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