Dear Daniel Snyder:
Give it up, already. You can't--and shouldn't--win. Renounce the nickname "Redskins" for your National Football League team.
Granted, there is much illogic and inconsistency in the acceptance or non-acceptance
of potentially offensive nicknames adopted by college and professional sports teams. For some of them, there is pressure to change, for others not. The South Dakota Fighting Sioux, the Illinois Fighting Illini, the Florida State Seminoles,
the Utah Utes, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians (in particular the image of Chief Wahoo), the Chicago Blackhawks--each has experienced some criticism but not come under anything like the fire that your Redskins have.
In fact a number of members of the Seminole tribe have expressed pride in being associated with Florida State. And the names of a multitude of other ethnic groups continue to be used as team nicknames with few folks fussing about them. The USC
Trojans, the Michigan State Spartans, the Idaho Vandals, the Minnesota Vikings, the New York Knickerbockers, the Union College Dutchmen, The Macalester Fighting Scots, the Tyler Apaches, the Central Michigan Chippewas, the Mississippi Choctaws, the Boston
Celtics, the Saint Mary's Gaels, the Alaska-Fairbanks Nanooks, the Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, the Carthage College Red Men, the North Carolina Tar Heels, the Bethany College Terrible Swedes, the Luther College Norse, the William and Mary Tribe,
the Santa Barbara Vaqueros, and the Dodge City Conquistadores arouse little ire. And what about that most famous of American universities, redoubtable Notre Dame and its Fighting Irish? Apparently, those of Irish descent who happen to be
pacifist Protestants do not in the least object to being lumped together with a bunch of bellicose Catholics.
Granted, the American military has helicopters named Apache and Blackhawk, and there has been no outcry about that. True, in the
American plot to assassinate Osama bin Laden he was given the code name of Geronimo, and that passed without complaint. And apparently no one has advocated a boycott of Chrysler in regard to its Jeep Cherokee.
Granted, the Redskins nickname
was originally intended as an honorific, connoting a macho ferocity that the original Washington owner wanted his team to display. Its use actually showed respect for the courage, skill, and determination demonstrated by Native Americans in fighting
for their homeland. The braves were the epitome of bravery. The color of their skin symbolized the content of their character.
Or at least that's what we white, black, and Asian football fans in America took for granted. However, in doing
so we dehumanized a race of people by one-dimensionalizing them, ignoring all of their other positive qualities and also ignoring the pain and suffering we imposed upon them for generations. First we called them a name based on skin color, and
then we further demeaned them by using the name as a mascot, as if they were a plaything. We were once ignorant of our arrogance, but ignorance can no longer be an excuse. No amount of explaining why the term is not meant to be offensive will ameliorate
the offense. A significant number of Native Americans, including the Oneida Indian Nation, which has mounted a national "Change the Mascot" campaign, want a remedy. Grant it to them.
Several years ago, New York's St. John's University
changed its nickname from Red Men to Red Storm. It's past time for you to make a similar move. I suggest changing the Redskins to something like the Red Line, the Red Stars, or the Red Fire. The new name won't help you get to the Super
Bowl (you may have to wait for the arrival of RG IV for that), but I guarantee it will help you sell a ton of caps and jerseys.
Yours for a fuller understanding of naming rights,
Bruce Evans
*****
Dear Supreme Court Justices:
In your interpretations of The Constitution, many of you, conservatives and liberals alike, at times speak reverently of the "intent" of the Framers. In making decisions on cases before you, the Framers' intent is something you try to
divine and something you seek to honor and uphold in your interpretations. However, it's impossible to enter the minds of these long-dead men. No one today can speak for them. Why even try to surmise what decision they would want you to reach?
Granted that the Framers were wise and amazing men who produced a marvelous document that has held Americans together and facilitated their pursuit of happiness for almost two-and-a-half centuries, nevertheless you should not be persuaded by, nor
attempt to persuade each other with, an argument based on the idolatry of authority. Abandon the concept of originalism. What matters is not what the Framers intended; what matters is what you do with the text they created. What matters is how you see
fit to use that text in making your decisions. The text, not the Framers' intent, should be the only source of meaning. A Justice should be like a literary critic who has eschewed the intentional fallacy, concerning him/herself only with the text
and not at all with what the writer might have intended the words to mean. All interpretations are of necessity political. A Justice should concede (and the American public accept) that he/she is a meta-legislator. The Framers spoke of privacy
rights but not of a woman's right to privacy. They spoke of freedom of speech but not of the right to use money as speech in political campaigns. They spoke of equal protection under the law but not of racially integrated education. Would
they have approved of the Supreme Court decisions made in regard to abortion, campaign finance, and school integration? You'll never know, and you shouldn't care. You should simply study the text of the Constitution and any relevant previous court decisions
and apply them to modern times as you think appropriate and fair. Admit it: all of you, conservative or liberal, are activists who want to use the law to make the kind of society in which you feel most at home. And that's the way it must be.
Arbiters find reasons to be arbitrary. What matters is not what the Framers meant but what, in your view, is appropriate for us today. There are nine of you. You will each have your biases. Indeed, you have been appointed precisely because
you have those biases. So go with your conservatism or your liberalism, find in the text that which supports your predilection, and attempt to persuade your fellow Justices of the validity of your view. When faced with making a decision regarding
the 2nd Amendment, for example, find in the text that which you think is best for America. If you think people should be allowed to have guns with no restrictions, emphasize the right to bear arms; if you think they should not, emphasize that in modern
times a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Employ whatever rhetorical strategies that you think might be persuasive. For example, stress the benefit to the majority when doing so helps to justify your
opinion, stress the rights of the minority when you think that would be more convincing. Stress judicial restraint if that helps to make your case, stress an expansive interpretation if that works better. In the process of presenting arguments,
perhaps you will change the views of other Justices, or perhaps they will change yours. In most cases, however, after acknowledging some well-made points by your fellow Jurists, you will cling to your biases. Ultimately, the majority who share
similar biases will prevail, though of course the minority is welcome to--indeed, encouraged to--broadcast its dissent. If we the people don't like your decisions, we can elect a different President, who will appoint, as vacancies occur, persons whose
views are congenial to his/hers, and we can also elect different senators, who have the power to accept or reject the President's choices, according to their prejudices. Admit and accept that your role is to call it the way that you want to
see it, which is not quite the same as calling it the way you see it, which may or not be the way the Framers would see it, and which definitely is not the only way to see it.
Your recent decision in Schuette v Coalition to Defend Affirmative
Action is illustrative. The majority of you ruled that the citizens of Michigan were within their rights to pass an initiative banning affirmative action at the University of Michigan. Though all of you believe that discrimination is illegal, you do
not all agree on what, precisely, discrimination is. Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," implying that affirmative action is itself an example of
discrimination. Justice Arthur Kennedy said that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution include the people's right to "try to shape the course of their own times and the course of a nation that must strive always to make freedom ever greater and more
secure," implying that, whether affirmative action is discriminatory or not, the people may legislate against it in the name of freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Race matters, because of the slights, the snickers, and silent judgments that
reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here.' While the enduring hope is that race should not matter, the reality is that too often it does. Racial discrimination is not ancient history," implying that both spoken and unspoken
prejudice against racial minorities is a form of discrimination because its victims are made to feel unequal, and therefore it may be combated by programs such as affirmative action. Each of these three called it the way he/she wants to see
it. Each was an activist who found an argument to support a heartfelt predilection and a loyalty to and empathy for (Roberts and Kennedy) a conservative backlash against forced integration and unequal treatment, or for (Sotomayor)a heartfelt predilection
and a loyalty to and empathy for minority victims of racial prejudice. Each was predisposed to define discrimination in his/her own way. Each acted appropriately. None was impartial. You Justices can never rise above making political
choices, and neither you nor we the public should pretend otherwise.
Prejudicially yours,
Bruce Evans
*****
Dear Matthew Syed:
Your book, Bounce, seeks to dispel the myth that talent and genius are what enable
humans to achieve greatness. Like Thomas Edison, you believe that genius is 10 per cent inspiration and 90 per cent perspiration. Like Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers, you tout the overwhelming importance of purposeful practice in achieving
success. You cite examples from music, chess and all manner of sports. You refer to Mozart, Tiger Woods, and Venus and Serena Williams, all of whom started young and practiced long, immersing themselves in their activities and logging well over
10,000 hours of training before becoming successful. You also emphasize that you yourself became a world-class table tennis player primarily because you had an opportunity to start young and devote yourself to the game.
Your argument appeals
to me. I like the idea of diligent practice and long hours of repetition. I'm given to that masochistic way of life. But is it really true that anyone--any Jean or Jeanne D'Eau--can become great? Are all men and women and Bis
and TGs created physically and mentally equal? If we all practiced the same amount, beginning in childhood and getting solid instruction throughout our careers, would we all be on the same level? Could all males run a 100 meters in 9.3 seconds,
when in their prime? Could all hit 73 home runs in a major league baseball season, if only they took as many practice swings and steroids as Barry Bonds did? Could all persons box or wrestle to a draw anyone in their gender and weight
classes? Could all be equally good in advanced math and theoretical physics if they studied diligently? Do plyometric potential and percentage of quick-twitch muscle fibers have no bearing on physical performance? Does the Stanford-Binet
IQ test not measure levels of intellectual abilities with validity? Could all of us, putting in an equal amount of practice, out-Wobegon the Wobegoners and be not just above average but superior, making "average," like "unicorn," a word with no referent?
And, if we logged in an additional 10,000 hours of practice in the art of positive thinking, could we all be equally mentally tough, performing with courage and grace under pressure, playing as if it means nothing when it means everything?
Could Ecurb Snave have been the LeBron James of the '60s if he had practiced basketball for 10,000 hours in the '50s? A thousand--make that 10,000--times no.
Continuing to revise my golf and softball swings, ever hopeful, ever disappointed,
I remain (boy, do I),
Bruce Evans