A year just would not be complete without a debate over Native American Indian mascots. Last year, it was Iowa's ironic policy not to play teams with Native American nicknames (even though the University of Iowa's mascot, the Hawkeyes, is in fact a reference to Indian leader Chief Black Hawk). This year, a group has filed suit against the University of Illinois, claiming that its mascot, Chief Illiniwek, violates state laws protecting equal rights and preventing discrimination. The problems with the mascot are apparent, as a few vocal protests have caused the university to cut back on the appearances made by the student playing the Chief.
But how big of a problem are Native American mascots? As I noted last fall, one study has shown that only nine percent of Native Americans in this country oppose such mascots, as opposed to 90 percent that do not find them offensive. From that earlier post:
- I agree that there should not be a tyranny of the majority in this country. That is why decisions like Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia were important; the courts stood up and said, "It does not matter what the majority says, this policy violates the constitution and norms of human decency." But it is important to note that the Supreme Court did not take this action when the split was 90/9. By the time the Court ruled, its decision went against the majority, but public opinion was split much more evenly.
Adopting a rule based on such minimal opposition threatens creating a tyranny of the minority, where a small segment of the population dictates policy for the remainder of the country. There is another word for this: elitism. Anytime a small group tries to dictate policy on the basis that "it knows better," democracy is being subverted. The American Indian peoples suffered a great injustice at the hands of white settlers hundreds of years ago. But the majority of the group now seems to be saying: we have more important issues to address than the name of a sports team.
0 comments:
Post a Comment