We've all heard about it by now -- the NCAA has decided to institute a ban on
"hostile" and "abusive" Native American team names. Most would see this as a victory for liberals, but I'm here to argue that the "Indian mascot ban" isn't the smartest decision the NCAA could make. In fact, it really isn't a smart decision at all.
First of all, here's the disclaimer. I was an NCAA varsity athlete in college (i.e. up until about three months ago). Since my participation was in a smaller sport (women's crew) with few mascots aside from the occasional "scary animals" (Tigers, Bears, Lions, etc.) I was never really exposed to the mascot controversy. Additionally, I was free from most of the oft-criticized NCAA corruption and bureaucratic antics because women's crew is at the bottom of the NCAA pork barrel and is pretty much only there because of Title IX. I'm not going to go into depth about Title IX other than saying that it has MANY benefits, a few drawbacks, is being thoroughly abused at a few schools, and really has nothing to do with the Indian mascot ban.
My second disclaimer is that I will be using the hypothetical "New Jersey State University" or "Jersey State" as an example. This institution does not exist, nor does its NCAA team, the Lenapes (for those of you who are not familiar, this is a Native American tribe used for many New Jersey high school team mascots). Okay, time for the real stuff.
So, as for the decision itself: contrary to what some believe, the NCAA decision is not an outright ban on Native American mascots. Rather, it forbids teams with "hostile" or "abusive" names to use that name freely:
Starting in February, any school with a nickname or logo considered racially or ethnically "hostile" or "abusive" by the NCAA would be prohibited from using them in postseason events. Mascots will not be allowed to perform at tournament games, and band members and cheerleaders will also be barred from using American Indians on their uniforms beginning in 2008. (From the same AP story linked above.)
So, in essence, the "hostile and abusive" regulations only apply to the postseason, which means that all the NCAA really cares about are the games that are going to get exposure to the public. This means that New Jersey State University could go by its "old" name, the Lenapes, for every single one of its regular season games, and the guy in the big poofy mascot suit, Big Chief Yeehaw, could jump around the bleachers as much as he wants to. As for the NCAA basketball tournament, all the school has to do is order a bunch of new jerseys (bad pun alert) that say "Jersey State" on them instead of "Lenapes" and tell Big Chief Yeehaw to stay at home.
Additionally, the "mascot ban" does not apply to NCAA football since there is no official postseason tournament. This means that the Sugar Bowl, the Rose Bowl, the Glutton Bowl, and all those other ESPN regulars will not be affected. Jersey State's football team can keep the uniforms with the mascot on them, they can keep the Big Chief Yeehaw suit, and they can keep the cheerleader uniforms inspired by Disney's Pocahontas.
So here's my first point: The "mascot ban" is not going to be particularly effective. In fact, it gives the message that these issues (i.e. potential racist team names) only matter when they're broadcast on national TV. The ban really isn't going to change much.
But what if the ban were more effective? This goes into my second point: the aftereffects of what seems to be a benign gesture of political correctness.
Out front: If a team is called the Redskins or Redmen, I say they've got no excuse. Those names ought to be changed right away.
In other situations, things can get more complicated. Let's say that the Board of Trustees of Jersey State University finally reach a conclusion. The "Lenapes" are scrapped and the student body votes on a new mascot. The consensus is overwhelming -- they want to be the Jersey State Mafia. (Those of you who aren't from Jersey might be unfamiliar with the amount of "Sopranos" pride found in some of our local youth, so quite honestly I wouldn't be too surprised if a sports team wanted to call itself the Mafia.) Let's overlook the real reason why "Mafia" should be turned down as a sports team name (promotes violence) and look at the ethnic side of it. There would be some who would voice complaints, but I can guarantee that (excluding the violence-based objection) it would be much easier to name a team the Jersey State Mafia than the Jersey State Lenapes, even though Lenape is an actual tribe name and Mafia refers to a particularly reprehensible and very small minority of Italian-Americans.
Which is my main point: the "mascot ban" emphasizes the unfortunate fact that when it comes to political correctness, there are inevitably groups for whom it's popular to express cultural sensitivity, and there are others that get shoved under the rug. And, as we all know as good Democrats, just because something doesn't make headlines doesn't mean it's not there, and it doesn't mean it's right. So let's look at what else is out there:
A few years ago, an intramural basketball team named itself the "Fightin' Whites" in an act of demonstration against the use of "ethnic" team names. The point was that the "Fightin' Whites" would seem so ridiculous that people would get the point about Native American mascots, and consider them to be equally inappropriate. Well, in fact, the Fightin' Whites might not be in the NCAA, but there are plenty of teams named after white ethnic groups. Iona College goes by the Gaels. Louisiana calls its teams the Ragin' Cajuns. Penn's are the Quakers, and the mascot looks like he stepped off an oatmeal box. I don't think I've seen a more "stereotypical" mascot than that of the Oklahoma State Cowboys. And -- get ready, Kossacks -- the mascot for Ole Miss's "Rebels" is a typical "Southern gentleman" who bears a resemblance to Colonel Sanders.
Then there's always my favorite -- if Wake Forest University's basketball team is ever on ESPN, watch it. Their team is called the "Demon Deacons" and their mascot is a cartoonish version of a mean-looking Victorian-era clergyman. I'm not kidding. Click the link for visuals.
And not all of these "white mascots" promote the best image of the ethnic group in question. To put this into a more personal context, I'm Irish-American and for years I couldn't stand the Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish" mascot. I mean, not only is it an ugly leprechaun, but the whole moniker is a reference to the stereotype of the Irish as belligerent drunks. It's the same prejudice that gets me questions like "So, you sure can hold your beer well, right?" when people learn my last name. And, for the record, I don't think I need to remind anyone that the Irish were subject to overwhelming prejudice in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's still there, too. My mother wanted to name me Elizabeth, but my father wouldn't allow it because he was still so bitter about what the British (and their colonies in America) had done to the Irish for centuries. And my dad's older brother was warned against rushing certain fraternities in college because they wouldn't accept any Irish -- this was in the "progressive" 1960s.
But do I complain about that darn leprechaun? Nope, and neither does the rest of Irish America. I might not be able to understand it in full, many Irish-Americans just love Notre Dame football because it's the Fighting Irish. My relatives don't have an issue with any prejudice inherent in the mascot; rather, every time Notre Dame scores a touchdown, they raise their pints of Guinness and toast to it. One thing I've learned about the Irish is that they've come to embrace their own stereotype. Every time Notre Dame wins a game, it's not just a victory for the school, but for many Irish-Americans who follow the school's football team simply because "they're Irish." The attitude is that if a team has decided to call themselves the Fighting Irish, when that team wins, it means that the Irish kick ass.
Some Native American tribes have this same attitude. It's pointed out in the AP article linked above that the Seminole Nation of Florida has endorsed FSU's team name and even the mascot, Chief Osceola. I've heard that the situation is similar for the Aztecs at San Diego State, who have also researched how to make their team logo reflect the Aztec tribe instead of doing the typical "guy with feather in hair" design. If these measures are taken, I don't think there's anything racist about the use of Native American mascots for NCAA teams. Rather, it can be a downright honor. That's what the Fighting Irish have become, and the Ragin' Cajuns, and although I haven't asked any actual deacons about this, I assume that clergymen probably find the Wake Forest mascot to be pretty amusing. Instead of using the NCAA regulation to ban Native American mascots, why not use it as a way to change them for the positive? Schools could research what the Illini and the Utes really looked like, and maybe learn a thing or two about Native American history in the process.
But, as I said, axe the Washington Redskins. That's nothing but a pure, unadulterated racial slur. And, while they're at it, rename the team the "Washington Jailbirds" and make the mascot a corrupt politician in stripy prisoner's garb. That's a stereotype that's pretty damned true.