Ian Eisner ieisner@media.ucla.edu
Click Here for more articles by Ian Eisner Â
The PC police are at it again. Thirty years after campus
interest groups at Stanford pressured the university to change its
mascot from an Indian to a tree, the California legislature has
resurrected their cause. If overly-sensitive legislators have their
way, all state schools would be forced to engage in similar acts of
political correctness.
This is the mandate of a new bill which, if passed, would ban
the use of American Indian team names and mascots in high schools,
state colleges and the UC system. The legislation would also create
a “can’t define it but know it if I see it”
commission to determine which mascots are patently derogatory or
discriminatory. In one quick swoop, over 100 California schools
would be forced to change names, even if the names were adopted to
honor American Indian groups. Blacklisted mascots would include
Indians, Warriors, Chiefs and Comanches.
Bill sponsor Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg offers justification,
stating “I find the mascots offensive, and think others would
find them even more so.” The problem is, her attempt to
“protect the American Indian community from derision”
directly opposes the wishes of American Indians themselves.
According to a poll by the Harris Research Group, 81 percent of
American Indians actually support the use of American Indian
mascots.
This should come as little surprise. After all, mascots and
school names are selected to exemplify positive traits like bravery
and determination. According to one Comanche tribe member, mascots
even provide an opportunity for American Indians to garner
increased respect. High praise is evident in fight songs like the
one sung at Westlake High, which proclaims, “Hillsides
resounding, conquer the foe, Warriors victorious, Warriors of
courage.”
But proponents of the bill argue that this kind of language
“…teaches school children culturally abusive
behavior.” There is, however, little support for such an
allegation. In fact, the Office of Civil Rights under the Clinton
administration conducted an investigation which found no evidence
of a racially hostile atmosphere as the result of an American
Indian-related mascot.
Nonetheless, California legislators have charged on, citing the
grievances of a small minority of American Indians as justification
to end a form of tribute most American Indians overwhelmingly
support. Allowing the will of this thin-skinned pocket to ride
roughshod over the vast majority sets a dangerous precedent.
The spread of this PC ideology would mark the end of not only
American Indian symbols, but any school name or mascot with the
potential to offend. With a discontent born every minute, the slope
could get quite slippery.
If “offensiveness” becomes the bar, Notre
Dame’s “Fighting Irish” mascot would be cast
aside because a few individuals believe it stereotypes the Irish as
surly and belligerent. The University of Hawaii’s
“Rainbow Warriors” would be seen as doubly offensive.
Even South Carolina’s “Gamecocks” moniker would
be dropped because PETA members currently view it as an offensive
glorification of cock-fighting. And what about schools bearing the
names of George Washington or John Adams? Some find these figures
highly objectionable because they owned slaves. Even the esteemed
Abraham Lincoln has been accused of caring more about Union
preservation than slave emancipation. Should schools be forced to
end their association with these “offensive” presidents
just to appease a small group of grumblers?
Common sense would say otherwise. If names and mascots are
forced to meet the new PC threshold of approval, it’s only a
matter of time before schools are forced to do what Stanford did
““ resort to rallying behind something as innocuous as a tree.
And I find that offensive.