Is it appropriate for a team to use a Native American emblem as a mascot? Is it a gesture of honor and respect, or one of hatred and degradation?
The answer to these questions depends on whom you ask. There are advocates who feel strongly on both sides of the issue. "It provides a cultural awareness that people might not have known about. If I had a child, and I named it after you, would you consider it an honor? I would," Seminole tribal council member Max B. Osceola Jr. told the Washington Post in November 2005 regarding the Florida State Seminoles. Still, others disagree. "It's just dehumanizing," said undergraduate Margaret Scott of her school's mascot, the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux, in the same Post article. "They put us on the same level as animals."
Here at Dartmouth, we are all too familiar with this controversy. Although the Indian has not been Dartmouth's mascot for decades, there are some students who are offended by a T-shirt depicting the old emblem. On the other hand, there are students and alumni who passionately embrace the mascot and remember it with admiration and pride.
It cannot be determined which side is right on the issue, for it is a matter of opinion. Each side has the right to voice its views and to take action to achieve its desired outcome. Those against the Dartmouth Indian did so and were successful when, in the mid-1970s, the mascot was abandoned due to an influx of demonstrations against it.
But how far should this opposition reach, and how much influence should one opinion have? Is it the place of colleges and universities to speak out and take action against other institutions who do not share similar mindsets?
Dartmouth Athletic Director Josie Harper addressed the fact that Dartmouth would be hosting the Fighting Sioux in a hockey tournament. She offered an apology to the Dartmouth community for the "pain" that this "offensive" mascot would create. Harper also suggested that perhaps Dartmouth should have considered North Dakota's mascot before inviting its team to participate in the tournament ("Apology for Hockey Tournament Mascot," Nov. 21).
The Dartmouth Athletic Department is not alone in these feelings. In fact, other schools have not only suggested such a screening process, but have acted on it. The University of Minnesota has announced that its teams will not engage in athletic competitions against the University of North Dakota. This decision is based on a policy approved by the University of Minnesota's Committee on Athletics in 2003 to "make every effort to avoid scheduling home events with schools that use American Indian mascots."
It is illogical to refuse to compete against a school because some people find its mascot offensive. First of all, while such an action makes a statement, it also doles out punishment where punishment is unwarranted. A school's mascot is determined by a board of officials -- not by the team members. It is unfair to punish the athletes for a decision that is out of their control. Secondly, if a college were to adopt this policy, and refuse to engage in athletic competition against schools bearing Native American mascots, why stop there? Why not refuse to play the athletic teams of Columbia University because it did not adequately punish a group of students who prevented visiting speakers from exercising their right to free speech? What if other schools refused to play Dartmouth's athletic teams because the school has students who publish a conservative newspaper that publishes articles which some people find distasteful? Each of these actions is surely considered "offensive" by some number of people. For a school to adopt such a screening policy is simply unrealistic. If we accommodate the objections of all who feel aggrieved, no school would be acceptable to compete against.
No matter how one may feel about this Native American mascot issue, it is important to understand the positions of the other schools. The schools that choose to continue to use Native American mascots do not do so to offend anybody, but because they do not view the issue in the same way. No matter how one may feel about any issue, each side must demonstrate a mutual respect for the other. We cannot refuse to associate with anyone who disagrees with us.
