First of all, I think some kudos are in order for the Miami University
higher-ups and their handling of the situation so far. According to the
_Dayton Daily News_ article posted by Michael Bohler, the university has
taken the trouble on at least three occasions (1972, 1988, and three years
ago) to discuss the "Redskins" moniker with the Miami tribe and solicit
their input. Even in these days of Political Correctness, it's not often
that an organization with a potentially offensive nickname finds the folks
who might potentially be offended by that nickname and asks their opinion
on the matter. And even though there may be a controversy brewing over all
this, I think the university has done it right, up to this point.
Let me add, though, that Miami has not yet agreed to anything on this
issue. The Miami tribe passed a resolution, and the university's board of
trustees will give it "thoughtful consideration" (whatever that bit of
organizational double-talk means) at their next meeting. Maybe they'll
vote to change. Maybe they'll vote to stay with "Redskins." Maybe they'll
table the whole matter until some undetermined future date. We'll have to
wait and see.
As for the suspicions raised that this sudden change of heart might have to
do with jumping on the PC bandwagon or some other kind of political
"agenda"... pardon my child-like innocence, but must there be an ulterior
motive behind this? Whatever the university and the Miami tribe agreed to
three years ago, I am not aware of anything which would prohibit either
party from changing their minds. The tribe finds the "Redskins" name
offensive and now wants Miami University to stop using it... why is that
not enough? If, despite the resolution, Miami elects to stick with the
nickname, should we laud the university for upholding their "tradition"?
Should we wonder if, in the end, they didn't really care what a group of
Native Americans thought? Should we ask if the university found itself
kowtowing to some deep-pocketed alumni who might have withdrawn their
financial support if that tradition went away?
I wanted to respond to some points brought up earlier in this discussion,
but other folks beat me to it, which is probably just as well :-) But
while I'm up, some thoughts stirred up by Mike M's posts:
> The evidence shows that MU did not fit your
>description, because rather than tell the tribe what they would do, MU and
>the tribe worked together to decide on the best plan of action. Now we
>have a new leadership who wants something different. We do not know
>whether they represent the feelings of the people. If they do not, and are
>merely trying to advance their own political interests, then is their
>demand one that should be considered?
Well, along those lines, we don't know whether the *old* leadership
represented the feelings of the people either. Yes, using the "Redskins"
moniker was apparently OK with the Miami tribe back in 1972 and 1988,
but... is it not possible that the people were pushing for a change three
years ago, and the leadership felt it would be better/easier/more
politically expedient to work out a compromise instead?
One would hope that the new chief *does* represent the current views of the
Miami tribe, or at least a majority of them... otherwise I don't know why
they would be voting him into office.
More than a few Native American groups have stated that they find the
"Redskin" nickname offensive. In the past, Miami University has been able
to point to their discussions with the Miami tribe and say, "Look, *they*
have no problem with it." That is apparently no longer the case.
>Given the situation and sudden change of opinion, it would be entirely
>appropriate for the school to agree to change the nickname if the tribe is
>willing to fund the costs involved - printing new literature without the
>name, producing new uniforms, etc.
Were the university to make such an offer, I would find it appallingly
insensitive, if not just plain rude. Either agree that the nickname will
be changed, or don't. Miami entered into a discussion with the Miami tribe
over the use of the moniker years ago (again, as far as I can tell, the
university sought out the tribe's opinion), and for them to now come back
with, "Well, OK, you find the name offensive, so we'll change it... if
you'll pay for it" -- gee, if that's how it is going to be, why bother even
making the offer at all?
>Yet, also given that the situation has apparently devolved into one where
>the school is bound to be held hostage by the whims and desires of whoever
>the current tribe leadership may be at any point
A minor point, perhaps, but I don't see where Miami University is being
held hostage. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I can't
think of a legal way that the Miami tribe can FORCE the university to
change their nickname. They could sue, I suppose, but I doubt a lawsuit
like that would last very long in court, if it ever got that far. If Miami
chooses to stick with a nickname that a Native American group has deemed
offensive... well, I'm sorry to be bluntly cynical, but Native American
groups don't seem to have a lot of political weight, even in these PC days.
Look at the Washington pro football organization, where the ownership has
refused (in rather arrogant terms, as I recall) to even consider discussing
a nickname change. They don't seem to be running into a great deal of
difficulty.
Anyway, my own personal opinion (as a full-blooded WASP) is that the
nickname should be changed. I was surprised when the university was able
to work out a compromise with the Miami tribe, given how offensive the
"Redskin" nickname has been deemed by other Native American groups. And
now that the Miami themselves have asked that the name not be used, it
would be a rather severe failing, IMHO, for the university to, in effect,
say, "Screw you -- we're keepin' it." I hear all the arguments about
tradition, but I don't believe a tradition that invites charges of racism
(or at least insensitivity) is one that should be vigorously upheld.
One final point, and I hope y'all have read this far... [HOCKEY-L admin
mode on] This has been an interesting and spirited discussion, and I hope
it will continue as events warrant, because this is a situation that bears
watching. However, along with the "spirited" part have come a few posts
that have gotten more personal and have veered awfully close to the realm
of flames. I remind everyone again that flames and personal attacks are
not welcome on HOCKEY-L. If you feel the need to attack someone for posts
they have made, then do so in a venue other than HOCKEY-L.
[HOCKEY-L admin mode off]
Thank you and good night... or is it good morning...
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
strictly those of:
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86 and '95
LET'S GO RED!! DJF 5/27/94
"If that was a foul, I hope the Lord strikes me down right here on the spot...
See, I told you."
-- Babe McCarthy, basketball coach, objecting to an official's call
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
