Amid national debate about the use of a term many critics call outdated and offensive, Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed legislation banning the use of “Redskins” as a school mascot or team name.
But the Democratic governor vetoed legislation that would prohibit naming public buildings and roads in California after Confederate leaders.
The “Redskins” bill’s enactment comes 11 years after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation. Brown signed the bill without comment.
Assembly Bill 30, by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, will affect only four high schools in California – in Calaveras, Merced and Madera counties. The bill will let schools keep uniforms bearing the name if they are purchased before 2017 as long as the school selects a new team name, mascot or nickname.
In his 2004 veto of similar legislation, said local school boards should retain “general control over all aspects of their interscholastic policies.” Opponents of this year’s bill made a similar argument.
Brown himself appealed to local control in vetoing Senate Bill 539, the Confederate bill. He said in a veto message that the issue is “quintessentially for local decision makers.”
“Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom.”
That reasoning did not satisfy the bill’s author, Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, who helped guide Brown’s 2010 run for the governorship. He took to Twitter to criticize his former boss, calling the veto a “hollow defense of unacceptable status quo.”
I disagree with this bill. It is silly how the mascot has to changed after all these years. The mascot, I'm sure, was not meant as an offensive term, or to disrespect anyone. This is going a little far. I mean, only four California high schools will be effected. That is an extremely low percentage. However, I do agree with the fact that, if the bill applys to the high schools, then it should also apply to the Washington Redskins as well.
ReplyDeleteHailey Powers Per. 1
I believe that it is kinda crazy that there is a law made to where you can’t use “redskins” as a mascot or a team name. I absolutely believe it was just a name, and it was not supposed to take offense to anybody in anyway. Since “this will affect only four high schools in California” (Sacramento Bee) it’s not as bad as it could be. I just don’t agree that they should be making school mascots and team names change now, after it could have been that name for a long time. If they had a problem with it in the first place they should have picked a different one not years later after it has been established.
ReplyDeleteMegan Welter Per. 2
I agree. Its crazy that there is a law against something weird like that. "The “Redskins” bill’s enactment comes 11 years after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation. Brown signed the bill without comment.". They shouldn't change it after years of them having there name.
DeleteAfter all these years I think that it is not right for people to have to change their team name or mascot. It is just a name and I think it wasn't meant for people to feel offended by. There is only going to be four schools on California effected by this but it is still not right. They get to keep their uniforms because it would cost a lot of money to replace them but they must "select a new team name, mascot, or nickname" (Sacramento Bee). These schools have been around for a long time and now they have to change their name and mascot. I do not agree with this. I think that if this bill is going to apply to schools then it also needs to apply to football teams like the Washington Redskins. It would not be fair to just make the schools change their names.
ReplyDeleteKaci Pebley
Period 2
I believe that this is another instance of the U.S. becoming too politically correct. We have created a society where we have to double check everything we say is FEAR of offending someone. People are a little too sensitive nowadays.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this bill is a bit unnecessary. The name "Redskin" was never used or meant as an insult. I fell like it would be unfair to the limited school's to have to change their names and mascots. I think that some people are becoming a little too sensitive. I know there is also a controversy with the Redskin NFL team. I think people are getting too offended by something that isn't supposed to be taken as an insult. I always thought Redskin was just a name. I never affiliated it with anything but. It's 2015, I think that using a name, without insult, such as Redskin should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteAnnalise Hite-6
I strongly disagree with this article. Most people are not effected by the use of the term "Redskins" as a team name or a school's mascot. If they banned the use of the name "Redskins" not many schools would be affected. "Only four high schools in California" would be affected if they banned the name. However, if they do ban it, it won't make that big of a difference in the nation because there are many other schools with other native american-related names that don't have to change theirs. Also, it costs the school lots of money to change their mascot and team name. There are also college and professional teams with similar names that would need to be changed in addition to the four high schools in California.
ReplyDeleteEmily Bobrowsky- Period 1
After reading this article, I've finally developed an opinion on this topic. In all honesty, I feel like this bill shouldn't become such an obstacle for some people to overcome. Clearly, some people are offended by the name "Redskin," so changing a few high school names shouldn't be such a problem. With this issue there is some solution: "The bill will let schools keep uniforms bearing the name if they are purchased before 2017 as long as the school selects a new team name, mascot or nickname" (Sacramento Bee). This is a good compromise for those who invested money for supporting the school and for showing spirit. In addition, there are so many different mascots to choose from, so choosing another shouldn't be so difficult. You never know, the new mascot could be even better than the old.
ReplyDeleteMarie Ong, Period 6
This bill is unnecessary. The term "Redskin" is not meant to offend anyone. Also, this bill only effects 4 school. After many years of being in a school, I do not think that changing the name, mascot, and uniforms is necessary. It would cost school a lot of money to change everything just because of their name."The bill will let schools keep uniforms bearing the name if they are purchased before 2017 as long as the school selects a new team name, mascot or nickname"(Sacramento Bee). I think that this is reasonable because it would not make schools have to repurchase and waste money on things they already paid money for.
ReplyDeleteThis law is pointless. I don't see a good reason for banning use of ‘Redskins’ as school mascot or team name in California. The word itself is not hurting anyone. Banning the use of "Redskins" will not make our nation better.
ReplyDelete- Sheila Ordukhani per 2
I think that this bill is unnecessary. The term is not meant to insult anyone. This bill will not really affect anyone, except for "only four high schools in California" (Sacramento Bee). I think that this is a waste of time and money since only four schools are using the mascot. The bill would have to apply to all schools, not just high schools. Kathryn Brinkmann Per. 4
ReplyDeleteI think its ok to pass this bill because the term "Redskins" can offended a lot of people out in this state. Also, having to change the name of a mascot isnt anything that important, im sure they will get over this is some time.
ReplyDeleteI think the bill should not be passed because use the term "Redskins" is not meant to offend anyone, some people are just taking it the wrong way. People would also have to repurchase school clothing, to represent the school because of all of the changes. I do not think it is necessary and the bill should not be passed.
ReplyDeleteNathanial Draper, Period. 5
I believe this bill is pointless. The name is "Redskins" is probably not meant to offend anyone. People have just been taking the name and using and interesting it in a wrong way. I believe this bill shouldn't have to be passed. I am sure that this will all blow over and be finished soon.
ReplyDeleteChristian Hudson Period 2
I believe this bill isn't necessary. They should be managing their time way better. It only affects 4 schools so it's not that big of deal. The name "Redskins" is not meant to offend anyone, people just need calm down because it's not suppose to be intended that way.
ReplyDeletei dis agree with the decision of not allowing schools to have the mascot of a redskin. I think schools should be allowed to have whatever mascot that they want. I could see them not letting any new schools be the redskins or any old schools changing there mascot, but if a school already has the mascot they should not have to change because what if the school is poor and dosent have the money to buy new uniforms.
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy because I think that the name ¨Redskins¨ isn't trying to offend anyone. I think it is wrong to veto legislation to prohibit from using names to buildings and roads after Confederate leaders.They should not have to worry about this offending anyone.
ReplyDelete"Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed legislation banning the use of “Redskins” as a school mascot or team name(2)". This is just crazy because the name redskins has been a team name for since i can remember, but people today will call anything offensive. This is going to effect many schools especially the poorer ones knowing that they probably don't have enough money to get new uniforms. Not only is this not necessary but idiotic its not offensive to anyone and everyone needs to get a grip that everything a person says is not racist, its just a name not a swear.
ReplyDeleteThe word "Redskins" should not be taken offensive. It is a regular word that is not chosen to offend anyone. Schools should be allowed to choose whatever mascot they want. If a school or sports team has a mascot "Redskins" they should not have to change their mascot because that would mean new sports uniforms and logo painting in gyms which can cost a lot of money.
ReplyDelete-Rhys Kennedy Per. 6
In Tulare and the other towns, disappointment was common though not universal with residents, students and school officials calling the law an attack on tradition one they said was never meant to offend. Others praised the law, saying it was time to accept that the term is outdated and hurtful. I believe that they didn't mean this in an offensive way, I believe this law is dumb because my mom went to this school 20 years ago and she wasn't affected by that at all, it's a tradition not racism. I think they should keep there school name and mascot as it is a tradition.
ReplyDeleteCameron Stone -- P6
ReplyDeleteI believe that Gov. Brown is not justified in banning the use of the name "Redskins". I took a little different approach on this topic. I believe that using the name "Redskins" recognizes Indians as a part of society. Banning the use of the name just excludes Indians even more from being a normal part of American culture. For example, some Indians may enjoy having teams such as the Washington Redskins named after them. When Brown signs the document "without comment", I believe that is irresponsible and does not consider the opinions of the people the law affects, the Indians. The name "Redskins" should be allowed to be voted on by the public, including any American Indians.
I think it is redicilious that they feel the need to ban the use of "Redskins" Espically since it ment that they had to violate legislation laws to do it.I think people now a days have become too sensitive about what people sya and think.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this pass. I do not not think that it is okay to have a race planted onto something, and portrayed different than it actually is. Redskins does in fact bring native americans into society, but I do think it is not fair to portray their race in a way that they do not want to be portrayed. “Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom.”(Sac bee). This is totally agreed by me. I do think California made the right choice, and defending people from being stereotyped like the redskins are in which their mascot is. Why do they have to stereotype the redskins, giving them feathers in their heads and such. Great choice.
ReplyDelete- Muzamil Ahmad p.6
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this bill is pointless and a waste of our attention. The term "Redskins" is not trying to offend anyone, and I think those who are offended by it are being too sensitive. American Indian have been very important parts of history, and it should almost be an honor to have a mascot named after them. The fact that Governor Brown passed this bill, but vetoed the bill on banning names of Confederate leaders allowed in the names of public property, is confusing. His thoughts were,"’Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom'”(Sacramento Bee). Why schools aren’t capable of naming their own mascots, and nicknames? Governor Brown is sending mixed messages with these bills.
ReplyDeleteRenee Gibson, period 2
I do not agree with this bill. The name "Redskins" should not offend anyone. There are already some schools named redskins so what will they do, change their name? Also I do not think it is right that they would "prohibit naming public buildings and roads in California after Confederate leaders" (Sacramento Bee). It should be the property owners decision. And if we are going to put that bill in place, then what about business names, do they have to follow that too? Because for me they seem to go hand in hand.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Koopman, per 1
This bill should not have been signed. The name "redskins" has been apart of America for so long. To pass a bill like this is horrible. It wasn't a negative name/meaning. In today's society people are too up tight and believe that is a derogatory term.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this bill is even being proposed is beyond me and I think it's ridiculous. After the term "Redskins" being a part of our nation for years, why are people just now deciding that it is offensive? Society is too uptight and people shouldn't care so much about a name on a jersey. If Native Americans have red skin, why can't they be called "Redskins"? I would be fine with a team being called the "Whiteskins".
ReplyDeleteI agree with John in some aspects. I think that the term Redskins should be allowed as it really isn't too much of a big deal if some schools already have it as a mascot. I think that if anything it could be making this topic more of a big deal. I think only to some extent if anything should the name be banned in California.
DeleteI do not agree with this bill. I believe that the name "Redskins" should not be banned from use of schools because it was not meant to offend anyone in the first place. The name "Redskins" has also been around for a long time; and the government now decides to do something about it. If the government decided to ban the name "Redskins" from use of mascots, why didn't they do it a long time ago? Why are they just now doing it? The use of school mascots being called "Redskins", should be decided upon by the people.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with their decision on banning this ONE word for a school's mascot or team name. I think it's a bit ridiculous to do this. In fact, a professional football team in Washington D.C. is named "redskins" (redskins.com) and Washington seems okay with it. I think that if a school wanted to name their mascot or team name, redskins I wouldn't see anything bad about it. I see it as a "respect" kind of way. It's not like they're insulting redskins because that would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteTyra Cardenas, 5th Period
I think that this bill is unnecessary. The name "Redskins" was never meant to offend somebody or come off as "disrespectful". Taking offense to a teams name is kind of ridiculous and it is being overly sensitive. I feel as if there are more important issues to be focused on than a teams name. Maybe the team name Redskins is just being over thought about.
ReplyDeleteI think this bill is cmpletely uneccessary to our nation. We have many more problems that should rank a lot higher in the eyes of the government. Such as the article in last weeks blog about the accidental air strike on a Afghan Hospital. This debate is "outdated and offensive" to our nation (Sac Bee). This will only effect 4 high schools in California but this might have an impact on our nations capital's team the Washington Redskins. This bill is useless and pointless.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why this bill was proposed. It is a derogatory term towards a certain ethnicity and I can understand why some people are offended by this. It does not matter if it was part of our history it is a crude term for reference to a culture. Governor Brown said, "Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom” (Sac Bee). I disagree with this because it offensive and should not be used any longer.
ReplyDeleteI am going to disagree with many of the comments above. I think this law is completely understandable and acceptable. Just because something is not offensive to you does not mean it isn't offensive to other people. You don't get to tell people what they should and shouldn't find offensive. Sure, the team name/mascot "Redskins" isn't the most offensive name out there, but if it is still upsetting a certain group of people, it shouldn't be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThis bill is probably one of the most pointless and biggest wastes of time I have heard. In the time it took them to create and veto this law they could have focused on more important problems, like why did we cut school funds and raise the budgets for prisons in California? People often wonder why our country is going downhill and I think this is one of the reasons, politicians wasting away their time at dumb laws and ideas and avoiding the bigger ones. Maybe if people did not get so upset or offended nowadays they would have not made this law. It just angers me that they are wasting time on this bill while there are much bigger problems.
ReplyDeleteThis bill is probably one of the most pointless and biggest wastes of time I have heard. In the time it took them to create and veto this law they could have focused on more important problems, like why did we cut school funds and raise the budgets for prisons in California? People often wonder why our country is going downhill and I think this is one of the reasons, politicians wasting away their time at dumb laws and ideas and avoiding the bigger ones. Maybe if people did not get so upset or offended nowadays they would have not made this law. It just angers me that they are wasting time on this bill while there are much bigger problems.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Brown Period 2
DeleteThis bill is probably one of the most pointless and biggest wastes of time I have heard. In the time it took them to create and veto this law they could have focused on more important problems, like why did we cut school funds and raise the budgets for prisons in California? People often wonder why our country is going downhill and I think this is one of the reasons, politicians wasting away their time at dumb laws and ideas and avoiding the bigger ones. Maybe if people did not get so upset or offended nowadays they would have not made this law. It just angers me that they are wasting time on this bill while there are much bigger problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that this law is absolutely pointless and shouldn't have even been considered by Governor Brown. Politicians these days are very sensitive, especially because of the recent racial issues. I agree that this law is a "hollow defense of unacceptable status quo" (D-Orinda). Also I feel that the Redskins wasn't a derogatory or racial logo. I felt that it was respectful to the Redskins giving them a sport team to show that they were hardy, strong people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the creation and passing of this bill was a superfluous use of time and money. The term Redskins has yet to create a major conflict in our state our or our nation for that matter. Also, Redskins is a term that is rich to our country's history, one that should not be prohibited for schools, or other important institutions. The statement made about Brown was as follows: "Brown signed the bill without comment" (Sacramento Bee). This short, yet strong evidence shows how the time considering this bill was minimal, one that should not have been considered in the first place. Instead of focusing on the wrong thing, politicians from our states and nation should focus on more pressing matters such as immigration, poverty, and foreign affairs.
ReplyDeleteJonPaul Lambert Period 1
I completely agree with JonPaul here. There are bigger problems in our country than a schools mascot. The passing and even consideration of the bill was, in my opinion, a waste of time and energy. Politicians should spend more time focusing on more pressing and urgent matters.
DeleteSarah Moghaddam period 1
I feel the name "redskins" has been around a long time and its pointless to change it now. Some people are just being a little bit to sensitive. Besides this bill is useless, and all of a sudden the schools cant use the name for school uniforms or team names.
ReplyDeleteHaley Esquibel Per: 1
I think that there are bigger problems our country needs to deal with rather than changing a school mascot. This seems so unimportant that it shouldn't even be discussed. There are actually important racial problems our country needs to deal with but getting rid of a long term mascot shouldn't be one of them. If people are truly offended by the term Redskins to the point where they think it should be banned they should probably stop being so sensitive and grow up. It wasn't meant to be degrading and people to need to understand what racism actually looks like. - Sabrina Shaw
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with this bill. The term "Redskins" is a part of our past and we should be able to keep on using this word, whether it may be as a school mascot or other in other events. Governor Brown should not have even taken the time to look at this bill because it was a waste of time and money. People should not be so offended by terms used now a days, as most of us don't understand the meaning of the word, or just don't mean it in a rude way. We have such more important problems that need to be looked at it and by this bill even being created, we are wasting precious time! So no, I strongly disagree with this bill.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Piercy
Per. 4
I understand that the term "redskin" is a racist slang term, but honestly after all these years many people, including the race it affects, don't really seem to mind a mascot or team being called this. This article sates that this bill,"will affect only four high schools in California – in Calaveras, Merced and Madera counties." Personally I don't believe that because four high schools in total have the mascot name redskin that they should have to vote on removing the name. We have better things and more important things in our country to do. Sure this could have made a few individuals happy, but it was mostly a waste of time and money
ReplyDeleteThe term redskin is a derogatory term towards Native Americans. “Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom.” Although many people disagree with the bill it is the governments decision in the end. It may not seem derogatory anymore yet people of the Native American heritage still take offense to the term today. This decision was the right one as it is not right to discriminate people no matter how minute or seemingly harmless something is.
ReplyDeleteAmar Dhillon period 2
I disagree with this blog because I don't think that the mascot or nickname "redskins" wasn't supposed to offend anyone. I don't think that the mascot should offend anyone because it has been their school mascot or nickname for a while and they haven't had any problems with offending people in the past years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many people are say in the comments, it does seem a little silly to change it now. It has been around for a long time and many schools have used it. But of course there is always someone that find something offensive. None the less it has been used so much that it should no longer bother people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that schools should be allowed to choose what ever mascot they want but they need to make sure that their mascot is not harming or offending anyone with the choice of your mascot. I think the term "Redskin" is a offensive term against native Americans and schools should not be able to use this mascot specifically for that certain reason.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this bill. This bill should not have been signed. The name "redskins" has been apart of America for so long.It is silly how the mascot has to changed after all these years. Also the mascot, I'm sure, was not meant as an offensive term, or to disrespect anyone. I think people now a days have become too sensitive about what people say and think.
ReplyDeletePer.1
I disagree with the bill that was passed. The redskins have been in America longer than anyone else has. It doesn't make any sense for them to ban it in California if ur going to ban it do it in the whole country. But I'm not saying that it should be banned. Becuase it shouldn't
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this bill should've been passed. I think that this society is already too sensitive with what people say now and this is just adding on to it. I think that now everybody is just too afraid to offend someone. I think we should censor ourselves but not to this extent.
ReplyDeleteThere has been plenty of controversy on the names of teams that are called the redskins. Many people actually do not understand that there is actual history behind the name. According to Blaze.com the name was switch to "redskins" to honor a coach and that the NFL commissioner understand that and so does Obama.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this bill. One would think that the government has better things to do than working on banning the mascot "Redskins". The mascot recognizes the Native Americans and banning it would not do that. People are overly sensitive to this subject and need to focus on more important things. Indians probably appreciate them being recognized and have not been forgotten and having a mascot like the Redskins.
ReplyDeleteKyle Brown P.5
I personally think that our country is too politically correct. In this day in age people are always finding a way to take offense to statements that weren't in any mean suppose to offend anyone. So with that being stated I do not think there is any problem with team names being Redskins.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the bill should have been passed. The term "redskins" is well known and has been used by our country and others for many years. It's used as school mascots and sports teams and it hasn't been offending many people. I believe that people are making too big of a deal out of it.
ReplyDeleteRachael Badgley period 6
I believe that it was a mistake to pass this bill. Just like so many other people have talked about that the term "redskins" has been used in this country for such a long time. My biggest question is, if this will spread throughout the U.S. and maybe even professional sports teams.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this law. This should not offend the redskin people. I bet if Trojans where alive today they would be honored to be a school mascot. I find this silly and they should not follow through on this law
ReplyDeleteZach potter per 5
In the article, it is said that, "...the Democratic governor vetoed legislation that would prohibit naming public buildings and roads in California after Confederate leaders" (California bans use of...). I do not agree with this statement. Schools, monuments, buildings, and street names all over the country are named after people that if you look back in history, probably were not the best. But, to rename these places just because of the person it is associated with is ridiculous. Trying to go through and re-name something that might be slightly offensive is like trying to re-write history and take out all the bad parts. We can't just ignore history and pretend like things never happened, we need to be reminded of history everyday.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this bill because the term "redskins" was made in a racist way and is racially insensitive towards native Americans and people of native American descent. The term "redskins" is derogatory and is pointing out someone who is of a different race than you are .
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I find this law blown out of proportion. I believe that if schools or teams have had this name or mascot for a long time, they shouldn't be banned from using it. A team being called "redskins" isn't derogatory to people of that decent; its only derogatory if one is using "redskins" at that group of people. I think this law shouldn't have been passed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethink that the act of censoring names of teams and schools has negative effects that outweigh the positives that censorship provides. Cities and towns use democracy to decide their names and if that is censored, it hurts the foundation and heritage of certain areas. The censorship for people offended by this is not worth the problems that arise. As said in the article, "local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom" (Siders), the people should be able to chose the appropriate names for their buildings and groups.
ReplyDeleteLasse Nordahl
Period 6
This is a great way to prove how USELESS our government is. Instead of trying to lower budgets and cut spending on useless government system our state government has decided to ban the use of redskins as a team name. I applaud our own stupidity. Like really I didn't think we as Californians could make our selves look even dumber. California look at the problems in our state and fix them don't just relable them
ReplyDeleteMatthew Clarke
This law is pointless. I don't see a good reason for banning use of ‘Redskins’ as school mascot or team name in California. The word itself is not hurting anyone. Banning the use of "Redskins" will not make our nation better.
ReplyDeletePassing a law to baned any use of using "redskins" is pointless. There are many other problems the government should be focusing on. Redskins have been around for a long time and everyone should understand the name is not in an offensive way. It would cost schools, teams, etc. a large amount of money to change there mascot and everything that goes with it, it wouldn't be fair.
ReplyDelete