Siegel: There's no room for racist nicknames in Natick

Tradition. Honor. Pride. These are the terms used by those who are attempting to overturn the Natick School Committee's decision last February to eliminate ``Redmen'' as the nickname of Natick athletic teams. But a consideration of tradition, honor, and pride should instead convince all of us in Natick to put the ``Redmen'' name, and the debate over it, to a final and conclusive death.

Supporters of retaining the Redmen nickname are correct in asserting that there is a long tradition associated with this term. That tradition is one of racism in this nation, accompanied by the uses of derogatory racial slurs. There is simply no questioning the fact that Redmen is a racial slur that is, and has been for years, offensive to Native Americans.

No one doubts that those of us in Natick who have used this term as a team mascot and nickname do not intend the term to be taken in a derogatory way. But there is no escaping the fact that this is what the term means and this is how it is being interpreted by Native Americans and by many others.

Perhaps prior to knowing how local Native Americans in our community feel about the term, one could make the argument that no harm is intended and no harm is done by calling our teams the Redmen. But our local Native American Community has spoken out unequivocally on this matter. The term is insensitive, derogatory, offensive, and hurtful to them.

Chief Caring Hands of the Natick Praying Indians has testified that the term ``Redmen'' is ``racist, demeaning and offensive.'' Another local Native American leader testified before the School Committee: ``It's offensive to me. Redmen is as offensive as white men and yellow men. It's the same as the `N' word.'' A Natick Nipmuc Indian Council sachem told the Committee: ``Redmen has to go.''

I also agree with those who want to preserve the Redmen name that this is a matter of honor. What possibly could do less to honor our Native American history than to repeatedly use a derogatory racial slur that offends our local Native American community? If we had any concern for honoring our Native American history, this is not a discussion that we would be having one full year after the School Committee already made a decision to eliminate this racist term.

This is, indeed, a matter of pride. How can we as a community possibly take pride in the fact that despite being told by the local Native American community that the Redmen nickname is ``racist, demeaning, and offensive'' we are continuing to have a debate about whether we should continue to use this term?

Frankly, I believe there is something even more racist, more demeaning, and more offensive going on in Natick than the use of the Redmen nickname. And that is the continuing efforts of many in our community to retain the name, despite the unequivocal expression of local Native Americans that they are deeply offended and demeaned by the nickname.

The idea of submitting this issue for a town vote is equally offensive. Would we take a town vote on whether a term used to degrade Jews, African-Americans or another racial/ethnic or religious group should be abandoned or retained? Should we place a non-binding referendum on the ballot to determine whether derogatory racial slurs being used by students in our schools should be allowed or not? We simply should not decide on what is truly a civil rights issue based on a community vote.

There is no place for racism in the town of Natick. And therefore, there is no place for the Redmen nickname.

Michael Siegel, M.D., MPH, of Natick, is professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health.