“The Oneida will air a 30-second commercial during Sunday’s Green Bay Packers game against Washington that promotes the diversity of the northeastern Wisconsin tribe. The video, to be played on Lambeau Field’s jumbotron, aims to serve as a contrast to protests outside the stadium over the visiting team’s controversial Redskins name and logo.
The video shows Oneidas young and elderly, from a police officer to nurse, wearing purple T-shirts with “I am Oneida” printed on the front in their language. The goal? Show viewers that the Oneida Nation is made up of people with a range of identities and isn’t just a homogeneous group.”
Fletcher, with Tiffani Darden and Phil Pucillo.
Here’s a pic with the audience waiting patiently for dinner to be served.
Fletcher previewed next week’s ILPC conference on Indian education — here’s a link to the critically important complaint filed last year by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission with the Dept. of Education on the horrible impacts of American Indian sports mascots on the educational environment.
Special guests included the National NALSA executive board!
Eastern Michigan University has become the first university, as far as we know, to regress on the question of the use of American Indian names and mascots for sports purposes.
What value is upheld in bringing back an Indian mascot that the University long, long ago walked away from? The desire of some alumni to recall a past that never really existed?
It must be remembered that the Hurons, or Wyandotte nation, were forcibly removed by the United States to lands in the west at great personal and cultural cost to that community. Now their suffering will be embraced for fun and games by the EMU marching band, all at the request of alums who apparently have no knowledge of this history.
From the article:
It also comes as EMU continues to reach out to alumni who still refer to the teams as Hurons.
“It’s no secret there are still those disenfranchised people from the logo change,” said Daniel Mathis, interim executive director of EMU Alumni Relations. “It still comes up at pretty much anywhere we travel the country. … There are still people who say, ‘I will never give a dollar until they change it back.'”
The Oklahoma Wyandotte Nation’s chief (Billy Friend) also embraces the restoration of the logo. This highlights the complication. The emotional and political pain arising from EMU’s change more than 20 years ago is forgotten, just as the tribe’s history is neglected.
What’s going on here?
While a challenge to the Wisconsin statute regulating American Indian mascots winds its way through the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (Schoolcraft v. Wisconson Dept. of Public Instruction; briefs here), Mr. Pierson — author of this amicus brief in the Schoolcraft case (PDF) kindly agreed to comment on the recent law review comment by a Marquette law student criticizing the Wisconsin legislature for enacting the law (I thought he did a nice job recognizing that the author was a law student and kept the kid gloves on to some extent)):
Mr. Heacox provides a useful time line of the Indian mascot issue in Wisconsin. His article does not engage with the legal issues, however, nor does he make a convincing case for his conclusion that legislative efforts to address the issue are misguided and that “education” is the solution.
The article provides a summary of the law’s background but no serious discussion of the underlying legal issues. The State has a legal obligation, under the state and federal constitutions, to provide a discrimination-free public education to its youth. It also has the legal authority and responsibility, under the state constitution, to eliminate practices that undermine student learning. The legislature enacted the mascot law to address both constitutional responsibilities. Are the discrimination concerns insufficient to trigger the 14th Amendment? How does the growing body of social science affect the analysis? How should the legislature weigh local sentiment against the consensus among education professionals that Indian mascots impede student understanding? Are there any legal arguments that mascots deserve protection? The author doesn’t address these issues.
First part of the article from the Oregonian:
The Oregon Board of Education voted Thursday afternoon to ban Native American mascots in schools across the state. The policy, which represents one of the toughest stances on the issue nationwide, was passed on a vote of 5-1.
“There’s a collective right that exists here,” said board member Artemio Paz. These sorts of mascots produce “racism and unnecessary bullying. We do not allow that to exist for any of our populations.”
All told it will affect at least 15 Oregon schools. Some schools will have to change both their mascots and their nicknames. Others, who call themselves “warriors,” will be allowed to keep their names but must change their mascots. The schools will have to make the changes by July 2017 or risk losing state funding.
Previous post is here.
A couple of weeks ago, the Oregon Department of Education heard testimony on Native American Mascots in Public Schools. The post with article links is here.
Last week, the Board released a resolution and proposed rule. Other information found here includes: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Hrg. April 27, 2012 9:00AM HRC State Capitol, 900 Court St. NE, Salem. Public comment accepted until May 17, 2012, 12:00pm email ODE.NativeAmericanMascots@state.or.us