"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."
How is this 'hostile' or 'abusive?'
Who is getting upset about these mascots? Native Americans are not being bantered about the newscasts, granting and free-wielding interviews for every available reporter; it is always some special interest group's spokesperson. It would be quite logical to think that there would be protests of enormous magnitude by various ethnic groups such as Native Americans if they truly felt that this was 'hostile' or 'abusive.' Native Americans generally laud universities decisions to use such mascots, but this caveat is seemingly ignored as this overall (non-) issue is forced upon the populace. It is nothing less than asinine to actively seek ways illuminating the potential for 'hostile[ity]' or 'abuse' occurring. Why must tradition be forsaken for the pleasure of a barely significant few number of special interest groups? This minority of interest groups is illustrative of the overall forced and somewhat hostile agenda promulgated upon the general will repetitiously here in our country. Herein, only for the sake of an athletic organization making a unilateral move is the 'validity' of the movement ascertained. Why is it not a factor that only a handful of schools have these 'hostile' and 'abusive' forms of mascots and that they made the personal decision themselves? The NCAA does not endorse their decisions, just their own, they should simply allow the schools to make personal choices; after all, should not the NCAA have an open mind about this process?
All in all, the names are not derogatory; and they are, in fact, a compliment to the ethnic groups that these mascots collectively portray. For a moment, for the sake of argument, indulge this example: does this now mean that these ethnic group's fighting spirit should be shunned? The very rationale behind the mascots is to embrace a fighting spirit; and this spirit is manifested from the fight against oppression spawned by the 'European-Americans' settling the continent and their revulsion and uprising against this treachery. 'European-Americans' are castigated as the dirge of North America for uprooting these people from their ancestral lands, and the politically correct rationale is, by taking away these mascots, that this spirit cannot be respected. Of course, this logic is absurd, but is it not the counterargument that should be used? On any given day, any statement or act can be considered 'hostile' or 'abusive.' It is all a matter of chance, and an extension of the 'tyranny of the minority' induced oppression. If a particular ideal is that far out of the mainstream, then it will inevitably die, intuitively, if this same idea is collectively agreed upon, then it will give rise to its utilization. It should not be for monopolistic groups and organizations such as the NCAA to make unilateral decisions for what is best for the collective body.
Should we not follow this trail to it's logical end?
(If we begin this journey, let us seek the inevitable fruition of this argument)
What about the University of Mississippi Rebels?
What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish?
What about the University of Pennsylvania Quakers?
What about the New England Patriots?
What happens when PETA gets involved?
These examples may be a little over the top to invoke; however, the same could have been said of this issue faced to today in retrospect. The same could have been said about many of our 'traditions' before the 'logic' of political correctness did away such 'hostile' or 'abusive' notions.