Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 8, 2002)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailvemerald.com Wednesday, May 8,2002 Editor in Chief: Jessica Blanchard Managing Editor: Jeremy Lang Editorial Editor: Julie Lauderbaugh Assistant Editorial Editor: Jacquelyn Lewis Point / Counterpoint Utes, Seminoles, Redskins, Braves... Mascots are meant to honor Resolution affirms courtesy Oh, how I love my San Francisco 49ers. Yes, I did say my 49ers, because I consider them my team. I grew up with chilly nights at Candlestick Park, and my favorite number is 16 because Joe Mon tana wore it on his back. But this isn’t a Niners column. What you might not know is that a 49er is a person, a person who dug for gold in the California gold rush. The Niners’ mascot is a big, goofy white guy — named Sourdough Sam — with a tremendous beard and a ridiculous cowboy hat. What’s also ridicu lous is the notion that I would ever be offended by Sourdough Sam. In fact, I always thought the idea of a fun, histor ical figure that inspired me to learn about my heritage was somehow a good thing. Silly me. So how’s this for ridiculous: A group of Oregon law students is circulating a petition to get the Athletic Department to stop sched uling games against schools with Ameri can Indian mascots. Today the petition will be presented to University President Dave Frohnmayer. The plan is flawed logically because, in order to work, it allows for postseason tour naments and schools that have agreements with the tribes they depict, including the Utah Utes and the Florida State Seminoles. That the plan makes these allowances begs the question of how hard-line its propo nents actually are. Hockaday Sports reporter But the plan is also ridiculous theoretical ly, because mascots should not be offensive. My Webster’s Dictionary defines “mascot” as “something regarded as a cherished em blem or symbol (as of a group or institution).” The key word in there is “cherished,” be cause that’s what an athletic mascot is. I cher ish my Sourdough Sam just as fans across the country cherish their Utes and Seminoles. So rather than exploiting American Indi ans, sports teams are glorifying them. Rather than abusing American Indian cul ture, sports teams celebrate it. Certainly this does not apply to every team, and some teams such as the Washing ton Redskins of the National Football League have blatantly offensive team names. I would be offended if my favorite football squad was named the San Francis co “Whiteskins.” But Division I collegiate programs don’t cross into the crass like that professional squad does. That’s why it’s silly to ask the Athletic De partment to boycott schools with American Indian mascots. The mascots are not repre sentative of anything more than a football or basketball team. An intramural basketball team at the University of Northern Colorado'* changed their name to the Fighting Whites to “deliver a simple, sincere message about eth nic stereotyping,” according to the team’s Web site. I was not offended by their team mascot, just as others shouldn’t be offended by any kind of sports mascot. The Athletic Department shouldn’t be forced by anyone to make a political state ment, especially when the statement is so, well... ridiculous. E-mail sports reporter Peter Hockaday at peterhockaday@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. Tne anger ana outrage in reaction to tne law school’s resolution that protests using American Indian names or im ages as team mascots is surprising. After all, in open-minded Eugene, one might think a movement against bigotry would be ap plauded. So why are so many people up-in arms about the University resolving to up hold its obligations to promote tolerance? My guess is the negative retorts to the University School of Law resolution are just that — thoughtless reactions. Most of the letters to the editor have been mocking the resolution because it appears to be impractical for the Uni versity not to play teams with questionable mas cots in the post season. Had some of the oppo nents to this resolution done their homework, they would find it only prohibits University teams from scheduling athletic events in the regular season with schools touting American Indian mascots. Post-season games are not “scheduled” be cause, technically, no one could estimate which team would participate in playoffs. Also, the resolution does not prohibit the University from playing teams that already have licensing agreements from American Indian tribes to use their image. The Florida State Seminoles and the Utah Utes are among the teams with such agreements. The resolution won’t tangibly impact University students. Rabid sports fans who assume the University may forfeit a chance Julie Lauderbaugh Editorial editor to play in an NLAA b mal t our game be cause the Illinois Fighting Illini are in the same bracket, can breathe a sigh of relief. By supporting the resolution, the University would merely be taking a symbolic stand against marginalizing American Indians. A lot of indignant feedback I’ve read ques tions how far society will take this “cause” and wonders where it will end. It’s unlikely we’re going to see the demise of the Washing ton Redskins or the Atlanta Braves anytime soon; authors of the resolution aren’t trying to bite off more than they can chew. Incremen tal steps to end the promotion of racism must start at the local level and I’m surprised this effort hasn’t garnered more support from open and educated minds. Naysayers who mockingly claim the Seat tle Seahawks promote stereotypes of birds and Boston Red Sox discriminate against peo ple wearing blue socks are missing the point. Sure, the University’s resolution is a small step, but it’s a small step in the right direction. I can’t speak for American Indians on this topic, and I’m not trying to. For what it’s worth, I tried to solicit a commentary from American Indian voices on campus to no avail. But as a University student with a vested interest in ending bigotry of all brands, I can’t find fault in a resolution that holds our school to some basic standards of human respect. The law school resolution isn’t a “silly lit tle cause” created by hyper-liberal tree hug gers: It’s common sense. Implementing the resolution won’t hurt anyone and I encour age President Dave Frohnmayer to approve it when the resolution crosses his desk today. E-mail editorial editor Julie Lauderbaugh at julielauderbaugh@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. Steve Baggs Emerald
