Washington Redskins Should Not Change Their Name

             Social justice advocates have been making a lot of noise recently about the Washington Redskins. Many believe that the term “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans and that it should be changed to something more politically correct. Despite all the outrage, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, adamantly refused to give up the name, saying, “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means”. Amidst growing outrage, the US Patent Office voted 2-1 to cancel the trademark last week, meaning that the Washington Redskins logo is now unprotected by unauthorized duplication. Even though Snyder plans to appeal the ruling, the social justice crowd is already calling this a landmark decision.

            While I can understand how Native Americans might find the name Redskins offensive, I do not believe it is the role of government to cancel patents solely on that basis. What someone finds offensive is entirely subjective. A term that has the potential to make some individuals wince in disgust might be completely innocuous to others. This entails that no objective standards of political correctness could reasonably be enforced since they cannot even be agreed upon. Thus, when the Patent Office cancels the trademark of an organization just because it is offensive to some people, this sets a disturbing precedent about the role of government. If any group of concerted individuals can whine and complain about anything they deem repugnant and get the Patent Office to comply with their demands, what good is the patent system to begin with? Ownership of property is an unalienable right in an open society. The name and trademark of the Washington Redskins are the property of Dan Snyder, and as such, he has sole authority to change, dispose, or keep the team name if he wants to. Regardless of whether the team name is offensive or not, it is immoral for a government to compel Washington to change it. In his HBO special, It’s Bad For Ya, George Carlin spoke some words of wisdom that certainly have relevancy here. He said, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter.” The Cancellation of the Redskins patent only goes to show prospective social justice warriors that if an organization’s name offends their sensibilities, they can clamour to the government and get their patent revoked.

            Some people may argue that changing the team name is not that big of a deal, and any costs it does entail would be a small price to pay to ensure nobody is being offended. Anybody who makes such an argument is ignoring the value of many sports franchises. The name and logo of any sports team, especially one that has such a long and successful history as the Redskins, carries value. The Washington Redskins are a name that people recognize and if the team completely rebrands itself, then that recognition would be lost. Forbes has listed the Redskins as the eighth most valuable franchise in the league at 1.7 Billion dollars, and much of that value comes from the name itself. To many fans, their team names are important and symbolize the tradition and history of their achievements. Rebranding the team would not only affect the fanbase, but it would also incur a tremendous financial burden on the team’s owners. Changing the Redskins name means hiring patent and trademark attorneys, graphic designers, as well as purchasing new jerseys, merchandise, and equipment, which costs millions of dollars. It’s not as simple as changing a few light bulbs. Even political correctness comes at a price.

            Those who are most adamant about changing the team name should reconsider their priorities. If one’s goal is to impose political-correctness onto the world, they should begin by dismantling the thousands of actual hate groups throughout North America that actively work to promote racism, hate and discrimination instead of attacking the name of some innocuous sports team. Many other sports teams have names that are arguably more offensive than the Redskins, such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, The Cleveland Indians, and The Edmonton Eskimos. The fact that social justice warriors are up in arms about The Redskins, but haven’t uttered a peep about The Eskimos (a de facto racial slur) demonstrates the confirmation bias so often conveyed by these people. If one is intent on abolishing bigotry in major league sports logos, then they should be decrying all offensive logos, not Just the Washington Redskins. There’s no reason to just pick on Washington, considering Native Americans are not even unanimously offended by the team’s name. Several polls taken throughout the past decade have consistently shown that most Native Americans don’t find the name Redskins to be that odious. The poll taken in 2004 shows that only nine percent of Native Americans had an objection to the term and another poll taken as recently as 2013 shows that nearly eighty percent oppose the team name change. It appears to me that the noisiest voices against the Redskins are well-meaning, but ultimately misguided white folks who feel they are doing the world a favour by imposing their opinions on others. Everybody has different values, preferences, and beliefs, and thus anybody could conceivably be offended by anything. Just because you have the right to find a given book, television show, political party, or football logo offensive, does not entail you should censor or banish them. Otherwise, we would inhabit a world where everything was censored and everything was banned.

            All that being said, I can empathize with any Native Americans who are truly offended by the team name. However, just because a name is offensive to some people, doesn’t mean it necessarily should be changed. If so, who is to determine what is objectively offensive and what isn’t?  The fact that the Patent Office cancelled the trademark solely for that reason clearly shows that the government feels it is the arbiter in this respect. If a group of people find an organization objectionable, the most productive and mature way of voicing their distaste is by voting with their wallets. Just like with any product or service that does not meet your standards, you have the right not to support it financially. If you don’t like the Redskins, don’t buy their merchandise, don’t go to the games, don’t follow the team, and don’t give them exposure. It’s that simple. When you have to go crying to Big Daddy Government about your fragile sensibilities, then maybe it’s not the world that should conform to your standards, but the other way around.