Friday, February 14, 2014

Michael Sam, the NFL & Why Straight People Should Be Pro-LGBT

Michael Sam is an All-American defensive lineman who recently graduated from Missouri ("Mizzou"), and might become the first openly gay NFL player. He's not in the League yet, but he came out this week and is supposed to be a 3rd-4th round draft pick. (ESPN 2/9/14).

I imagine this was pretty neat news for most of the people reading this. He'd apparently been 'out' to his college team for years without any issues, and just wanted to put all of the cards on the table for his future team. Seems fair, right? Who would want or expect someone who had already been open to have to go back into the closet? How could they?

Still, Sam coming out has caused all kinds of reactions, including some uproar about whether or not the NFL is "ready" for such a player. I also saw a few reports that his draft stats fell significantly since he made the announcement. These stats are also pretty variable in the early stages of the draft season.

This kind of story captures the interest of people who do not care about football/sports, as much as the people who get ESPN text updates. So, let me add the timeline and context for the non-sports fans. The 2014 NFL Draft is not until May 8 - May 10. However, the NFL Scouting Combine is to be held February 19-25, 2014. The NFL Scouting Combine, I just learned this week, is a week-long "showcase" for players to prove to team owners and coaches that they should be drafted. So, expect more reports about Michael Sam and his chances and the NFL's reaction during/after the Combine. If Michael Sam performs like the star All-American he's shown himself to be, the scouts should recognize what he has to offer their team -- and draft him.

In the meantime, I want to call attention to a few of the reasons the negative or ambivalent responses are nonsense:

The NFL has already had gay men. 

It was very hard for me to imagine that there has never gay or bisexual man in the NFL. So, I started researching that question.

First, I figured I'd see how many players there have ever been, and approach the question statistically. Of course, there have been A LOT of players (over +1,700 players on the if we're to trust this random InfoPlease Answer). I was preparing to calculate the odds that there had never been another gay NFL player when I found a perfectly-titled Wikipedia article, "Homosexuality in American Football," that cites six former NFL players who have come out after leaving the League.

So, we know - for a fact - that the NFL has had gay players before. (Thanks Google and Wikipedia! ) Therefore, we also know - for a fact - that the League did not implode, self-destruct, or otherwise suffer harm.

There were actually supposed to be four gay men in the NFL to come out together last April, but I guess they got cold feet. Maybe Michael Sam will be a nudge in that direction, and they will decide to use their veteran status to secure a safer space for Sam and other young gay men in the League.

Jason Collins: Forerunner or Cautionary Tale?

Jason Collins is an NBA Center who came out in April 2013 via Sports Illustrated. Before I get into the possible downside, I have to say that I love the way he starts the article.
"I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.
I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, "I'm different." If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand."

It does a wonderful job of setting the context. He frames his privilege "34-year-old NBA center" and his intersectionality "I'm black. And I'm gay." And he shares the reluctance and responsibility he feels about coming out within the context of all of these things. Some have also noted that Michael Sam's experience in coming out has been shaped as much by his race as his sexuality.

Now, it is worth mentioning that Jason Collins has not played another game in the NBA since coming out. I'm not sure if this was a somewhat-planned early retirement decision, or if he expected to be picked up again? However, the fact is that he is in his mid-30s and had played over a decade of professional sports. He could very well be at the end of his career--gay or not. Still, it doesn't exactly bode well for Michael Sam. So far, America has not had to prove its lack of homophobia in men's professional sports. Although the NFL says they do not discriminate, as a point of policy, it should be interesting to see whether that is true in practice. All of the other athletes have waited until they were safely retired or retirement.

Michael Sam making this announcement right before his career is supposed to begin is unprecedented and incredibly courageous... and should be recognized as such. Only time will tell whether this heroism has hurt him (ie. How he does with his draft and his future salary).

If the U.S. military can accept gay people, so can the NFL.

OK. So, I've had quite a lot of people look at me funny when I say that football is intended to imitate war. (Not to be confused with The Football War) This is not a crazy liberal opinion or even a value-judgment against the sport. It's just an obvious connection. The entire game is land-acquisition via strategy and force. You smash your front lines into each other to move the ball and the "line of scrimmage" deeper into your opponents land, until you reach their end-zone.

If football is like war, then the players are like soldiers. I say that to say, if the actual military can accept gay people, the people who imitate war can, too. Surely we should not take the (real or imagined) concerns of people who get paid millions of dollars to play a game for living as seriously as soldier going into real war-zones... And those concerns were ultimately dismissed with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The NFL could do - and has done - WAY worse than a gay man. 

Does the name OJ Simpson ring any bells? What about Dennis Stallworth? Or maybe Michael Vick (Felony dog fighting)? What about Rae Carruth (In prison until 2018 for conspiring to murder the woman carrying his child)? Or Dwayne Goodrich (DUI Manslaughter: Hit & Run)? There is a whole list of convicted football players. Most of these players had already ended their NFL contracts or had to become Free Agents after their convictions, but some are still playing, or got signed on with prior convictions.

On that note, I want to join PZ Myers in applauding sports announcer Dale Hansen for doing a great job of summing up the hypocrisy here...

I don't want to go on and on about this. Partially because it is a sickening topic that makes me question America's decency, and partially because the point is so obvious and irrefutable. In terms of morality-based drafting, the NFL team owners do not have a leg to stand on.

If being a good football player is the most important factor, regardless of personal life, let's just be sure to apply that standard to everyone. Owners' & coaches' opinions and beliefs about gay people should no more factor into NFL contract decision any more than opinions about drug trafficking and assault played into those contract deals.

What message are we sending about "Role Models" in the NFL?

Is the NFL a place for role models...or not? Some have argued "YES! The NFL is a place for role models, and that's why we do NOT want any openly gay players. Think of the children!" and similar nonsense.

But let's break this down for a minute. First, NFL players are often NOT exemplary role models (see above). Secondly, isn't someone who is open and honest about who they are, in addition to being a good football player exactly the kind of role model the NFL (and parents) should want to promote?

What kind of message does it give if we encourage people to stay in the closet in order to be good role models? Or that you can still be a role model even if you do awful things, as long as you also play a sport well? Aren't either of those worse messages to send than "You can be gay and play pro football."

Conclusion: Why straight people should be some of the most vocal advocates for LGBT visibility. 

Unless you believe that homosexuality is a choice or that gay people are somehow incapable of playing football, gay football players are an inevitability. I think many people, on some level, understand that reality.

Now, I'm going to say something that might surprise you.  I don't think people care as much whether or not a football player is gay, but rather whether gay football players come out. Some people are "fine with" LGBT people... unless and until you actually tell them you are one. The standard is also different for certain people to be gay than it is for others. For example, singers and actors have been "out" longer than professional athletes.

Tellingly, you will hear folks say that they do not dislike gays, but think they should "keep 'it' to themselves." Some will say they do not want to see gay people kissing or holding hands in public. What they do not realize is that this is inherently discriminatory since they would never make such demands of heterosexual couples in public. Whatever constitutes "acceptable PDA" should be the same for everyone. Otherwise, the issue becomes the desire to hide and deny a certain subset of the population from view. LGBT Invisibility.

Even supporting LGBT people in the NFL is potentially dangerous... 
Not to go too "Oprah" on everyone, but... Some people are afraid of being themselves and "living their own truth," so to speak. Many of those people are afraid of YOU living YOUR truth since they are too afraid to live theirs. Homosexuality and homophobia is just one example of this, but it is a good one. No. I'm not saying every person who has been critical of Michael Sam is gay, but I am saying that some people who are not comfortable or open in their lives are not happy if someone else is able to live theirs freely. They convince themselves that being open and honest is not an option, so when someone else bucks that assumption, it challenges decisions that they've made about how to live their life.

From the perspective of straight male athletes with misguided locker room fears (..or suppressed fantasies), wouldn't it be better to at least know who the gay guy in the locker room is?

No really. Let's say you're honestly afraid or averse to gay people and don't want them seeing you naked. Why would you want it to be a mystery who is gay? It makes more sense to be supportive of everyone coming out, even if it is just to know who to avoid while naked.

On a less malicious and irrational note, it makes sense that non-homophobic straight people would welcome less competition for the partners they want to marry or date - and less time investment on incompatible partners. From a strictly economic perspective, the last thing straight folks should want are closeted gay men and women "stealing" your dates.

So, if you were single this Valentine's Day (or if you've ever been single ANY Valentine's Day - and not wanted to be) encourage people to come out and be honest about their sexuality...

Remember: Encouraging LGBT visibility and acceptance increases the odds of the "right" people finding each other - however that is defined - and wastes less of everyone else's time (including straight people!)

Also, being an LGBT Ally for Equality's sake is also good...

Additional Reading

- "The Bravest of All, Michael Sam Moves Us Forward

This is a great article written by a former NFL player (Wade Davis) who came out after leaving the NFL and applauds Michael Sam for coming out before the Draft. 

- "Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks" - Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004 - 

As a slight aside, we often "gender" professions, as well as individuals. Research suggests that we apply different standards and judgments to people who are performing non-gender conforming tasks or professions. 

Reaction to Michael Sam coming out is as much about race as homophobia 

This piece touches on the intersectional identities of "Black Man" and "Gay Man" and how they are not seen as congruent in the media. 

- Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination -  (Badgett, Holning, Sears, & Ho, 2007)

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The Value of Debate: Deconstructing Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Did you see the debate last week between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" vs. Ken Ham ("The Creationist Man")? 

The Official Topic: Is Creationism a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?  

The Unofficial Topic: Creationism vs. Evolution (via Natural Selection)

First, let me say that I think Bill Nye did well! If I were being critical, I'd say the following:

  • His jokes weren't GREAT. I'm pretty sure at least half of them fell completely flat. Not sure if that was the audience or the jokes. lol. I think he got better as time went on. 
  • I'd also say he did well using stories to connect, but could have been a better story-teller. ie. I liked that he used narrative, but think he could have done better and been more purposeful about it. It seemed like he was coming up with stuff on-the-spot, but I think it would be good to have a few reliable stories for the points you know are likely to come up.  
  • I think he took it pretty easy on Ham. This was probably good strategy (see below), but frustrating to watch.. 

That said, Ken Ham was insufferable. That's not to say he is a bad debater. He's just an awful, disingenuous idiot. And it's hard to watch that for +2 hours... 

  • He quoted the Bible and proselytized like he was in Sunday School. 
  • I will give him the credit to say he was probably the better "debater." After all, he does it for a living. 
  • The arguments were rife with fallacy and bad science-- BUT if you wanted to believe them or had never been taught otherwise, I can see how you might find him compelling. 
  • Of note, as well, were the videos. Apparently, he found all of people with degrees who believed in Creationism - and filmed them (I'm exaggerating, but just barely!). This is obviously an argument from authority. This would be a fallacy in this case because authority (a degree) doesn't make Creationism true. However, I can definitely see how, after the 5th or 6th of these videos, someone might say "Wow! Smart people think this, too? I must be right!" 
  • There was LOTS and LOTS of circular logic & tautology around the Bible. e.g. "Creationism is true because the Bible says X. The Bible says Y, therefore Creationism is true." 
  • The most frustrating claim was when he claimed (repeatedly) that we can't be sure of Evolution because "we weren't there." The reason this is so frustrating is because he does it while touting the absolute truth of the Bible. I should add that, other than some of the books of the New Testament, we don't even know who wrote the Bible. So, not only were we NOT THERE, but we don't even know who claimed to be. If we accept that God's hand did not literally write the Bible, don't you think it would be nice for the verification process to know who did?  
  • He also said the Bible never contradicts itself. By this point, my head was ready to explode... (List of Bible Contradictions - List of Bible Contradictions - List of Bible Contradictions - List of New Testament Contradictions ONLY) Suffice to say, there are contradictions... 
A Visual Representation of Contradictions in the Bible (Click here for bigger picture)

My initial reaction... 

I thought the debate was a bad idea. I felt like there was no "winning," especially for Bill Nye. I commented on my Twitter that he was in the unenviable position of being correct, but likely criticized by both sides. A lot of people, understandably, believe that this kind of debate gives a platform to an unworthy idea. They say that debating Creationists makes it seem like Evolution and Creationism are comparable theories. I understand this position, and to a large degree, I agree with it. 

On the other hand...

There are some significant "up-sides"... 

I highly doubt that anyone who DOES understand evolution was swayed by the arguments of Ken Ham. Even though he does a good job of appealing to authority and evoking a bandwagon effect (e.g. "Look! We're all doing the 'Believing-in-Creationism-in-the-21st-century' THING! Join us!").

Likewise, I doubt that firm supporters of Creationism even heard most of what Bill Nye said, let alone want to change their minds. So, neither of these groups is the concern. There are going to be people who dig in their heels on either side.

However, they streamed this thing in churches and youth groups where there are children that will be intrigued and influenced by the knowledge that there is even another side of the debate. They've likely only been exposed to Creationism and/or an inaccurate version of what Evolution is. At least watching Bill Nye, they got an actual lesson about what the theory really means and the claims it really makes. 

This is important, and quite possibly worth whatever damage was done by giving Creationism an equal platform. The benefit of Evolution is that it makes sense. It is beautifully simple and a veritable "no-brainer" once you understand it. Creationism isn't like that. What it means to "get" Creationism is to simply defer to "God did it!" for every answer. As we saw watching the debate, this is woefully unsatisfying. 

Not only do atheists feel that saying "God did it!" (Full Stop) is unsatisfying, but so do a lot of believers! It was amazing to see how many religious people were upset at Ken Ham for making them look dumb. It should go without saying, but MANY religious people also understand Evolution and embrace or integrate it with Creationism. Ken Ham's brand, "Old Earth Creationism," is thankfully dying out.

Combining the exposure of real Science to staunch Creationists and their children AND the righteous indignation of progressive and scientifically-literate theists, the debate was a win for the pro-Science community. Although, I found it odd that it didn't seem to involve a voting process of any kind? (I could be wrong, but did not see one.) I think it was also a win for atheists, specifically. Bill Nye (an atheist) held his own while defended Evolution, and did so without bashing religion. 

While many of us (including myself) would have GONE OFF on Ken Ham, that's exactly what the Creationist side would have wanted. Then, Ham and others would have just used the snide comment(s) against Bill Nye. They would have focused on that instead of actually debating the substance of the arguments. So, I also give Bill Nye a lot of respect for keeping it together there. He seems like quite an affable guy, though. (I had a chance to meet him at TAM once). Honestly, I think he represented us well. 

In closing, I'll share my votes for the Best/Funniest Debate Hashtags: 

Feedback Requested: 

  • Who do you think won the debate? 
  • Do you think it's a good idea for supporters of Evolution to debate Creationists? 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

The Redskins: 5 GOOD Reasons Native American Mascots Are A BAD Idea


Did you happen to see this Anti-Redskins Super Bowl ad? 

As I look at a calendar that reads "2014" and as another season of the NFL concludes,  I find it shocking that this is still an issue. I cannot believe I have to entertain discussion about why it is NOT alright to use a historically disenfranchised group as a mascot for a sports team. Equally shocking are the number of people -- perhaps even some reading this -- who shrug this off as a fringe issue. 

However, since it is a persistent issue, let me explain why Native American mascots are an awful idea!

1. The fact that some people love and/or have nostalgia for *THING X* does not automatically make *THING X* acceptable.

I know some people in Cleveland, Atlanta, Washington, and other places that have American Indian-themed sports mascots love the team that is represented by that mascot. 

I understand that. I really do. I played sports for years. I still enjoy watching sports. I know folks have great nostalgia and devotion for their teams.

Undoubtedly, some people reading have memories of now-deceased parents and grandparents attending Redskins games. Some people reading this may have lost their virginity under the bleachers of the high school "Indian"-themed team's homecoming. Some people have already bought all the offensive team's gear and don't want to reinvest in a new wardrobe (See #4). 

I know there are lots of reasons fans LOVE their Native American-mascotted teams... (Here's a list!)

The point is that none of those reasons make it acceptable. No amount of "I REALLY LOVE THE REDSKINS" makes the team name less offensive. 

2. Mascots are focal points for Love AND Hate.

Often, in team competition settings (perhaps *especially* in these settings), there is a tendency toward tribal thinking. After all, what is a team if not an ad hoc tribe? 

Predictably, this tribal element of sports creates strong in/out-group effects.

It is worth noting that In/Out Group effects can be formed by the most trivial and arbitrary conditions. This concept is called the "Minimal Group Paradigm." Sports team provide one of the best examples of this: People favor or dislike each other based on which team they follow.

Since a mascot (by definition) represents the whole team, the mascot is likely to be a source of love and pride for the in-group. On the downside, the mascot will also be subjected to the burden of other teams' hatred and animosity... and that's not really fair when the mascot is already a historically disenfranchised group.

It is also important to note that the existence and acceptance other human mascots (e.g. Pirates, Vikings, "Settlers," etc.) is not a defense of racialized Native American mascots. There's no organized group of Pirates or Yankees out there that have a history like that of Native Americans. So, I would argue that it's more acceptable to set up a situation where everyone can hate the Yankees. They're not a historically disenfranchised group. Even a racially illustrative mascot like the Fighting Whities is probably not particularly insulting (comparatively), for the same reasons. Although, to be honest, I would not be in support of that either....

3. "Intent is not magic."

A lot of people really do not like this concept. However, it is true. Just because you "don't mean anything by (X), doesn't mean (X) is acceptable, or without negative consequent. Sure. Intent makes a difference, sometimes. However, it does not completely mitigate the effect of words or actions.

As a crude example of this concept, consider a fatal car accident: Even if a driver doesn't mean to kill another person, it does not mean that person is not still dead. Likewise, if someone does not mean for (X) to be offensive, (X) can still be offensive. So, saying "I don't mean it that way" about supporting offensive team mascots is not a valid excuse. No more than saying "I didn't mean to run that red light" or "I didn't mean to track mud all over the carpet." We have to realize and accept that impact is much more important. 

4. Money is NOT the point.

To be honest, I do not know why teams refuse to change their mascots. However, I do not for one moment think the main issue is (or should be) money. In the interest of argument, for a moment, let us say that money is the primary concern. In the case of national teams, they would have to invest in designing and rebranding a stadium and merchandise. Even though this might cost money, saving money is NOT a legitimate reason to continue using a highly offensive mascot. Even for smaller non-professional teams, how difficult would it really be to order a different name and logo on your merchandise next year? I'm sorry 21st century cultural sensitivity isn't always 100% convenient, but that doesn't mean it isn't "worth" the investment.

In the case of the NFL/Redskins, specifically, the Owners are quite wealthy. It is not insensitive or presumptuous to say that they probably can afford these changes. Furthermore, we know that teams have been changed in the past. If they don't want to do it, it is not because they can't afford it. On my more cynical days, I think they actually like that it is offensive: Racism hiding in plain sight. If I am being more generous, I would say it is their nostalgia and love for the current team (See #1). However, money is NOT the reason. Don't let them tell you otherwise. 

In the case of the fans, merchandise currently owned will - most likely - become collectors items and MORE monetarily valuable. Even if they don't become monetarily valuable, they will retain nostalgic value. 

From the perspective of our society, we have already rejected the idea that monetary interests can justify oppression. Let us remember that many of the moral stances we now applaud as examples of "progress" were originally opposed because they would cost some people some money: Abolishing slavery, creating child labor laws, establishing a minimum wage, and any number of other examples were all opposed on these grounds. 

I know that there is an ongoing legal dispute to force the Washington Redskins to change their name -- and that members of Congress have asked for them to do soWhile I support these efforts, I do not want to underestimate the amount of change possible from people like YOU taking a public stand.  

The NFL and NFL teams need the support of their fans and of the general public to continue to function and be successful. So, even if we do assume money IS the motivating factor behind people like Redskins Owner Dan Snyder refusing to change their mascots, our goal should be to make NOT changing the name more expensive than changing it.  

5. There is no good reason NOT to change the name.

Yes. This is actually my last reason. It might be reductive, but I think it's worth mentioning. I already gave a slight nod to money, as well as the nostalgia and emotional reasons people might be against changing the mascot.  Throughout this long fight, the only somewhat-reasonable defense for the mascots has been from people who say it is actually a nice gesture(!) However, since many Native American groups have clearly stated that they disagree that being caricatured as a sports mascot is an "honor" it is hard to take those claims at face value. Despite ongoing calls for a change - some even predating Daniel Snyder purchase of the Redskins - the owner has (in)famously said "We will never change the name of the team." 

The core issue is what is implied in the act making disenfranchised ethnic group(s) a sports mascot. Even if you do not choose to see it this way, it is quite obviously dehumanizing. Making a group of people into a mascot not only makes them an object, but also implies that this group is not-quite-human, or sub-human in some way. 

Think about it, we're not REALLY Lions, Pirates, or Bobcats. Right? However, there ARE real American "Indian" PEOPLE -- with lives and feelings.

Thus, reducing the reality of real lives to a sports mascot involves a certain level of dehumanization & psychological distancing. In Us/Them Language: WE are people, using THEM as caricatures. Even though THEY'RE not a mythic or apocryphal group. American Indians are a real group. They're real Americans. THEY are WE. So, the psychological distancing implied is off-putting here. However, if you know anything about psychological distancing as a necessary tool for moral disengagement, violence, and genocide -- it's downright scary.

Are ANY of these mascots acceptable? 

At the end of the day, people who insist on supporting these offensive mascots don't even have plausible deniability: Native Americans have complained... a lot... multiple groups, often multiple times. There's no way the owners (or fans, for that matter) can honestly say that they "didn't know" their mascots were offensive. They know. 

There is also no lack of historical precedent: Teams have changed mascots before. Here's a list of teams that have changed their names/mascots without relocating.  It's not the end of the world -- or a terribly big deal. Even some of the teams that currently have offensive mascots, were once called something else! 


A desire to pursue a common future, despite a dissimilar past, is one of the good things that makes America.... America. It is from this hope for a shared future that we also must also develop and maintain a respect for the differences of our past.

By continuing to support groups that refuse to change their offensive mascot, we are essentially saying "No. We don't have equal respect for the histories of all Americans." While we would not argue to have mascots like the left and middle graphic in the image above, for some reason mascots like the Cleveland Indians are acceptable. In light of what I've said, my only question is WHY? 

Begin (Long) CYA and Author's Notes: 

On PoV: I'm not a Native American; I'm an African American. I also do not cheer for any American Indian-themed sports teams. I've never lived anywhere with one, or otherwise had reason to...  So, obviously, I can't speak for either of those perspectives: Native American or fan of a team that uses Native American imagery for its mascots. 

Still, I hope my perspective will be helpful. As a proud American and someone who has taken American History 101, I do understand that personal background and ethnic origin are a unique and important part of every American's story... and that these stories are often far from pretty. 

On Terms: I tend toward Native American, but will use "American Indian" and "Native American" interchangeably (without quotes). While there is some debate about terms, both are generally acceptable. If I use "Indian," it will be in scare quotes and understood to be sarcastic and/or a direct quote.

On My Goal: The point of this post was to use empathy and logic to appeal to the interests of Everyone: teams (owners, coaches, players, and other non-player stockholders), fans, and the general public. I wanted to illustrate how these mascots are not in the best interests of anyone. And that it is Everyone's problem. 

I tried not to speak much for Native Americans. Conceptually, I included them in the "general public" category to make an important point about society and the illusion of choice.  Even if the team and fans don't include Native Americans, the broader public includes Everyone -- including the People being caricatured. Anyone who follows sports or is involved in the NFL/other league (on any level) has to interact with all of the mascots. You can choose not to support that specific group, but there is no way to "opt out" completely.

The Redskins: Lastly, I wanted to make a special example of the "Redskins."  They are the most public example of this issue, but I acknowledge they are not the only team using this kind of mascot/offensive imagery. I am fairly certain this a problem on every level, from Pop Warner to the NFL. However, the Redskins' situation seems especially offensive: Our capital city's mascot for the most popular sport in America is the "Redskins"?!  So, football fans who live in D.C. have to choose between embracing public bigotry or not embracing their hometown team. Given our history, it is also plausible that American Indians may feel further insulted and invalidated by Washington D.C. - of ALL places - having such a mascot.  So yes... I know that there are other examples, but this one sticks out.

CYA complete...

Feedback Requested: 

If you aren't too exhausted from the read, I would love to get your thoughts! 

  • What do you think about Native American mascots/team names? 
  • Why do you think average people continue to support these mascots/teams? 
  • Why do you think the owners do not change their mascots/names?
  • Want to give a prediction for when these names WILL be changed? 

Thanks for reading!