Am I surprised the Holy Cross “Crusader” mascot is under siege? Of course not. This is Massachusetts. I’m only surprised they’re getting to keep “Holy” and “Cross” — for now.

The Boston Herald’s Laurel Sweet reports that Holy Cross may dump the Crusader moniker, including the mascot Iggy the Crusader, “out of concerns the image of a Christian warrior might be offensive to Muslims.” The college told the Herald that while “the Crusader name is an undeniable part” of its history, “we acknowledge our responsibility to thoughtfully examine the sensitivities and implications this name may bear.”

Sensitivities? Implications? It’s a guy who wears a foam rubber head and taunts opposing football teams. How grand can the implications be?

It’s possible that this small, private Catholic college could be “implying” that it’s amassing a Christian army to march into the Levant and, amid cries of “Deus Vult!” conquer Jerusalem for God and pontiff.

It’s more likely, however, that a college sports program needs a mascot that represents strength in adversity, and when your name is “Holy Cross,” the Crusader is a natural — the same way the Minutemen are a match for UMass and the Friars a fit for Providence College.

So why all the turmoil? According to their public statements, Holy Cross administrators are operating under the theory that somebody might be offended. Which is a ridiculous standard.

In a country of 320 million people, I can find at least one person to be offended by anything.

Remember the nutburger who shot Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords? He believed democracy was in danger from government-imposed grammar rules. Try telling him your team mascot is the “Battling Ampersand.”

Trying to find a symbol incapable of creating offense in the year 2017 is a fool’s (or college administrator’s) errand. For example, if you pick any group of people — from the Anchormen of Rhode Island College to the Eastern New Mexico University Zias — you’ll immediately have a pronoun problem. Is the mascot “he”? “She”? “Zir”? You laugh, but there are entire university programs dedicating to hyperventilating over “him” vs. “her.”

Animal mascots? Run that idea by PETA and see if it works. Inanimate objects? Find one that isn’t a weapon of war (Lasell Lasers in Newton) or symbol of oppressive capitalism (the Golden Nuggets, Xavier University of Louisiana).

And do I even have to mention the “cultural mascot” problems: Indians? Celtics? Rebels? Even the aforementioned Zias — the name of a Native American group indigenous to the Southwest — recently became the ENMU Greyhounds in an attempt to achieve cultural neutrality.

(Pause for animal kooks to exclaim: “But don’t they know how those poor greyhounds are treated? That’s why we banned dog racing in Massachusetts!”)

So instead of the impossible, Holy Cross should ask itself, “Are we being reasonable?” Is there something so problematic or off-putting about “Crusader” that a reasonable person would be upset by it.

By that standard, this conversation is over and the Crusaders are suiting up for Friday night’s basketball game against the Manhattan Jaspers — a mascot that should be banned out of sheer embarrassment. Yes, it’s true, as Holy Cross history professor Sahar Bazzaz said during a recent public forum, that “Crusader” is a rough equivalent to “jihadi” — “People fighting in the name of religion.” But that comparison makes the case against “Crusaders” even weaker.

Sure, 1,000 years ago “Crusaders” meant war and destruction. But today we have environmental crusaders, anti-vaxx crusaders, even the “Caped Crusader” (though the “Justice League” movie was so awful it may have killed the franchise). But violent warriors for the Catholic Church? That’s the stuff of Dan Brown novels.

Jihadists, alas, are all too real and all too now. There is simply no comparison. The Holy Cross Crusaders aren’t dangerous or offensive.

The same cannot be said of those leading the crusade against them.

Michael Graham writes regularly for the Boston Herald. His daily podcast is available at MichaelGraham.com.