Recent calls to stop using the NFL's Washington Redskins name have become the latest example in the debate over whether certain sports mascots are offensive to the Native American community. In the past month, two highly prominent sportswriters, Sports Illustrated's Peter King and Grantland's Bill Simmons, have joined the boycott of the team name. It's one thing for activists to make a statement, but the issue gains entirely new momentum when two of the nation's most widely read sports columnists take a stand.
Given King and Simmons' sizable readership, there is hardly a football fan who won't at least at least stop and consider the merit of their position. That shifts the debate from a small circle of people to something that the entire sports media and fans must think about.
King explained his decision in a column on his site, citing how he felt uncomfortable whenever he wrote about the team using its nickname. Simmons offered no explanation, simply referring to the team as the "Washington D.C.'s" in his power rankings.
Despite all this pushback, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has refused to budge, insisting that the team name is part of the franchise's history and identity.
There is a precedent, of course, of college teams abandoning mascots referencing Native Americans, including our very own College. There is a particular irony in comparing the trajectory of the Dartmouth Indian with the recent showdown over the Redskins mascot. While today two of the top football writers are placing a spotlight on the downsides of such mascots, it was sportswriters in the 1920s who initiated the Indian nickname at Dartmouth.
The name was used in prominent publications like The New York Times and The Boston Globe, allowing it to gain acceptance not only at the College itself but among college sports fans nationwide. The Indian symbol never officially became the College's mascot, but was featured on teams' uniforms.
In the early 1970s, the nickname came under fire for being antagonistic to the College's renewed commitment to Native Americans. When John Kemeny took became College president in 1970, Dartmouth made it a priority to recruit Native American students and, in May 1972, started a Native American studies program.
Following the advice of an Alumni Council committee, the Board of Trustees in 1974 declared the "use of the symbol in any form to be inconsistent with present institutional and academic objectives of the College in advancing Native American education." The symbol was thereafter expunged.
While our College's appeal to educational equality was sufficient to get rid of its mascot, we haven't yet reached the point where an appeal to our nation's democratic values is capable of altering a professional team's name. Why might this be the case? I think it largely has to do with the way the media has enabled the public to become mass consumers of professional football. We watch the Redskins play on national television and on SportsCenter highlights. We buy their jerseys in sporting goods stores. We draft their players on our fantasy football teams. We read about the great potential of their second-year quarterback, Robert Griffin III.
In this mass marketing of football, the Redskins name becomes firmly embedded in our sports memory. After all, if the team had a different name, conjuring up memories of the franchise's golden age under coach Joe Gibbs might just not feel the same. But if at first the name change appears disruptive, over time the new name would be mentioned again and again by sportswriters like King and Simmons, to the extent that it would easily find a place in our sports consciousness. King and Simmons are themselves part of a larger sports media machine that has ingrained professional teams' names so deeply in our minds but they are also examples of how the influence of sports media can be mobilized for social change.
