Of all the miseries endured by the residents of Washington, D.C., it’s inexplicable-and indefensible-that the debate over the name of the city’s professional football team has hit pay dirt among national headlines.
Since the dawn of the era of Political Correctness, the Redskins mascot has had a bull’s-eye target on it.
Not by American Indians, mind you. In a 2004 national poll, 90 percent of American Indians said the name was fine. More recent polls show smaller but still substantial (in the 80 percent range) majorities who say the name doesn’t bother them.
Not by local fans, either. In the past eight seasons, Washington has placed no lower than fourth in NFL homegame attendance, including leading the league for three straight years from 2006-08.
The rise to national prominence over this “issue” isn’t reflected in any statistical presentation of damages or any empirical demonstration of social harm. In fact, the Redskins fracas has been artificially escalated ahead of a great many more newsworthy crises faced in the District of Columbia.
Let’s concede that Redskins is one of the worst names in professional football. Does that really warrant national scrutiny ahead of the D.C. public school system that’s one of the worst in America?
Football is a game. Learning is real life. Is no one offended by a Washington Post article last year pointing out that, if existing trends continue, it will be 2075 before 75 percent of D.C. students will reach grade level in reading?
Failure at that magnitude should be offensive to all, especially since the latest study commissioned by the district to address its education system struggles proffered a highly predictable answer: Spend more money.
D.C. is already a national leader in per-pupil expenditures, and we’re supposed to believe that upping the base figure from $9,306 to $11,356 (more for “at risk” students) is going to translate into some sort of educational adequacy?
As has become typical of politically correct causes, “success” is defined through a mishmash of mixed-up measures among the audiences that are supposedly being helped (D.C. public schools are 87 percent black, for example).
Learning isn’t the yardstick-funding is. More funding means better schools for black kids.
Nobody finds such aberrant illogic offensive? I’m fairly sure a large number of parents in D.C. would prefer a school system that actually educates their children.
Yes, yes, but this Redskins logo is racist, it’s a slur, it’s an insult.
What ought to be a national insult is that there are high-profile cross-continental arguments over fictitious injury caused by mascot insensitivity while real lives are being taken, ruined or scarred every hour of every day by D.C. criminals.
Across the board, District of Columbia crime rates are multiples of the national averages. Triple the U.S. murder rate, twice the aggravated assault rate and five times the robbery rate. D.C. is among the highest rates in the nation in those categories, plus larceny and vehicle theft.
Am I the only one rubbed wrong by nationally proclaimed worries that somewhere someone (probably not even a football fan) might be affronted at hearing the Redskins team name, when it’s a surefire fact that local D.C. residents are regularly being shot, raped, robbed and beaten?
Or that there are critical health issues in D.C., especially regarding children? The district leads the nation in abortion rate, Medicaid births per capita, infant death rate and childhood obesity.
It also leads the nation in AIDS case rate, HIV death rate, cancer death rate, is third in heart disease and diabetes death rates, and fifth in teen birth rate and cocaine use.
Yes, yes, but Redskins is a pejorative, an epithet, especially objectionable in the nation’s capital.
The real objection ought to be the lack of federal accountability regarding D.C.’s dismal social condition. D.C. is unique as the only federal district in America, under the direct authority of Congress.
In 1973, Home Rule legislation allowed for the election of a mayor and a 13-member city council, but Congress still has the final say regarding governance in the District of Columbia.
Every social malady in D.C. is and ought to be a direct reflection on the federal government, and particularly Congress’ capability to legislate social policy for the states.
If Congress can’t run the only territory under its direct control better than D.C. is run, and can’t devise and implement policies to provide basic services like education, safety and health care to D.C. residents, what business has it meddling in the other 50 states?
The Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” in D.C. That’s essentially a laboratory license to trial-test government policies prior to imposing them on the states.
Extremist D.C. gun-control laws (handguns totally banned) have never worked there, so why are we still hoping they will work anywhere? Likewise with education policy based on dollars alone.
The contrived Redskins controversy, like other loudly promulgated PC non-issues, winds up being nothing but a distraction and diversion from genuine problems.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently suggested renaming the team the Skins.
I say call them the Red Herrings.
-
———◊-
———
Dana Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.
Editorial, Pages 17 on 10/25/2013