For many, graduation is ideally a significant time for self-reflection and identity formation. The specter of yet another closing chapter charges us with bittersweet emotion.
As a recent UCLA graduate I discovered that even I was not immune to this quarter-life crisis, and saw it worthwhile to invest in a graduation package that included an ornate executive pad holder. However, it was then and there that for the first time I noticed the details of the official University of California seal and was dismayed to discover it contained religious imagery – namely, an open book wrapped by a banner in the foreground which states, “Let there be light.”
Above the book there is a shining star that is reminiscent of the Star of Bethlehem in Judeo-Christian tradition. This seal will also be featured on my bachelor’s degree.
Why should such a symbol be controversial? Personally, I am an atheist and that is a prominent part of my identity. As an atheist I believe that knowledge, good deeds and inspiration come from within and not from without, and that the faculty of reason is an innate human quality that is devoid of supernatural influence.
It is in large part for these reasons why I am proud to be a product of the secular public school system. My disappointment, therefore, to find such a symbol representing the culmination of the immense amount of work I put in to realize this rite of passage cannot be overemphasized.
In addition, I am sure I speak for students across a broad spectrum of ideologies when I say that invoking Judeo-Christian symbolism goes against the atmosphere that a public school is legally entitled to create, and that they would rather not have their achievement branded by a statement so incongruous to their creed.
Ask any person off the street what is the first thing that they think of if one is to say, “Let there be light,” and the odds are stacked in your favor that they will answer the Bible. Such a response would seem quite obvious. However, when I expressed my concern to the staff of the UCLA store, where the executive pad holders wielding these seals are sold, I was informed that the open book is not a bible and that the phrase is a reference to the gathering of education.
Of course, anyone including myself would be willing to contend that a book by itself can be a neutral element. Indeed, the seal for Santa Monica College, where I earned my associate degree, also features an open book. Here it is displayed prominently against a background of Greek columns and superseded with the words, “Friendliness. Truth. Service.” In this instance, the imagery bespeaks to the tenets of civility, philosophy and above all human reason, all three of which pay tribute to the very foundations of Western academia and are therefore much more relevant to a university education.
The accompanying maxim to the book featured on the UC seal however does not leave its meaning open to interpretation. Anyone with even a limited background in history knows that the phrase “Let there be light” is translated from the Latin “Fiat lux,” found originally in the Latin Vulgate Bible from the fourth century. In fact, the verse from Genesis 1:3 read in its entirety from this very same source is “Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux,” (God said: Let there be light. And there was light).
Recently, the UC system had been designing a new seal but the efforts were stalled by the student body due to the new proposals going against tradition. However, I say that it is unethical to knowingly disregard the founding principles of this secular country by hiding behind the smokescreen of tradition and using the seal for more than 100 years.
Thus I believe that now is the opportune moment to lend a voice to future generations of UC students so that when they too are facing these crossroads in life, they can proudly display a degree and seal that complements their convictions rather than contradicts them. We owe them that much.
Evangelatos graduated in June with a bachelor’s degree in psychology.
It must be summer. Nothing else worthwhile to report on.
Symbolism, like that on the seal of UCLA, transcends religious bounds. It harks back to the Greco-Roman tradition, to that of the Greek philosophers. The symbols of light, the open book, the scroll, even the phrase “fiat lux” all predate the Old Testament. To revoke the seal of our school because of perceived religious bias would require that the UC revoke any symbol that can be similarly misconstrued (ie: many of the adornments throughout Royce Hall, or even the commencement garb that graduates – like yourself – wear). It is not reasonable to ask UCSD to change its mascot because it evokes Hellenic paganism; it is similarly unreasonable to change a school’s seal because it is perceived to evoke Judeo-Christian tradition.
Very intriguing response, and thank you. Your example of Hellenic paganism raises an interesting counter, and I would be willing to argue on behalf of that point at some future discussion.
However, the UC seal goes far beyond mere subjective perception if you were to look at the history of how the seal has evolved. Here is a link for you to consider: http://brand.universityofcalifornia.edu/guidelines/the-uc-seal.html#!
As you can see from that link, the proposed seal in 1908 – from which our current seal has found its primary inspiration – viewed the words “Let there be light” within the book itself. It would be foolhardy to exclaim that this imagery can be misconstrued in any way other than what had been intended. Even in Canada in recent weeks, one parent complained to a public school to remove a cross displayed on the side of the building: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2013/05/31/nl-school-cross-removal-531.html
Of course we can note that in the early 20th century the American zeitgeist was of a more religious air. Even in the 1950s the openly atheist population was only about 2%. Today that number has grown close to 20%, It is not unworthy to ask that a public school start to evolve to reflect the times. As per my example, Santa Monica College has done a wonderful job at from the beginning.
I’m very anti-Abrahamic religions myself, and admire your articulate passion on weeding it out of our secular institutions and its symbolism. However, we atheists can actually look at it from the opposite perspective.
When Nietzsche proclaimed “God is dead” he wasn’t speaking to theists, trying to convince them, he was speaking to fellow atheists. The phrase points to the fact that science and reason have killed the irrational Yahweh from serious discourse, and yet, our implicit cultural and moral values, from the inertia of religious history, have yet to be purged. For example even the average secularists notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has implicit biblical connotations, and as your article points out, on the symbolism of our secular institutions.
BUT, it is the next line of thought that even as a fellow atheist, I respectfully disagree with your problem of the phrase “Let there be light.”
Nietzsche surmised that the final nail in the coffin to the irrationality of the Judeo-Christian god would be a total revaluation of all values, and a different type of human being that would REPLACE Yahweh and his role as dominant creator.
His “Ubermensch” or Superman is the educated, passionate, willing, creative force of a human being that becomes a god in their own right, off their knees and on their feet, utilizing the faculties of pure reason.
So I say, LET the secular institution jack the phrase “Let there be light” from that superstitious book, and alter the very context of that phrase from the ground up. Let’s let that phrase ACTUALLY be what it is, a representation of the light within the individual, as you said that originates within and not without.
Yahweh said ‘let there be light’ but screw that, when a human being becomes educated, THEY are saying let there be light. And hence, there’s nothing wrong with humanity taking back what’s theirs. By critisizing that phrase on a secular seal, you play by THEIR rules. Take the phrase back, and become a god yourself.
I am humbled by your philosophical take on the matter. I haven’t thought of it in quite that way before, and take away from your perspective the kind of reassurance and insight one always seek whenever engaging in these kinds of discussions.
I see where you’re coming from, but this argument is based on the etymological fallacy. Light has metaphorically stood for knowledge in many traditions. That the phrase “fiat lux” comes from the Latin Vulgate is beside the point. Neither Christianity or the referent of the phrase in question have remained the same over the centuries. Signs change meaning with convention. That’s why you can’t pick apart a contemporary text on the basis of what the words it uses used to mean.
I like your take on the matter and respect your perspective on it. In my article I state that certain elements like the image of a book, when isolated, can be neutral elements and open to various interpretations. I would extend this sentiment to the metaphorical uses of light unhesitatingly. However, I feel that in this instance the word “light” cannot be pried apart from its original context based on the specific wording of the statement and the particular sentiments attached to it. One can easily say that the word “dream” is open to numerous interpretations, but when used as specifically as in the phrase “I have a dream,” the sentiment is unequivocally attached to the speech by MLK and the civil rights movement. You cannot cherry-pick the word “dream” in that statement and invoke a separate meaning to it other than its original intention because the statement itself is essentially timeless, as is “Let there be light.” Should the UC system wish to instill the notion that their interpretation of the word “light” is indeed indicative of the gathering of an education, or in your case knowledge, then they may consider inventing their own original slogan rather than plagiarizing the Bible itself.
Most colleges have symbols that are 100 years or older, so let the history live on. Then students in the future graduating classes can see the meaning of this symbol in the past & interpret it in their own way in the future. The new symbol that the UC created this year was not great & we cannot just try to modernize everything. History is important and that is simply what this symbol is….history.
What the name Angel? or Evangelatos for that matter?
You are arguing via the ad hominem fallacy which has absolutely no bearing on the actual issue at hand. Even if I had a name which translated into “Holy blood of Jesus on high,” your statement would still not argue in any way for or against the use of religious symbolism on the UC seal. Are you a UCLA student? I would suggest taking a class on logic. I did so in community college and it greatly improved my arguing skills.
This is another example that illustrates that atheists are as annoying and whiny as fundamentalist religious members.
If you want a seal that doesn’t share ANY symbols or words with a several hundred page religious text, I’d suggest maybe putting a spaceship and a strand of DNA on it. But then you’d be taking elements from Scientology.
Nothing is neutral and void of meaning. Not even if our symbol was a plain circle with no words.
Actually the atom is a nice symbol for a school.
In an attempt to not be redundant with what has already been said I will just add that I also appreciate the history of the seal for the binding power that all history and tradition tends to have. Its one small way that we are bound to the past alumni and with students yet to come. In a small way it unites us. Besides that the pride that it inspires comes from that history and tradition and it would be less powerful if we were to change the tradition. I am an atheist, however the reasonably neutral images have no bearing on the actual state of the university nor do I think it is significant enough to warrant anger, in short, it doesnt matter if it is a bit religious, tradition matters more.
I think you should be more concerned with the bleak job out look for recent grads.
Really? You just noticed it when you’re about to graduate? Nuff said.