Dear Mr./ Ms. Reader;

Are you as callous about the use of your own identity as Professor Hayes-Norton is about the use of hers? Professor Hayes-Norton, you seem to be saying that "using someone's identity without their consent" is really an OK thing to do. Is that really what you mean?

I wonder how the people who are reading this feel about this idea: As a matter of principle, does Professor Hayes-Norton (or anyone else) have a right to use someone else's identity (this actually means your identity) without their consent ( actually without your consent)?

If you did object to the unauthorized use of your identity, should you be ridiculed? (ridiculous means "worthy of ridicule.")

No doubt political correctness may proceed too far, and go way overboard, at certain, rare times. However, my observation of complaints about political correctness is that those who want to attack a particular group in society usually attack political correctness first. Blind people don’t complain about the political correctness/considerations given to blind people. African-Americans don’t complain about the political correctness/considerations given to African-Americans. Euro-Americans don’t complain about the political correctness/considerations given to Euro-Americans. Religious group members don’t complain about the political correctness/consideration given to their religious group. But when a member of one group feels secure enough to ridicule another group, their first target is usually the "political correctness" that, as a matter of values, protects the group they want to ridicule. Now, why is that?

(If you decide to continue reading, I should warn you to hold on to your halos on accounta I'm gonna try to get spiritual again.)

Professor Hayes-Norton, now let us suppose that UND adapted "Christians" as their mascot and used a caricature of Jesus, or perhaps the Pope, as their logo. AND ND State then depicted that mascot and logo in relation to the buffalo in the same way that they have depicted the Sioux mascot and logo (see background).

Would you condone that also, and say to object to it is "worthy of ridicule?" Would you then say "[ to stop] using someone's identity without their consent - how ridiculous." Needless to say that I, in my "silly political correctness" would object to such a mascot, but perhaps I represent a different set of values from yours - or do I? I personally think that our true values may not be that far apart. (For example, I think you might make a good ally.)

Do you think my "Christian mascot" analogy is trivial? I think that on a very deep level this analogy is profound. As I understand Christianity, Jesus (or for some "Holy Mother the Church" as his vicar) is the spiritual bridge across which the love and bounty of God flows to the faithful. As I understand Sioux traditional religion, Ta-Tonka, the bison, is the spiritual bridge across which the love and bounty of God (aka the Great Spirit or Greatfather!.) flows to the Sioux. (I hope you will forgive me if any errors in describing traditions.) The presence of both these "bridge figures" in such an obvious analogy is significant.

Now, I am definitely not trying to protect buffalos from being mascots (let's stay on point), the Sioux's name should rightfully be protected.

The thing about human cultures is that their fundamentals are often not perfect counterparts to one another, this concept I think I understand. Yet there may be those things, common in the human experience, that enable cultures to communicate.

-- Bernard Schuster, Owner, Find Your Online Graduate School (posted 4/24, 3:20 p.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.