NFL, Oneida Indians to meet over Redskins name

The meeting will take place Wednesday in New York; tribal officials oppose the team name of the Washington Redskins, calling it a slur.

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Ray Halbritter, a tribal leader from the Oneida Indian Nation, spoke against the Redskins name at a press conference in early October.

Oneida Indian officials who oppose the Redskins nickname as a slur will meet with NFL officials next week in New York City, a tribe spokesman said Friday.

The meeting agreed to by NFL officials earlier this month is scheduled for Wednesday in New York City, Oneida Indian Nation spokesman Brett Stagnitti told The Associated Press.

The upstate New York tribe and its leader Ray Halbritter became prominent critics of the team's name after funding a "Change the Mascot" radio ad campaign and a symposium in Washington on the harmful effects of the nickname.

Halbritter, whose tribe runs a large casino resort in Verona in central New York, says the name is degrading and has devastating effects, especially on younger Indians.

The tribe began pushing for a name change recently as the Washington Redskins faced fresh waves of criticism over their nickname. Even President Barack Obama weighed in, saying recently he would "think about changing" the name if he owned the team.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said senior league executives will attend next week's meeting, but he didn't know if Commissioner Roger Goodell will be among them.

Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder has said he will never change the team's name and Goodell has said that it is ultimately Snyder's call.

In a letter to season-ticket holders this month, Snyder said he respected the feelings of those offended by the name, but wrote "I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too."

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.