Attended a hearing in Madison yesterday concerning SB25. This bill deceivingly tries to cry "discrimination" over the use of mascot names such as "warriors" and "arrowhead" and (gasp!), "Indians."
Senator Coggs likens the use of these mascot names to using the "n" word for African Americans. See video of this session at Wisconsin Eye. Coggs had the Wisconsin Indian Education Association show up and give a drippingly sad testimony of the terrible abuse these mascot names produce amongst the American Indian children in public school settings. The WIEA packed the room with American Indian children who ranted the same rhetoric.
Interestingly, Paul Sherman of the DPI was there to lend "information" regarding this issue. Instead, he and another representative testified in favor of the bill. When one Senator questioned Sherman about the DPI's stance in favor of the bill, noting that complainants could not expect a fair hearing from the DPI because of their obvious bias, Sherman had absolutely NOTHING to say in response. This raised eyebrows around the room as the DPI had taken a neutral stance and was there to supposedly provide "information," as stated above. Hmmmmmm..... Good call on the Senator's part.
You can watch the hearing on Wisconsin Eye starting at 17:56. Click "watch" under the Senate Committee on Higher Education header.
Bottom line of this bill: Yet another governmental move to remove local control from the elected officials in local communities.
6 comments:
This is nothing new. It's been going on for years. Christians have had as much of an issue with schools that have mascots with the word devil. IE: Blue Devils and the like. I don't mind if they want to prevent mascots with indian names. Warriors seems a bit far because it can reference anything. The others arrowhead, indians I can unsderstand why it offends some. My bio family has cherokee heritage I asked a few of them and they don't have a feeling one way or the other.
It's interesting to see that the blogger can characterize this legislation and hearing without ever mentioning the word "evidence." Scientifically based evidence is not liberal or conservative and should enable the legislature and the DPI to be objective. The real problem here is that ALL the scientific evidence says that schools should drop 'Indian' nicknames and logos. That only leaves some whining about process and misguided understandings of what local control is to defend the status quo.
"The real problem here is that ALL the scientific evidence says that schools should drop 'Indian' nicknames and logos."
Huh? Please explain. Also, please link to the scientific evidence. Give a few links, pro and con as well.
Your criticism of my position would make at least a little sense if you the books you challenged could be legally restricted under ANY US law ANYWHERE. Geography Club, Heather Has Two Mommies, Perks of Being a Wallflower, and the like, don't meet any definition of obscenity, pornography, or harmful to minors, with or without footnotes. Your attempt to restrict the lawful access of any minors to them -- other then your own children -- is censorship of the lowest kind.
Noncensor99, are you talking to me? Someone else? Your comment seems like a nonsequitor.
My comment IS a non-sequitur, given that I put it in the wrong place. It was intended as a response to Ms. Maziarka's post of Thursday, which I've now deal with more fully on my blog.
Post a Comment