Here's one of many stories you could read about a wacky decision made by the NCAA last Friday. They have declared that schools may no longer use "hostile or abusive" Native American references in their mascots or logos in NCAA-sponsored postseason tournaments. And apparently, they have interpreted "hostile or abusive references" to mean, roughly, "references."

This is, of course, part of a debate that has gone on for a long time. A lot of schools and other teams have changed their names because of outcries from the public, and occasionally even from some actual Indians. And to a certain extent I can understand it. I understand that "Redskins" is a bit offensive, and I would probably support changing the name of my new hometown NFL team (it might even make me more likely to cheer for them--I've held a grudge against the Redskins ever since the mid-80s, when they kept knocking my randomly chosen favorite team, the Bears, out of the playoffs).

But when it comes down to it, athletic teams don't choose nicknames because they want to offend or make fun of whatever it is they pick. They choose them because 1) it reflects some aspect of the culture or history of the area, and/or 2) it sounds strong, noble, and/or intimidating. That's why we have teams with names like Wolverines or Cougars or Eagles or Patriots or Hurricanes, and not Puppies or Grasshoppers or Daisies or Sunbeams. (UC Santa Cruz gets points not for being intimidating, but for being disgusting.)

So those teams with Indian mascots aren't trying to make fun of Indians. They think Indians are strong and noble. Florida State, for example, has a very good relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida. There is nothing offensive about the word "Seminole" (or the word "Ute," or "Illini," or even "Brave"). The Seminoles have explicitly endorsed FSU's use of their tribe as a mascot. The Seminoles themselves don't think it's offensive. The University of Utah actually offered to change their mascot in 1996, but the Ute tribe said they should keep it. Why does the NCAA think it knows better?

Even more puzzling, why are Indian names offensive, but names of other groups aren't? Is the NCAA going to prohibit the Notre Dame Fighting Irish (just like Indians, an ethnic group with a storied history of discrimination)? The Tennessee Volunteers (an insult to proactive people everywhere)? The Michigan State Spartans (who obviously hate all Greeks--another ethnic group)? The Wyoming Cowboys (a dwinding profession that might see itself as the subject of new urbanist ridicule)? The Purdue Boilermakers (ditto)?

One of the oddest aspects of the decision is the announcement that the University of North Carolina-Pembroke is not going to be banned from using its nickname, the Braves, because they have traditionally had a high percentage of Native American students (up to 20%). Therefore, says the NCAA, the term "Braves" is not hostile or offensive when used by that school.

So the only way for the University of Illinois to keep its Illini nickname in postseason tournaments is to make sure 20% of its student body are Indians? (Does it matter if they are Illini, or can they come from other tribes? Certainly not all the Indians who attend UNC-P are actually braves!) The NCAA is saying that a nickname if offensive if there is not a substantial portion of the student population who actually is what the nickname says they are. That's just silly.

After all, how many Texas Christian University students do you think actually are Horned Frogs?

I don't advocate discrimination. But I think it's better left to the allegedly discriminated-against group to decide if a particular college should change its nickname. If the Utes endorse the U of U, and the Seminoles endorse FSU, where does the NCAA get the authority to tell those tribes that, contrary to what they think, they really are offended?