Let me start by saying that by no means do I believe the Cardinal to be a good mascot. It isn’t a mascot, it’s a freaking color, and it sucks. That said, it is better than the Indian.

As you probably know, from 1930 until 1972, Stanford was known as the Indians. The Indian at Stanford was manifested through a long-nosed mascot that performed at sporting events. In the early 1970s, American Indian groups on campus petitioned to change the mascot because they found the Indian to be offensive in how it stereotyped and mocked American Indian religious practice and culture.

That was then, however, and given the lameness of Stanford’s current mascot, maybe going back to the Indians makes sense.

But why was Stanford the Indians in the first place? Stanford and Palo Alto aren’t exactly a mecca of American Indian history and culture. There is nothing that ties the founding of Stanford University in 1891 to American Indians, nor were its founders, Leland and Jane Stanford, at all involved with American Indian groups.

In fact, the prevalent image of an Indian in battle within American culture is not a flattering one, nor is it brave. During the period in which Stanford was the Indians, American Indians were seen in popular culture as the bad guys in Western movies who always lost in battle at the hands of heroes played by John Wayne (and others). In fact, very seldom in American popular culture are American Indians the victors. Now this itself is an injustice, but it also doesn’t help create any sort of intimidation when it comes to competing on the sports fields.

The main reason, however, that the Indian is not an appropriate mascot for Stanford is because it is downright offensive. The term “Indian” itself is no longer seen as politically correct, with the preferred nomenclature being American Indian. As a progressive university, Stanford cannot have an un-PC mascot, and the Stanford American Indians doesn’t quite have a ring to it.

Why is it offensive to be the Indians, you may ask.

First off, using a people as a mascot perpetuates a massive amount of stereotypes. Look at the Cleveland Indians’ mascot, Chief Wahoo. He is an American Indian, with a long nose and a headdress on. When he is shown, fans take an open palm to their mouths and make “ow” sounds. This paints a picture of American Indians as savage and uncivilized. What makes it more disturbing is that there are American Indian students and faculty at the University that show just how wrong that stereotype is, and they are stuck being ridiculed by it.

Second, mascots are almost exclusively animals, so calling a team the Indians is essentially likening American Indians to animals. Outside of American Indian based mascots and other ethnic (and also offensive) mascots such as the Fighting Irish and Ragin’ Cajuns, humans aren’t mascots (private religious colleges are the one exception). Mascots are reserved for subhuman groups: Panthers, Tigers, Hawks, Eagles. You don’t see anyone arguing for Stanford to be called the Stanford Anglo-Saxon Protestants. That would be offensive. So why would the Stanford Indians not be offensive?

Taking that point a step further, imagine if Stanford chose a different ethnic minority to have as its mascot. So Stanford could be the Stanford Blacks and its mascot would be dressed in blackface and urban attire; would people think that is all right? How about if Stanford was the Stanford Gays and the mascot wore rainbows; would that be appropriate?

I don’t think many of you would say yes, but when an Indian mascot dresses in stereotypical Indian attire and struts around, it is essentially doing the same thing — depicting a minority group in a way that does not represent the full reality of that group. How is that okay?

Having the Indian as a mascot creates other problems as well. Imagine opposing crowds chanting “Indians suck,” or “kill the Indians” at sporting events. I’m sure American Indians on campus would feel great about that.

And then there is the mascot itself. Right now, Stanford has the tree, which is about as benign a symbol as you can get, yet the tree still manages to routinely offend the masses. I can’t imagine the trouble the mascot would get in if he were dressed as an Indian.

So your question to me is probably, “If Cardinal is terrible, and Indians is off limits, what should Stanford be?”

Well, what the student body voted for back in the ‘70s when the Indian was removed was the Robber Barons — a reference to Leland Stanford and also a creative, somewhat intimidating mascot.

It was shot down because calling Leland Stanford a robber was not deemed alright, though I would argue that given his history and the time that has passed, being the Robber Barons would, in a strange way, pay homage to Leland Stanford. Have the Monopoly man as Stanford’s mascot, and it would be a fun little play both on how Stanford degrees make you richer than opponents and on Leland Stanford himself.

If Robber Barons is offensive, how about just the Barons? That seems like a sweet name, and it is definitely better than being the Indians or just a measly color.
Dan Bohm really just wants to dress up as Mr. Monopoly. Tell him where to find a good top hat at bohmd “at” stanford.edu.