trend at the College. Amherst has become a highly divided community, one where students, and many members of the faculty and administration, have allowed their fervent belief in their own causes and own ideology to color their behavior and standards. In some circumstances this type of passion can be a force for good and a positive motivator. In others, it can be polarizing and result in less productive outcomes and more divisive results. I think the mascot debate risks becoming the latter.

Just as troubling is the lack of a consistent standard in what merits our concern and outrage and what actions we let pass, or worse, we applaud. This inconsistency breeds cynicism and bitterness, as the lack of a principled basis for the standards employed at the College undermines its credibility. When it is clear that the College standards protect some students but not others, and that some causes are favored over other just as legitimate concerns, Amherst becomes a community of special interests and “favored victims”.

Amherst needs reasons to come together and to find areas for commonality. In a recent piece in this paper, Mr Johnson, while perhaps not as articulate on some issues as would be ideal, attempted to rally the community around our commonality as members of the Amherst community and as "Jeffs". He deserves our respect and gratitude for taking this position, and for the underlying sense of community and loyalty that motivated his piece. The Editorial Board of The Student also deserves our respect, although their approach will promote more discord and divisiveness.

The College would be better served if the advocates for replacing the mascot would focus their energies on how to build community at Amherst, and appreciated the implications of keeping such a divisive issue on the front burner. These advocates also should ask themselves if their zeal would be applied with equal vigor to causes that don't meet the politically correct standards of Amherst College. My purpose in writing is not to debate the merits of the mascot, but since I will invariably be attacked with arguments that "a moral wrong is more important than campus civility or building community", along with impassioned analogies of civil disobedience and protests associated with the fight for civil rights, let me turn to the controversy and moral outrage now directed to the current mascot. If the advocates for the moose can begin to appreciate that their conclusions are not as clear cut as they argue, perhaps they will consider whether their agitation for change is well founded and in the best interests of Amherst College.

The primary argument for abandoning the current mascot is Lord Jeffrey Amherst's association with advocating the use of small pox infected blankets during war with Native Americans. The advocates for the moose do not dispute that the allegations against Lord Jeffrey Amherst came during war, and have not argued that the war in itself was the issue. The argument is made that Lord Jeffrey Amherst is a symbol of genocide because of how he argued the war should be conducted, and the recommendation is put forth that Lord Jeff therefore cannot serve as mascot for Amherst College. Few of the advocates for a new mascot make a distinction between advocating the use of biological weapons and actually employing those weapons, even though it is my understanding that the offense of Lord Jeffrey Amherst is one of writing a letter suggesting the tactic rather than employing the practice. If this is true, meaning the crime is to consider rather than to act, and that an aggressive proposal during wartime amounts to the moral equivalent of a campaign to eliminate those of a race such as was waged by Hitler, the implications for many of us, as well as the leaders and founders of our country, would not be kind. The considerations of what tactics are justifiable in wartime has not been the focus of the debate, and the distinctions between actions taken to win a war and defeat an enemy in warfare versus those taken in pursuit of genocide are lost.

Apart from what Lord Jeffrey did or did not do, the argument that the current mascot is associated with genocide or "stands for genocide" is a stretch. If that were indeed true, then the argument proposed for not moving to rename the school by those who favor the moose stands on shaky ground. The defenses offered that "changing the name of the school is too hard” or "the school is named for the town" are weak at best. To borrow the rhetorical trick of the author of "An Unconvincing Emotional Appeal", consider if the College were located in Hitler, Massachusetts. We would not hesitate to move to change the name of the College if it were located in Hitler, Massachusetts and “named after the town” because Hitler does stand for genocide. Lord Jeffrey Amherst is not Hitler.

I have never taken the Amherst mascot to be a symbol of genocide and I do not consider it to be an anti-Native American symbol any more than I take the images that stand for America to be representations of America's past transgressions against Native Americans or African Americans. The confederate flag has been banned when flown as a symbol of racism and segregation, since it is the flag of a rebellion founded on a defense of slavery. The American flag, despite our imperfect history, stands for liberty and democracy. There are areas of the world and people who view the American flag as a symbol of oppression and burn that flag to express their hatred for America. Yet I do not view it as a symbol of anything less than ideals I am proud to salute. Our country's history is not perfect, just as Lord Jeff, as well as those who built Amherst, are not perfect. The intent of the Amherst mascot, Lord Jeff, is not to symbolize or defend genocide, but rather to stand for the school it represents, and all that Amherst College has come to stand for.

If the standard used in acting to change the Amherst mascot but not to change the name of the college is applied, meaning we only change the references to those names of people who offend some of us that are easy to change, how about the names of the dorms on campus? Are these also too difficult to change? Many of the alumni or past presidents or significant donors whose names adorn the buildings on campus led less than perfect lives. If we apply the standard of sainthood as our criteria, we probably could have the Mother Theresa Dining Hall or the Gandhi Dormitory, but I fear that Dr. King's personal failings or the past behavior of Nelson Mandela might disqualify these noble men from consideration.

America is not taken as a symbol of genocide, despite its history of war with Native Americans, and America is not taken as a symbol of slavery, despite its history of slavery and oppression of African Americans. Yet Lord Jeffrey Amherst is, according to those in favor of the moose, a symbol of genocide. If the proponents of changing the mascot will concede that Lord Jeffrey Amherst is not Hitler, then maybe they can suggest where on the scale of hero or villain he belongs, and how close to sainthood is required to have a town and a college named in your honor.

We need to be careful that we don't begin to worry about every possible slight or offense that can be imagined, and consider what offenses are real and which are imagined or over blown. If we are going to argue that all offensive behavior deserves to be condemned and banished, then we need to be consistent in our standards for condemnation and equally passionate in our opposition.

The College recently took down a painting in Valentine of a man playing pool, with the reason given that "it was not reflective of the Amherst experience". It is unfortunate that a man playing pool is viewed as offensive or representing a stereotype deemed “un-Amherst”. The annual party in the fall was renamed the “Beach Party” for fear of offending Hawaiian Americans. Lord Jeff as a mascot is deemed offensive to Native Americans and a movement begins to replace the mascot. I am disappointed that the same students and faculty and administration members did not stand up and voice their condemnation of an Amherst faculty member who wrote a highly offensive article attacking the Committee on Sexual Misconduct, an article containing broad and highly critical generalizations about Amherst athletes and Amherst alumni. Somehow it is OK at Amherst to make unsubstantiated criticisms of athletes, and to ascribe bad behavior to a group of individuals solely because of their association with a group bearing no moral significance. If I again employ the rhetorical trick of substituting the names of other groups in place of athletes, such as those based on gender or race or even association with an activity on campus other than athletics, the outrage would be immediate and emotional. That outrage is appropriate and to be applauded, but it also should arise when athletes are the subject of bias or smears based on illegitimate stereotypes. This faculty member was defended by students and other faculty in the comments to his article in The Student. This anti-athletics article was not an isolated event. The head of the Amherst Republican Student association wrote a very thoughtful piece in support of the “Black Lives Matter” organizers, yet noted that no one rose up to voice their outrage about those who tore down the flyers and posters for the meetings or talks hosted by Republican students. Our outrage should not be reserved for those we choose to feel sympathy for – all innocent people deserve to be treated with respect and fairness, and Republicans, or athletes, are not guilty because of the group they are associated with. Again, this is not new behavior at Amherst, and the students learn from the actions of the faculty. A decade ago, a large component of Amherst faculty members signed a petition to prevent Supreme Court Justice Scalia from speaking on campus, arguing that his words and beliefs were too offensive, and their actions were held up as examples of free speech. More recently, a conservative Amherst professor has been exiled from the website due to his views on abortion and same sex marriage, and there are no arguments for free speech presented in opposition to the censorship of the College.

The attempt to thrust a moose upon an unconvinced and unsupportive student body and alumni base is very divisive, and I am surprised the College is supporting this effort. I also am disappointed that this support from the College has been run from behind the scenes, rather than in an upfront or transparent manner. Amherst needs efforts to unify and build community, not a creation of artificial issues which will divide and alienate the students and alumni of Amherst. Sponsoring talks during Homecoming weekend or floating trial balloons in the Strategic Planning Committee documents or placing a moose in Frost serve only to antagonize those who find the whole effort to be yet another example of politically correct behavior run wild and a not so subtle attack on athletics. If the senior administration is truly in favor of replacing the mascot, then they should take a stand and be prepared to explain and defend their rationale. If the senior administration believes there are more important issues on campus, and understands how critical it is that Amherst sense of community be rebuilt, then they should say so publicly and move the dialogue to these issues. We don't need trial balloons in Amherst, we need leadership with moral convictions and backbone.

Sometimes a moose is just a moose, and sometimes it is the elephant in the room...

I would prefer to see the energy that is being directed at replacing the mascot channeled at a more critical issue, and one that threatens Amherst's well deserved but very fragile reputation. The lack of community at Amherst is a complicated issue, but the intolerance shown by many on campus will contribute to a decline in Amherst's position in higher education. The academic purists reading this post will reject this concept, but Amherst depends on a healthy reputation for both its pool of most desirable applicants, as well as the lifeblood of its alumni donations. Amherst has now become a school where many attractive candidates do not apply, or do not attend even when accepted, due to the politically correct atmosphere and the strident evidence of divisiveness on campus. The loss of momentum in applications would be troubling on its own. It is even worse when compounded by the antagonism felt by the alumni base. Rightly or wrongly, Amherst relies on alumni donations for its survival. Perhaps the financial model can be migrated to a different form of funding but for the foreseeable future, the school simply cannot survive without the support of its alumni. Every Amherst student and every graduate of Amherst college receives (or received) a meaningful subsidy in the cost of their education, even before the impact of grants or subsidized loans. I do not mean to imply that alumni approval trumps moral considerations but rather suggest that it is prudent to consider the reaction of donors when taking a position that is not clearly morally compelling. If you conclude that the mascot issue is not as clear as the advocates for the moose would argue, it may not be wise to pick this battle as the one to draw a line in the sand over.

The mascot of Lord Jeff was designed as a parody, as is made clear in the song bearing Lord Jeff's name. Our college archivist , an ardent opponent of Lord Jeffrey Amherst, has compared him to the Jeff in the "Mutt and Jeff" cartoons of days gone by and regularly mocks the grotesque head of the Lord Jeff costume used at games and on campus . The song, and the mascot, was originally intended to get all too serious Amherst students to take themselves a little less seriously, and to have a little fun. I think that is good advice.

Glenn Arthur Pierce (not verified) says:
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 15:29

The author of a new nickname/mascot book addresses the problems associate with the "Lord Jeffs" nickname in this interview (from 31:10 to 34:10):

Loyal Amherst A... (not verified) says:
Tue, 02/24/2015 - 11:52

While the Student poll shows the Amherst community split 50/50 on getting rid of Lord Jeff, I would argue that most serious alumni (including myself - Class of 1989) recognize that Lord Jeff has got to go for all the obvious reasons. However, the Amherst Moose concept is plain silly. (Sorry. I can't get excited to support "Go Moose!")

Perhaps, we can:
- form a committee (including students, faculty, and alumni who support the FAA)
- come up with a few alternative mascot names
- allow input from the broader Amherst community
- have the committee to make a formal recommendation to the Board.

And let's move forward in a positive way.