I have to ask this: Has anything good ever been done by people who where trying to do the right thing? I ask this because I think that (despite the hideous acts) a lot of good has been done in the name of doing the right thing. Perhaps the people who fought against Hitler were an example of this. A lack of consideration for morality or ethics does not improve human behavior. I think that over time, mindfulness of right and wrong tends to help rather than hurt.

We describe acts as "hideous" based on a current notion of right and wrong. Philosophizing about the meaning of hideous acts seems to argue for, rather than against, the importance of considering what is right or wrong. A decision like this does not, in my view, require a visit to absolute truth or to absolute morality, just a practical decision (hopefully based on some kind of ethical principle) about what is right or wrong in this situation.

A lot of research dollars have been spent in Psychology to prove that changing behavior does more to change attitudes than changing attitudes does to change behavior. Yet changing attitudes does sometimes change behavior. For example, I think the status of African-Americans has changed substantially since the 1960s, but my perception is that the change did not come until many African- Americans came to believe that change was possible, the "structural change" (if I understand what that term means) that has occurred came after. Structural change takes a lot longer than attitudinal change, and it is a much bigger job to get done, but a change in consciousness helps rather than impedes structural change.

I have not seen a moral or ethical principle or moral imperative sited for keeping the mascot. I say this because I don't think of "we've always done it this way," "we are more powerful," "I'm sick and tired," "I have judged that my behavior is not offensive, just ask me," "it's unimportant," or "you'll just have to learn to take it," as ethical principles nor as moral imperatives. Therefore I'm not sure what was meant by "insisting on their own moral imperatives at the expense of other moral imperatives."

Perhaps I am too optimistic about human nature but I think if people reflect on what is right or wrong in this matter and reflect on how they like to be treated themselves, it may make a small difference in some of their attitudes.

I think that those on the other side of this issue are perhaps insensitive to the true situation, so I have kept trying to come up with the right thing to say that would sensitize them. I think sensitization might somehow induce you to change your position on the issue. Now, I come up with this:

If I were a typical (tribal) Sioux, the following are likely to be true:

S-I-O-U-X are not 6 refugees from Sesame Street, it is a word that rightfully refers specifically to my tribe and to my people.

Sioux is not a collection of letters that means something else but just happens to resemble my tribe's name, it is my tribe's name.

Sioux refers to by baby (my baby is Sioux), child (my child is Sioux), parents (my parents are Sioux), friends (my friends are Sioux), grandparents (my grandparents are Sioux), ancestors (my ancestors are Sioux), heritage (my heritage is Sioux), traditions (my traditions are Sioux), my spirit (my spirit is Sioux), spouse (my spouse is Sioux), my language (my language is Sioux), and my culture (my culture is Sioux).

Public mockery or caricature of Sioux thus apparently refers (not to 5 letters randomly chosen from the alphabet, but) to most of the people and things I know well and care about.

Does a Sioux have a human right to be offended, or is approval from a higher or more expert authority required before the Sioux can rightfully be offended?

(By the way, "not objectively offensive" is, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms. "Offended" is only subjective. Sticks and stones are not offended, it takes a heart.)

Should the Sioux name NOT be used in the rough and tumble, insulting and noxious, sometimes obscene world of college mascots simply because the Sioux people (who are elderly and infant, rich and poor, tall and short, strong and weak, fast and slow, brilliant and dumb, healthy and dying) the word actually refers to don't like it -- and don't want their name to be pulled into it -- and don't want to be used for sports?

If I were a (tribal) Sioux, would it matter to you if I am offended or not? -- because if it doesn't matter, then stop reading, why bother, turn your back, do not change your position. I give up, I cannot convince you. No one can make you care about it or not care, you are responsible for that.

Does that "do unto others" saying also have a bearing?

Lastly, what mascot would be too offensive in your opinion? Is there any such thing as a "too offensive" mascot? How about this analogy, a team, the Christians plays the Lions in a stadium festooned with pictures of Christians being bloodily killed and eaten by Lions in the Roman coliseum. Let's just say this occurs in a non-Christian country, the fans aren't really Christians. (If this is not a "too offensive mascot" then, OK, I give up, I can't convince you.) But for those of you who are still with me, let's say the local Christian community objects and asks for the mascot to be changed. Here are the responses they get:

You have bigger problems than this, Christians. (Are you are thinking, "What's that got to do with it?")

To bad Christians, not objectively offensive.

We don't believe in moral absolutes, Christians!

You are the ones being trivial. (OK, being a Christian is a triviality to you, but it is my life!)

We have the power, Christians, you'll just have to take it!

Getting used to used to humiliation is good for you thin-skinned cry-baby Christians!

If we respected your wishes, our rich, powerful alumni wouldn't’t like it and might abandon us, Christians!

We don't care, you waste my time, Christians!

It's been done for a long time, Christians! (Like slavery or human sacrifice, ancientness justifies them so it makes sense that ancientness could justify other stuff too. It's just logical consistency. Right?)

Ouch -- if you to think the responses in this analogy are offensive, try substituting the word Sioux for Christians. I ask you how much less offensive is the Sioux example if you are Sioux. I am saying its not less offensive.

I have noticed that there are those on the other side of this issue from me who seem to be against being offensive (they just may not acknowledge that it is offensive yet). There are those who want to be objective and do the right thing, those who think moral imperatives are worth mentioning, those who recognize the use of the mascot as a wrong (but think it is trivial), and there are those who respect their own traditions (and thus, at length, may want to respect the older traditions of others). Therefore I , personally, am optimistic that the U will eventually willingly change mascots.

If you make your attitudes and beliefs public you take the chance that others will disagree with you, but I think the process also helps us all, (especially me) to grow and to get a greater understanding. (I doubt I am the first one to say that but it does seem worth saying again.)

-- Bernard Schuster, owner, Find Your Online Graduate School, http://onlinegraduateschool.tripod.com (posted 4/12, 10:35 a.m. U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.