Final Report of the 2018 Aztec Identity Task Force Submitted to President Sally Roush April 30, 2018 Final Report of the 2018 Aztec Identity Task Force April 30, 2018 I. Executive Summary A. Introduction B. Mission Statement C. Process and Methodology D. Overview of Recommendations Relative to Moniker/Mascot II. Background and Situational Analysis III. Survey Results IV. Conclusion and Recommendations A. Education B. Governing Body To Secure the Ethical, Moral And Fiduciary Responsibility of Carrying the Aztec Name C. Meaningful Engagement with Native American and Indigenous Communities of the US and Mexico D. Appropriate Signage and Symbolic Representation of the Aztec Empire and Contemporary Nahua People Across the Campus E. Respectful and Correct Use of the Nahuatl Language by the University F. Guidelines for Mascot Representation G. Final Comments V. Bibliography VI. Appendices A. University Senate Resolution, November 7, 2017 B. Charge Letter from President Roush, dated February 12, 2018 C. List of Visiting Speakers/Expert Testimonies D. Historic Timelines of the Mascot, 1910-2017 E. Evolution of SDSU Logos/Moniker Graphics F. Survey Outcomes and Instruments G. Final Codebook for Data Analysis and Report on Qualitative Data H. Athletics Behavioral Guidelines for the Aztec Warrior I. 2001 Task Force Report J. CFA Assembly Resolution, April 15, 2018 K. Data on Self-identifying Respondents 2 Final Report of the 2018 Aztec Identity Task Force April 30, 2018 I. Executive Summary A. Introduction The 2018 Aztec Identity Task Force (AITF) was formed by President Sally Roush in response to the resolution of the San Diego State University Academic Senate dated November 7, 2017 (see Appendix A). The Senate called for a task force to be formed “to investigate and make recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the continued usage of the Aztec moniker including symbols, signage, logos, branding, buildings, statues (e.g., Monty), awards (e.g., Zuma) and other references to the possible misappropriation of Aztec Identity” (SDSU Senate minutes 11/7/17, lines 93 – 96). The resolution continued, “This task force shall also make recommendations regarding an education component in relation to Aztec Identity” (ibid, lines 96 – 98). This report is the official report of the task force that was formed and that met for a period of 10 weeks, beginning on February 12, 2018, and concluding on April 24, 2018. The 17 members appointed by President Roush included five current students, five alumni, four faculty, one staff, and two community representatives. On February 12, 2018 all appointees accepted the responsibility to contribute towards the mandate of the Senate (see Appendix B for the official charge of the AITF). At the initial meeting of February 12th, all members voted unanimously to keep the identities of the AITF confidential and this was confirmed at the meeting with President Roush on April 30, 2018. The AITF recognized the history associated with Aztec identity and requested all available documentation relative to the 2001 task force report that was presented to President Stephen Weber dated May 1, 2001 (Appendix J). This foundational document served as the baseline for the AITF of 2018. After review by all members, it was determined that the 2018 AITF neither needed to repeat the extensive data collected on the culture and history of the people known as the Aztecas nor had the time to do so. To that end, the members agreed to focus on what had transpired since that report and the impact that the subsequent actions of SDSU has had on the stakeholders of the University. We crafted a Mission Statement that focused on the charge set forth by President Roush. B. Mission Statement The mission of the 2018 Aztec Identity Task Force (AITF) is to consider the opinions of stakeholders associated with San Diego State University and provide recommendations related to the Aztec identity to the President of San Diego State University. C. Process & Methodology The AITF had approximately ten weeks to complete their research, deliberate and provide a recommendation report to President Roush for consideration. An electronic group poll was taken 3 to chart out the best days and times for the group to meet. No members of the AITF were provided release time from existing responsibilities nor any other form of compensation; all members volunteered their time and integrated the project into their existing schedules. As such, two standing meetings of three hours each were scheduled for each week and members were encouraged to attend at least one meeting each week. A conference call option was provided for those who could not physically be in the room. The group voted to organize themselves through a Tri-Chair organizational structure that represented faculty and staff, students, and alumni and community members. Each chair was to communicate with the members in their group as needed and a Google Drive folder was established for the sharing of materials and meeting minutes. At approximately week four of the ten weeks, the AITF requested a professional note taker in order to provide more accurate notes for those that could not make a meeting and to assure that we stayed focused on the issues. The first official notes of the AITF taken by the professional note taker were placed in the Google Drive and dated March 13, 2018. The group functioned much like a committee of the whole and ideas were freely exchanged in order to explore all options and viewpoints. Many of the committee members provided materials that they felt were pertinent to the conversation to include academic research relevant to university mascots, resolutions made by various organizations relative to mascots, email correspondence sent to the President’s office on the issue of Aztec identity, Facebook and other social media postings, documents from various archives held at SDSU, scholarly materials relevant to Aztec culture and society, scholarly materials on contemporary Nahua people, essays and articles on cultural appropriation, and other notes and materials. These research materials built upon the 2001 report and became part of our discussion and deliberations. A limited bibliography is included with this report. The AITF was in unanimous agreement that the most encompassing process of hearing what the various stakeholders wanted to say about the issues set forth by the Senate resolution was to conduct a survey across all stakeholder groups. The Alumni Association had initiated a survey prior to the AITF formation. To assure continuity in the data, we used the same questions on three separate surveys to Students, Faculty/Staff, and the Community. In order to provide a richer understanding of the numeric outcomes of the survey, we incorporated an open-ended free space on the surveys so that respondents could express their sentiments in their own words. The methodology for analyzing the data along with the results of these surveys are detailed in Section III of this report. In addition to the archival information noted above, the AITF received informative presentations from a small number of visitors pertaining to the history of the Moniker and the Aztec Warrior Mascot as well as the current Senate Resolutions. See Appendix C for a list of visitors. The presentations provided a deeper understanding of the actions taken by SDSU since the 2001 report and provided the AITF with a baseline for our recommendations. As evidenced by many of the comments from the surveys, the lack of action on many recommendations from this 2001 report has had a negative impact on the trust of many survey respondents in believing that appropriate action will be taken in the future. See Section II. Background and Situation Analysis for a summary of this issue. The AITF recognizes the significance of the many references to Title VI in documentation and debates on Native American mascots as well as the Senate’s reference to State of California Education Code Title I, Division I, Part I, Chapter 2. We did not undertake a review of these 4 proceedings and recommend that the President of SDSU review these issues and their significance to the recommendations of this report. The members of the AITF worked diligently to evaluate all data presented to us including the perspectives and opinions of each member. Each of us wrestled with the significance and meaning of the multiple issues relative to cultural appropriation, colonial and neocolonial aggressions, and the current social climate of our community. We sought to respect and honor each person’s contributions to these topics. We recognize that we do not hold a shared understanding of these issues, what they mean to each person, and how they are lived and experienced. Our conversations acknowledged that cultural appropriation, defined for our purposes as the invocation, use, or exploitation of cultural artifacts from a minority or disenfranchised group in a disrespectful manner, whether intentional or unintentional by a dominant group, was a primary concern of many people within the SDSU community. We also recognized that while there is a difference between cultural mixing, where these same processes can be integrated into another culture with due respect, this has not been done consistently and with true commitment at SDSU with the Aztec moniker. These were not easy conversations and we did not always agree but we were open to each person’s opinions, experiences, and suggestions for addressing our differences. We sought respect and empathy in our interactions. During our ten weeks together, two members of the AITF recused themselves from the project. Despite their absence, we referred to their many contributions to the project as we completed our work. Our recommendations are not unanimously held, nor do we find a need to make them so. The recommendations put forth in this report are based on: 1. Results of quantitative and qualitative survey responses.