The anger and outrage in reaction to the law school’s resolution that protests using American Indian names or images as team mascots is surprising. After all, in open-minded Eugene, one might think a movement against bigotry would be applauded. So why are so many people up-in-arms about the University resolving to uphold its obligations to promote tolerance?
My guess is the negative retorts to the University School of Law resolution are just that – thoughtless reactions.
Most of the letters to the editor have been mocking the resolution because it appears to be impractical for the University not to play teams with questionable mascots in the post season. Had some of the opponents to this resolution done their homework, they would find it only prohibits University teams from scheduling athletic events in the regular season with schools touting American Indian mascots. Post-season games are not “scheduled” because, technically, no one could estimate which team would participate in playoffs.
Also, the resolution does not prohibit the University from playing teams that already have licensing agreements from American Indian tribes to use their image. The Florida State Seminoles and the Utah Utes are among the teams with such agreements.
The resolution won’t tangibly impact University students. Rabid sports fans who assume the University may forfeit a chance to play in an NCAA Final Four game because the Illinois Fighting Illini are in the same bracket, can breathe a sigh of relief. By supporting the resolution, the University would merely be taking a symbolic stand against marginalizing American Indians.
A lot of indignant feedback I’ve read questions how far society will take this “cause” and wonders where it will end. It’s unlikely we’re going to see the demise of the Washington Redskins or the Atlanta Braves anytime soon; authors of the resolution aren’t trying to bite off more than they can chew. Incremental steps to end the promotion of racism must start at the local level and I’m surprised this effort hasn’t garnered more support from open and educated minds.
Naysayers who mockingly claim the Seattle Seahawks promote stereotypes of birds and Boston Red Sox discriminate against people wearing blue socks are missing the point. Sure, the University’s resolution is a small step, but it’s a small step in the right direction.
I can’t speak for American Indians on this topic, and I’m not trying to. For what it’s worth, I tried to solicit a commentary from American Indian voices on campus to no avail. But as a University student with a vested interest in ending bigotry of all brands, I can’t find fault in a resolution that holds our school to some basic standards of human respect.
The law school resolution isn’t a “silly little cause” created by hyper-liberal tree huggers: It’s common sense. Implementing the resolution won’t hurt anyone and I encourage President Dave Frohnmayer to approve it when the resolution crosses his desk today.
E-mail editorial editor Julie Lauderbaugh at [email protected]
Resolution affirms courtesy
Daily Emerald
May 7, 2002
0
More to Discover