Chris Ashton, Sunday, Mar. 7, 2004

In attempting to classify arguments on both sides of the Chief debate, we find ourselves at odds as to the most basic words to describe him. One side sees the Chief as an offensive racial symbol of the white man's domination and the other, a representative of the traditions and excellence of this school. How can we come to such polarized opinions of so simple a symbol? Does this mean that a portion of our campus is morally correct in its logic and another is hopelessly and irreparably backward? Do we have students who think, "damn I wish I could kill a Red man today whenever they put on Chief oriented clothing? Or, is it possible that the anti-Chief groups simply want to prove that they are trendy, open-minded new age hippies concerned with freedom, love, and saving the beleaguered cultures of the world from Corporate American homogeny? Hopefully neither. If you find my descriptions of either side offensive, great, they are meant to illustrate that there is very little middle ground between those on either side of this issue and because of this, it is very difficult to find even the most basic terms to describe the other and their creed.

Personally, I support the Chief and have found him to be an excellent mascot. I belong to one of our university's athletic teams with a strong tradition of creating exemplary competitors. At one point, we won 6 Big 10 Championships in a row and the last Olympic games featured two alumni and one coach. For us, the mascot is not an abstract symbol. It reminds us of our past excellence and inspires us to achieve great things. The Chief is described in terms such as honor, loyalty, courage, and excellence; he is a good mascot for us as a reminder of the tradition that we strive to continue and the excellence we aspire to.

However, saying that the Chief is always portrayed positively is clearly incorrect; I cannot explain signs saying, "Kill the Indian, save the Chief" as anything [other] than overt racism. However, I would like to think that such emblems are the minority, much as the actions of William Cook are not representative of the larger protest movement. For those not familiar with William Cook, he regularly attended woman's sporting events to shout obscenities at our teams, the Chief, and the fans. He was eventually charged with indecency in a public place and is now suing the university for several million dollars alleging that it violated his civil rights; apparently he finds making obscene remarks is acceptable as long as they're directed at female athletes and children are present. I do not understand this.

Regardless of which side is right or wrong, for the greater good of the school, it might be better to do away with this emblem that creates such differences among us. While I personally love the Chief, it is too controversial of a figure to make a good mascot. However, what prevents me from embracing the anti-Chief movement is that it does not have a clear concept of what should come next; it can tell me in minute detail what mascot we should not have, but has no concept of what we should. This is troubling because the Chief elicits a set of responses that I find positive. If I can't have the Chief, I would prefer to have a symbol that elicits those same feelings. I would like to know what comes next and if possible, have the opportunity to influence the decision before there is no turning back. If for example, we retire the Chief and vote to be the Fighting Quad Squirrels, I will be most disappointed! Such an emblem would say nothing about the greatness of this school or its athletic teams and would anger Squirrels and Squirrel rights groups everywhere; the quad would never be safe from these aggravated creatures.

You have suggested that proposals for a replacement to the Chief wait until the Board of Trustees has voted to replace him. I can find no valid reasons for this logic. If we ask someone to take a road trip without giving them a map, there is no guarantee they'll reach the right destination or that they will even agree to go. If however, we give that person a map, explain the benefits of the trip, and how to get there, we may have a different result entirely. If you only ask the Board of Trustees to retire the Chief, you have no guarantee that it will happen and in the event that it does, you have no guarantee that a new, more offensive mascot like the Fighting Quad Squirrels will replace him. The anti-Chief debate, in a sense asks us to begin a journey with no final destination or direction but only the slim hope that we will end up in the right place. This logic is too shortsighted for me to find practical.

I would like to encourage those in favor of retiring the Chief to begin a campaign to find alternatives to him. This would help the university to find an emblem that is not racist yet still embodies the aspects of the Chief that supporters find favorable. It would also encourage healthy discussion about alternatives that both sides can embrace and give the movement a new direction. While the movement alone will not be able to convince many, such as myself that the Chief is racist, it can still attract our support in new ways by promoting a new symbol that both sides can find desirable. I would love to have a mascot that embodies the positive traditions of the Chief and I would love to have a mascot that some will not find offensive. If given the choice between a new mascot that does this, I would abandon the Chief and call for his retirement. However, since I am unable to see this as an issue of racism and the anti-Chief movement does not have a clear set of appealing alternatives available, the best I can say for it is that I admire the initiative taken thus far towards his removal but I have to lend my support to his retention.

C.A., via email.