NCAA ban on mascots

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Why is it always people with the most privilege telling others to get over it? If the term "sticks and stones" applies, it surely only works when it does not apply to them. I have said many things over the years and I did not hear many in you situation talking about "sticks and stones." I guess I just find this part of the discussion interesting. If someone just mentions someone that is not of color the first thing many here will accuse me or others of is being a racist. Sounds to me like a huge contradiction.

Peace

"Why is it always people with the most privilege telling others to get over it?"

Malcolm (not in-the-middle) did. Bill Cosby is.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
As many of you know, Juulie and I are friends, but I must take a slightly different tack on this issue other than hers.

I think that if a mascot is chosen to honor a particular group of people, and the representations of that group are not offensive to them, then not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it should be complimented. I'm talking about situations in public instutitions, of course.

However, if that group has a legitimate objection, such as being portrayed as negative stereotypes, then the mascot should be changed. Public funds should not be used to further prejudice.

I'm sure none of us would want to have a school mascot that "made fun of" an ethnic group to which we belonged.

That being said, I can't wait for Juulie's take on a school that calls it's team the "Fighting Quakers".

Go Penn!

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Two words - private organization.

I do think that the NCAA has gone a bit too far in this decision. I think most intelligent people can tell the difference between offensive names (like Redskins) and non-offensive names (Seminoles, Utes, Illini) - particularly when most of the offensive names are derived from derogatory racial or ethnic slurs. Simplified - there's a difference between the "Fighting Irish" and the "Drunken Micks."

If the NCAA is going to adopt this policy, however, why not look at all nicknames that are possibly offensive? Having teams named the "Lady" X's is certainly sexist and offensive, but the NCAA isn't banning them from post-season play.

"Having teams named the "Lady" X's is certainly sexist and offensive, but the NCAA isn't banning them from post-season play."

This does bring up a fine kettle of fish - if I may say fish. Around here we have a high school whose nickname is the Rams. The gentially female teams use the nickname Lady Rams. Oh boy.

[Jimgolf]

I'm still going after Notre Dame. This is pretty offensive.

[imaref]

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by drothamel
Perhaps the NCAA should worry more about graduation rates and illegal recruiting as opposed to mascots.

I don't necessarily agree with this new policy, but they are definately concerned with graduation rates and recruiting violations.

Doesn't the NCAA have something better to do, like say, figure out how to make more profit on bowl games, merchandise, and March Madness without owing the athletes anything?

FYI - the NCAA has nothing to do with the I-A Bowl Games. Unless the BCS (or individual bowl sponsors) adopt a similar policy, anyone can wear anything in December and January.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

This does bring up a fine kettle of fish - if I may say fish. Around here we have a high school whose nickname is the Rams. The gentially female teams use the nickname Lady Rams. Oh boy.

On an interesting side note, the mascot of the high school I attended was the Knights. The girls' teams were often called the "Lady Knights," but one teacher (who had extensive knowledge in the history of the medieval period) always said that they should be known as the "Dames."

The change was never made. :-p

[Ref in PA]

Having read the entire discussion, I thought I would add a couple of points (my opinion), some of which has been touched upon. Incidentally, it has been a good discussion.

As long as people are separated, defined, categorized into groups, there will be bias and prejudice against those groups. The "offenses" may be blatant and obvious, others will be subtle. Other offenses may be perceived by the group - a circumstance where no offense was intended yet offense was taken. It is a shame for people to purposefully give offense and it is a shame for people to take offense when none is intended. Intentional offense can be fought through education, laws, etc.

Unintentional offense is a grayer matter. Who gets to judge whether the action is really offensive? For example, my daughter can't stand to hear any sort of chewing noise, unless she is doing it also. To her, eating chips or popcorn in her presence is offensive, and we do that to irritate her. We chew with our mouths closed, we try to be respectful of her wishes. My wife and I think normal eating habits with minimal noise is acceptable, unfortunately my daughter does not. My point is that everyone has a different opinion as to what is offensive and many take offense when none is intended. How is the unintended offense fought? In my opinion, some education to the offender, but more importantly, the greater responsibility lies with the person or group perceiving the offense. Is the "offense" really a huge issue? What is offensive to one is not offensive to another. Who gets to "win" on the issue? If something bothers you, let the other person know, but at the same time and inward look must take place. Self esteem goes along way to getting beyond offenses. As said in song the greatest love of all is the love of self. I know I have been on the wrong side of prejudice and discrimination during my life. Some of it has been intentional and obvious. But, it is my personal philosophy not to let others determine my actions. I try always to act for myself and not react to the actions of others. Has it frustrated me? Yes. Has it got me down? Momentarily. Many things can be fought with a sound family environment where self esteem is developed. In my opinion, this is one of them. Yet, I know what I have gone through has not been as severe as others have experience.

In this case with the NCAA, some feel that school nicknames are offensive and degrading. Some feel that the schools mock things sacred to offended group. Others think the Indian tribes are being petty by taking offense. Who is right? It is a tough question and the NCAA has reacted by mandating certain actions. Some feel the NCAA has not gone far enough with their mandates while other feel that NCAA has overstepped their boundaries.

Now, for my opinion: If the actions of a group do not infringe upon the rights of another, then it should be legal. What right is being violated by a school adopting a nickname? We live in a country of freedoms and rights. I am unaware of any freedoms or rights of an Indian tribe being violated by these nicknames or mascots. Therefore, I think the issue is a silly one. Just my opinion.

[Edited by Ref in PA on Aug 11th, 2005 at 11:34 AM]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
In this case with the NCAA, some feel that school nicknames are offensive and degrading. Some feel that the schools mock things sacred to offended group. Others think the Indian tribes are being petty by taking offense. Who is right? It is a tough question and the NCAA has reacted by mandating certain actions. Some feel the NCAA has not gone far enough with their mandates while other feel that NCAA has overstepped their boundaries.

Now, for my opinion: If the actions of a group do not infringe upon the rights of another, then it should be legal. What right is being violated by a school adopting a nickname? We live in a country of freedoms and rights. I am unaware of any freedoms or rights of an Indian tribe being violated by these nicknames or mascots. Therefore, I think the issue is a silly one. Just my opinion.

I think the comparison of your daughter's dislike of chewing noises to the offense taken by Native Americans to the mascots is specious. Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians. My point of view -- and I recommend it to others -- is to not want to do harm. If someone tells me that my actions belittle and dehumanize them, I will stop, if possible. Then if they continue to be offended, that's another story. You think it's silly for the Indians to make a big deal out of the nicknames. But if you fight that request, then you're making a big deal, too.
But if you immdeiately change the nickname/mascot, then you get a lot of brownie points, and you get to spend your time on something more important, like graduation rates, and affirmative action.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

On an interesting side note, the mascot of the high school I attended was the Knights. The girls' teams were often called the "Lady Knights," but one teacher (who had extensive knowledge in the history of the medieval period) always said that they should be known as the "Dames."

The change was never made. :-p

My HS teams were the Trojans. In those days, we didn't have girls teams. I guess if we did, they would have been the "Lady Trojans". That's really weird.

BTW - the best sign I ever saw at a basketball game was at a game I saw on TV at a UCLA - USC match. Some UCLA students had a sign that read, "Flush Used Trojans".

[imaref]

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by rainmaker


I think the comparison of your daughter's dislike of chewing noises to the offense taken by Native Americans to the mascots is specious. Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians. My point of view -- and I recommend it to others -- is to not want to do harm. If someone tells me that my actions belittle and dehumanize them, I will stop, if possible. Then if they continue to be offended, that's another story. You think it's silly for the Indians to make a big deal out of the nicknames. But if you fight that request, then you're making a big deal, too.
But if you immdeiately change the nickname/mascot, then you get a lot of brownie points, and you get to spend your time on something more important, like graduation rates, and affirmative action.

I will not fight any request to change unless I feel it infringes upon my own personal rights and freedoms or the rights and freedoms of an entity I care about. In this case it is neither for me. Out of courtesy I may change my behavior in accordance with a request if I feel that request has reason. In the example with my daughter, I try to be aware of where she is. I may eat in another room or modify my chewing behavior to try to be more quiet. But does that stop me from eating? No.

My personal point of view is not to intentionally offend or give harm also. But people will get offended over all sorts of issues, and to others those issues are trivial. Just because someone is offended does not mean behavior should change. If I am offended by southern politicians who have trouble pronouncing the word nuclear, does that mean they should get out of politics? We live in a country of freedom and democracy. The will of the majority should rule. However, we are seeing the will of the LOUDEST often ruling.

"Many Native Americans believe that their identity as people is diminished by the nicknames and mascots of Indians." I guess I am not swayed by this statement. I would like to see evidence of what they mean. I am open minded and am willing to join their cause if I really felt that a team nickname truly causes this damage. Is it a team nickname that causes the loss of identity or the white man making the Indians culturally conform to mainstream America or is it aphathy amongst some tribal members who no longer care for the traditions of their forefathers? Are they looking to blame something else when in reality they should be looking withing to discover the answer?

Looking at the opposite side, if I am offended by the behavior of others, I try to get beyond it if my request for change goes unheeded. I try not to swear in my personal life and am offended by foul language. I have a collegue who uses the F word constantly. I politely remind him from time to time to please not use that language around me, but the behavior does not change. I may get an occasional apology, but on the whole he continues to swear. Since I have to work with this individual, my choices are limited. Even though I am offended I can "get over it" and ignore it and make my best efforts not to let his language become part of my life - even though I am exposed to it. I can raise a formal complaint, which could result in his losing his job. I can continually remind him not to swear around me. I can become violent when I am offended. I can find a new job. There are lots of options. I choose to remind the individual every few months that his language offends me and I choose to ignore the language in between reminders. I do this to have the most productive working relationship we can have (in my perception). Should my will and preferences take precedence over his freedom to express himself? In my opinion No. Because of that, I have to "get over it". Should the will of an individual overrule the will of the masses? No. If there is merit in the will of the individual, it will catch on and the masses will adopt that principle.

I certainly agree there are more important matters that a universtiy faces than the mascot name. There are probably more important issues facing Native Americans and mascot nicknames.

[TigerBball]

On the Trojan issue, one of the elementaries in our system changed from Trojan's to Spartans simply because of the brand name implications.

Seems a little too PC for me, but I understand why they did it.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

My HS teams were the Trojans. In those days, we didn't have girls teams. I guess if we did, they would have been the "Lady Trojans". That's really weird.

BTW - the best sign I ever saw at a basketball game was at a game I saw on TV at a UCLA - USC match. Some UCLA students had a sign that read, "Flush Used Trojans".

Ah, the slippery slope. Once upon a time, a local team, known as The Prep, was playing a local rival. The Prep's cheering department was led by a plastic bucket with drumsticks and a conch shell. That's 'konk' or 'kahnch' - whatever. The matter of the legality of these noisemakers aside, the rivals came up with a sign "Prep Blows Conch". It was practically ripped out of their hands by one of their teachers. They wanted to retrieve it from the trash and re-assemble it. I suggested that they had made their point and lived, it would be good to just watch the game.

[drothamel]

Mark-

Thanks for the info-- didn't realize the NCAA wasn't involved in the BCS. I still find the NCCA taking such a strong stance on this one particular issue a bit suspect, though, considering everything else going on out there.

Two other things--

I never understood the whole "Lady x" thing. Why is it necessary, why can't both teams have the same name? It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we can tell that you are all ladies, do we need it on the uniform?

Changing from the Trojans to the Spartans doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps they should have read the Iliad. While the Spartans never exactly got along with Athens, they certainly could not be interchanged with Trojans.