There is no doubt that the NCAA is a powerful organization.Sometimes, one has to wonder if they've become too powerful.
In 2005, the NCAA announced a "ban", of sorts, on Native American imagery in college sports. The NCAA, legally, can't stop schools from using whatever nicknames, logos, or mascots they please. However, the "ban" was put in place to keep schools in violation from hosting NCAA championship events.
(Yes, college football fans, there are actual NCAA championship events. They do these things called "playoffs" in every NCAA sport at every level. Well, except for Division I-A football, now known as the "Football Bowl Subdivision". Novel idea, huh?)
None of this should have come as a surprise. After all, back in 2003, NCAA President Myles Brand spoke to the National Press Club, and he declared that the NCAA should have a goal to "provide a catalyst for social change". Such a phrase would lead one to believe that the nickname regulation is only the beginning of the NCAA's work.
This "ban" has been somewhat effective. Perhaps it would be more effective if the NCAA hadn't gotten in the business of handing out exemptions to schools such as Florida State, Central Michigan, and Utah. Some schools have actually changed their nicknames and/or imagery. Illinois retired longtime mascot Chief Illiniwek, but was able to keep the "Illini" nickname. William and Mary (Tribe) has said they will change their nickname. Louisiana-Monroe switched from "Indians" to "Warhawks".
There are still some schools who have not complied with the NCAA regulations. Alcorn State (Braves) has not sought a review or indicated what they will do with their nickname.
Arkansas State doesn't appear to be on that list anymore. Monday night, a committee put together to review the school nickname of "Indians" approved a resolution recommending a nickname change. Arkansas State, which is in Jonesboro, is a Division I school primarily competing in the Sun Belt Conference. The committee recommended the use of a national committee to create a new mascot for ASU. The resolution moves on now to the chancellor, Robert Potts. He will be charged with deciding whether to have the board of regents look at the issue.
Personally, this is disappointing to me. As a Native American, I have never had a problem with nicknames like "Indians", "Braves", or "Tribe". "Redskins" bothers me because of the obvious negative connotation behind the term, and I'm glad SE Oklahoma moved on to something besides "Savages", which is offensive on any imaginable level.
Polls have shown support among most Native Americans for these nicknames, with approval ratings sometimes running in the 80th percentile.
Division II (soon to move to Division I) North Dakota has made up their mind. The Fighting Sioux attempted multiple appeals of the nickname legislation. Since UND has seen much success in Division II athletics, they were very aggressive to defend their ability to host NCAA championship events without changing the nickname or imagery. UND does not have a mascot.
After the appeals dried up, UND got approval from the North Dakota Board of Higher Education to sue the NCAA. It's a case that is still pending, with a December trial looking likely at this point. State attorney general Wayne Stenehjem doesn't think the NCAA policy can hold up:
"UND has no mascot; they have a logo designed by a Native American. Compare that to Florida State, which has a white guy who dresses up as an Indian get on a horse and ride into a stadium with a flaming spear as everybody chants war chants. But that is permissible? That is what is just fundamentally unfair."University president Charles Kupchella called the policy "arbitrary and capricious", and he wrote in a letter to Brand that member schools like North Dakota "deserve much better from the NCAA than to be charged with decades of being hostile and abusive".
The policy is all of those things and more. I'm all for social change, but inconsistently applied rules are not a good way to go about it. While I understand the desire to right a wrong, Arkansas State is doing nothing here but unnecessarily complying with a bad NCAA ruling, and their decision is only going to serve to make it more difficult for schools such as North Dakota to fight this rule.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
It might not be as personally disappointing if the author was familiar with some of the background and shenanigans concerning ASU’s triple mascot (Chief Big Track, the Brave, and the Indian Princess), which goes far beyond a mere “nickname”. What has gone on behind the scenes at ASU is far more condemning to the continued use of the school’s mascot and nickname than presented by the various media articles that have supported it. Kudos to the ASU mascot committee and their recommendation. Kudos also to the American Indian ASU faculty members and local individual American Indians of different tribes who have actively spoken out against the school’s dishonest mimicry and attempts to keep the mascots.
It's a no brainer.. especially when 99% of the more than 500 Native American Tribes have requested the end to the use of American Indian names, imagery and caricatures as sports mascots. That the NCAA has shown moral leadership in the absence of that on many college campuses is to be applauded.
The NCAA and a handful of rabblerousers are the only ones who found Chief Illiniwek 'Hostile and Abusive'.
As an ex-Illinois grad, my feeling is that without the U of I, no one would know (or care) what 'an Illini'is, or was.
ASU should consider calling themselves the
"Engines"
Their school cheer could be "I think I can I think I Can"
When they do well the Newspapers could use the headlines "The Little 'Engines' That Could"
I don't think that being Native American and a commentator gives you the right to put into perspective the views of all Native Americans. I would not even begin a sentence with "As an American Indian..." if it were against the popular grain. See the other comments to this article. I would search and get stories on how it has been offensive to Native people. I am also Native American and an alumni of the University of North Dakota but also an Indian who was egged on campus for not being in support of the logo and nickname. I'd suggest you see how it has divided the Indian students as well. Would be good if most journalists, especially the American Indians, would take the time to read all the tribal resolutions before beginning their sentences by identifying their heritage, as if you were the spokesperson for all indigenous people!
Two of the 'sources' that are meant to bolster this article are kind of weird. The 80% number, with respect to American Indians polled who are in support of nicknames, doesn't really reflect the feelings of those Natives who get these logos showing up everywhere in their town - schools, hospitals, fastfood places, on bumper stickers, car rear windows, liscence plates, t-shirts, shorts, underwear, socks, towels, books, caps, and hockey arenas. If this 80% is out of Natives who are under this pressure, who can blame them for saying they don't oppose the name in some little poll? They are blitzed by it all over, so it is easier to go with it.
And as far as Stenejhem and Kupchella citing unfairness, why aren't they out there weighing in about national Native claims, such as the Cobell case in which people are being cheated out of a lot of money in a rather 'fundamentally unfair' way...or for that, what are they doing about the iron eagle statue that was torn off its foundations from in front of the American Indian Student Services building this spring in a very 'arbitrary and capricious' manner?
For ASU's new mascot, I nominate "Giant Douche."
As time goes on society presses its members to become more politically correct,and encourages everyone to be more open minded. The truth is that if we are to open minded we will accept anything. For instance, the NCAA forcing schools to change their name, and if this ruling is to protect the integrity of the Native Americans the government would have done so by now. There is not any discrimination in using indian names to represent colleges. The American Indians were here first and a majority of the population has decendants that were American Indian , therefore, why ban such names.