Throne of Arrogance

Last night was the last performance for the 50+ year reign of the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek. As has been the long, slow movement of the last 10-15 years, the Chief was increasingly viewed as a symbol of racism toward, and dehumanization of, Native Americans. Last year the NCAA banned the University of Illinois from hosting any NCAA post-season events until Chief Illiniwek was removed. They went so far as to label the Chief "abusive and hostile". U of I drug its feet for months. Last night, the Chief did his last dance.

I don't know if the decision to remove the Chief was the right move or the wrong one, but what I do know is this: some of those pushing for the removal of Chief Illiniwek betrayed that, though they were calling supporters of the Illiniwek symbol "ignorant", it was they who should be given the label.Enter Jon Saraceno of USA Today. Saraceno wrote an editorial yesterday applauding the University's decision to remove the Illini symbol. He then did an interview on one of the radio stations here in town, which I was fortunate enough to catch yesterday on my drive home. While it may have been one of the worst interviews I have ever heard (I don't say that lightly), Saraceno did say some things that got me thinking.

According to his article, "America wants Native Americans confined to a place where they are powerless and objects of entertainment." When Native Americans are made a joke (like retired mascots "Willy Womput" or "Monty Montezuma") they should be removed. I am sensitive to the fact that many of the mascots used that have portrayed Native Americans have been racist and offensive, and therefore should be removed. That is why I agreed with the title of Saraceno's, which implied that Native Americans should have the say on whether such a mascot is offensive or racist.

That is where my agreement with the columnist ends. In the radio interview he granted the host cited a study that found that well over 50% (I neither caught the name of the study nor the actual number--apologies) of Native Americans support the use of symbols depicting their culture, Saraceno said this: "That's because they have the wrong mindset." The wrong mindset? What that says is, "it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. My worldview is right, and everyone else's is wrong." In his column the author made the same statement about the students who were protesting the removal of the Chief: "The most startling aspect is that universities are supposed to be halls of enlightenment, not dark corridors of ignorance. They should not stand for discriminatory practices. College students, in addition to taking classes, should learn some empathy." Everyone else is ignorant and unenlightened. Non-empathetic and racist.

Again, I don't know in the case of Chief Illiniwek if he was a racist or demeaning symbol. What I do know is that the attitude that "I am right and anyone who disagrees with me us unenlightened" is perhaps the most dangerous mindset anyone could have. I am not always right. I can be wrong. I must be open to criticism. To say that those with whom I disagree are "ignorant" and that their opinions count for nothing because they do not share my "mindset" is to be closed to rational debate and dialog. It is to sit on a throne of arrogance.

It is for this same reason that I am convinced our judiciary is out of control and that our political debate is on the decline. It is good to be convinced of our own positions. It is awful to close the door to those with whom we disagree. You do not have to share my mindset and my worldview. I would hope that the weight of my arguments would sway you toward my positions. I ask of myself and of all of us, keep the door to debate and the lines of communication open.

Then, maybe then, we can openly talk with all parties (including the descendants of the Illini) as to what is the best course of action.