My colleague, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, has entered the fray over the Redskins name with the filing of a complaint to oppose the renewal of a radio station’s license due to its use of the team name. The filing comes at a time when recent polls show that almost three out of four people polled still believe that the Redskins should keep its name and do not view the name as racist. Another poll shows that almost 60 percent of NFL players believe that the team should keep its name. The radio station, WWXX-FM, is an ESPN affiliate owned by team owner Dan Snyder.
Banzhaf is actually teaching my torts class his term while I am on sabbatical. We disagree on this issue. I recently wrote a Washington Post column on the controversy over the Redskins name. I do not believe that government agencies or boards should make this decision and view it as a further expansion of the administrative state into social or political controversies. This effort would bring a second agency into the mix after the recent trademark controversy at the Patent Office.
Banzhaf is quoted in our GW Hatchet as drawing a comparison to the use of the n-word: “Most people I think would agree that a station that repeatedly used the n-word on the air would have their license taken away. American Indians call it the r-word. Therefore broadcasters shouldn’t be using the term ‘Redskins.’ ”
The FCC Petition states that “it is long since time for the FCC to determine whether the continued and unnecessary use of the most racially derogatory word which can be used in connection with America’s first citizens can possibly be consistent with a broadcaster’s mandatory legal obligations.”
The question however remains the role of agencies as arbiter of such disputes as opposed to leaving the question for the fans and society (and the market) to decide. While the support for the name has fallen, it is still remarkably high with both the public and fans and even many Native Americans. The question is who should decide such questions and whether an insulated government board or office should effectively determine the issue. I certainly understand and respect the arguments of those challenging the name and my primary interest is not the merits of the dispute but the means by which it is decided.
Banzhaf often includes students in his litigation, which has included groundbreaking reforms in combating tobacco use. His class on litigation is called “Sue the Bastards.” He is the founder of a smoking pressure group, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Even as a law student, Banzhaf was a fierce advocate. While still a student at Columbia Law School, Banzhaf wrote a note on copyrighting computer and software programs. It had never been done despite requests. While still a student, Banzhaf sought to register copyrights on two programs he had written. He became in 1964 the first person to register such copyrights. He later testified in Congress on the issue. Not a bad start for a law student. Notably, one of my colleagues,
Robert Brauneis, attended an event at the Library of Congress celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Copyright Society and the Library was featuring exhibits in the Main Reading Room that constituted the most important developments in copyright law. It featured Banzhaf groundbreaking application (which Brauneis captured in this picture from the celebration).
Source: GW Hatchet
Here’s my problem. I KNOW there are regulars here who agree w/ this professor. I wish they would have the balls to put their thoughts on this thread.
Great thread! Kudos.
The money being wasted about a football team’s name could do much better things. Help a child get to college, give to a hospital’s foundation fund so people get care at no cost, donate to Salvation Army, or simply put in your church’s plate. That makes you a better person, not a foolish ideologue.
Will George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf also petition the FCC for economic and educational opportunity for Native American Indians?
Token feel good measures are just that, token feel good measures.
If the professor wants to help Native Americans Indians escape a potential lifetime of poverty and ignorance perhaps he could hold class on the nearest reservation and lead by example, while petitioning his peers to join him.
personanongrata – limo liberals are all the same. They talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk. He would be scared to death to be found on the Pine Ridge Reservation by himself.
Could entomologists sue the “Beatles” for defamation or patent violation?
I am certain there is a lawyer somewhere that would do precisely that.
John – I think you would have to be an actual beatle to have standing to sue. However, VW might have an actionable cause.
Nick,
OK. I think I get 7:59PM.
In Vietnam, the new guys were FNG’s.
John, Obama, Harry Reid, Holder and may other PC politicians have weighed in on this. They have their priorities aligned, don’t they!
Bark, Very good. The ‘C’ stands for CRAZY.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
If “Redskins” or “Hawkeyes” are egregious, people will not purchase product.
If Indians can prove damages, they shall be made whole in court.
This is not a legislative issue.
If you had any idea what the Founders said, if you could understand, you would know that freedom through self-reliance is neutrality; an absence of bias in any direction, living and enjoying the truth of whatever the result is.
Government limited to security and infrastructure as all industries are conducted in the free markets of the private sector without governmental interference.
Money goes where it is attracted, and that is good.
Being hungry generates incentive and motivation.
Whatever you have is enough. Be happy.
Thou shalt not covet. Be your best and accept your limitations.
Charity will cover the rest.
P.S. Every time a “controversy” is created, a lawyer makes money.
Think about it. The real profiteers are attorneys.
$Billions have been made from these 4 sentences because lawyers have convinced everyone to behave as if the words are unintelligible and the ideas incomprehensible:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Paul: I agree.
Nick: I hate to ask what the FC word is but I have a notion. Friggin something?
No it’s the “FC word”
“N Word, R Word” THIS IS INSANE!!
bigfatmike – Well said.
” who among us would support that?!? … Why is the team name Redskins any less derogatory or any more defensible?”
It is incontrovertible that language changes. Already the n word is acceptable in popular song and other places. If I read him correctly no less a public intellectual as Ta-Nehisi Coates has argued, at the very least, that white people have no right to tell black people not to use the word.
We don’t know what the future holds. But it is at least conceivable that in coming decades a team named the Washington N*word would be welcomed is not demanded.
There is at least the argument, and a fair amount of written evidence, that over the past 80 years or so the R word changed and became acceptable. And now some people are trying to change it back. They have a right to do that.
But their indignation runs the risk of looking a bit strained as words like the n*word come into popular use.
Further, if the r word did change, even if only for a few decades, then the team, players, and fans have as much right to claim the word as their own as anyone else – including those who were the targets of a previous derogatory meaning.
Come on, Charlie. There is NO comparison putting the N word on a team versus Redskins! I’m surprized you got the full N word on the blog!
Groty said: “Professor Turley has this one right. The question is not whether the name is appropriate or not. It is whether using government coercion to force a private business to change a name that it has had for nearly a century is appropriate.”
Bingo. What does he win, Johnny? Seriously do we want to go down the slippery slope of government agencies using their authority against private business to change the name of the business because it’s deemed offensive? Where does that end?
Americans are Americans, not whites.
Indians are Indians, not native American. They have NO relationship to America’s thesis or creation, certainly they were adverse, and they are native only to the Asian continent.
Let’s get real, folks.
Washington Warriors–bad–they already think they are peacocks of might and justice. Flunkies–good–much more accurate.
My first reaction is “standing to sue” or standing to complain to the FCC. As I scrolled down the comments one guy above had already thought of this as a defense. Maybe the professor is an American Indian or Native American himself. Maybe he has red skin. Maybe his tribe has a treat with the United States which protects the name Redskins and would be employed to assert the right to stop the use of the name by some football team in DC. Since you do not have to be smart to play football and we are talking about the District of Columbia, I suggest that they change the name to The DC Flunkies.
BarkinDog – I think that anyone in the radio audience can raise an objection when a license is up for renewal. There standing is only that they are part of the audience. However, if the professor finds Redskins racist, then he should not be part of the audience.
One of these days we’re all going to wish this is all we had to worry about. I guess people would find the Harrisburg Homo Sapiens derogatory since we may all have some cromagnon genes in the end. Yeah, I may have more cro-genes than you guys, so don’t talk about me that way!