If there is one thing more bewildering than a convoluted branding strategy, it’s the patronizing insistence that the rest of us just don’t get the “strategic depth” behind it. The recent overhaul of a local school district’s visual identity—an endeavor steeped in controversy from the outset—has been defended with a tone that reeks of condescension, suggesting that any dissent or confusion is due to a lack of understanding.

Now, let’s set this straight. When a branding effort requires layers of explanation to make sense of a logo meant to encapsulate the essence of public education, we are not facing a triumph of design; we are witnessing a failure of communication. A logo that demands a manual to decode its intentions is not an emblem of clarity or inclusivity. It is a missed mark—a swing and a miss at the very task it was purportedly designed to accomplish.

The defenders of this complex logo, cloaked in their self-assured expertise, would have us believe that their decisions are beyond reproach. Considering the source, I’d beg to differ with that sentiment.  That we, the audience—a diverse body of students, parents, educators and even other brand/design professionals—are merely spectators who should nod appreciatively at the unveiling of this new brand identity, grateful for the strategic genius that supposedly went into its creation and blessed by you? This is not just wrong; it’s an affront to the very principles of public engagement and accountability.

Furthermore, the claim that branding is somehow an apolitical endeavor is not just naive—it’s dangerously misleading, especially coming from you. Every color choice, every line drawn, every shape rendered in a logo carries weight. These elements convey values and priorities, sending messages about what the institution stands for and whom it serves. To ignore or dismiss the inherent politics of these decisions is to overlook the fundamental dynamics of power and representation that play out in public spaces.

It’s water underneath an old rickety bridge at this point. Now, the decisions are made. I guess now this just makes the 2nd or 3rd time in about 5 years someone has been tasked to fix ‘a problem’, preferably with the same ol’ usual suspects.  But, the ink is dry on the designs, and these representations will not change anytime soon. So let me be unequivocally clear: accepting these decisions does not mean conceding that they were the right ones. It does not mean that clarity has prevailed. If anything, the resolution of this branding fiasco has left us with more questions than answers—questions about whose voices are prioritized, whose are sidelined, and how we define success in public projects, especially under the guise of minority owned businesses.

The conversation must go on, not in whispered tones of resignation, but in robust discussions that challenge the status quo and demand better. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to continue to scrutinize these decisions, to learn from this debacle, and to ensure that the next time public funds are spent on a branding process, whether strategic, visual or both, that the result and messaging is immediately full of clarity and true community representation.

Those in defense, are entitled to your opinions, I’m not in the business of denying points of view. But, before you lecture and profess to talk to us like we are your children, you need to understand who is out there doing the talking.  Some of us are local and legendary in this game of brand strategy and design. And to quote a famous politician, “… next time grown folks talking, close your mouth, peep me, we take this war -ish deeply” …

What’s clear is if it’s going to be defended, it definitely can’t be coming from you. From you?  

We can, we must, and we will do better.