Native American Mascots Research Articles

Prejudicial reactions to the removal of Native American mascots

As Native American mascots are discontinued, research is needed to understand the impact on intergroup relations. Such discontinuations may be threatening to some and increase prejudice against Native Americans. In Study 1 ( N = 389), exposure to information about a Native American mascot removal increased punitive judgments against a Native American in a hypothetical legal scenario, particularly among those high in racial colorblindness and those residing in the implicated geographical location. Study 2 ( N = 358,644) conceptually replicated and extended these findings, using population-level implicit bias data to perform a natural quasi-experiment. Prejudice against Native Americans increased in the year following the removal of two Native American mascots: “Chief Illiniwek” and “Chief Wahoo.” However, in the case of Chief Illiniwek, the effect diminished after 6 years. Together, the studies contribute to understanding the psychological impact of Native American mascots, offering a first look at how their removal influence intergroup relations.

Myles Brand: A Leader Deeply Committed to Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Social Justice

Myles Brand: A Leader Deeply Committed to Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Social Justice
 Myles Brand will probably always best be remembered as the Indiana University president who fired legendary basketball coach Bobby Knight. It is unfortunate since Brand, as a scholar, president of two major universities, and Executive Director of the NCAA, accomplished a great many things on behalf of students and as an enthusiastic proponent of the educational value of intercollegiate athletics and sport more generally. At all times and in everything he did, Brand exhibited as a leader a deep commitment to diversity, inclusiveness, and social justice. It was especially noticeable and on full display during his time as Executive Director of the NCAA, a position he held from 2002 until his untimely death from cancer in 2009. As this essay illustrates, Brand’s commitment to diversity, inclusiveness, and social justice was made clear through the academic reform movement he helped initiate and in fights to eliminate Native American mascots and other disparaging images, secure more head coaching positions for Blacks, and maintain original Title IX guidelines that had allowed women increasing opportunities to participate in highly competitive athletics. Although not always successful in these efforts, especially in seeing more Blacks hired as head coaches, Brand was largely effective in leading the effort to implement academic reform measures, rid sport of insulting Native American imagery, and guard against those who were

What’s in a Name? Symbolic Racism, Public Opinion, and the Controversy over the NFL’s Washington Football Team Name

According to Daniel Snyder, owner of the National Football League Team formerly known as the Washington “Redskins,” “the name really means honor and respect.” For decades, Snyder pointed to polls that suggest majoritarian support among the American public to justify the continued use of the racially contested team moniker. However, Indigenous activists and their allies have long argued that the term “Redskins” is a racial slur. Using data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), this paper investigates the role of racial attitudes—specifically symbolic racism directed at Native Americans—in shaping public opinion about the name change during a period of heightened public attention to the debate over the team’s name. Our findings indicate that support for the continued use of the team’s name, though admittedly widespread among the American public, is in part influenced by negative racial attitudes directed at Native Americans. By engaging the literature on the politics of symbolic racism we demonstrate that, rather than “honoring” American Indians, those supportive of Native American mascots and symbols in professional football are significantly likely to begrudge them.

The psychosocial effects of Native American mascots: a comprehensive review of empirical research findings

ABSTRACT Approximately 2,000 teams in the U.S. utilize Native American mascots, the majority of which are associated with schools. Across the nation there continue to be many intense conflicts over these mascots. Most conflicts focus on differences in opinion, rather than on the effects of these mascots. The purpose of this article is to provide educational decision-makers with a comprehensive review of research on the psychosocial effects of Native American mascots. This body of research suggests that these mascots generate undesirable effects. First, they are psychologically detrimental to Native American students. Second, for non-Native persons, they are associated with negative stereotypes of Native Americans. Third, these mascots undermine intergroup relations by increasing negative stereotyping of Native Americans. Lastly, supporters of these mascots are more apt to believe prejudicial ideas. We discuss these findings relative to broader societal contexts.

Dog whistle mascots: Native American mascots as normative expressions of prejudice

In this research we examine how normative expressions of prejudice shape university communities. Across four studies, we examine the prevalence of a former university mascot depicting harmful stereotypes about Native Americans and how exposure to that mascot influences people's attitudes and behaviors. In Study 1, images of the mascot persist on >10% of university apparel worn by students, in 50% of campus spaces, and in 5% of images searched online. Surveying students on this campus, we find that students with lower (higher) reported explicit prejudice also tended to have lower (higher) belonging at the university (Study 2). In two final experimental studies (N = 683), when compared to stereotype free university advertisements exposure to the stereotypic mascot reduced donations to the university by 5.5%, and in particular, among people low versus high in explicit prejudice (Studies 3 and 4). Overall, these findings suggest that institutional norms play an important role in expressions of prejudice and experiences of belonging.

Disparaging Trademarks and Social Responsibility

This study examines the use of disparaging and offensive trademarks and mascots by sports teams. Specifically, this study considers whether the continued use of Native American symbols and mascots in sports comports with the Christians-Nordenstreng conceptualization of social responsibility, which considers the three principles of human dignity, truth-telling, and nonmaleficence. To do this, the article considers the history and arguments both for and against the use of these symbols in sports communication. This article concludes with a discussion of how the use of these trademarks does not fulfill the three principles of social responsibility and what that means for the symbols’ continued use.

Burying the Hatchet? Elite Influence and White Opinion on the Washington Redskins Controversy*

ObjectiveIs the opinion of white Americans regarding the continued use of the Washington Redskins’ team name influenced by their exposure to elite rhetoric that supports a team name change and views the team's name as offensive?MethodsIn order to explore the potential for elite opinion leadership on white opinion, this article employs a survey experiment embedded in the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study in which respondents were randomly exposed to a message attributed to either Senator Harry Reid (a Democrat), Senator John McCain (a Republican), or NBC Sports broadcaster Bob Costas that details their opposition to the team's name.ResultsTesting hypotheses derived from the scholarship on elite opinion theory, this article finds that exposure only to a message from Costas on this issue leads respondents to more strongly support a team name change and to more clearly view the term “Redskins” as offensive. Our results (1) further the scholarship on public opinion concerning Native American mascots, (2) suggest the conditions under which the barriers to change in sporting institutions may continue to evolve, and (3) speak to the limits of political elite influence.

Symbols of pride or prejudice? Examining the impact of Native American sports mascots on stereotype application

ABSTRACTFor over 50 years, a debate has existed over the use of Native American sports mascots; however, few empirical studies on the topic exist. The present study examined if supraliminal exposure to Native American mascots results in the application of negative stereotypes toward Native American people. Results indicated that the effect of Native American mascots was moderated by people’s racial attitudes toward Native people. When exposed to Native mascots, people with a prejudiced attitude rated a Native American individual more stereotypically aggressive than those with a non-prejudiced attitude. However, this pattern did not occur when people were exposed to White mascots or neutral images. Furthermore, this pattern was not evident when people evaluated a non-Native individual. This overall pattern of results indicates that Native American mascots selectively facilitate the application of negative stereotypes, resulting in harmful evaluations of Native American people.

Politics in the Toy Box: Sports Reporters, Native American Mascots, and the Roadblocks Preventing Change

Numerous educational institutions and professional sports teams still use Native American mascots, despite strong opposition ranging from Native American groups to the American Psychological Association. Fans, community members, and teams defend the mascots by asserting that they honor Native American peoples. Sports journalists occupy a unique location in the debate, as they regularly cover teams with such mascots and commonly refer to them in stories. In light of this ongoing debate and pressure to change reporting practices, this research used a survey to examine sports reporters’ experiences and attitudes toward Native American mascots and their beliefs about the role they themselves should take in the public debate. Results show an overall lack of support for Native American mascots, with key differences based on participant race, job title, and belief in the value that sports bring to society. Furthermore, sports journalists appear to support taking a public stand on the issue but resist the idea of eliminating mascot references from stories. The author discusses the implications of these findings in light of the growing movement to ban these mascots, as well as the evolving role that sports journalists embody at the intersection of sports and social issues.

On the Particular Racism of Native American Mascots

Abstract An account of the specific ill of Native American mascots—that is, the particular racism of using Native Americans as mascots, as distinct from other racist portrayals of Native Americans—requires a fuller account of the function of mascots as such than has previously been offered. By analyzing the history of mascots in the United States, this article argues that mascots function as symbols that draw into an artificial unity 1) a variety of teams existing over a period of time and thereby 2) a community of individuals who are thus able to use that team as their own symbolic locus of unification. This unification of teams and their concomitant communities is accomplished by appeal to a symbol that facilitates a particular fantasy of collective identity. The usage of Native American mascots is racist not only because it involves stereotypical portrayals of Native Americans, but (more specifically) because it treats Native persons simply as a means to symbolic unification—and not, importantly, as members of the community they thus serve. In other words, in these cases mascots work as unifying signifiers precisely by being the purely instrumental facilitator of a group's collective fantasy of itself.

On the Particular Racism of Native American Mascots

Abstract An account of the specific ill of Native American mascots—that is, the particular racism of using Native Americans as mascots, as distinct from other racist portrayals of Native Americans—requires a fuller account of the function of mascots as such than has previously been offered. By analyzing the history of mascots in the United States, this article argues that mascots function as symbols that draw into an artificial unity 1) a variety of teams existing over a period of time and thereby 2) a community of individuals who are thus able to use that team as their own symbolic locus of unification. This unification of teams and their concomitant communities is accomplished by appeal to a symbol that facilitates a particular fantasy of collective identity. The usage of Native American mascots is racist not only because it involves stereotypical portrayals of Native Americans, but (more specifically) because it treats Native persons simply as a means to symbolic unification—and not, importantly, as members of the community they thus serve. In other words, in these cases mascots work as unifying signifiers precisely by being the purely instrumental facilitator of a group's collective fantasy of itself.

From Apes and Thick Micks to the Fighting Irish: Cultural Misappropriation at the University of Notre Dame

Despite the continuing controversy surrounding the use of Native American mascots, little attention is paid to the Fighting Irish mascot at the University of Notre Dame. Although historically founded by a sect of French Catholic priests, the institution has formally used the Fighting Irish moniker for 87 years. Ironically, the team name came just six years after the Irish finally gained independence from Great Britain after hundreds of years of oppression. This paper, using comparative historical analysis, analyzes the history of the Irish in America as well as the University of Notre Dame to better understand whether the Fighting Irish symbolism is a form of cultural imperialism in use at one of America’s premier educational institutions. Drawing on the work of Edward Said on cultural imperialism, the University of Notre Dame licensing and mascot program promotes a dialogue that “others” a national group that has historically faced injustice and mockery.

Alumni Perceptions of a University’s Decision to Remove Native American Imagery From Its Athletic Program

One of the more contentious issues North American athletic organizations face is how to deal with Native American imagery that is associated with their sports teams. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has, in recent years, banned member organizations from using and displaying Native American nicknames and mascots at postseason events, with a few exceptions. This has led to protests, especially by alumni, at some schools. This case study examines how alumni at one university perceive and experience the removal of a Native American team nickname from the University’s athletic program. Fourteen semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with alumni from Miami University representing one of three cohorts: those who graduated by 1993 (before the removal of the nickname was discussed or implemented), those who graduated between 1993 and 2000 (during the time the nickname was removed), and those who graduated after 2000 (after the change was implemented). Borrowing from the narrative inquiry approach, thematic analysis was utilized. Two major themes that arose irrespective of cohort are presented and discussed.

Chasing Objectivity? Critical Reflections on History, Identity, and the Public Performance of Indian Mascots

Chasing Objectivity? Critical Reflections on History, Identity, and the Public Performance of Indian Mascots examines the role of the objectivity within the discipline of history via explorations of research into Native American sports mascots. I argue that Whiteness and other aspects of privilege are intimately, and publicly, entwined with the practice of “doing” history and that through explorations of historical narratives of race, we can reveal the limitations of the subjective-objective divide and the weight of our own privilege as academics and members of the broader American culture.

The Native American mascot controversy: a handbook

Sports mascots have been a tradition for decades. Along with the usual lions and tigers, many schools are represented by Native American images. Once considered a benign practice, numerous studies have proved just the opposite: that the use of Native American mascots in educational institutions has perpetuated a shameful history of racial insensitivity. The Native American Mascot Controversy provides an overview of the issues that have been associated with this topic for the past 40 years.

Native American Mascots in Contemporary Higher Education: Part 1: Politically Acceptable or Ethnically Objectionable?

The battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876 was one of the last great wars fought by Native Americans on a grassy battlefield. The battle was fought over territory and the right to live in the Dakota and Montana territories. The Native Americans won the battle of Little Big Horn but eventually lost the war and were forced to live on a reservation away from their homeland. Today another great battle involving Native Americans is taking place, not on a grassy plain somewhere out West, but in courtrooms, classrooms, and tribal meetings across the country. The battle is over the use of historical Native American images and traditions as mascots and nicknames of higher education institutions. The research reported in this paper identified seven institutions of higher learning (not a complete list) which have abolished the use of Native American mascots on their campuses. Although these seven schools do not include a community college, much food for thought is presented for the benefit of community college educators who respect the thoughts and feelings of Native American Indians. The need is for this study to be replicated among community colleges with Native American mascots.

Stakeholder Salience and Elements in Decisions to Retain or Change American Indian Nicknames and Symbols at American Universities

Decisions about sports symbols on college campuses, such as team nicknames, mascots and logos, are often contentious and involve many stakeholder groups (Connolly, 2000; Farnall, 2004 a, 2004 b). The purpose of this study is to determine the salience of stakeholder groups in the decision to change or retain Native American athletic team nicknames. Mitchell, Agile and Wood (1997) theorize that stakeholder salience is comprised of power, legitimacy and urgency. Researchers applied Mitchell, Agile and Wood's (1997) theory to the case of one university which they followed with a nationwide survey of decision makers at 30 institutions having Native American nicknames or mascots. Alumni were found to be definitive stakeholders with power, legitimacy and urgency while other stakeholder groups possessed only one or two stakeholder salience attributes. Respondents rated presidential readiness as the most important decision factor (M = 4.33 on a 5-point scale). Other highly rated factors were access to, communication with and official support from stakeholders. Results provide support for Mitchell, Agile and Wood's (1997) theory and suggest that university administrators must attend to changes in stakeholder salience, particularly changes in the urgency of a stakeholder's claim.

Using Social Movement Theory To Study Outcomes in Sport-Related Social Movements

In this study, we systematically examine the relevance of five bodies of social movement theory to the outcomes of two sport-related social movements — struggles over funding of sport facilities and struggles over Native American mascots. Thirty-eight themes were culled from the five bodies of social movement theory and explored via 83 semi-structured interviews with social movement and countermovement actors from 20 different sites in the United States. Surprisingly, we found only eight of the 38 themes that we studied are pivotal to the outcomes of both social movements. The analysis also reveals that no single theoretical approach adequately explains the outcomes of both movements. Parts of Resource Mobilization theory are useful, while Political Process and Cultural theories offer the most explanatory power. We find that a few internal aspects of social movement groups interact with some cultural and structural forces external to these groups to shape social movement outcomes. Sport sociologists are urged to continue the systematic study of social movement theory, but to move beyond the limitations of this study to focus on other social movements, geographical locations, and aspects of social movements.

The Effects of Involvement in Sports on Attitudes Toward Native American Sport Mascots

This study investigated whether the degree of involvement in sports affected attitudes about the acceptability of Native American sport mascots. A multidimensional measure of sport involvement showed that high sport involvement predicted greater acceptance of Native American mascots. Only 16% of respondents found any of the Native American sport mascots presented in the study to be at all offensive whereas the rest of the participants showed approval. Men scored significantly higher on every indicator of sport involvement and also showed more approval for Native American mascots. Implications of these findings for continued use of Native American sport mascots by sports organizations are discussed.

Eliminating Native American Mascots

Many scholars have written about the problems with Native American mascots. Yet no scholar has systematically studied what factors affect the outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots. In this study, the author compares seven cases in which Native American mascots were eliminated to seven cases, where they in which retained to discover factors that affect these outcomes. In all 14 cases, the author interviewed two opponents and two supporters of the mascots. In this article, the author not only describe her findings, the factors that influence outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots, but also utilizes these findings to make concrete suggestions for activists and practitioners who are attempting to eliminate these mascots.