By Phillip Bailey
Cardinal fans begrudgingly remember the University of Illinois. The Big Orange brought an end to Louisville’s Final Four in a rout, 72-57, but the team found itself gracing the headlines for other reasons.
While Illinois dominated the basketball court, criticisms of their mascot, Chief Illiniwek — a costumed student who prances around in face paint, feathery headdress and buckskins during half time — were gaining momentum. So much so that UI benched the controversial mascot for the Final Four after their amazing comeback victory against the Arizona Wildcats.
Thankfully, all the negative attention doled out to schools with offensive mascots did not go entirely unheeded. The NCAA announced a two-tier ruling earlier this month that would ban the use of Native American mascots and logos during all postseason tournaments.
The first half of this ruling, effective Aug. 1, 2008, prohibits displays of “hostile or abusive” references on team, cheerleading and band uniforms during the postseason. That broadens stipulations already enforced by conscientious institutions. For instance, Chief Illiniwek was already banned from away games by other Big Ten schools such as Indiana University, Ohio State, Purdue and Michigan State.
The second half, effective Feb. 1, 2006, is the stronger of the two because it bars teams with offensive mascots from hosting any NCAA championship competition. Ostracizing universities beholden to racist school traditions all while penalizing their pocketbooks, the NCAA’s message is clear: you will not profit from stereotypes.
Cue the backlash!
Florida State University — home of the Seminoles and mascot Chief Osceola — immediately threatened legal action, all the while flaunting an endorsement from the Florida Seminole tribe.
FSU President T.K. Wetherell declared that the “university will forever be associated with the ‘unconquered’ spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.” He also announced FSU had hired attorney Barry Richard, the same legal mind that represented George W. Bush and successfully stopped the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.
This opposition aside, the ban is a resounding, albeit incomplete victory for Native American organizations and their allies who have rallied against offensive mascots for years.
“It’s a step in the right direction, but just an incremental step,” said Dr. Joely de la Torre, president of the Native American public relations agency.
Advocates for the ban note neither ruling applies to the regular season or bowl games.
The NCAA says that it does not administer bowl games. Meanwhile, critics are bemused.
“We are governed by NCAA rules and we are licensed by the NCAA, so I don’t know why it doesn’t apply to us,” said Rose Bowl Executive Director Mitch Dorger.
I wonder, too. Excepting bowl games from the mascot ban is trivial hair-splitting; even if bowl games are not run by the NCAA, the teams involved are under its jurisdiction. With the NCAA’s reach apparently so limited, do the rules pertaining to academic eligibility, steroid use and gifts to amateur athletes still apply?
Of course they do. The NCAA owes the same diligence to this issue that it gives to every other matter of importance to college students. The mascot ruling is only a preliminary step in ensuring that all students are afforded the dignity they deserve.
Phillip Bailey is a senior pursuing a double major in Political Science and Sociology. E-mail him at:pmbail03@louisville.edu
