It has been almost 40 years since Dartmouth changed its mascot from the Indian to the Big Green. In 1968, our dear old Dartmouth turned in its fierce Indian warrior in exchange for the intangible and ambiguous color of green.
Although I have no problem with green as a school color, I'm sorry to say that it is a very lackluster mascot, if you can even call it that. When I think of a Dartmouth Indian, I picture a fierce and proud warrior, willing to sacrifice anything for his tribe (or school).
When I hear Big Green, the only mental image that comes to mind is a green version of the McDonald's character Grimace. Whoever made the decision to change mascots back in 1968 must have forgotten about our school's origin -- a college founded in part to educate the population of Native Americans in the area.
In fact, Dartmouth is still proud of its heritage; I've already attended more than one College-sponsored event that promotes the Native-American culture.
Now I don't want this column to become too reminiscent of something you'd find in the Dartmouth Review, so let's leave the issue about the Dartmouth Indians alone for a while.
On Aug. 5, the National Collegiate Athletic Association announced that, beginning this winter, all American-Indian mascots will be banned from NCAA-sponsored post-season tournaments. The NCAA committee deemed that it did not have the authority to ban schools from using American Indian mascots, but determined that these mascots were unacceptable in "championship competition." High-profile schools such as the Florida State Seminoles and the NCAA basketball tournament runner-up Illinois' Fighting Illini will be affected next year during postseason activities. In all, 18 schools were found to have "hostile or abusive" mascots.
To me, this seems like just another case of a governing organization making radical generalizations in order to appear politically correct.
Just as the Federal Communications Committee arbitrarily determined that certain radio programs such as Howard Stern were violating standards for proper language and content, the NCAA is arbitrarily deciding that certain well-established mascots are suddenly hostile and derogatory.
Moreover, the North Carolina-Pembroke Braves were not included in the ban because the school has "historically admitted a high percentage of American Indians." Does the NCAA mean to imply that these American-Indian mascots are only abusive if they represent a college that does not favor Native Americans? What criteria should determine whether or not a school has a right to use a particular mascot?
It all sounds a little bit subjective to me. Last time I checked, Michigan State University did not admit a high percentage of Spartan descendents, and the University of Virginia was not composed of an inordinate number of cavaliers.
I don't believe that the NCAA should have any authority whatsoever to make judgments regarding college mascots.
In fact, the NCAA should focus on making sure that college athletics remain fair and competitive and stop trying to make social statements, such as banning certain college mascots.
Amazingly enough, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has historically shown support for Florida State's use of its nickname and tribal symbols. If the NCAA was truly trying to do what was right I would hope that it would hold in high regard the opinion of the actual American-Indian tribes. This is clearly not the case.
By banning schools from using their deeply-ingrained mascots, the NCAA is simply attracting negative attention to this issue. I would guess that most fans of college sports never considered mascots like the Seminoles or Braves to be derogatory or abusive.
However, now that the NCAA has gone on record as saying that these names should be considered abusive, the casual fan will have no choice but to view these nicknames in a negative light. The last thing this country needs is more dirty words.
Another issue that I have with this decision is the lack of authority and responsibility that has been left with the individual schools. If colleges are held accountable for obeying academic and athletic morals and standards, why are they not permitted to make their own decisions regarding their mascots?
I would like to think that Dartmouth's administration is responsible and capable enough to make its own decisions on trivial matters such as our school mascot without the oversight of the NCAA. Other colleges should be no different.
Perhaps each university should investigate within its campus and decide whether a mascot change needs to be made based on its own situation. However, without considering each school specifically, the NCAA foolishly neglects the history and motivation behind each college choosing its American-Indian mascot.
The bottom line is that the era of political correctness has entered the world of college athletics. Why must we ruin a good thing? American-Indian mascots were chosen for their fierceness, loyalty, strength, and that's it.
Mascots are supposed to be intimidating and quite frankly, the image of a powerful Indian warrior charging into battle is a perfect fit. No mascot was meant to be hostile or derogatory. I would be proud to root for a team called the Fighting Kreichers. Unfortunately, the NCAA has enough problems to deal with without creating new ones out of nothing.
