During a recent retreat, retreatants and I were asked to discuss the issue of campus diversity. We were given a large sheet of paper and told to diagnose the particular elements of this matter in small groups. My small group was the first to sit down around the sheet of paper, and we began to discuss. Then something shameful happened.

Before we could even begin writing, we spent the next minute or more discussing whether "minority" or "person of color" was the proper term for … er, well, minorities/persons of color. The experience brought to my mind a very important question: What the hell is wrong with us?

I find myself asking the same question as I consider the Warrior name issue, an issue beaten to death but still not adequately examined in Viewpoints. The fact that the name Golden Eagles is more or less garbage aside, some very important and yet under-discussed principles are at stake.

In his Sept. 28 Viewpoint, "Pro-Warrior prof scolded," Griffith Sellnow argued that if we should err on this matter, we should do so in a way that avoids offending anyone. However, I fail to see much logic in this argument. If our goal as a university and as a society is to never offend anyone, we begin a slide into absurdity that should be brutally obvious to anyone. Or does "offend" take on a different meaning here? After all, were the alumni and students not "offended" by the name change in 1994?

"But that's different," one might say. "This is the exploitation of historically inaccurate stereotypes for entertainment." Then perhaps as a half Italian-American, I should ask that all cartoon mobster characters be eliminated from pop culture. While some hardcore racial sensitivity advocates might say yes, most would instead argue that other such ethnic groups do not have the same history of discrimination and genocide to make for a good analogy — a point with which I would agree. I would be rather ignorant to compare the role of satirists and advertisers to that of a Jesuit university.

At the same time, at what point should we simply accept history, thicken our skin and confront racial matters rather than sidestep them? What do we contribute to racial equality by tiptoeing through this minefield of taboo terms, accusations of insensitivity and general unease? I wonder what it would be like to see us through the perspective of a more enlightened time, one when both racial hypersensitivity and discrimination no longer run rampant. Would we see the absurdity in a white American stammering through a sentence, meticulously measuring his words and quivering inside, hoping not to offend anyone?

In his Viewpoint, Sellnow touted the credentials of prominent civil rights groups and their stance on the issue. However, can we reasonably expect an objective opinion from groups whose primary function is to favor particular ethnicities and whose existence partially subsists on fighting such battles?

Certainly no one wants our university to sell out at the expense of a large group of people. Then again, 10 years ago it sold out the students, alumni and a part of our tradition because of a name that was intended to objectify American Indians about as much as "The Last of the Mohicans" was and that will never again be paired with American Indians symbols.

We often bring the term "human dignity" into this debate. However, I wonder how does the paternalistic message of "you should be offended by this" demonstrate dignity to an American Indians population that overwhelmingly does not support the elimination of Native American mascots? Are the outspoken minority actually more enlightened or simply more humorless? Could there not, among the non-offended majority of American Indians, be an equal or greater number who have poured over the issue with equal judgment and equal rigor? These are questions that must be asked but are too often brushed aside by politically correct paranoia.

I — as much as anyone — would love to someday live in a culture that can see race for what it really is. But I know we can never achieve this awareness by ridding ourselves of all things that can be misconstrued as racially offensive. Doing so will only leave us wandering the minefield.

Bergl is a junior civil engineering major.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.