Washington, D.C.’s NFL team and their owner Daniel Snyder have been under increasing pressure to change the name from the racist one that they currently go by. The pressure from Native American and allied groups has pushed the team more than they would have been able to in the past. Snyder and the team’s reactions have only made things worse too. At this point, there’s no reason for the team to carry on the racist legacy associated with the name.
The team’s hometown newspaper, The Washington Post, has decided to no longer use the team’s name in any of their editorials but would continue to use it in the sports section. Though there are several columnists for the paper who do not use the name, that a major hometown newspaper would do that is a huge step forward to changing the way people think of the team’s name.
It is also important that the University of Minnesota is trying to ban the Vikings from using the team’s nickname on any materials in the Minnesota stadium during their game or uttered through the loudspeakers. The University says that allowing the name to be used violates their diversity and equal opportunity policies. The team has pushed back against the claim that their name is racist in a variety of ways.
One way that they have pushed back is by citing support among self identified Native Americans in surveys. However, the surveys have not actually looked to see if they are involved in Native American culture. California State University at San Bernadino found the use of the term by non-Native Americans was seen as racist by 65.5 percent of Native respondents, whereas only 17.8 percent do not believe it is racist.
Additionally, the team is losing money in the long term by refusing to change their name. Michael Lewis and Manish Tripathi are marketing professors at Emory and have found that it makes good sense for the team to change their name. The Washington Redskins have experienced negative brand equity, Lewis and Tripathi said, and the other team that is experiencing the most negative brand equity is the Chiefs, another Native American named team. The name is also affecting the attendance numbers. Lewis and Tripathi argue that the naming is the reason for the problems with brand equity, so it makes business sense to change the name as well.
Daniel Snyder is correct in his belief that changing the name isn’t going to solve the huge issues of Native American poverty, but his Original American Foundation isn’t going to singlehandedly do it either. We should keep in mind that removing one of the most denigrating slurs against a group of people from the common vernacular of the society is certainly an improvement. The continued use of the slur to describe a team that is the third most valued in the NFL propagates its use and normalizes that denigration. It should be common sense that the name shouldn’t be used, even if it doesn’t make pure business sense.
Matthew Bailey is a third-year law student. His column runs biweekly.
