The Injustice of Native American Mascots: A Legal Perspective
Native American imagery is ubiquitous in our society. There are many towns, counties, and states that derive their names from Native American languages, tribal names, or terminology. The same is true regarding the origin of many sports teams’ mascots. Unfortunately, many images are based on Native American people of several hundred years ago or upon stereotyped misunderstandings of their diverse culture, language, and history. “Consequently, society often accepts images of Native Americans as a single war-like group frozen in time” (Trainor, 1995).
It is argued by some that institutions should not have a symbol that relies on a stereotype, particularly a stereotype that was used to justify a national policy of genocide against a “war-like” people. The terms “redskin” and “redman” emphasized how Native Americans were different, and dehumanized people whose culture white colonists did not understand (Cardonna, 2007). Why is it acceptable to use the Native American as a mascot and where other ethnic and cultural groups are not used as mascots in a similar derogatory fashion? Some Native Americans argue that our society would “never allow a team called the New York Jews or a log carrying versions of the famous (sic) “N” word” would never be tolerated” (Cozzillio and Levinstein, 2007).
The NCAA should be applauded for its leadership in taking a stand against Native American mascots. Proponents of the NCAA’s legislation have argued that the use of Native American imagery and symbols in college sports is a “mockery not only of Indian customs but also of white people’s culture,” reasoning that the inappropriate use of Native American imagery “degrades the Indian and disgraces the white race by revealing an ignorance of tribal cultures (Fulda, 2006).”
While it appears that there have been many protests, writings and analyses regarding the use of Native American mascots, there appears to be a dearth of legal challenges that have ensued in this area. Perhaps the lack of legal challenges is due to non-existent legislation, save for the NCAA’s initiative. In addition, when there are significant financial costs involved such as losing trademark revenue in the case of the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, et. al., the odds are great that the courts will not rule against a multi-million dollar organization. The tradition in sport of branding mascots, that has been cultivated over many years, works overtly against change. The reason non-natives have resisted giving up these mascots is tied to extremely complex identity issues that are part of a team’s brand; however, changing the brand name is not impossible (Wolburg, 2006).
Future changes in mascot names will be attributed more to changes coming from legislation rather than the courts, not unlike what occurred in the development of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. With Title IX, Congress authorized, through enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights, specific sanctions that are administered if compliance is not adopted in educational institutions. This type of legislative initiative and support will be necessary in order to make a significant change in our society regarding the use of Native American mascots.
References
Cardonna, M (2007). Team names and mascots should not rely on stereotypes. Boston Globe. 1/18/2007. Taken from http://www.lexisnexus.com 11/9/07.
Cozzillio, M., & Levinstein, M. (1997). Sport Law. Durham,, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Fulda, R. (2006). Is the NCAA prohibition of Native American mascots from championship play a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act? American Indian Law Review. 2006/2007. Taken from http://www.lexisnexus.com 11/16/07.
Trainor, D. (1995). Native American mascots, schools, and the Title VI hostile environment analysis. The University of Illinois Law Review. Taken from http://www.lexisnexus.com 11/9/07.
Wolburg, J. (2006). The demise of Native American mascots: it’s time to do the right thing. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 23, Iss. 1, pg. 4