Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

NCAA's 'logic' - now that's offensive

By GARY SHELTON
Published August 11, 2005

An admission: Until a couple of decades ago, I didn't know a thing about Chief Osceola. If I wasn't spending so much time around FSU, I might not have looked it up at all.

Now, I can tell you about Osceola's pride and his daring. I can tell you how he was betrayed by the white man. I can tell you how he died of malaria in prison.

Another admission: As a child, I had no knowledge of the Ojibway Indians.

If the Atlanta Braves had not hired Levi Walker, who had grown weary of seeing white men portray a team mascot named Chief Noc-a-Homa, I might not have any yet.

It was through sports that I learned about Jim Thorpe and the difficulties he endured growing up on an American Indian reservation. It was through sports that I learned the differences of Indians and the caricatures I saw in movies.

Granted, this may say more about me and an educational system than it says about Indians and their history. Still, as the volume grows in the NCAA's mascot debates, it is worth considering.

Yes, good things can come from the representation of Indians by sports teams. Knowledge of history. Exposure of culture. Appreciation of customs.

And, yes, some horrible things can come from it, too. Offensive stereotypes and cartoonish icons and drunken fans in war paint.

No one seems willing to weigh both sides. From the moment the NCAA bobbleheads announced a fractured, flawed edict that sort of banned Indian mascots some of the time depending upon appeals, there has been outrage on both sides. Those who defended such mascots before the announcement have renewed their vows, loud and passionately. Those who have historically opposed such mascots repeated their protests, firmly and vigorously.

Isn't it time the tempers cooled and the voices lowered? Isn't it time for reasonable voices and logical thoughts? Can we agree on this? Just as you cannot say that all people of a race are the same, you cannot suggest that all mascots are the same. Can you?

Even if you believe in banning all mascots representing any group, don't you have to admit that "Seminoles" is a great deal more respectful than "Savages," the nickname used by Southeast Oklahoma State? Even if you believe this is the latest example of rampant "political correctness," as does our governor, don't you have to see the problem with "Redskins" instead of "Chippewas"?

This was the NCAA's first misstep. In an attempt to curb what it viewed as racism, it saw everyone as the same. Excuse me, but isn't that how you define racism?

Should the NCAA have challenged each college, and yes, that includes the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, to examine the symbolism it endorses? Of course. Should Southeast Oklahoma change its nickname before lunch? Absolutely.

Can we agree on this? Seeing as how the NCAA is a collegiate organization, shouldn't it have done a little more homework?

For crying out loud, why not talk to the supposedly injured parties? If Indians are being harmed, shouldn't they be aware of it?

Yet, the Seminoles (in Florida, anyway) have endorsed the use of their name by FSU. The Chippewas have endorsed Central Michigan. The Utes have an agreement with Utah as long as it was used "respectfully and with dignity."

Before backing down, the NCAA even had a problem with the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, which was founded as a school exclusively for Indians and stayed that way for 66 years. The Lumbley tribe supports Pembroke's nickname of Braves.

In 2003, a Sports Illustrated poll found that 83 percent of Indians who are not living on a reservation had no problem with such mascots. With those living on reservations, 67 percent had no problem.

Just wondering: What kind of research did the NCAA do?

Can we agree on this? Colleges should be sensitive. Even if they believe they are right.

In the face of justice, tradition doesn't mean a thing. Look, if FSU were to change its name to the "Fightin' Dadgummits" overnight, it wouldn't take away one championship or one page of history. The stands would still be full. Not only that, but just think of the revenue from the T-shirts and the caps.

It's hard to blame FSU president T.K. "Touchdown Katch" Wetherell for his heated response; he has boosters to satisfy and a letterman's jacket in his closet.

Still, wouldn't you like for Wetherell to also say, "Look, we're sensitive to the potential harm. We're going to continue to meet not only with the Tribal Council, but with any interested or offended American Indian. Not just about the mascot, but about the flaming spear and the war chant and the phrase "scalp 'em" in our fight song. We recognize our responsibility to educate our fans and our players as the culture they represent."

Honestly, wouldn't you like to know - wouldn't Wetherell like to know - how many Seminoles are offended? Yes, that includes the Seminoles from Oklahoma.

(For the record: There are problems closer to home. There are 165 such mascots among public schools and colleges in Oklahoma, and in February, a state senate committee rejected a bill that would ban such nicknames.)

Can we agree on this? Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all.

Even if the NCAA wanted to get into the nickname-approval business - and one can assume the Rebels, the Aztecs and the various forms of Devils would be discussed - why deal in half-measures? If it's so outrageous, if it is so hurtful, then why not ban all nicknames all of the time?

This? This seems arbitrary and vague. It seems like a grandstand play by an organization that has bigger problems.

Can we agree on this? As nicknames go, someone should jump all over the "NCAA Bobbleheads."

[Last modified August 11, 2005, 00:43:15]