Jumping in with my 2 cents  Follow the money. Is the NCAA protecting their money making trademarks, etc.?  A case has gone on since 1992 and continues today.  Seems the case might be then expanded to other disparaging names depending on how it goes.  The following is from August on the Wall Street Journal website.   It may be that an apology supportive of the NCAA position is a good step when it comes to a member institution's relationship with them.  And, if so, that means it would not extend beyond athletics, as is mentioned by Ed.  Bob Hamilton

Law Blog » The Washington Redskins’ Name Debate Goes On   Six Native Americans are filing a joint petition with the US Patent and Trademark Office today asking for cancellation of the trademarked term Redskins.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/08/11/should-the-washington-redskins-be-forced-to-change-its-name/

Snippet from above
>>“The term ‘Redskins’ is an extraordinarily insensitive and derogatory term and one that should not be granted exclusive trademark licenses by the federal government,” said Suzan Shown Harjo, president of The Morning Star Institute, a non-profit American Indian advocacy group. She added that she hopes the legal action “will convince the Washington team owners and others that disparaging terms should be consigned to museums and history books.”
Harjo was the lead petitioner in a similar petition filed in 1992 by a group of prominent Native American leaders. Federal trademark law dictates that the government will not register any trademark that disparages any person or group, and in 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the Redskins trademark was disparaging. The NFL appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court, which in 2003 reversed the PTO, ruling that the name wasn’t disparaging. Further, said the trial court, laches (essentially, a statute of limitations) barred the Native Americans’ claim because the Redskins had registered their trademark way back in 1967. The Native Americans then appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which issued an opinion last year declining to rule on disparagement but asking the trial court to reconsider the laches issue. <<