[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11] [House] [Pages 15405-15409] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]THE ISSUE THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for 5 minutes. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detract our attention from the current national debate on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling issue, but I do want to share with my colleagues an issue that will not go away. What is it that the National Football League, the 32 football club owners, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have yet to understand why the word ``redskin'' is considered a very offensive racial and derogatory term that describes Native American Indians? My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for I have yet to master the English language. But I want to share again and again with my colleagues and some 181 million football fans all over America why our Native American Indian community considers the word ``redskin'' as very offensive, and clearly, the National Football League and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cannot and should not disclaim responsibility. Again, let's review the history. The origin of the term ``redskin'' is commonly attributed to the colonial practice of trading Native American Indian scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. For example, in 1755, settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Province were paid out of the public treasury for the killing and scalping of people of the Penobscot tribe. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the age of 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under the age of 12 was 25 pounds while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps, I submit, Mr. Speaker, were called ``redskins.'' The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis, recently declared that the word ``redskin'' is ``not just a racial slur or a derogatory term,'' but a painful ``reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against the Penobscot people.'' Mr. Speaker, again, I ask my colleagues and the 181 million football fans throughout this great Nation of ours--suppose that that redskins scalp that was brought in for payment was the scalp of your mother, your daughter, or your wife or your son? Again, Mr. Speaker, Native American Indians are also human beings and God's children. They are not animals. Our colleague, Tom Cole, from Oklahoma, the cochair of our Congressional Native American Indian Caucus and a member of the Chickasaw Nation, states: This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn't like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of respect, and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don't happen to live around Washington, D.C. Also, our colleague Betty McCollum from Minnesota, as cochair of the Congressional Native American Indian Caucus, says this ``is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Mr. Dan Snyder,'' the owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning even larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multibillion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that `redskin' actually `stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect,' is a statement of absurdity.'' My dear friend and colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, representing the District of Columbia, states that the owner of the Washington football franchise, Mr. Dan Snyder, ``is a man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity, yet who refuses to recognize the sensibilities of American Indians.'' Ms. Norton also said: As an African American woman and third-generation Washingtonian, I want to say to [[Page 15406]] Redskin fans, no one blames you for using a name that has always been used . . . but I can think of no argument for retaining a name that degrades our first Americans. Mr. Speaker, the game of American football has become one of the most treasured sports among American Polynesian athletes. Polynesian youth learn to play the sport at a young age, with dreams of playing in the National Football League. Football offers opportunities for higher education and economic opportunity. Many of our Polynesian NFL players have realized their dreams, like Troy Polumalu, and Chris Kemoeatu of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the late Junior Seau, and now Manti Te'o of the San Diego Chargers, and the former player, Joe Salave'a, and Roy Helu, with the Washington Redskins. Mr. Speaker, I submit, let's do the right thing, and I appeal to the NFL, do the right thing. Change the name of the Washington football franchise. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detract our attention from the current national debate on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling issue, but I want to share with my colleagues an issue that just will not go away. What is it that the National Football League, the 32 football club owners, and the NFL Commissioner Mr. Roger Goodell have yet to understand why the word ``redskin'' is considered a very offensive, racial and derogatory term that describes Native American Indians? My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for I have not yet mastered the English language--but I want to share again, and again with my colleagues and some 181 million football fans around the country--why our Native American Indian community considers the word ``redskin'' as very offensive, and clearly the National Football League, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cannot and should not disclaim responsibility. Again, let's review the history. The origin of the term ``redskin'' is commonly attributed to the colonial practice of trading Native American Indian scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. For example, in 1755, settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Province were paid out of the public treasury for killing and scalping people of the Penobscot tribe. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the age of 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under the age of 12 was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps were called ``redskins.'' The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis, recently declared that ``redskins'' is ``not just a racial slur or a derogatory term,'' but a painful ``reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against the Penobscot people.'' Mr. Speaker, again I ask my colleagues and the 181 million football fans throughout this great Nation of ours--suppose that the ``redskin'' scalp that was brought in for payment was the scalp of your mother, your daughter, or your wife or son? Again, Mr. Speaker, Native American Indians are also human beings and God's children--they are not animals! Our colleague Tom Cole from Oklahoma, Co-Chair of the Congressional Native American Indian Caucus, and a member of the Chikasaw Nation, states: ``This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn't like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of respect, and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don't happen to live around Washington, DC.'' Also, our colleague Betty McCollum from Minnesota and Co-Chair of the Congressional Native American Indian Caucus, states that Mr. Goodell's letter ``is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of [Mr.] Dan Snyder,'' owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning even larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that `[r]edskin' actually `stands for strength, courage pride, and respect' is a statement of absurdity.'' My dear friend and colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, representing the District of Columbia, states that the owner of the Washington football franchise Mr. Daniel Snyder ``is a man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity, [yet] who refuses to recognize the sensibilities of American Indians.'' Ms. Norton also said, ``As an African American woman and third-generation Washingtonian, I want to say to Redskins fans--no one blames you for using a name that has always been used . . . but I can think of no argument for retaining a name that degrades our first Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, the game of American football has become one of the most treasured sports among American Polynesian athletes. Polynesian youth learn to play the sport at a young age with dreams of playing in the National Football League. Football offers an opportunity to enter the realm of higher education and economic opportunity. Many of our Polynesian NFL players have realized their dreams--like Troy Polumalu and former player Chris Kemoeatu of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the late Junior Seau and now Manti Te'o of the San Diego Chargers, former player Joe Salave'a and now Roy Helu, Jr. with the Washington ``Redskins,'' Haloti Ngata and former player Ma'ake Kemoeatu with the Baltimore Ravens, Isaac Sopoaga and former player Vai Sikahema with the Philadelphia Eagles, Tyson Alualu with the Jacksonville Jaguars, Samson Satele and Fill Moala with the Indianapolis Colts, Mike Iupati with the San Francisco 49ers, Ropati Pitoitua with the Tennessee Titans, Paul Soliai with the Miami Dolphins, and Domato Peko, Ray Maualuga, and former player Jonathan Fanene with the Cincinnati Bengals, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I love the game of football. I played all four years in high school. I love the NFL. But there is absolutely no excuse for the Washington professional football franchise to continue the shameful use of the word ``redskins.'' Just last week, another island boy weighed in on the name of the Washington, DC football franchise. He is none other than our own President Barack Obama, born in Hawaii and who played basketball for Punahou High School in Honolulu, Hawaii, and he said: ``If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team--even if they've had a storied history--was offending a sizable group of people, I'd think about changing it.'' President Obama further said: ``Native Americans feel pretty strongly about it . . . I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.'' While race-based killing of Native Americans is a thing of the past, the tradition of mockery and insult--whether intentional or not--lives on through the Washington ``Redskins,'' a name that American Indian rights activist Ms. Suzan Harjo calls ``the worst thing in the English language you can be called if you are a native person.'' This is not a popularity contest. You don't take polls on issues with deep moral implications. That is just absolute nonsense. For those who question whether this racist or derogatory word is offensive to Native Americans, I want to share with my colleagues an excerpt from a letter sent by the leaders and members of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)--the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of the majority of some 5 million Native Americans with well over 500 tribal governments and communities across the nation. In the letter, NCAI President Jefferson Keel of the Chikasaw Nation from Oklahoma states that Congressional efforts on this issue ``will accomplish what Native American people, nations, and organizations have tried to do in the courts for almost twenty years-- end the racist epithet that has served as the [name] of Washington's pro football franchise for far too long.'' Mr. Speaker, the term ``redskin'' does not, as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suggests, offend just one person. And the responsibility for perpetuating this racial slur, as Mr. Goodell implies, lies not just with Mr. Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington football franchise. The responsibility rests squarely on the National Football League and the 32 owners of their football teams, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. As for the ``Redskins'' sponsors--such as FedEx, Virginia Lottery, Sprint Nextel, Coca-Cola, Bank of America, Anheuser-Busch, and others-- they are equally accountable for the continued use of this disparaging term. Their silence on the issue given their direct contribution to this racist and derogatory word is deafening. Again, I ask NFL Commissioner Goodell and the 32 club owners--do the right thing--change the name of the Washington football franchise. I submit for the record a letter from the National Congress of American Indians; and today's commentary from two articles in the Washington Post authored by Mr. Dana Milbank, Ms. Theresa Vargas and Mr. Mark Maske. [[Page 15407]] National Congress of American Indians, March 21, 2013. Hon. Eni Faleomavaega, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Faleomavaega: On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and largest tribal government advocacy organization in the country, we applaud you for sponsoring the ``Non- Disparagement of Native American Persons or People in Trademark Registration Act of 2013''. This legislation will accomplish what Native American people, nations, and organizations have tried to do in the courts for almost twenty years--end the racist epithet that has served as the mascot of Washington's pro football franchise for far too long. The NCAI membership has been an active part of ending these types of derogatory stereotypes for several decades. The NCAI was one of many native and non-native organizations in support of the original court cases on this matter, Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc., and we support the current case, Blackhorse et al v. Pro Football, Inc., to cancel existing trademarks. We are proud of all our people who struggle for dignity and fight against stereotypes, including Native and non-Native students, families, teachers, and others who have worked together to retire over 2,000 ``Indian'' names, logos, mascots, and behaviors in schools across the land. The use of Native Peoples as mascots is offensive and unjustifiable. We will continue to call for an end to this practice until the remaining stereotypes are gone from the American landscape. Thank you and your co-sponsors for your leadership and courage in introducing this important legislation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me or the NCAI Deputy Director, Robert Holden, at the National Congress of American Indians. Respectfully, Jefferson Keel, President. ______ [From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013] For the Redskins, What's in a Name? Plenty (By Dana Milbank) You know a guy is in trouble when he hires Lanny Davis as his lawyer. Davis has developed a specialty representing Third World dictators and questionable businesses since his days as a spokesman for Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So when Davis's name appeared on a statement from the Washington Redskins on Saturday afternoon declaring that President Obama was wrong to question the team's name, it was a sure sign that Dan Snyder is worried. Davis, brought in this summer to help with the team-name controversy, expressed his disappointment ``as a supporter of President Obama'' that Obama was not aware of a decade-old poll finding that only one in 10 Native Americans were offended by the name. ``We love our team and its name,'' he wrote, and ``we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.'' I like Davis and admire his creativity, but, to borrow a Clinton-era phrase, let's parse this statement. Are the Redskins really defending the name with an out-of-date survey that allowed anybody--even somebody with less native blood than Elizabeth Warren--to identify as a Native American? And even if those results were accurate, are Davis and Snyder suggesting that racism is okay if it polls well? To see whether it's right to use ``Redskins'' as a mascot, NFL owners gathering in Georgetown on Tuesday for their Fall meeting should substitute some other common racial epithets and see how they would sound: The Washington Wetbacks? The Houston Hymies? The Chicago Chinks'? Or perhaps the New York Niggers? That would be enough to send anybody to the shotgun formation. ``This word is an insult. It's mean, it's rude, it's impolite,'' Kevin Gover, who is Native American and director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, said Monday at a news conference on the eve of the NFL meeting. ``We've noticed that other racial insults are out of bounds. . . . We wonder why it is that the word that is directed at us, that refers to us, is not similarly off- limits.'' Gover was part of a gathering arranged by the Oneida Nation at the Ritz-Carlton, the site of the owners meeting. The tribe has been running radio ads calling for a name change, and the cause got a boost when Obama said in an interview with the Associated Press on Saturday that he'd think about changing the name if he were in Snyder's shoes. Snyder is on record telling USA Today: `We'll never change the name. It's that simple. Never--you can use caps.'' Actually, forget the Caps; let's use the Bullets, who became the Washington Wizards to avoid using what was a less offensive word than Redskins. Davis decries the ``selective'' outrage against the Redskins but not the Atlanta Braves or the Cleveland Indians or the Chicago Blackhawks. The Braves' Tomahawk Chop and Cleveland's Chief Wahoo are indeed appalling, but the team names aren't epithets. ``We're asking the NFL to stop using a racial slur,'' said Ray Halbritter, representing the Oneida Nation. The best argument was made not by a Native American but by an African American, the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton. ``My great-grandfather was a runaway slave,'' she said. ``I went to segregated schools, just like many Native Americans. . . . I don't see how anyone who has gone through our historic experience can fail to identify with Native Americans who are raising this issue. Need I remind them of the terms that have been attached to us in history and how the moment we hear one of those terms, you've got an uprising?'' That makes Davis's defense sound all the more trivial. ``The name `Washington Redskins' is 80 years old--it's our history and legacy and tradition,'' his statement said--as though that trumps the Native Americans' history and legacy and tradition. Norton predicted that the offensive name won't last much longer. ``The name is going to go in the dustbin of history,'' she said. ``My only regret is that Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, had to be pushed this far.'' If Snyder feels otherwise, perhaps he can start making his way to history's dustbin, and a new owner can change the name. Maybe then we'd win some football games. Make your case: Should the Washington Redskins change their name? ______ [From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013] Indian Tribe Pushes for Washington Redskins Name Change as NFL Owners Gather (By Theresa Vargas and Mark Maske) NFL officials will meet with the Native American group that is campaigning against the name of the Washington Redskins and hosted a symposium Monday on the issue a mile away from where league owners began gathering for a fall meeting. ``They know we're not going away,'' said Ray Halblitter, a representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. He called the meeting with the National Football League ``a move in the right direction.'' The symposium comes three days after President Obama took a stance in the long-standing debate, saying that if he were the team's owner, he would think about changing the name. The Oneida Nation launched the ``Change the Mascot'' campaign a few months ago, drawing inspiration from a high school in its back yard that dropped the ``Redskins'' moniker. Since then, the New York tribe has emerged as one of the strongest forces behind the growing push to scrap the Washington team's 80-year-old name, scheduling radio ads to run in every city the Redskins visit this season. Its conference, held at the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown, featured a panel of speakers that included the head of the Snithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, a psychologist who spoke about the public health consequences of the word, student activists and politicians--Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). ``I can think of no argument for retaining a name that directly insults Americans and especially our first Americans,'' said Holmes Norton, speaking as a third- generation Washingtonian. She said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell showed leadership last month when he stepped back from his earlier defense of the team's name and said, ``If one person's offended, we have to listen.'' Nevertheless, no formal discussion of the Washington Redskins' name is expected among NFL owners who are gathering at another Ritz-Carlton in Washington for a one-day meeting Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. They said they sense little or no sentiment within the league to urge Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to make a change. NFL officials were invited to the Native American symposium, but none attended the event, Halbritter said. But he said he was encouraged that Goodell had instructed Adolpho Birch, the NFL's senior vice president for labor policy and government affairs, to schedule a meeting. The sit-down is scheduled for Nov. 22 at the league's offices, but two sources said it could be held sooner. On Monday, as NFL franchise owners began arriving for their Tuesday gathering, several declined comment on the name- change issue. Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy, who once played for the Redskins, was the athletic director at Colgate when the school changed the name of its athletic teams from Red Raiders to Raiders in 2001. But he declined to speak Monday on the controversy. ``I'd rather not get into it,'' Murphy said. Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie also declined to comment. In May, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder told USA Today, ``We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER--you can use caps.'' In the months since, a string of prominent sports writers has stop penning the word. A group led by a former Federal Communications Commission chairman announced an [[Page 15408]] effort to persuade broadcasters to stop saying the name on the airwaves. And a decision is expected soon in a lawsuit aimed at revoking the federal trademark protection of the team's name. Kevin Gover, who heads the American Indian museum and whose son is a plaintiff in the trademark case, said the Oneida Nation has long been a powerful force in the American Indian community and that the tribe's involvement in the name-change issue has only elevated the conversation. He said he has little doubt that NFL officials, even if none attended the symposium, were listening to what was said. ``Like all major industries, the NFL is very interested in its public image,'' Gover said, ``and when there is a challenge to that public image, the NFL is inclined to respond.'' During Monday's event, Gover--who wrote a letter to The Washington Post about the offensiveness of the name when he was a high school senior in 1973--spoke about how as a child he was called ``redskin'' and doesn't understand why, unlike other racial slurs, the word has not become off limits. Michael Friedman, a clinical psychologist who has researched the effects of stigma and discrimination, said the word amounts to harassment and causes mental and physical harm to a population that already faces higher rates of depression, alcoholism, suicide, diabetes and infant mortality. ``This is a public health issue,'' he said. 'This is not a political correctness issue.'' Also on the panel were two students from Cooperstown High School and the school board's president, who earlier this year were behind the decision to change the school's team from the Redskins to the Hawkeyes. The Oneida Nation later paid for the school's new uniforms. The tribe, which has about 1,000 members, has prospered in the casino and resort business and has pledged $10 million over 10 years to the American Indian museum. The tribe also sponsors the Buffalo Bills and has a ``vested interest in the league being a unifying force,'' Habritter said. ``As an Indian nation that values the idea of mutual respect, we only have one simple objective in all of this,'' Habritter said. ``We no longer want to be treated as targets of racial slurs. We don't want our children to be treated as targets of racial slurs. We want to be treated as what we are: Americans.'' ______ [From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013] Tackling the Offensive (By Dana Milbank) You know a guy is in trouble when he hires Lanny Davis as his lawyer. Davis has developed a specialty representing Third World dictators and questionable businesses since his days as a spokesman for Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So when Davis's name appeared on a statement from the Washington Redskins on Saturday afternoon declaring that President Obama was wrong to question the team's name, it was a sure sign that Dan Snyder is worried. Davis, brought in this summer to help with the team-name controversy, expressed his disappointment ``as a supporter of President Obama'' that Obama was not aware of a decade-old poll finding that only one in 10 Native Americans were offended by the name. ``We love our team and its name;'' he wrote, and ``we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.'' I like Davis and admire his creativity, but, to borrow a Clinton-era phrase, let's parse this statement. Are the Redskins really defending the name with an out-of-date survey that allowed anybody--even somebody with less native blood than Elizabeth Warren--to identify as a Native American? And even if those results were accurate, are Davis and Snyder suggesting that racism is okay if it polls well? To see whether it's right to use ``Redskins'' as a mascot, NFL owners gathering in Georgetown on Tuesday for their fall meeting should substitute some other common racial epithets for Hispanics, African Americans, Asians and Jews and see how they would sound. That would be enough to send anybody to the shotgun formation. ``This word is an insult. It's mean, it's rude, it's impolite,'' Kevin Gover, who is Native American and director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, said Monday at a news conference on the eve of the NFL meeting. ``We've noticed that other racial insults are out of bounds. . . . We wonder why it is that the word that is directed at us, that refers to us, is not similarly off- limits.'' Gover was part of a gathering arranged by the Oneida Nation at the Ritz-Carlton, the site of the owners meeting. The tribe has been running radio ads calling for a name change, and the cause got a boost when Obama said in an interview with the Associated Press on Saturday that he'd think about changing the name if he were in Snyder's shoes. Snyder is on record telling USA Today: ``We'll never change the name. It's that simple. Never--you can use caps.'' Actually, forget the Caps; let's use the Bullets, who became the Washington Wizards to avoid using what was a less offensive word than Redskins. Davis decries the ``selective'' outrage against the Redskins but not the Atlanta Braves or the Cleveland Indians or the Chicago Blackhawks. The Braves' Tomahawk Chop and Cleveland Chief Wahoo are indeed appalling, but the team names aren't epithets. ``We're asking the NFL to stop using a racial slur,'' said Ray Halbritter, representing the Oneida Nation. The best argument was made not by a Native American but by an African American, the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton. ``My great-grandfather was a runaway slave,'' she said. ``I went to segregated schools, just like many Native Americans. . . . I don't see how anyone who has gone through our historic experience can fail to identify with Native Americans who are raising this issue. Need I remind them of the terms that have been attached to us in history and how the moment we hear one of those terms, you've got an uprising?'' That makes Davis's defense sound all the more trivial. ``The name `Washington Redskins' is 80 years old--it's our history and legacy and tradition,'' his statement said--as though that trumps the Native Americans' history and legacy and tradition. Norton predicted that the offensive name won't last much longer. ``The name is going to go in the dustbin of history,'' she said. ``My only regret is that Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, had to be pushed this far.'' If Snyder feels otherwise, perhaps he can start making his way to history's dustbin, and a new owner can change the name. Maybe then we'd win some football games. ______ NFL To Meet Tribe Over Redskins Name (By Theresa Vargas and Mark Maske) NFL officials will meet with the Native American group that is campaigning against the name of the Washington Redskins and hosted a symposium Monday on the issue a mile away from where league owners began gathering for a fall meeting. ``They know we're not going away,'' said Ray Halbritter, a representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. He called the meeting with the National Football League ``a move in the right direction.'' The symposium comes three days after President Obama took a stance in the long-standing debate, saying that if he were the team's owner, he would think about changing the name. The Oneida Nation launched the ``Change the Mascot'' campaign a few months ago, drawing inspiration from a high school in its back yard that dropped the ``Redskins'' moniker. Since then, the New York tribe has emerged as one of the strongest forces behind the growing push to scrap the Washington team's 80-year-old name, scheduling radio ads to run in every city the Redskins visit this season. Its conference, held at the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown, featured a panel of speakers that included the head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, a psychologist who spoke about the public health consequences of the word, student activists and politicians--Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). ``I can think of no argument for retaining a name that directly insults Americans and especially our first Americans,'' said Holmes Norton, speaking as a third- generation Washingtonian. She said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell showed leadership last month when he stepped back from his earlier defense of the team's name and said, ``If one person's offended, we have to listen.'' Nevertheless, no formal discussion of the Washington Redskins' name is expected among NFL owners who are gathering at another Ritz-Carlton in Washington for a one-day meeting Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. They said they sense little or no sentiment within the league to urge Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to make a change. NFL officials were invited to the Native American symposium, but none attended the event, Halbritter said. But he said he was encouraged that Goodell had instructed Adolpho Birch, the NFL's senior vice president for labor policy and government affairs, to schedule a meeting. The sit-down is scheduled for Nov. 22 at the league's offices, but two sources said it could be held sooner. On Monday, as NFL franchise owners began arriving for their Tuesday gathering, several declined to comment on the name- change issue. Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy, who once played for the Redskins, was the athletic director at Colgate when the school changed the name of its athletic teams from Red Raiders to Raiders in 2001. But he declined to speak Monday on the controversy. ``I'd rather not get into it,'' Murphy said. Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie also declined to comment. In May, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder told USA Today, ``We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER--you can use caps.'' In the months since, a string of prominent sports writers has stopped penning the name. A group led by a former Federal Communications Commission chairman announced an [[Page 15409]] effort to persuade broadcasters to stop saying the name on the airwaves. And a decision is expected soon in a lawsuit aimed at revoking the federal trademark protection of the team's name. Kevin Gover, who heads the American Indian museum and whose son is a plaintiff in the trademark case, said the Oneida Nation has long been a powerful force in the American Indian community and that the tribe's involvement in the name-change issue has only elevated the conversation. He said he has little doubt that NFL officials, even if none attended the symposium, were listening to what was said. ``Like all major industries, the NFL is very interested in its public image,'' Gover said, ``and when there is a challenge to that public image, the NFL is inclined to respond?' During Monday's event, Gover--who wrote a letter to The Washington Post about the offensiveness of the name when he was a high school senior in 1973--spoke about how as a child he was called ``redskin'' and doesn't understand why, unlike other racial slurs, the word has not become off limits. Michael Friedman, a clinical psychologist who has researched the effects of stigma and discrimination, said the word amounts to harassment and causes mental and physical harm to a population that already faces higher rates of depression, alcoholism, suicide, diabetes and infant mortality. ``This is a public health issue,'' he said. ``This is not a political correctness issue.'' Also on the panel were two students from Cooperstown High School and the school board's president, who earlier this year were behind the decision to change the school's team from the Redskins to the Hawkeyes. The Oneida Nation later paid for the school's new uniforms. The tribe, which has about 1,000 members, has prospered in the casino and resort business and has pledged $10 million over 10 years to the American Indian museum. The tribe also sponsors the Buffalo Bills and has a ``vested interest in the league being a unifying force,'' Halbritter said. ``As an Indian nation that values the idea of mutual respect, we only have one simple objective in all of this,'' Halbritter said. ``We no longer want to be treated as targets of racial slurs. We don't want our children to be treated as targets of racial slurs. We want to be treated as what we are: Americans.'' ____________________