I recently read the Nov. 16 Viewpoint written by Dr. John McAdams, associate professor of political science, "Mascot survey labeled 'biased,' on the athletic mascot issue survey. I find it ironic that McAdams had such a critical eye for the Marquette survey, yet cited and accepted the University of Pennsylvania survey that found 90 percent of American Indians had no objection to the "Redskins" nickname. After performing a bit of research on the University's survey, I found that there are many scholars and academics that are critical of the survey and its findings. These scholars and academics included professors from a number of notable universities and colleges who research and study issues facing American Indians, the relationship of race, and the media. I would venture to guess that our administration has chosen to seek out the advice of similar academics. McAdams has characterized the individuals our administration has been listening to as "noisy political activists" and "a narrow politically-correct bunch of activists". Others refer to them as experts people who have spent time, effort and significant resources developing the knowledge necessary to tackle a difficult set of problems. Not only has McAdams ignored the importance of such experts, but his name calling is the exact sort of political mudslinging that is all too common in political debate.

The fact is that all surveys are somewhat unreliable- see "How to Lie with Statistics: by Darrell Huff. Unfortunately, no survey will give the answer to any moral question. An act is either right or wrong independent of popular opinion. The fact is that some number of American Indians will be offended and it is up for debate whether the symbol is in fact racist. The question is whether we should take the risk of offending any number of American Indians?

Conforming to the whim of what is politically correct is not a choice based in principle. Choosing not to be offensive is a choice of integrity. There are times where one must take a principled stance and offend some people. But such actions should not be done for trifling reasons. Is the risk of offending a number of American Indians worth it to have the benefits of a warrior mascot? It's just a mascot; I don't think it's worth it. I would be ashamed if our university chose to side with the pride and joy brought by a fictional character that acts as our mascot over being sensitive to the potential of offending the American Indian culture.

For those who disagree, take your desire to ignore the risk of offending people into the workplace or into your social interactions – see how many jobs you get, how much respect you earn and how willing others are to follow your lead. If the purpose of education is to prepare individuals for their working life and life as a member of society, then this university would do well to reinforce a simple lesson. Don't be offensive … let it slide… it's just a mascot.

Joshua Cronin is a 1st year law student.

This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on Jan. 27 2005.