ASHEVILLE, N.C. — What do education, school mascots, allegations of
discrimination, closed meetings, exaggerated rumors of a division within
a
community, and the United States Department of Justice have in common?
To live in Buncombe County, North Carolina, is to know the answer to
that
question. For concerned local residents, the number of questions
regarding
the Warrior/Squaw controversy far outweigh any logical explanation one
might have at this point.
On Jan. 22, 1999, the Department of Justice wrote a letter addressed
to Bob
Bowers, superintendent of Buncombe County Schools, asking him to answer
14 detailed and, in most cases, lengthy questions in an attempt to
determine
whether or not the Clyde A. Erwin High School “warrior” and “squaw”
mascots promote a “racially hostile” environment for the students
enrolled, Native Americans in particular. The school board received the
letter Jan. 26, 1999.
Lawrence R. Baca, senior trial attorney for the Department of
Justice’s
Educational Opportunities Section signed the letter in which he wrote:
“This letter is to inform you that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
received a written complaint from the parents of American Indian
children
who attend schools in the Buncombe County Public School District
alleging that their minor children are being denied an equal educational
opportunity on account of their race national origin, American Indian,
in violation of applicable federal law. Specifically, they allege that
at Clyde A. Erwin High School male students are called “warriors” and
female students are called “squaws,” which terms are offensive to their
minor children and create a racially hostile environment. They also
allege that the District allows the use of American Indian religious
symbols at Clyde A. Erwin High School that demean American Indian
religious practices furthering the racially hostile environment there.”
Legally, the DOJ can do nothing further than “request” that these
questions be answered. Should Bowers decide to answer the questions and
submit them to Baca, and if after investigation, the DOJ finds that
Clyde
A. Erwin High School is promoting a racially hostile environment by
using a
Native American mascot then the DOJ could nothing more than file a
complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
The DOJ cannot force the school system to change its mascot regardless
of
the outcome of their investigation. According to a legal analysis
written
by attorney Daniel Trainor, published in the University of Illinois Law
Review in 1995, “Schools that have changed their Native American mascot
have done so voluntarily, only after being prodded by Native American
activists.”
Trainor adds, “No team has ever been directed by an administrative or
judicial body to change its Native American mascot.”
“Generally, mascots are changed because school officials are lacking
backbone,” said Joe Beard, an attorney for the Center for Equal
Opportunity
in Washington, D.C. The Department of Education, however, does have the
authority to withhold federal funding from a school should they decide
that
a school’s Native American mascot is in violation of Title VI of the
Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
According to Trainor, to do that the Department of Educations OCR
must
prove that the schools mascot is in violation of Title VI because it
creates or is responsible for creating a racially hostile environment,
by
instigating harassing conduct that is physical, verbal, graphic, or
written.
The OCR can declare that a school has created a hostile environment
only if
it determines the conduct of a school is severe enough to adversely
impact a student’s “enjoyment” of some aspect of the school’s
educational
program, extracurricular activities included.
In Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court has
interpreted
“enjoyment” to mean access, or “to have the use or benefit of.” Under
this
definition, for the OCR to find that a legitimately racially hostile
environment exists, Native American students would have to be denied
access to Erwin High School’s educational programs due to the fact that
they have a Native American mascot.
Also, in Baca’s letter he stated that he had received a written
complaint
from parents of American Indian children concerning the mascot.
According to the limitations of ORC jurisdiction, though, since it is
the
students who are the ultimate recipient of the federal funds, they are
the
only individuals who can assert that a racially hostile environment
exists,
as it applies to Title VI, not the parents.
Still, a handful of parents are complaining and their voices are
being
heard by the DOJ which in return is delegating authority on the whim of
an
“acting” assistant attorney general who holds no legal credibility for
his
position; a position which includes heading up the United States Civil
Rights Division.
Bill Lann Lee was nominated for the position of assistant attorney
general
by President Clinton in 1997. The Senate rejected the nomination on
the basis that Lee’s ideas were too radical in wanting to establish race
based preferences across the board, ignoring the Constitution in doing
so.
Nevertheless, Lee was soon appointed first assistant to assistant
attorney
general by Attorney General Janet Reno, making him eligible to fill the
vacated position so he could become “acting” assistant attorney general.
However, the Constitution states that an “acting” position is valid for
no
more than 120 days. Lee was appointed Dec. 15, 1997, by President
Clinton, who stated, “I have done my best to work with the United
States Senate in an entirely constitutional way. But we had to get
somebody into the Civil Rights Division.”
Since getting Lee into this position, the Civil Rights Division has
threatened lawsuits against defendants nationwide for failing to adopt
racial
preferences. The city of Torrance, Calif., was recently targeted by the
Civil Rights Division because it refused to institute racial
preferences.
In fact, the City of Torrance dared the division to litigate, which it
did. Judge Mariana Pfaelzer found the suit so frivolous, unreasonable,
and without foundation that she fined the U.S. government close to $2
million.
Class action scams
John Stossel