Redskins name change: NFL agrees to meet with tribe – eventually

Redskins name change: Redskins owner Dan Snyder has vowed to keep the Redskins name, which a tribal spokesman calls 'an outdated sign of division and hate.'

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Ray Halbritter, National Representative of the Oneida Indian Nation, speaks during the Oneida Indian Nation's Change the Mascot symposium, Monday, Oct. 7, 2013, in Washington, calling for the Washington Redskins NFL football team to change its name.

The NFL is prepared to meet with an Indian tribe pushing for the Washington Redskins to drop the team's nickname. Just not this week.

As league owners gathered Monday in the nation's capital for their fall meetings, the Oneida Indian Nation held a symposium across town to promote their "Change the Mascot" campaign. Oneida representative Ray Halbritter said the NFL was invited to attend.

Instead, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said, a meeting has been scheduled for next month – and could happen sooner.

"We respect that people have differing views," McCarthy said. "It is important that we listen to all perspectives."

He said the Redskins name is not on the agenda for the owners' meetings. Redskins owner Dan Snyder has vowed to keep the name, and an AP-GfK poll conducted in April found that nearly 4 in 5 Americans don't think the team should change its name.

It's a topic generating discussion lately, though. President Barack Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press last week that he would "think about changing" the team's name if he were the owner.

Halbritter called that statement "nothing less than historic" and said the team's nickname is "a divisive epithet ... and an outdated sign of division and hate."

Addressing the NFL, Halbritter said: "It is hypocritical to say you're America's pastime but not represent the ideals of America."

US Rep. Betty McCollum (D) of Minnesota said the league and team are "promoting a racial slur" and that "this issue is not going away."

For years, a group of American Indians has tried to block the team from having federal trademark protection, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's envoy to Congress, predicted Monday that effort eventually will succeed.

"This name is going to go into the dustbin of history," she said.

Lanny Davis, a lawyer who said he's been advising Snyder on the name issue for "at least several months," said in a telephone interview after the symposium: "The Washington Redskins support people's feelings, but the overwhelming data is that Native Americans are not offended and only a small minority are."

Davis also said the campaign is "showing selective attention" by focusing on the Redskins and not teams such as the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, or Major League Baseball's Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves.

Earlier, Halbritter was asked about those other nicknames.

"The name of Washington's team is a dictionary-defined, offensive racial epithet. Those other names aren't," Halbritter said. "But there is a broader discussion to be had about using mascots generally."

Players for the Redskins have remained mostly silent on the topic, including star quarterback Robert Griffin III, who recently called the debate "something way above my understanding."

Some players approached in the locker room Monday avoided addressing the subject altogether.

"It's really tough. And I mean this sincerely: I get both sides of the argument," guard Chris Chester said. "I see how it can offend some people, but I feel like the context that this organization has, there's no negative connotation. You wouldn't name your team something you didn't have respect for. At least I wouldn't. I mean, I understand, too, that it offends some people, so I sympathize with both sides."

AP Sports Writer Joseph White in Ashburn, Va., contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.