A++ work ( No Plagairism, Quality work on time)

340

Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Volume 31 Number 4 November 2007 340-373 © 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0193723507308251 http://jss.sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Eliminating Native American Mascots Ingredients for Success Laurel R. Davis-Delano Springfield College

Many scholars have written about the problems with Native American mascots. Yet no scholar has systematically studied what factors affect the outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots. In this study, the author compares seven cases in which Native American mascots were eliminated to seven cases, where they in which retained to discover factors that affect these outcomes. In all 14 cases, the author interviewed two opponents and two supporters of the mascots. In this article, the author not only describe her findings, the factors that influence outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots, but also utilizes these findings to make concrete suggestions for activists and practitioners who are attempting to eliminate these mascots.

Keywords: mascots; Native Americans or American Indians; racism; stereo- types; social change; schools

Many scholars have written about Native American 1 mascots in the United States.

Although many of these writings include thoughtful analyses, most are not based on systematic data collection. Furthermore, researchers have yet to examine why some struggles over Native American mascots result in elimination of these mascots, whereas others result in retention. In this study, cases of mascot elimination were compared to cases of mascot retention to discover factors that affect the two different outcomes. Thus, the first purpose of this article is to describe and analyze the factors that affect the outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots. My hope is that findings from this study will be useful to activists and practitioners as they attempt to eliminate Native American mascots because these mascots are stereotypes that have negative consequences for Native people. Thus, the second purpose of this article is to identify which factors antimascot activists and practitioners can influence (and not influence) and make specific recommendations for activists/ practitioners that will contribute to elimination of Native mascots. For convenience, in this article, the term “mascots” is used to refer to three interrelated phenomena: nicknames, logos, and mascots.

Author’s Note: Acknowledgments to the Faculty Research Fund, Springfield College. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laurel R. Davis-Delano, Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Springfield College, 263 Alden St., Springfield, MA 01109, USA. Email: [email protected].

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 341

This article responds to the call by some, for sociologists to engage in more applied research. In recent years, Burawoy (2004, 2005a, 2005b) has led this charge, urging sociologists to link their research to practice. In 2004, the American Sociological Association annual conference was built around the theme of “Public Sociologies.” Some sociology journals have devoted extensive space to the discussion of public sociology, including Social Forces, Critical Sociology, American Sociologist, and British Journal of Sociology. Similar to the trend in the larger field of sociology, from 1989 to 1991, there was a discussion of applied research in the Sociology of Sport Journal that included the call by some for more practical and relevant sociology of sport research (e.g., Chalip, 1990; Nixon, 1991; Yiannakis, 1989). A book called Applied Sociology of Sport followed this journal discussion (Yiannakis & Greendorfer, 1992).

Scholarship on Native American Mascots

It is important to review some of the reasons why Native American sport mascots are problematic. These mascots are stereotypes that portray Native Americans as aggressive fighters, ignore contemporary Native American life, ignore cultural differences between different Native societies, and misrepresent and trivialize aspects of Native cultures. Widespread stereotypes, such as the ones about Native people that are mentioned above, limit comprehension of the lives of those from the stereo- typed categories. Such incomprehension makes it much more difficult to address problems experienced by the stereotyped people (Davis, 2002). Not surprisingly, these mascots create a hostile environment for many Native people (Baca, 2004; Williams, D., in press). And these mascots have a negative impact on the self and group perceptions of Native American youth (Fryberg, 2002; LaRocque, 2004). (Note: For a more thorough discussion of these and other problems related to Native American mascots, see Davis, 2002 and Fryberg, 2002.)

Most academic publications about Native American mascots are not the result of research projects that involve systematic collection of data. Here, I wish to acknowledge the publications that have been more empirical in nature. These publi- cations include an analysis of opinion polls about Native mascots (Sigelman, 1998; Williams, D., in press), an assessment of the numbers of Native nicknames that refer to Native Americans in general versus specific Native American tribal/societal groups (Clarkson, 2003), a documentation and analysis of the arguments for and against Native mascots that employed participant observation (Davis, 1993), assess- ments of psychological effects of viewing images of Native mascots that utilized experiments with questionnaires (Fryberg, 2002; LaRocque, 2004), works that incorporated some interviews (Springwood, 2004; Taylor, 2005), and many writings that involved some document analysis (e.g., Connelly, 2000; Davis, 1993; Farnell, 2004; King, 2004, 2006; Prochaska, 2001; Staurowsky, 2000, 2001; Taylor, 2005; Tovares, 2002).

342 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Local efforts to eliminate specific Native American mascots are part of national efforts to eliminate all Native American mascots, and national efforts to eliminate all Native mascots are part of a larger social movement against the oppression of Native Americans. This project examines local efforts to eliminate specific Native mascots within the national context while employing some aspects of social movement theory.

Social Movement Theory

The interview questions utilized in this study were created after a thorough review of the literature on social movement theory, and these questions address factors derived from five bodies of social movement theory: Collective Behavior, Resource Mobilization, Political Process, Cultural, and New Social Movement theories. In this section, I briefly describe these five bodies of theory and then mention other scholars who have employed social movement theory in their studies of sport.

In general, Collective Behavior theories have the following logic. It is believed that social movements arise when large numbers of people experience some kind of structural change that produces some kind of societal breakdown or strain. The breakdown/strain creates psychological anxiety or discomfort. For psychological relief, some people pursue collective behaviors including social movements (e.g., Buechler, 2002; Goodwin & Jasper, 2003; McAdam & Snow, 1997).

The central premise of Resource Mobilization theory is that social movements are most influenced by the resources possessed or acquired by the activists. Resources have been defined quite broadly, including but not limited to money, solidarity, leadership, labor/time, knowledge/skills, preexisting organizational connections, orga- nization, and support from outside the movement (e.g., Canel, 1997; Carroll, 1997; Edwards & McCarthy, 2004; Locher, 2002; McCarthy & Zald, 1997; Zald, 1992).

The central tenet of Political Process theory is that societal institutions create opportunities and constraints for social movements that greatly affect these move- ments (e.g., Koopmans, 1999; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996; Tarrow, 1994). Political Process scholars emphasize a variety of factors that enable or constrain social movements, such as the degree of openness in the political system, repression by authorities, and elite facilitation of social movements (e.g., Canel, 1997; Crossley, 2002; Klandermans, 2001; Locher, 2002). Political Process theorists view social movements as active in a larger political process that includes lots of other players, including but not limited to allies, countermovements, the general public, various parts of government, corporations, and media (e.g., Kriesi, 2004; McAdam & Snow, 1997; Rucht, 2004).

There is no single Cultural theory of social movements, yet many theorists emphasize various aspects of culture, including emotions, collective identities, and subcultures/countercultures internal to social movement groups (e.g., Buechler, 2000; Fine, 1995; Goodwin & Jasper, 2003; Jasper, 1997; Oliver, Cadena-Roa, & Strawn, 2003). In their efforts to gain support, social movement actors construct

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 343

frames of interpretation that attempt to link the views of the social movement to the views of others. Countermovement actors contest social movement frames of inter- pretation (e.g., Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Snow, Rochford, Burke, Steven, & Benford, 1997; Williams R., 2004; Zald, 1996).

According to New Social Movement theorists, in comparison to the social move- ments of the past, “new social movements” are more apt to be global in scale, to employ cultural strategies, to consist of networks of people (rather than formal orga- nizations), and to focus on identity and changing culture (rather than on policies and resources) (e.g., Buechler, 2000, 2002; Canel, 1997; Carroll, 1997; Garner, 1996).

In the most extensive application of social movement theory to a sport-related movement to date, Sage (1999) wielded some aspects of Resource Mobilization, Political Process, Framing, and Cycles of Protest theories to analyze activism against Nike. The other scholars of sport that have employed multiple social movement theories are the following: Wilson and White (2002) in their study of fan efforts to revive a sport team, Brown and Paul (2002) in their study of efforts to block taxpayer funding of professional sport stadiums, and Taylor (2005) in his study of three struggles over Native American mascots. A few scholars have utilized a single body of social move- ment theory: Wilson (2002) on the antijock movement, Carty (2002) on activism against Nike, and Schwirian, Curry, and Woldoff (2001) on a struggle over stadium funding in one city. Two scholars who have employed a single theme from social movement theory are Koch and Leonard (1978) on the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Pelak (2002) on a women’s ice hockey team.

Methodology

The Sample

After reading about struggles over Native mascots all over the United States using the LexisNexis newspaper database, I selected seven cases where mascots had been eliminated and seven cases where they had been retained. Although some scholars have been critical of limiting the definition of outcomes to whether a social movement has achieved its primary goal, in this study this definition is appropriate because it reflects the common goal of the activists to eliminate Native mascots and allows for ease of comparison between the different cases. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the goal of eliminating these mascots matters a great deal (e.g., Davis, 2002; Fryberg, 2002; Pewewardy, 1991).

In selecting the 14 cases for this study, I was attentive to several factors. In an effort to achieve geographical diversity, I chose schools from every census division in the United States except New England. I only selected schools where there had been a struggle between people working for elimination and those working for retention, and where the struggle had clearly reached some kind of at least temporary conclusion. For both the elimination and retention cases, three of the cases were at the college/ university level and four at the high school level. All of the high schools and all but

344 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

one of the colleges/universities were public, and none of the schools were located on reservations. For the seven schools that eliminated their Native mascots, the elimination took place between 1985 and 2004. Two cases of elimination and two cases of retention are located in states where a state agency or state agency director recommended that public schools in the state eliminate Native American mascots. In all of the states where such recommendations were made, a large number of public schools still have Native mascots. The interviews about these cases occurred just prior to the NCAA announcing its policy on Native mascots in August of 2005. The retention schools have the following nicknames: three Indians, one Redskins, two nicknames that refer to specific Native groups, and one nickname that is a somewhat unusual term for Native Americans. The elimination schools removed the following nicknames: two Indians, two Redskins, one Redmen, one Chieftains, and one unique nickname believed (by most) to be associated with “Native culture.”

Early in this research project, I made a commitment to conceal the names of the schools because I believed that doing this would help me to obtain interview partici- pants and that these participants would be more willing to reveal information about their cases. Thus, in my request for interviews, I stated that both individual and school identities would be concealed. I am confident that this decision was wise because only a small percentage of people refused to be interviewed, and I obtained some sensitive information during the interviews.

In each case, the interview participants included two people who worked to elimi- nate the school’s Native American mascot and two people who worked to retain the same mascot. In three complicated cases, I interviewed an extra person, thus I conducted a total of 59 interviews. The purpose of interviewing people on both sides of the issue should be obvious because people on opposing sides of an issue often have divergent perspectives about what happened and why. The purpose of interviewing two people from the same side is simply to enhance the validity of their collective reports and opinions. In regard to selection of the first participants, I asked contacts (who were most often people whose names appeared in newspaper articles) for the names of the most informed leaders of efforts to eliminate and retain the mascots. After interviewing those deemed “the most informed leader” on each side, I then asked for the names of people on the same side that might offer different information or perspectives than the leader. The interviewees were people who occupied a wide range of positions both within and outside of the schools, including but not limited to concerned local citizens, parents, alumni, members of Native American organizations, school board members, booster club members, professors, and people who belonged to groups that had formed to push for elimination or retention of the local Native American mascot.

The Interviews

The semistructured interview questions utilized in this study focused on a wide array of factors that have the potential to affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles. These factors were derived from the five bodies of social movement theory previously

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 345

discussed. The interview questions addressed the following 25 aspects of both the mascot opponents and mascot supporters: types of involved groups, preexisting orga- nizations actors emerged from, recruitment techniques, number of actors, positions actors held in the (school) system, power actors had in their communities, class of actors, race of actors, gender of actors, age of actors, motivations of actors, commit- ment of actors, time spent by actors, organization of actors, internal unity of actors, knowledge/skill of actors, leadership of actors, communication avenues utilized by actors, tactics employed by actors, money used by actors, geographical scope of actors, identity claims of actors, internal culture of actors, emotions of actors, and ideology employed by actors. Designed to examine the larger social context that surrounds the mascot struggles, other questions focused on the following 13 factors: laws, media coverage, national/global trends, system openness to change, allies of actors, political leaders’ support of actors, business leaders’ support of actors, school leaders’ support of actors, repression of actors, school opinion, community opinion, events/incidents that prompted actor involvement, and whether actors had access to working within the system.

For the vast majority of factors, I asked the interviewees two types of questions: informational questions and assessment questions. With the informational questions, I sought to elicit “facts” about the case (e.g., “Did the mascot opponents/supporters have any allies from outside their group? If yes, please describe these allies.”). With the assessment questions, I solicited participants’ viewpoints on whether these “facts” affected the outcome of their mascot struggle (e.g., “Did the allies of the mascot opponents/supporters affect the outcome of the mascot struggle? If yes, how so?”).

In each case, interviews took place over the telephone. Most interviews lasted slightly longer than an hour. The interviews were tape-recorded, and later transcribed.

Analysis of Data

During the first stage of analysis, the four to five interviews from each case were combined to create a single composite picture of each case. I followed several general principles during this phase of analysis. First, consistencies and inconsistencies between the responses to the informational questions and assessment questions articulated by a single interview participant were used to assess the validity of that particular participant’s comments. I leaned toward trusting informational responses over assess- ment responses because sometimes a participant’s assessment of whether particular factors had an influence on the outcome of their mascot struggle did not match the information she/he reported (e.g., when asked for information, the participant said that the mascot supporters had very little knowledge, but then when asked to assess whether knowledge of the supporters contributed to mascot retention, the participant claimed that it did). Of course, both informational responses and assessment responses are socially constructed phenomena, but some of the interview participants in both retention and elimination cases overestimated the influence of the reported facts. Most

frequently, this overstatement took the form of asserting that almost every factor I inquired about affected the outcome of their mascot struggle. So, cross-checking what a single participant articulated as information with how the same participant assessed this information enhanced my abilities to analyze their statements. Second, the likelihood that a particular participant had access to information influenced analysis. For example, the principal of a school is likely to have access to information about school-related aspects of the situation. Third, I was wary of comments that came from participants who seemed to either misunderstand questions or be biased in particular ways. Fourth, I considered the number of the participants who made similar points. So, if three to four participants made the same comment about a case, then this was usually deemed valid, whereas comments made by a single participant were rarely judged as valid. An exception to the latter principle occurred when I knew there was limited access to the information articulated by the single participant.

During the second stage of analysis, I compared the seven cases of elimination to the seven cases of retention to determine which factors influenced the two different outcomes. For this phase, I used the composite picture of each case that was derived from the prior stage of analysis. A difference of three between the elimination versus retention cases was deemed “significant.” For example, if a particular factor affected four of the elimination cases but only one of the retention cases, I labeled this factor “significant.” If the difference between elimination and retention cases was four or more (e.g., the factor affected six retention cases and only one elimination case), I deemed this factor “very significant.” When a difference of zero, one or two between the elimination and retention cases was evident (e.g., a factor affected five cases of retention and four cases of elimination), I deemed these factors “not significant.” For factors that had the potential to influence both the mascot opponents and mascot supporters (e.g., laws), I judged a factor as “very significant” if it affected both sides and “significant” if it affected only one side.

The particular methodology of this study—systematic comparative analysis using diverse cases—comes at a cost. In doing such a comparison, I lose the ability to deal with some of the specifics and context related to individual cases. Thus, some aspects of the cases might be obscured or downplayed, such as differences between the high school and college/university levels, sizes of the schools and communities, and percentages of Native people in the schools and communities. For example, large universities with “big-time” sport programs make an enormous amount of money from their logos, while this is rarely the case for high schools. Other scholars have pursued a case-study approach that allows them to focus more on the specifics and context of an individual case (e.g., Farnell, 2004; Staurowsky, 2000; Tovares, 2002). Yet no other scholar has undertaken systematic comparative qualitative analysis (entailing more than three cases) when studying the mascot issue. Although I do not use a representative sample that would be appropriate for statistical analysis, the sys- tematic comparative analysis utilized in this research allows me to draw conclusions about more general patterns than would a case study.

346 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Findings and Implications of Findings

It is important to note that this project is solely focused on whether the factors affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles, and it does not address other ways that the factors relate to these struggles. So, there are some factors examined in this study, such as emotion and media coverage, which are clearly evident in all the mascot struggles, but operate in similar ways in cases of elimination and retention and thus do not affect the outcomes of the struggles.

It is also necessary to point out that the factors that are deemed relevant to the out- comes of the mascot struggles do not affect every case. In most mascot cases, some of these factors are influential while others are not. For example, in one case, opponent board members may be key while Native opponents are not, whereas in another case, the situation is reversed.

There are many factors examined in this study that are not significantly related to the outcomes of the mascot struggles. Related to the mascot opponents, the following 16 factors do not significantly affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles: number of opponents, preexisting organizations opponents emerge from, power opponents have in the community, class of opponents, gender of opponents, age of opponents, motivations of opponents, commitment of opponents, time spent by opponents, orga- nization of opponents, internal unity of opponents, communication avenues utilized by opponents, money used by opponents, identity claims of opponents, emotions of opponents, and ideology employed by opponents. Regarding the mascot supporters, 14 factors do not significantly influence the outcomes of the mascot struggles: recruit- ment by supporters, class of supporters, gender of supporters, age of supporters, moti- vations of supporters, commitment of supporters, time spent by supporters, internal unity of supporters, knowledge/skill of supporters, leadership of supporters, commu- nication avenues utilized by supporters, money used by supporters, identity claims of supporters, and emotions of supporters. Regarding factors external to both the mascot opponents and supporters, six factors do not significantly affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles: laws, repression, media coverage, national/global trends, system openness to change, and precipitating events/incidents. Because the factors mentioned above are not significantly related to the outcomes of the mascot struggles, I would advise mascot opponents to spend little time attempting to modify how they address these factors, and instead to concentrate on the implications of the findings that I describe in the rest of this article.

In the rest of this article, I describe and analyze the factors that do affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles. The central purpose of this article is to offer information that is useful to activists/practitioners who work to eliminate Native American mascots. Thus, here I frame my discussion of research findings and their implications according to the degree of control that antimascot activists can have over the pertinent factors: factors that activists cannot control, factors that activists can control, and factors on which activists can have some impact.

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 347

348 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Factors Activists Cannot Control

There are many factors that affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles and yet cannot be controlled by mascot opponents: number of mascot supporters, geographical scope of the supporters, race of the supporters, culture of the supporters, organization of the supporters, power supporters have in the community, ideology employed by the supporters, tactics utilized by the supporters, allies of the supporters, and business leaders’ support for retention. All of these factors are discussed in this section. In 13 of the 14 cases in this study, there were substantially more active mascot supporters than active mascot opponents. Yet when I compared the elimination and retention cases, I found that there were significantly more supporters in retention cases than in elimination cases. Thus, having especially large numbers of active supporters is con- ducive to retention. In one case of retention, where many community members put pro- mascot flags in their yards, a mascot supporter proclaimed,

The citizens of the community . . . were generally overall active in the retention of the mascot . . . The community, in one large swell, just came forward . . . [in] full commu- nity support . . . It isn’t . . . commitment [that affected the outcome. It is] sheer numbers.

A mascot supporter from another retention case asserted, “So, why has it carried on? . . . . The number of active pro-logo people is larger . . . . The cumulative effect of . . . . thousands of people outweighs the intensity of several hundred.”

In regards to geographical scope, the vast majority of mascot supporters were local residents in all 14 cases in this study. But having greater percentages of local supporters, and lower percentages of outside supporters, furthers retention. As one mascot supporter from a retention case put it, “We [supporters] are all local. Every one of us lives in this town . . . . I do believe that staying within the community . . . . is the reason that we kept the logo.” A supporter from another retention case noted,

I would say that [it] was important [that] . . . . the supporters were local . . . . The people felt very strongly, “It’s a local thing. . . . [We should] let the local community decide, on its own, what they want the mascot to be, without outside influence.” . . . . [The mascot was retained] because the vast majority of the community wanted no change whatsoever.

This finding is tightly bound to another finding that is discussed later, which is that retention is advanced when mascot supporters argue that “outsiders should not have input into local issues.”

The race of the mascot supporters affects the outcomes of the mascot struggles. In particular, the existence of Native Americans who are active supporters contributes to retention. Here, a mascot supporter from a retention case highlighted this point: “There were . . . several . . . Native American individuals from the community that came forward and spoke about their support for keeping [the mascot] . . . [These sup- porters] who claimed to have Native ancestry were heard, and people supported that.” Related to a different retention case, a mascot opponent conveyed the following:

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 349

One important [factor that influenced the outcome] was the existence of an American Indian family living within the school district for an extended period of time who had served as mascots and who were willing to say that they felt that the nickname and logo should be continued. That enabled the white logo supporters to say, “Well, the [X] family supports the name and logo.” And so, the general public . . . thought, “Hey, there must be nothing wrong with it.”. . . [Although] there were three other American Indian families here that were opposed to it, . . . they chose to listen to the [Native] people that had the message they wanted to hear . . . .The School Board members who were for the logo would refer . . . to the [X] family . . . [as] “their Indians.” . . . [The outcome would have been different] if they did not have a [Native] family to use.

This finding dovetails with another finding (discussed later)—that retention is bol- stered when the supporters argue that “some Native Americans have no problem with Native American mascots.”

Something else that mascot opponents have virtually no control over is the local community subculture. Retention is fostered when the mascot supporters emerge from, and reflect, a politically conservative and/or sport-obsessed community subculture. Related to conservatism, an opponent from a retention case remarked, “I would say . . . [the supporters] would be conservative . . . [And], what they were proclaiming must have struck a cord and affected the outcome.” Similarly, an opponent from another retention case commented, “I think there’s just inherent conservatism [within the mascot supporters], particularly resistance to change . . . I think that the resistance to change, . . . [and] hostility toward ‘political correctness,’ . . . definitely [contributed to retention].” Here, a supporter from a retention case highlighted the impact of the subculture of sports devotion:

The community itself . . . didn’t want it changed . . . because. . . [we are] a rural commu- nity [and] we have a very successful sport program. It’s all we have . . . . There wasn’t a lot of dissention in the community.”

On the same theme, a supporter from another retention case said:

We’re in a state . . . [that is] deeply embedded in the sports culture . . . [Sport fans] . . . tend to be the most active supporters . . . Many of our strongest economic supporters [are] city leaders who are fans, and it’s even more so at the state level . . . . [What contributes to retention] is the deeply embedded traditions that are primarily associated with athletics.

The link between sport fandom and greater support for Native mascots is also evi- dent in poll data about the mascot issue (Sigelman, 1998; Williams, D., in press).

The mascot opponents cannot control the organization of the mascot supporters, yet when the supporters have strong organization this furthers retention. As one mascot supporter pronounced, “By being organized, we were able to accomplish what we set out to do, which was to retain the mascot.” On a related note, retention is bolstered

350 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

when the supporters include preexisting permanent organizations. As one mascot opponent from a retention case communicated the following:

The City council had quite an effective defense against [us] . . . . The School Board had quite a defense . . . . A lot of the supporters . . . had networking connections that were very concrete and well lubricated. And, they saw each other often. They had other resources, physical, monetary resources, and meeting places . . . . They had institu- tional bodies that had process established, that as we confronted them, they were like towers around the fortress . . . . They have political, legal, social, cultural network or netting that tangles you up so you cannot disarm or disable it.

Another factor mascot opponents have no control over is the power active mascot supporters have in their communities. Retention is advanced when supporters possess community power. When a mascot opponent from a retention case was asked whether the supporters had community power, she answered, “Yes, with a capital Y!” When asked whether this power affected the outcome, she exclaimed, “Power? It was just power!” In particular, supporters’ financial power contributes to retention. As one mascot opponent from a retention case explained:

So, the question is, are [the supporters] in power? They tend to be wealthy, many of them . . . . There are some businessmen . . . . [And, business owner] input into the Board of Trustees has certainly contributed. The Board of Trustees are interested in their own financial welfare. And, the local presidents of banks, and major businesses here, have a special seat with them.

At colleges/universities, the supporters’ power as donors greatly bolsters retention. As an opponent from a case of retention described it, “They’ve had so many threats from large donors, who said, ‘If you do change this, we’re not giving money anymore.’ So, I think there’s pressure on our [college/university] that has made it more difficult here [to change].” A related finding involves the role of business leaders. Because few business leaders favor elimination, business leaders usually do not forward elimi- nation. But, business leaders do further retention, especially at the college/university level. As a mascot opponent in a retention case stated,

Business owners . . . [get] an economic boost [from the mascot] . . . Local Businesses [have] put . . . up posters [that say] “Support the Name.” . . . [And], we still have the mas- cot because of . . . threats to withhold money if the name is changed.

Of course, mascot opponents can attempt to influence business leaders by boycotts and such, but opponents tend to be few in number so such efforts may have minimal effects.

For supporters, having greater numbers of allies is associated with retention. In retention cases, supporters had a median of two groups or categories of allies,

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 351

whereas in elimination cases, only 0.5 groups or categories of allies. Also, the supporters benefited from having part of the state or federal government as an ally. In one retention case, a Native opponent reported that her family sent a civil rights complaint to their state education department, but,

We got our letter [back] from the [state education department] that said that our family had not been discriminated against because basically we hadn’t been beaten up and we weren’t called racist names constantly on an everyday basis . . . . They do not think discrimination is anything but your child being beaten on the front lawn of the school with the word Redman or Indian or Prairie [Nigger] . . . . And, it has to happen every day in order for it to be considered, [according to the] letter we received, [as] “emo- tionally or psychologically or physically damaging.”

A mascot supporter from another retention case related how it was helpful to sup- porters that “an investigation by the Office of Civil Rights” on whether the school was “violating anybody’s civil rights” found that “there’s nothing here that would lead people to believe we are denigrating a certain group of people.” Interestingly, in most cases, it was the mascot opponents who contacted the state or federal government to begin with, yet this tactic often backfires on the opponents because of weak civil rights laws and interpretations of these laws.

Mascot opponents have no control over the ideology employed by the mascot supporters, yet some parts of this ideology greatly affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles. In this study, the supporters in the retention cases used more arguments than supporters in the elimination cases: a median of 10 arguments in retention cases versus 5 in elimination cases. Thus, when supporters use more arguments, this may help their cause. Four particular arguments articulated by mascot supporters contribute to retention: “majority should rule” and “change would cost too much,” and especially “some Native Americans have no problem with Native American mascots” and “the opponents are outsiders and outsiders should not have input into local issues.”

Here, one supporter from a retention case described the significance of the argument that “some Natives Americans have no problem with Native American mascots”:

Probably the most consistent argument the supporters ever gave was, “If the Indian community was consistent in their opinion of this, it would be easier for us to think this is an issue we need to address.” . . . I heard this one time, and I thought it was a good example. “If you had a hundred Black people in a room, and said, how many of you are offended by the term nigger? Most of them, almost all of them, would raise their hand. If you had a hundred Indians in a room, and said, how many of you are offended by the term redskin? . . . It would not be the same.” . . . You can look at a number of reserva- tion schools . . . that use [a Native] mascot . . . If everyone in the Indian community felt like it was degrading, then I think the general population would be more willing to respond to their concerns.

352 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

A supporter from a different retention case also discussed the impact of this argument:

The Sports Illustrated survey [that showed that the majority of Native Americans have no problem with Native mascots] had a vast impression. Vast! I mean, it took the wind right out of the sails of [the opponents] . . . . That really turned out to be a very important thing.

Sports Illustrated is the most popular sport magazine in the United States and is con- sumed by many sport fans. Although scholars have documented bias in coverage by Sports Illustrated (e.g., Bishop, 2003; Davis, 1997; King, Staurowsky, Baca, Davis, & Pewewardy, 2002), and other surveys on the mascot issue demonstrate different results (Williams, D., in press), the magazine is no doubt perceived by most people as a legitimate source of information about the sport world.

Expressing the impact of the “outsiders should not have input” theme, an opponent from a retention case stated, “I think the supporters of the mascot, their thing was the old arguments of the south, ‘If they want change, it should come from the community, not outsiders.’ That was the biggest thing. That message really came across.” An opponent from another case of retention related,

The [supporter] group [said] . . . . “We feel like we don’t want people from the outside telling us to change it.” . . . . [This argument] affected the outcome, because a lot of people bought into that, a lot of people agreed with them.

Here, an opponent from a retention case highlighted the importance of the “majority rule” argument: “The biggest thing that I saw was the argument for [the supporters, which] was, ‘We need to stand up and not let a minority control our community.’ . . . [Making this argument] did help them.” Focusing on the same “majority rule” argument, a supporter from another case commented,

[The School leaders] decided to remove [a logo] without the consent of the community, . . . without the taxpayers’ consent . . . . [The supporters said], “We pay your tax dol- lars. We [tell] you what to do . . . . [The school leaders need to] listen to the wishes of the community.” . . . We wanted to put it to a vote, . . . run it through a referendum . . . The people listened to our arguments, more than they listened to the opponents, . . . and therefore they voted accordingly. And, that’s why it was [retained] . . . There was majority community support.

Illustrating the value of the cost argument, an opponent from a retention case said,

The arguments of the proponents have been very, very effective . . . . It’s often sug- gested that changing the mascot will involve a lot of expense . . . . The administration fears loss of funding . . . . [So], the [arguments] some of the supporters of the mascot have . . . play into those fears.

An opponent from another retention case remarked,

The reason we still have the name is because it was communicated very strongly [by supporters] that if we didn’t have the name, then we’d lose . . . money . . . People say, “Well, we couldn’t afford to change it. I mean, . . . we have mascot imagery [all over].” . . . I hear this often on campus [from supporters]: “Well, there’s still money to be given. And, if we change the name, we won’t get that money, so we’ve got to keep the name.”

The effectiveness of the argument that “some Native Americans have no problem with Native American mascots” is related to other findings from this study that indicate that the existence of Native Americans on both sides matters in some ways. Springwood (2004) has pointed out that this argument works when people assume that mascot elimination is justified only when there is unanimous Native American opposition. The arguments that “the opponents are outsiders and outsiders should not have input into local issues,” “majority should rule,” and “change would cost too much” are helpful to mascot supporters for a couple of reasons. First, because these arguments can be applied to many different issues, community members can support mascot retention on the basis of a nonracial argument, meanwhile ignoring or dismissing the race issue and avoiding implications that they are racist. Second, when the mascot supporters articulate these arguments, they are utilizing a framing tactic that is effective: They are connecting their arguments to the popular beliefs that “decisions should be made in a democratic manner,” “locals should control their own situations,” and “we are taxed too much.” These arguments resonate with contemporary conservative trends of ignoring and diminishing the rights of numerical minorities, deflating the power of federal and global governing bodies, and cutting back on publicly funded programs (especially those that benefit the lower classes).

Mascot opponents can (and sometimes do) counter the four arguments mentioned above, but the opponents cannot prevent the supporters from making these (currently effective) arguments, and the countering statements made by opponents are often complex and challenge dominant ideology and are therefore less accepted. Additionally, I found that the arguments made by the mascot opponents are not one of the factors that impact the outcomes of mascot struggles.

The last factor I will discuss in this section, the tactics of the supporters, greatly affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles, and are outside the control of the mascot opponents. Retention may be furthered when the supporters employ a greater number of tactics: In this study, while supporters in elimination cases used a median of three different tactics, supporters in retention cases used eight. There are four particular tactics that advance retention.

One particular tactic that seems to greatly contribute to retention is supporters speaking at public meetings. As one mascot supporter from a retention case simply related, “We all went to the School Board meeting. And, we said, ‘Do not change our mascot.’ And, the School Board said, ‘Okay.’” Similarly, a mascot supporter from a different retention case commented,

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 353

We . . . just tried to relay . . . to people, so that they understood, . . . through meetings and things like that . . . [This tactic] had an affect because the supporters [relayed] sta- tistics and information about tribes. . .throughout the country that did not have prob- lems with . . . Native Americans in general being used as icons.

Supporters speaking at public meetings probably forwards retention because it enables them to convey the (effective) previously mentioned arguments.

Another tactic that is conducive to retention is supporters buying and displaying their Native logos. As one mascot supporter from a retention case observed, “The pro-[mascot folks] . . . buy [mascot] merchandise. They go to places that display [the mascot], or have [the mascot] theme . . . . It keeps the message out there.” In more detail, a supporter from a different retention case expressed the following:

As this issue gets more vivid, . . . you’ll see more and more “logoed” sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats, and crap. And, that’s one way that the supporters of the logo will make an announce- ment as to their support . . . . So, I think public opinion, as demonstrated by license plate holders and car stickers and all that stuff, has probably helped them to keep the logo, although none of it is organized. They just keep buying it and demanding more of it. Even someone who never wrote a letter in his life will have four sweat- shirts. There’s a cumulative effect to P.R.

Notice that both of the tactics mentioned thus far, displaying the logos and speaking at public meetings, create the appearance of great mascot support, and this appearance may influence decision makers.

Supporters’ use of ethically questionable tactics bolsters retention. One opponent, who felt that repression of the opponents by supporters in his case furthered mascot retention, stated,

[Repression] was their primary approach . . . . I received two specifically threatening let- ters that threatened violence against my family and against me. I then received several harassing phone calls, . . . [and] one of them threatened to kill our pets . . . When . . . the first response from [the supporters’] children is to threaten to harm the questioner, I think this is proof that . . . the community itself . . . needs to undergo self-examination and change at every level.

In a different case, a mascot opponent who claimed that unethical tactics by sup- porters in her case facilitated retention conveyed the following:

It seemed as though the other side was willing to do anything that was unethical in order to keep the logo, to the point of distributing personal school records that were not supposed to be handed out . . . to make people on our side look really bad . . . [Also, when going] door-to-door, . . . they bullied quite a few people . . . to get them to sign petitions, [and] having children sign petitions . . . Some of the things they’ve done have just been so low down and hurtful.

354 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 355

The last tactic that contributes to retention is when supportive school leaders ignore or do not respond to the opponents. One opponent cited an example of this tactic when I asked him why the mascot at his school was retained: “The President of the [school], . . . when the Senate voted . . . to have this put before the Board of Trustees, . . . refused to give the letter to them.” In a different retention case, a mascot opponent communicated the following:

The school district administration and the Board just refused to even set up a discussion with us . . . . [The Superintendent] refused to discuss it or enter it into a meeting time . . . . [Much later], they did allow one person to bring a small group to the Board, . . . . but the School Board talked during her presentation. . . . [The supporters] primary [tactic] was non-involvement, to suppress as much as possible the discussion of the issue in a pubic forum, refusal to answer questions, refusal to have meetings . . . . Their primary tactic was to shut us out . . . . Oh yeah, [this tactic] had everything to do with [the outcome].

When supporters who are school leaders ignore and do not respond to the opponents, this increases the degree to which opponents pursue outside-the-system tactics. In this study, although opponents in the retention cases attempted the same inside- the-system tactics as opponents in elimination cases, opponents in retention cases were more apt to work outside the system. One opponent in a retention case explained why the opponents at his school moved outside the system:

[The opponents] went outside, because fifteen years of efforts within channels have led to no action by, on the part of, the Board of Trustees . . . . An elected body [that called for mascot elimination] . . . . was totally ignored by the Board of Trustees.

As will be discussed later, the addition of outside-the-system tactics does not usually help the opponents eliminate Native mascots.

In summary, there are numerous factors that affect the outcomes of struggles over the mascot issue that mascot opponents cannot control. Luckily, there are also many factors that the opponents can affect, although the extent to which opponents can affect these factors varies.

Factors Activists Can Control

There are only a few factors that the mascot opponents can definitely control, which are recruitment techniques of opponents, knowledge/skill of opponents, and leadership of opponents. This section is devoted to describing, and discussing the implications of, these three factors.

First, the word-of-mouth recruitment technique contributes to elimination. As one mascot opponent from an elimination case simply put it, “Mostly, [recruitment] was a word-of-mouth thing . . . . [Without this], the recall would have been successful

356 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

[and the mascot retained].”A mascot opponent from another elimination case offered a more detailed explanation:

I believe that [recruiting] made a difference . . . . It was a somewhat informal mobiliza- tion . . .People did connect with other people, and they networked . . . It became, “Let’s gather and have coffee and talk about it.” . . . After hours, call someone, send an e-mail, “Are these people interested?” We went out and visited them. “[Did] they want to bring their people down?” “Can we feed them when they come?” . . . [And the response was], “I can come next month.”

It is not clear why more personal word-of-mouth recruiting is beneficial to the oppo- nents. Perhaps the information and perspectives required to fully understand the problems with Native American mascots is so different from information and per- spectives available in dominant discourse that more extensive conversations are nec- essary. Or, perhaps mobilizing people to take such an unpopular stand requires one-on-one nudging. Or, perhaps most non-Natives, who have little substantial contact with Native Americans, need to have personal conversations with Native opponents to develop enough empathy to move them to join the opponents.

A second factor that opponents can control is their own knowledge/skills, which can be acquired and enhanced. According to the interviewees, in the majority of the 14 cases, the opponents have high knowledge/skill, and in the vast majority of the 14 cases, the opponents have higher knowledge/skill than the supporters. But the opponents’ knowledge/skill is higher in elimination cases than in retention cases, and this higher knowledge/skill furthers elimination. Here, a mascot opponent from an elimination case highlighted the knowledge/skill of his group:

I think we had a lot of knowledge and skills . . . . [Opponent A] is an instructor at [University Z]. I was a professor at [University Z]. So, we had degrees to back [us] up . . . . The fact that you had two professors [gave us] skills to convey and to teach other people. That came in handy. We, also, being [from Native nation X], we had that under- standing.

A mascot opponent from another case illustrated how especially strong knowledge/ skills fostered elimination:

I think we had a lot of knowledge and skill. It’s an issue that we had been aware of for a long time. We had had [Native] community discussions about it. We had had discussions here at the agency with our Indian Education Parent Committee. We had looked at what had been done in other schools. We had people who were good debaters, good speakers, and knowledgeable, and knew how to present an effective argument before the School Board and media as well as the general public. [Our knowledge and skill affected the outcome] because we were able to put together effective arguments . . . . [And], [another anti-mascot group] was very effective in providing us with information. And, we looked at how other groups had dealt with this issue and how they strategized to deal with it. We patterned ourselves after them.

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 357

A third factor that opponents can control is their leadership. Strong opponent leaders facilitate elimination. Here, a mascot opponent from an elimination case cited an example of this:

[Our leader] was just a brilliant debater. He did a whole lot of the work, publicly, [that] changed this [mascot] . . . . He swayed a lot of people on their side to come over to our side . . . . [He had a] big impact.

In a different elimination case, a mascot opponent reported,

At a town meeting, . . . . [a mascot supporter was] in the middle of the ranting and ravings, . . . [and] our most respected elder in the community stood up. He’s a long time activist. And, he stood up and raised his fist. And, everyone that was Native lowered our heads, and he sang the AIM song. And, you could have heard a pin drop . . . . It shifted the whole tone of the meeting after that . . . . I think [leadership really affected the outcome] because of who our leadership was for this struggle. I think had it been lim- ited to just the students, and none of our [Native] leadership or elders had gotten involved, I don’t believe it would have been successful. [We had] key people. That was the key. I think they could have been respected in the Native community, [and] it would not have made a difference. But, they were respected in the community at large.

In conclusion, there are a few factors that mascot opponents can control, that if addressed, will likely contribute to mascot elimination: They can consciously work to select leaders who are strong; they can recruit new opponents via a personal word- of-mouth method rather than formal avenues; and they can enhance their own knowledge/ skills. Of course, not all these tasks are easy: There may not be strong leaders to select; people with strong leadership skills may be unwilling to lead; and recruiting via word of mouth and enhancing knowledge/skills are very time consuming. Nevertheless, mascot opponents have control over, and can clearly work on, these areas.

Factors on Which Activists Can Have Some Impact

The majority of factors that influence the outcomes of mascot struggles are neither mostly under the control of the mascot opponents nor completely outside their influence. These factors can be divided into two categories: factors internal to the mascot opponent groups and factors external to the mascot opponent groups.

Factors internal to the mascot opponents. Here, I describe the factors that influ- ence the outcomes of the mascot struggles that can be somewhat affected by the mas- cot opponents and that are internal to the mascot opponent groups themselves, which are types of groups that are mascot opponents, race of the opponents, cultures within the opponent groups, who opponents recruit, allies of the opponents, geographical scope of the opponents, positions opponents hold in the school systems, school leaders assuming leadership roles for opponents, and some tactics opponents utilize.

358 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Intertwined with the previously discussed finding that retention is bolstered by the supporters’ argument that “only locals should have input,” the geographical scope of the opponents matters: When a high percentage of the opponents are residents of the local community, this greatly increases the likelihood of mascot elimination, whereas when a high percentage of the opponents are from other parts of the country, this greatly reduces the chances of elimination. As a mascot opponent from an elimination case stated, “[The opponents] were local . . . . I think if the mascot opponents would have been backed and fueled by some outside group, I don’t think [change] would have happened.” A mascot supporter from a retention case communicated the following:

That [opponent] group was probably more associated with the national movement than local . . . . They were bringing in people from all over the country. . .What it did, it made people angry that they had to deal with people from outside the area, who really had no idea what our district was about . . . . It was one of those, . . . “You’re not going to come into my community and tell me what to do!” . . . I think that’s what happened here.

The effect of being local even extends to time of local residency, as retention is advanced when opponents are newcomers rather than long-term residents. As a mascot supporter from a high school that retained its mascot expressed the following:

On the opponents’ side, they were virtually newcomers to the area . . . . One guy had only lived here a couple of years . . . . There was a lot of local people saying that most of the opponents were outsiders, people who had not come from this area, people who were not born here, or had family from here, and couldn’t understand the feeling of having this mascot . . . . There was a lot of anger, there was a lot of disbelief, that people from outside the community would come in and try to make changes like that . . . . Who has lived here . . . played a big part in [the outcome].

How can opponents affect geographical scope? They can concentrate on recruiting local opponents rather than outsiders. And, they can put only local opponents forward as spokespeople, keeping regional, state and national opponents in the background.

Opponent school leaders working within the school system further elimination. More specifically, although opponent administrators in the school systems have no sig- nificant affects, at the high school level, opponent school boards contribute to elimina- tion. When a mascot supporter was asked who the opponents were in her elimination case, she said “the School Board,” and continued to note, “Some of the School Board members . . . wanted it changed, so they pushed it through . . . . It was the School Board that removed it.” In a different elimination case, a mascot opponent said,

It was actually a black School Board member who asked the Superintendent to ask me to come . . . . I did go and make a presentation to their School Board . . . . And, then they

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 359

voted, to my surprise, they voted then and there, . . . to change [the mascot] . . . . The School Board, when they voted again, they maintained the same level of victory. I really have to admire the fact that they didn’t fold . . . . If we hadn’t had, . . . on our side, . . . people on the School Board, all the goodness that we did wouldn’t have made a difference.

A related finding is that elimination is advanced when opponent school leaders take a leadership role in efforts to eliminate Native mascots. One opponent principal, who said that mascot elimination in his case “ was an internal, school internal, driven process,” led the process of change by chairing a mascot committee (where he put in “ten to twelve hours as preparation time for each meeting”), enforcing strict rules about who can speak at the committee meetings, undertaking an enormous amount of research on the issue, surveying the Native American students, calling his school’s athletic opponents, calling other schools in the country that had eliminated Native mascots, distributing information to citizens, and presenting information to the Board. In another elimination case where opponent school leaders managed the process, a mascot supporter observed:

The [school] administrators, . . . on the surface they were neutral, but internally they were opponents. They wanted the name changed. They had a big impact. They worked the one leader on the Board that had the money, that was a big contributor . . . Then, he influenced a bunch of other Board Members . . . . It was the manipulation of not only within the Board, but [also] . . . within the administration that worked its way through the Board.

Another point related to school leaders involves the tactics employed by the oppo- nents. Recall, that when the school leaders are nonresponsive to the opponents, this often causes the opponents to employ more outside-the-system tactics. Obviously, this shift in tactics is not completely under the control of the opponents. But, I found that the addition of outside-the-system tactics does not help the mascot opponents. As one mascot opponent from a retention case stated,

The biggest support the [mascot supporters] got was when [mascot opponents Group X] came into the community and started marching or had a protest . . . . [The commu- nity] took the other side when [Group X] came in, . . . because they were doing a protest. . . When [Group X] came in, probably about seventy-five percent of the sup- port that [the mascot opponents] had ran out the door.

Similarly, in another retention case, a mascot supporter put it this way:

[The opponents] are destroying themselves by some of the outrageous things that some of their more radical people are doing . . . . And, I think that is hurting them very badly . . . . The recent overt acts [of a lawsuit and arrests for civil disobedience], by the more strident [opponents], have angered a lot of people . . . . As they have become more

radical in their actions, . . . the segment of the general public that they were carrying with them, I think that segment has diminished very sizably.

It is important to remind the reader that the data from this study were collected prior to creation of the NCAA policy that prohibits Native American mascots except in cases where schools have been granted permission by namesake tribes. Since this policy passed, some colleges/universities have eliminated their Native American mascots. Although not addressed as part of this study, lobbying the NCAA to pass this policy appears to have been a successful outside-of-the-(school)-system tactic. At the high school level (where NCAA policies do not apply), no state has issued an outright ban on Native American mascots, and many schools in states where a government agency or agency director recommended elimination have retained their Native mascots. Perhaps efforts to get state governments to ban Native mascots would be fruitful, but this effort can also backfire, as seen in the case of Tennessee. In this case, a resolution against the mascots by the Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs led to passage of a law that prevents state agencies from issuing bans.

Because of the finding that the addition of outside-the-system tactics does not facilitate mascot elimination, I recommend that mascot opponents who find their access to the school system blocked devote most of their time to discovering alternative ways to gain access to the system rather than devoting a lot of time to working outside the system. Based on her involvement in the Los Angeles school district, Machamer (2001) makes a similar recommendation. Focusing on the long run, antimascot activists can recruit mascot opponents to run for school board positions and work on the campaigns of board candidates who are mascot opponents. Given that the majority of people in communities with Native mascots favor mascot retention (as will be discussed later), it is probably not wise to focus on the mascot issue during board campaigns. It would also be fruitful for mascot opponents to work on getting opponent school leaders to assume leadership roles on the mascot issue. For example, working behind the scenes, antimascot activists can push for mascot task forces that are chaired by opponent school leaders or inspire opponent board members to “lead the charge” on their boards to the examine the mascot issue. When antimascot activists are working with opponent school leaders, they need to be sensitive to the fact that school leaders need to protect their professional reputations: Generally speaking, school leaders need to appear neutral or fair (i.e., giving all sides a chance). In fact, when school leaders do not appear fair, they sometimes lose their credibility in the community and can become ineffective in their efforts to eliminate Native mascots.

Many findings from this study illustrate the point that although Native opposition is one key to mascot elimination, it is not just any Native Americans that suffice: Native opponents need to be local, and Native allies need to be local or regional. First, when active opponents are local Native people, this contributes to elimination. As a mascot supporter from a case of elimination described it:

360 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

The ones who wanted the change were a small group of local descendents of the Indians, . . . a local Indian group . . . . They were organized to do some other things around the community, but this was one of their projects . . . . Because of this area, where they had [a historical event that greatly harmed Native Americans], I think there was a lot of sentiment for the Indian groups . . . that . . . motivated . . . people toward change.

Second, similar to Machamer’s (2001) observations about the Los Angeles school district, I found that having greater numbers of Native opponents is conducive to elimination. As one opponent from an elimination case related,

The majority of the opponents were Native . . . [The opponents were] the connected urban Native community here, as well as the Native American student groups that exist here, not just in that [school that changed], but at the surrounding colleges and universities . . . . The activity of the [Native] student group that particular year was at an all time high. It had the largest number of that Native group’s numbers in something like twenty-five years, and . . . they were very much active . . . . This is a larger Native community than [the school] expected . . . . [At] a town meeting . . . we packed the place. . . We had Natives that had coordinated with other Natives throughout the whole community and the county . . . [Then, the school said] “[Let’s] just get rid of it, if it’s irritating a lot of people and insulting a lot of people.”

Third, when the opponents have regional (and local) Native American allies, this furthers elimination. One mascot opponent discussed how these allies advanced elimination in his case:

The [state X] Indian Educator’s Association, we got support there. We got the Tribal Council’s support, . . . which is . . . the tribal councils represented in the state of [X] . . . They issued resolutions and support . . . . I think the support of [these] outside allies on behalf of change were significant. It lends credibility to the action that was taken.

Fourth, recruitment of Native Americans to become active opponents greatly facilitates elimination. As one mascot opponent from an elimination case commented,

[We] ended up drawing in representatives of multiple tribes in [our state] . . . . There was a pulling and a gathering . . . . Indian people know each other . . . . Indians come out and talk to Indians. They connect . . . . So, it was amazing to see how many [Native] people were coming in on this . . . We had [5 Native tribes/nations involved] . . . . The pulling in of the tribes [affected the outcome].

Fifth, the tactic of obtaining local/regional Native American allies advances elimination. One mascot opponent from an elimination case articulated examples of this tactic:

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 361

[Our] tactic [of] securing allies was one of the keys to our political success . . . . I requested that . . . the [state X] Council on Indians, . . .a coalition of the . . . state recognized indigenous nations, . . . take a stand on the issue . . . And they. . .advocated the elimination of this mascot . . . [For] School Board meetings, . . .we’d have folks. . . come down from the [regional Y Native] nation. . .I used e-mail pretty extensively to mobilize support . . . with the [state X] American Indian Movement . . . The Chair of the School Board received something like 50 to 60 letters in a 48-hour period. It may not sound like a heck of a lot, but this person was overwhelmed by the amount of paper that was streaming into his office . . . . Just getting those alliances . . . [was] pretty effective.

Sixth, the cultures of specific Native American tribes/societies operating within opponent groups foster elimination. Here, an opponent articulated how his particular Native tribal/societal affiliation played a role in elimination:

I would say [the Native opposition] was primarily [X Native society] . . . [Opponent A] and myself being [X Native] nation, and saying that, “We’re the original inhabitants of this territory,” I think that gave us some credibility . . . . [Also, related to our Native cul- ture], a lot of groups sort of disband, and our group only got stronger because . . . folks had a common vision of what we wanted to achieve. And, . . . [the] spirituality aspect of [our culture] kept us together . . . . Obviously, being [X Native society], we were able to bring our own culture to bear in discussing this issue . . . . [That] definitely had an affect.

This point about specific Native societies/tribes is related to the finding that local Native opponents and local/regional Native allies contribute to elimination because in cases of elimination, the specific Native societies/tribes are usually local or regional. But it is not simply being local/regional that legitimates Native voices (in the eyes of non-Natives): It is also that they are speaking as members of a Native society/tribe.

For mascot opponents, the implications of these findings are clear: They need to recruit as many local and regional Native people as possible, local and regional Native opponents should assume a highly active and visible role, and special efforts should be made to involve all local and regional Native societies/tribes. Of course, mascot opponents will likely face various barriers as they attempt to implement these recommendations. The most daunting barrier is that there may be few local and regional Native people. A second substantial barrier is that many Native people have been socialized (often by the media) to accept stereotypes of Native Americans, and these stereotypes are sometimes one of their few clear avenues to obtaining social recognition and financial opportunity. A third barrier is lack of trust between Native people and non-Native activists. This lack of trust is because of a long history of non-Native practices of exploiting Natives, ignoring Natives, or using Native people for their own gratification. A fourth barrier is that Native people in many parts of the country have many (other) serious issues to address, such as high rates of poverty, unemployment, high school drop outs and health problems. The mascot issue may not be a high priority when the basic needs of Native people are unmet. A fifth barrier

362 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 363

is that some Native people may not feel comfortable taking a leadership role when this role involves straying from (some) Native cultural norms or becoming substan- tially involved in a community that they do not define as primary in their lives. Finally, a sixth barrier is that Native people may not be willing to face the barrage of stereotypes of and disrespect for Native people that often accompanies struggles over Native mascots (Machamer, 2001). Despite these barriers, mascot opponents can use personalized word-of-mouth recruiting efforts to increase local/regional Native involvement, and then undertake special efforts to make Native involvement as painless as possible.

Factors external to the mascot opponents. There are numerous factors external to mascot opponent groups that affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles, but that can nevertheless be affected to some degree by the opponents. Some of these factors directly involve school leaders: types of groups that are mascot supporters, preexisting organizations from which supporters emerge, positions supporters hold in the school systems, and the viewpoints and behaviors of school leaders. The other factors are political leaders, school opinion, and community opinion.

There are some findings in this study that show that it is not only opponent school leaders that affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles but also supportive and neutral school leaders. In cases of retention, active mascot supporters are much more often (high school and college/university) board members. On the other hand, in cases of elimination active mascot supporters are more apt to be alumni, probably because alumni tend to lack organization and formal power. As expressed by one mascot opponent from an elimination case,

[The supporters were] a loose array of alumni . . . . [They did] not coalesce into an orga- nized opposition . . . . I think, if they had actually organized, and had a group, the [out- come] could have very easily been different . . . . There was a lot of individual letters to the editor, and fuming and fussing, but it wasn’t systematically organized with a real intent not to let it happen . . . . [This was] a significant contributor to the outcome . . . . I think their lack of organization led to a fight that was not sustained.

I found three ways that retention is facilitated when supporters are involved on (high school and college/university) boards. First, when active mascot supporters emerge from boards this bolsters retention. Here, an interviewee who thought that “the Board of Education . . . affected the outcome” described how he emerged from this board to become an active supporter: “I was Vice-President of the Board of Education, and obviously that is how I became involved . . . . [At the time], I wasn’t an avid supporter of the mascot, but it just worked out that [I became one]. That’s the way it turned out.” Second, although supporters who occupy administrative posi- tions in the school system usually have no significant affects on the outcomes, the presence of supporters on boards greatly contributes to retention. Here, a mascot opponent from a retention case explained:

364 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

A number of the supporters were members of the School Board, . . . and they definitely used that to their advantage . . . One of the leaders of [the supporter] group is . . . a member of the School Board . . . . Just having the number of members that were supportive of the logo on the School Board, and the level of communication between the public and those members, . . . affected the outcome.

Third, when the main group of mascot supporters is a board, this greatly advances retention. As one mascot opponent from a retention case declared,

The major roadblock for change here is the Board of Trustees of the [school], that has taken on this issue as the sole authority in resolving it . . . . The great opposition by the Board of Trustees [to elimination] has just kept things in the status quo.

In addition to mascot support and opposition on boards, there are three other aspects of school leadership that affect the outcomes of the mascot struggles. First, regardless of their personal opinions, when school leaders simply respond to the opponents, this is helpful to the opponents because it allows them access to the system, which is important because (as previously mentioned) outside-the-system tactics usually do not further elimination. One opponent from an elimination case described the welcome reception he got from school leaders in the following manner:

I copied [a letter about Native mascots] to the Superintendent . . . and I also copied the School Board . . . . [After that], I got a call from the Superintendent, . . . and he said that he really appreciated that letter . . . . And, he said, “I would like you to come and make a presentation to the School Board.” . . . The fact that the leadership in the school system, both the Superintendent and the majority of the School Board, were willing to listen, and could have some empathy, [helped].

Second, school leadership teams with mixed opinions (i.e., leaders from one school are a mix of neutral, mascot supporters, and/or mascot opponents) facilitate elimination, because the mixed opinions at least allow the mascot opponents access to the school system. As an opponent from an elimination case reported,

The Chancellor was very clear that he was neutral on this issue. [Another administrator] . . . came out in support of the mascot. There were a couple of others that were not as overt about their positions, which we read as “ open to change” or “open to see our way.” . . . So, the [administration] was mixed, . . . some were neutral, some were against, and some were in support of the mascot. . . . [Our efforts] wouldn’t have gone anywhere without the . . . Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor . . . We felt very empowered and respected . . . White institutions . . . can change from within.

Third, regardless of their personal opinions, when school leaders are concerned with the outside reputation of their schools, this is conducive to elimination. Here, one

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 365

mascot supporter conveyed how school leaders’ concern about reputation affected his elimination case:

[The school administrators] were pretty neutral . . . . [But], the administration tried to avoid embarrassment, as [universities/colleges] generally do . . . . Therefore after a while [they] said, “Let’s get this thing settled.” . . . . With controversies, the adminis- tration try to stay out of the newspaper, at least for negative things. And, I think that was one of the motivations for changing it.

How can antimascot activists affect school leaders who are not mascot opponents? First, let me again say that boards are key. Mascot opponents can work to get board members elected or appointed who are at least neutral on the issue. Mascot opponents can also labor one-on-one to educate board members. Opponents probably cannot sway diehard supporters, but they may be able to win over undecided or neutral board members. Rather than acting outside-the-school-systems, which does not seem as productive, figuring out ways to require school leaders to respond to mascot opponents would be helpful. Many school systems have some rules that might be useful in this regard. Also, working to discover one or more school leaders that are neutral or favor elimination may represent an avenue into the school system. Finally, when contacting school leaders, highlighting the school’s reputation is a useful tactic.

It might be fruitful for mascot opponents to get involved in the political arena beyond (school) boards. Because there are so few political leaders who oppose Native mascots, political leaders do not tend to advance elimination. On the other hand, political leaders do contribute to retention. A mascot opponent from a retention community gave an example of this:

The City Council had quite an effective defense against [us] . . . . They had to meet with us. We got on their agenda because they had to. Their attorney wasn’t there, but I believe he suggested to them that they not respond in any fashion whatsoever, which is what they did. They said, “We have no comment.” . . . . They just said, . . . “We’re not even going to talk about this.” . . . So, that institution thwarted any entry of dialog.

An opponent from a different retention case provided another illustration of how political leaders bolster retention:

The Board was ready to vote on two separate occasions to retire [the mascot] . . . . And, on at least those two occasions, the then Governors of the state of [X] intervened. So, . . . they were ordered by the head of state not to vote. And, they, being political appointees, who have political aspirations, many of them do themselves, succumbed to the wishes of the Governor . . . . [Also], when the Governor of the state of [X] tells the Chancellor, “If the mascot goes, you go,” it’s a done deal . . . . The outcome is being determined by the Governor of the state of [X], and those people in politics who have something to do with the Governor.

366 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Mascot opponents can work to elect political leaders who favor elimination or at least those with neutral or open positions. Again, given the widespread popularity of Native mascots, especially in communities with Native mascots, it would probably not be wise to highlight the oppositional or neutral mascot positions of these political candidates during the campaigns.

Community opinion has a strong influence on the outcomes of the mascot struggles. When a community includes a high percentage of residents that favor retention, this greatly fosters retention. Related to one case of retention, a mascot supporter claimed, “I would say, probably, ninety-nine percent of the people [here] were for keeping the mascot . . . . The vast majority of the community wanted no change what-so-ever . . . . I think [this] unity of the community made a massive difference.” Elimination is advanced when higher percentages of community members are unaware of the mascot struggle, neutral about the mascot issue, and/or in favor of elimination. (These trends exist despite the facts that a solid majority of community members in all but 2 of the 14 cases knew about the mascot struggle, and that the percentages of people who were neutral and favor elimination were never a majority.) Regarding (lack of) knowledge about the existence of the mascot struggle, one opponent noted, “Very little [of the city] knew about the [the mascot issue] . . . Because it wasn’t regional news, . . . . I think it made it easier for the opponents to get this through.” In regard to having a large percentage of community neutrality, in one case of elimination, a mas- cot supporter stated the following:

I don’t think the [school] saw this as something that would galvanize the public . . . . I suspect the [school] thought, “When these indifferent folks think it through, they’ll see that we made the right decision.” . . . So, the [school] . . . felt comfortable announcing it publicly.

Here, a mascot opponent explained how significant community opposition to the Native mascot played a role in elimination:

Support for the change just kind of grew legs of its own, because [as time went on] it seemed like we had more people that . . . [thought] “It’s the right thing to do.” . . . I think that ultimately the progressiveness of the community, looking at itself and where we need to be and how we project ourselves, I think that realization prompted the out- come.

The interview participants pointed out two specific ways that community opinion affects the outcomes of the mascot struggles. First, when higher percentages of the community favor retention, this contributes to the election of government officials that favor retention, and these government officials act in ways that bolster retention. As a mascot supporter from a retention case expressed,

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 367

The [supporter] side has this critical mass . . . I mean, there are just so many of them . . . . You bet [public opinion] has [affected the outcome]! All those people that we just talked about vote . . . . There’s not been a Governor in [state X] yet, who would want [the mascot] to go away on his or her watch.

A mascot supporter from a different retention case related the following:

The reason we still have [the mascot] is because there was majority community support . . . . [The supporters had] [a large number of] signatures on petitions in sup- port of keeping it . . . . And, the elections immediately following that . . . The outcome of why we have the mascot . . . [is] due to political election only . . . [The supporters] won enough elections.

The second way that community opinion affects the outcomes is that when a higher percentage of a community is conservative, this often results in a higher percentage of the community that favors retention, thus more conservative communities are more apt to retain Native mascots. As one supporter from a retention community asserted,

I think what played a role in us keeping the mascot was total community sentiment, . . . . [as] the overall population was pro-mascot . . . . [The struggle involved] good conservative community folks, small town, versus the perception of some city slickers.

A supporter from another retention case observed,

We’re in an area of the country that is somewhat isolated and pretty conservative . . . . So, these kinds of things are pretty thoroughly entrenched in an area like this . . . . [The com- munity] would be pretty heavy to the favor of retaining it . . . . I think the [decision mak- ers] were influenced by the majority [to support retention].

Although less consequential than community opinion, the opinion of people in the schools affects the outcomes of the mascot struggles. School opinion has a much greater influence on colleges/universities than on public high schools, probably because only colleges/universities must recruit students and donors. There are two significant findings about school opinion.

Retention is furthered when a higher percentage of the school population favors retention. As a mascot supporter from a case of retention commented,

So, why has it carried on? . . . The response among alumni, and the student body, was overwhelmingly in favor of the logo . . . . [Also], what they called the classified staff, . . . the secretaries and janitors and everybody, they were overwhelmingly pro-logo . . . . That’s why it’s carried on.

368 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

A supporter from another retention case conveyed the following:

A vote was taken, on campus, of the students . . . . And, roughly seventy percent were in support of the [mascot]. We have not had a student referendum that pulled that many votes out, ever . . . So, [the mascot] has some power behind it, in terms of student views . . . . The [opponents] are . . . drowned out by student and public opinion.

Although the median percentage of neutrality in elimination schools was only 30% (as estimated by the interviewees), based on a comparison of the elimination cases to the retention cases, it is clear that having a higher percentage of the school population that is neutral advances elimination. As a mascot opponent involved in an elimination case noted, “There weren’t many students active. In fact, it’s prevalent . . . that they are apathetic . . . [Most school members] couldn’t give a flip . . . . A large percentage of apathy gives a person making the decisions room to maneu- ver.” An opponent from another elimination case remarked,

The students weren’t [very] passionate . . . . So, we did not have, for example, the Student Body President come to that meeting and make a case for keeping it . . . . I think [the school members] had a division, because if you consider all the alumni, and all the teachers, and all that, I think that there were enough folks who were, even if they weren’t vocally opponents, were vocally sitting on the fence . . . . Their lack of unity, sort of, gave it to our side.

Regarding public opinion, it is interesting that lower awareness and higher neutrality are conducive to elimination. It is likely that lower awareness and higher neutrality indicate lower levels of sport fandom, and lower levels of sport fandom facilitate elimination. Also, it is likely that mascot opponents find it easier to convince those who are unaware of the issue and hold neutral opinions to back change than those who favor retention. Additionally, those who are unaware of the issue and hold neutral opinions are unlikely to join the countermovement, and strong countermovement groups inhibit elimination.

In what ways can mascot opponents affect public opinion? Mascot opponents probably cannot have much short-term influence on community (and school) conser- vatism and sport fandom. Over the long term, they can work to gradually reduce conservatism and create more of a balance in their schools between academics, sports, and other extracurricular activities. I think it would be more fruitful for mascot opponents to strive to affect school and community opinions about the mascot issue. I recommend that they focus their educational efforts on those who hold neutral opinions and are unaware of the mascot struggle because they will find more success with these two populations than with mascot supporters. They may need to concentrate their educational efforts on school and community members who are not diehard sport fans or on those who value other aspects of schools as much as sports.

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 369

Conclusions

Because Native American mascots reflect and reinforce racial stereotypes and these stereotypes are harmful to Native people, I carried out a research project to discover factors that contribute to the elimination of these mascots. The purpose of this article was to describe factors that affect elimination and discuss some ways mascot opponents could affect these factors.

I discovered that many factors have no significant influence on the outcomes of struggles over Native American mascots. Mascot opponents should not spend much time modifying their practices relative to these factors. For example, mascot opponents should not devote much time to mobilizing large numbers of opponents, modifying their arguments, employing laws to achieve their goals, and obtaining and using more money in their efforts.

I found no difference between the amount of commitment and time invested by the mascot opponents in elimination versus retention cases. So, mascot opponents are not “losing” because of lack of effort. It is likely that they are “losing” for three main reasons: Their school and community settings contain more barriers (often because of greater conservatism and worship of sport), they are up against greater numbers of and/or more powerful mascot supporters, and they need to rethink some (but not most) of their own actions.

Although many characteristics and actions of mascot supporters, and characteristics of local communities, influence the outcomes of mascot struggles, mascot opponents cannot have much impact on most of these factors. Also, mascot opponents cannot have much of an affect on the allies of the mascot supporters. It is mostly fruitless for mascot opponents to attempt to address the factors that are beyond their control.

Thankfully, there are many factors that influence the outcomes of the mascot struggles that mascot opponents can affect to various degrees. The two most important factors are school leaders and local and regional Native Americans.

To increase chances of elimination, mascot opponents should strive to increase the numbers and involvement of local and regional Native Americans on their side. In many communities, this is no easy task, given the barriers previously discussed. But increasing local and regional Native involvement may be the only ticket to legitimacy in the eyes of many non-Natives, especially those in conservative sport-worshipping communities.

This study shows that it is vital for mascot opponents to figure out ways to gain access to the school system, and this necessarily means pursuing various strategies related to school leaders. In this regard, opponents should recruit and aid school leaders who are willing to play a role in efforts to eliminate Native mascots, work to elect or secure appointments of (high school and college/university) board members who favor mascot elimination or who are at least neutral, engage in personalized one-on-one educational efforts with (especially, open or neutral) board members, take advantage of any school leaders who allow access to within-the-school-system avenues

370 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

for change, and when discussing the mascot issue with school leaders continually highlight the point that the reputation of their school is at stake.

Mascot opponents can also contribute to elimination by addressing factors other than school leaders and Native Americans. Opponents can choose strong leaders, recruit additional active opponents via personal word-of-mouth methods, make sure that most active opponents are local residents and that opponents from outside the community stay out of the “limelight,” increase their own knowledge/skills, concen- trate on finding and pursuing avenues for change that are within the school system (rather than devoting a lot of time to outside-the-system strategies), work to elect political leaders who either favor mascot elimination or are neutral, and educate (especially, unaware and neutral) school and community members.

The tasks recommended above are not easy to accomplish. They take commitment, sustained efforts, patience, courage, assertiveness, strategy, savvy, humility, restraint, and tact. But for many mascot opponents, the short- and long-term goals are worth the effort. The short-term goal is reduction of racial stereotyping, to further the long-term goal of bringing down racial oppression.

Note

1. In my opinion, varied scholars and activists have made solid arguments for calling people indigenous to North and South “America” (itself a problematic term): “American Indians,” “Native Americans,” “Indigenous People,” “First Nation members,” and other terms. Having considered a variety of factors, such as historical accuracy, Native preferences, political impact, and practical matters, I conclude that none of these terms are ideal and all of them have both weaknesses and strengths. In this article, I use the term “Native Americans” at once to emphasize that the people in question lived in the Americas prior to colonization and to specify the American geographical location.

References

Baca, L. R. (2004). Negative images in schools and the racially hostile environment. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 71-78.

Bishop, R. (2003). Missing in action: Feature coverage. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 184-194. Brown, C., & Paul, D. M. (2002). The political scorecard of professional sports facility referendums in

the United States. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26, 248-267. Buechler, S. M. (2000). Social movements in advanced capitalism: The political economy and cultural

construction of social activism. New York: Oxford University. Buechler, S. M. (2002). Toward a structural approach to social movements. Research in Political

Sociology, 10, 1-45. Burawoy, M. (2004). Public sociologies: Contradictions, dilemmas, and possibilities. Social Forces,

82, 1603-1618. Burawoy, M. (2005a). 2004 Presidential address: For public sociology. American Sociological Review,

70, 4-28.

Burawoy, M. (2005b). The return of the repressed: Recovering the public face of U.S. sociology one hundred years on. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 600, 68-85.

Canel, E. (1997). New social movement theory and resource mobilization theory: The need for integration. In M. Kaufman & H. D. Alfonso (Eds.), Community power and grassroots democracy: The transfor- mation of social life (pp. 189-221). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed.

Carroll, W. K. (1997). Social movements and counterhegemony: Canadian contexts and social theories. In W. K. Carroll (Ed.), Organizing dissent: Contemporary social movements in theory and practice (pp. 3-38). Toronto, Canada: Garamond.

Carty, V. (2002). Technology and counter-hegemonic movements: The case of Nike corporation. Social Movement Studies, 1(2), 129-146.

Chalip, L. (1990). Rethinking the applied social sciences of sport: Observations on the emerging debate. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 172-178.

Clarkson, G. (2003). Racial imagery and Native Americans: A first look at the empirical evidence behind the Indian mascot controversy. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11(2), 393-408.

Connelly, M. (2000). What’s in a name? Journal of Higher Education, 71, 515-547. Crossley, N. (2002). Making sense of social movements. Philadelphia, PA: Open University. Davis, L. R. (1993). Protest against the use of Native American mascots: A challenge to traditional,

American identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 9-22. Davis, L. R. (1997). The swimsuit issue and sport: Hegemonic masculinity in Sports Illustrated. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press. Davis, L. R. (2002). The problems with Native American mascots. Multicultural Education, 9(4), 11-14. Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow,

S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116-152). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Farnell, B. (2004). The fancy dance of racializing discourse. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 30-55. Fine, G. A. (1995). Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movements.

In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 127-143). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Fryberg, S. (2002). Really? You don’t look like an American Indian: Social representations and social group identities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275-290). New York: Cambridge University.

Garner, R. (1996). Contemporary movements and ideologies. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. Malden,

MA: Blackwell. Jasper, J. M. (1997). The art of moral protest: Culture, biography, and creativity in social movements.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. King, C. R. (2004). Borrowing power: Racial metaphors and pseudo-Indian mascots. New Centennial

Review, 4(1), 189-209. King, C. R. (2006). On being a warrior: Race, gender, and American Indian imagery in sport. The

International Journal of the History of Sport, 23, 315-330. King, C. R., Staurowsky, E. J., Baca, L., Davis, L. R., & Pewewardy, C. (2002). Of polls and race prejudice:

Sports Illustrated’s errant “Indian Wars.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26, 381-402. Klandermans, B. (2001). Why social movements come into being and why people join them. In J. Blau

(Ed.), The Blackwell companion to sociology (pp. 268-281). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Koch, J. V., & Leonard, W. M. (1978). The NCAA: A socio-economic analysis: The development of the

college sports cartel from social movement to formal organization. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 37, 225-239.

Koopmans, R. (1999). Political. Opportunity. Structure. Some splitting to balance the lumping. Sociological Forum, 14(l), 93-105.

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 371

372 Journal of Sport & Social Issues

Kriesi, H. (2004). Political context and opportunity. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 67-90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

LaRocque, A. (2004). Psychological distress between American Indian and majority culture college students regarding the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University of North Dakota.

Locher, D. A. (2002). Collective behavior. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Machamer, A. M. (2001). Last of the Mohicans, braves, and warriors: The end of American Indian mascots

in Los Angeles public schools. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: The Native American mascots controversy (pp. 208-220). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—Toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 1-20). New York: Cambridge University.

McAdam, D., & Snow, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). Social movements: Readings on the emergence, mobilization, and dynamics. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1997). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. In S. M. Buechler & F. K. Cylke (Eds.), Social movements: Perspectives and issues (pp. 149-172). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Nixon, H. L. (1991). Sport sociology that matters: Imperatives and challenges for the 1990s. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 281-294.

Oliver, P. E., Cadena-Roa, J., & Strawn, K. D. (2003). Emerging trends in the study of protest and social movements. Research in Political Sociology, 12, 213-244.

Pelak, C. F. (2002). Women’s collective identity formation in sports: A case study of women’s ice hockey. Gender & Society, 16, 93-114.

Pewewardy, C. (1991). Native American mascots and imagery: The struggle of unlearning stereotypes. Journal of Navajo Education, 9(1), 19-23.

Prochaska, D. (2001). At home in Illinois: Presence of Chief Illiniwek, absence of Native Americans. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: The Native American mascots controversy (pp. 157-185). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Rucht, D. (2004). Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 197-216). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Sage, G. (1999). Just do it! The Nike transnational advocacy network: Organization, collective actions and outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 206-235.

Schwirian, K. P., Curry, T. J., & Woldoff, R. A. (2001). Community conflict over arena and stadium funding: Competitive framing, social action, and the socio-spatial perspective. Sociological Focus, 34(1), 1-20.

Sigelman, L. (1998). Hail to the Redskins? Public reactions to a racially insensitive team name. Sociology of Sport Journal, 15, 317-325.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E., Burke, W., Steven K., & Benford, R. D. (1997). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. In S. M. Buechler & F. K. Cylke (Eds.), Social move- ments: Perspectives and issues (pp. 211-228). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Springwood, C. F. (2004). “I’m an Indian too! Claiming Native American identity, crafting authority in mascot debates. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28, 56-70.

Staurowsky, E. J. (2000). The Cleveland Indians: A case study of cultural dispossession. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 307-330.

Staurowsky, E. J. (2001). Sockalexis and the making of the myth at the core of Cleveland’s “Indian” image. In C. R. King & C. F. Springwood (Eds.), Team spirits: The Native American mascots controversy (pp. 82-106). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. New York: Cambridge University.

Taylor, M. (2005). Native images as sport team mascots: From Chief Wahoo to Chief Illiniwek. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.

Tovares, R. (2002). Mascot matters: Race, history, and the University of North Dakota’s “Fighting Sioux” Logo. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 26(1), 76-94.

Williams, D. (in press). Where’s the honor? Attitudes on the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Sociology of Sport Journal, 24.

Williams, R. H. (2004). The cultural contexts of collective action: Constraints, opportunities, and the symbolic life of social movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 91-115). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Wilson, B. (2002). The “anti-jock” movement: Reconsidering youth resistance, masculinity, and sport culture in the age of the internet. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19, 206-233.

Wilson, B., & White, P. (2002). Revive the pride: Social processes, political economy, and a fan-based grassroots movement. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19, 119-148.

Yiannakis, A. (1989). Toward an applied sociology of sport: The next generation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 1-16.

Yiannakis, A., & Greendorfer, S. L. (Eds.) (1992). Applied sociology of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Zald, M. N. (1992). Backward to look forward: Reflections on the past and future of the resource mobilization research program. In A. Morris & C. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 326-348). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 261-274). New York: Cambridge University.

Laurel R. Davis-Delano is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Springfield College. Her areas of research include sport, media, racism, sexism, and heterosexism. Prior to the research project discussed in this article, she published “Racial Diversity in Higher Education: Ingredients for Success and Failure” in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

Davis-Delano / Eliminating Native American Mascots 373