In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams in the postseason games. Team names deemed racist or abusive were not allowed on teams’ jerseys. The ruling, however, was confusing and somewhat ineffective as the executive committee of the NCAA did not have authority over individual schools. According to committee chairman, Walter Harrison, “What each school decides to do is really its own business.” In other words, the only authority the NCAA has is to ban schools with such mascots from competing in an NCAA championship tournament. School officials, however, strongly disagree with the NCAA ruling. Florida State president, T.K. Wetherell, threatened to take legal action against the NCAA stating, “Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's executive committee. ... That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally 'hostile and abusive' is both outrageous and insulting.” Athletic Director of Arkansas State University agrees with Wetherell in the representation of his school’s mascot: “It is our objective to represent Native Americans in a dignified and stately manner. We believe that our use of the nickname 'Indians' and 'The Indian Family' as our mascot affords the Native American customs and history the fullest respect and integrity."
In 1990, the Board of Trustees called Chief Illinwek of the University of Illinois a “dignified” symbol: “His ceremonial dance is done with grace and beauty. The Chief keeps the memory of the people of a great Native American tribe alive for thousands of Illinoisans who otherwise would know little or nothing of them.” According to these statements, it would seem that non-Native Americans believe they are honoring the tribe their school represents.
While the NCAA has taken measures to ban American Indian mascots, their authority only reaches to tournaments within the NCAA division. They therefore cannot create a clear ruling on the matter. Major college football teams, for example, are not subjected to the new rules because there is no NCAA Division I-A playoff. Some schools are also subject to exception; schools using the Warrior mascot do not use Native American symbols and are therefore unaffected by the ruling. Likewise, North Carolina-Pembroke, which uses the Braves mascot, will be unaffected because of the high percentage of Native American students that attend it. Schools that are on the list of “hostile and abusive” mascots are likely to appeal and attempt to overrule the sanction brought forth by the NCAA. The ineffectiveness of the NCAA’s ruling illustrates the attitude of sports teams and fans: the teams and their fans insist that their mascots are a tribute to the Native American people.
Professional sports team owners also deny any racism in their mascots. In the November 15, 1992 game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Redskins in Kansas City, angry Native Americans and their supporters demonstrated their disapproval. In response to the demonstrations, team owners chose several minority players to announce that their teams did not mean to insult, but rather to honor the native people they represented. Major television networks and newspapers have agreed, editorializing that the portrayal of American Indians in their mascots is just “good, clean fun.” Team owners have argued that “a few disgruntled Native Americans” have no right to undermine the nation’s enjoyment of its sports teams. In an attempt to counter claims of racism, proponents of the racist mascots, such as Ward Churchill, have claimed that the Native Americans have created “a serious barrier to the sort of intergroup communication so necessary in a multicultural society such as ours.”
Other non-Native Americans, however, hold a different opinion when it comes to “honor” and “dignity” of Native American mascots. Dr. Richard Lapchick, director of Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society and critic of the University of Illinois’, sees nothing dignified about the portrayal of their “Chief Illinwek”: “Could you imagine people mocking African Americans in black face at a game?” he said. “Yet go to a game where there is a team with an Indian name and you will see fans with war paint on their faces. Is this not the equivalent to black face? To me, Native Americans are our most spiritual people. They believe that we all live within the one circle of humanity, no matter what the color of our skin. We wait for our sports teams to honor that circle.” Others of non-Native American descent have taken the issue of American Indian mascot portrayal seriously. Roy Saigo, president of St. Cloud State University, a Japanese-American and a national leader of the anti-mascot campaign, convinced the NCAA to consider a formal discussion of the mascot issue. The United States Commission on Civil Rights backed his efforts, calling for “an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools.” Saigo believes that “until we resolve this, we will continue to inflict pain on one of our nation’s most scarred communities.”
