From the editor

In August of last year, NCAA President Myles Brand, formerly the president of IU, instituted a ban on 18 colleges' mascots or nicknames which he deemed offensive or abusive. These schools could not use the names in any of the NCAA's 88 championships, essentially barring the mascots -- and the use of the offensive nicknames -- from any postseason competition. Since that time, schools like Florida State University and the University of Utah have appealed for, and won, the right to continue using their nicknames. Others, like the University of Illinois, have lost appeals and stayed on the list of banned institutions. Amidst all the controversy and bickering, the only thing that's clear is that everyone has an opinion.\nOften, these nicknames and mascots are most visible in the media. They headline our front pages, our sports sections and our news broadcasts. The sheer number of media outlets today is at least partially responsible for the desensitization of the public to these mascots. The average American viewer probably doesn't cringe when the Braves score is read or when the tomahawk chop is done at FSU games. But maybe they should. \nMany journalistic organizations have spoken out against the use of these offensive monikers, including the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists. One of the school's columnists, Keith M. Woods, argued in his piece "Nicknames & Mascots: Complicity in Bigotry" that using Native American tribes as mascots or nicknames is just as offensive as using the racial slurs of any other ethnic group.\nAnd, Woods argues, the only way to end the bigotry perpetuated by these stereotypes is to stop using the names in print or in broadcast media.\nAlthough in theory changing these policies seems easy, very few institutions have actually done so. One of these companies, The Seattle Times, has had a ban on using such offensive nicknames for 15 years. The paper recently altered their policy regarding the ban when the Washington Redskins came to town for their playoff matchup with the Seattle Seahawks. The paper said that it would not use the word "Redskins" in any headline and would only use it in a story on first reference. All other references to the team would be made using "Washington."\nOn the other side of the argument, some have said that eliminating nicknames will make teams hard to identify. Still others have said this policy is another mile down the seemingly endless road of political correctness.\nAt the Indiana Daily Student, we have given the issue serious thought. At first glance, it seems as though using the power of the press to squash a racial or ethnic stereotype would always have positive outcomes. However, implementing such a policy has many logistical obstacles. It will be hard to determine where the line should be drawn. If we deem the Illini an offensive mascot, is Hoosier also an offensive nickname? Do the Fighting Irish pose an even more difficult task? After much deliberation about whether instituting a policy will do more good than harm, the rest of the management staff at the IDS and I have come to only one conclusion. The reader should have a say.\nSo whether you're a faithful sports page readers, a casual news reader or just want to be heard, tell us what you think. If we institute a similar ban on offensive nicknames, are we taking a step towards equality, or are we simply adding another level of political correctness to a world which many think is already too PC? The other members of management and I would like to know what you think. Send your e-mails to kdwire@indiana.edu, renewkir@indiana.edu, glesnick@indiana.edu or letters@idsnews.com and weigh in.