Reforming the Redskins: the Historical, Present, and Future

Running head: REDSKINS 1

Reforming the Redskins: The Historical, Present, and Future

Perspective of the Football Team’s Moniker

Scott Anderson,

University of Oregon

REDSKINS 2

On November 7, 2013, nearly seven hundred people stood outside the Metrodome in

Minneapolis awaiting the arrival of the Washington Redskins’ football team. Unlike the thousands who had come to watch the Minnesota Vikings play the visiting Redskins, they were not fans. They were protesters, there to demand the team change its name, which they believe to be an ethnic slur against Native Americans.

While most of these protesters were Native Americans, they also counted Minneapolis

Mayor-elect Betsy Hodges, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and other local politicians and athletes among their number. That morning, Minnesota Mark Dayton also called for the team name to be changed, stating that it was “racist” and “offensive” (Furst, para. 2). Nor does support for name change stop there, as a host of newspapers, reporters, and politicians, including President Obama, have publicly stated the name “Redskins” should be changed, indicating the traction this issue has gained outside of those claiming to be directly affected.

The Minnesota episode is but the most recent development in a heated controversy that has just entered its second decade. Given the seemingly widespread support behind changing the name, why hasn’t current owner Dan Snyder pressed for it as well? Why haven’t fans of the organization, or of the National Football League (NFL) of which the team is part, taken up the cause and made the case for changing the name to some less offensive moniker? In this case analysis we will undertake an in-depth examination of the Redskins’ name controversy, starting with a detailed look at the organization’s history and how it relates to the present crisis. We will then move to a consideration of the word “Redskin” itself, present the barriers to resolving the issue, and discuss various solutions presented in the media. Lastly, we will offer a strategy for a solution that we believe to the most viable. REDSKINS 3

The early history of the Washington Redskins

In light of their current media calamity, it will strike many as unsurprising that controversy marks the origin of the present incarnation of the Washington franchise and, like its modern antecedent, also involves Native Americans. The organization traces its roots back to

1932 when founder George Preston Marshall and a group of investors were awarded an NFL franchise, which they named the Boston Braves. After a “financially devastating and poorly attended season in 1932” (“Washington Redskins”, n.d., sidebar), however, Marshall changed the name of the team to the Redskins. At the time the organization claimed, as it has continued to claim, that this was done in honor of their first coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, a Sioux

Indian from Pine Ridge, South Dakota (Leiby, 2013).

It is now all but certain, however, that Dietz was an American of German descent from

Rice Lake, Wisconsin who had assumed the identity of an Oglala Sioux named James One Star

(Waggoner, 2013). Moreover, the team’s name was not explicitly chosen to honor Dietz (who

Marshall fired after his second season), but to exploit a Native American motif (Whittingham,

2001, p. 1-24). This motif included cheerleaders named the Redskinettes, a team band (Nagel and Rascher, 2007), and Dietz, who would dress up as a “Native American” at Marshall’s request (Waggoner, 2013).

After moving to Washington D.C in 1937, the team’s already complicated racial history became even more so because Marshall, fearing that signing an African American player would alienate his predominantly Southern fanbase (Smith, 2002), refused to sign or draft any non- white players. The team remained without an African-American player on their roster until

1961, when Marshall drafted Ron Hatcher after the Kennedy Administration threatened to revoke the team’s lease on the new stadium (Hylton, n.d.). REDSKINS 4

A turning point in both race relations and public perception came the following year, when the Redskins traded for running back Bobby Mitchell (“Washington Redskins”, n.d., para.

26). Not only did Mitchell reverse their fortunes on the field, helping them to win five games when a season earlier they only won one, he also vastly improved the team’s image in the eyes of

African-Americans, who generally point to his arrival as signaling a sea change for the better in their attitudes toward the team (Steinberg and Jenkins, 2011). This shift in perception was to reach its apex in 1988, when Doug Williams became the first African American quarterback to lead his team to a Super Bowl Victory, though those feelings were tempered by his subsequent release in 1990 (Steinberg and Jenkins, 2011).

A Slow Burning Crisis: 1992-Present

The roots of the present crisis begin in 1992 when owner Jack Kent Cooke, who had purchased the team in 1974, was celebrating the last of his three Super Bowl victories under head coach Joe Gibbs (“Washington Redskins”, n.d., para. 56). Before his team won a relatively easy victory against the Buffalo Bills, however, they were subject to a round of organized protests.

The first took place at a pregame dinner the day before the Super Bowl where roughly 50 Native

Americans carried signs with slogans like “We Are Not Mascots” or “Repeal Redskin Racism”

(Miller, 1999, 193). The second took place on the day of the Super Bowl itself and included more than two thousand protesters who also carried signs decrying the Redskins moniker (Miller,

1999).

That same year, a group of seven Native Americans, led by activist Susan Show Harjo, filed a lawsuit against the team, citing a federal trademark law that says certain trademark registrations are unlawful if they are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous, or disreputable

(Richey, 2009). The term “Redskins,” the plaintiffs claimed, was “particularly offensive to REDSKINS 5

Native Americans and was the equivalent of referring to African Americans as [n*ggers]”

(Hylton, 2012, p. 882). If successful, their petition would strip the Washington franchise of the

“rights and benefits associated with owning these trademarks” (Jessop, 2013, para. 4), potentially costing them millions of dollars and effectively forcing them to change their name.

In 1999, the same year investment banker Dan Snyder purchased the Washington

Redskins from the Cooke estate (“Washington Redskins, n.d., para. 63), the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor (Hylton, 2012). Harjo and her fellow complainants would eventually lose the case on appeal in 2005, however, due to a laches defense, which asserted that the petitioners had waited too long after reaching the age of majority to file a complaint (Hylton, 2012). The issue presently remains unresolved, for in 2006 Amanda Blackhorse and five younger Native

Americans filed a similar suit against Pro Football Inc., the corporate name for the Washington

Redskins. Unlike the previous generation of plaintiffs, they are not subject to a laches ruling, but even the removal of that roadblock will not guarantee victory due to the difficulty in establishing if the trademarks were considered to be disparaging when they were granted (Jessop, 2013).

In the meantime, newspapers like the Kansas City Star, Washington City Paper, San

Francisco Chronicle, and others (Farrar, 2012; NESN Staff, 2013) have refused to use the “R word,” a stance that has also been taken up notable journalists like Sports Illustrated Peter King

(Greenslade, 2013). The Oneida Nation, a Native American tribe from New York, has met with

NFL executives as well as members of Congress to press for the team to change its name

(Vargas and Shin, 2013). A month ago, the D.C. Council called for the team to change its name, claiming it is “widely recognized as racist and derogatory”” (DeBonis and Davis, 2013, para. 1). REDSKINS 6

Most recently, a local group of religious leaders have joined this chorus, urging both Dan Snyder and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to change the team’s name.

What’s in a Name: The Meaning of Redskin

It might be helpful at this point to pause and consider what exactly the word “Redskin” means. The Washington football franchise contends that Redskins is a “term of honor celebrating persons of bravery, courage, and strength” (Leiby, as cited in Staurowsky, 2004, p.

19) and symbolizes “courage, dignity and leadership” (DeMillo, as cited in Staurowsky, 2004,

19-20), while Native Americans such as Susan Shown Harjo have countered that the word was always a slur. As has already been mentioned, some Native Americans say it is the equivalent of the ethnic slur “n*gger.”

In truth, the two words share a similar etymological trajectory. Both originated as neutral words, with redskin being a term the Native Americans used to differentiate themselves from white settlers (Goddard, 2005). This essentially neutral usage continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth. Once we get to 1920s and the “era of the Hollywood Western” (Hylton, 2012, p. 885), that meaning changes. From this period to

1970, “the term “Redskins” was used regularly to refer to Native Americans who were especially primitive and war-like and rarely in ways that were flattering” (Hylton, 2012, p.885).

As Ellen Staurowsky puts it, these “manufactured images of American Indians that serve to mark and market athletic teams in the United States contribute to the relegation of American

Indians to the past, casting them in limited and limiting social roles” (2004, p. 12). Although

Native Americans seek to dispel this image by wearing everyday clothing like jeans and T-shirts, the end result is still a populace that is “wantonly undereducated and uniformed about who

American Indians are” (Staurowsky, 2004, p. 12). This cultural ignorance can have deleterious REDSKINS 7 effects, as the misuse of “Native Americanness” in mascots and logos can be damaging to the self-identity, self-concept, and self-esteem of the group in question (Hemmer, 2008).

Barriers to Change

One would think that the obviously hurtful nature of the word redskin, when coupled with the current political and social will behind dropping the name, would make effecting a change a fait accompli. Significant barriers remain, however.

First, there is the matter of public perception. An Associated Press-GfK poll shows that roughly eighty percent of Americans don’t think the team should change its name (Nuckols,

2013). While their findings do represent a ten percent drop from when the last poll was taken in

1992, it still represents an overwhelming majority. When asked why, several respondents said

“they did not consider the name offensive and cited tradition in arguing that it shouldn’t change”

(Nuckols, 2013, para. 6).

In a letter to season ticket holders, team owner Dan Snyder also mentioned a poll conducted in 2004 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found that ninety percent of the

Native Americans surveyed found the team name “Washington Redskins” acceptable (Snyder,

2013), suggesting that the majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name. A subsequent study by Leveay, Callison, and Rodriguez, however, pointed out that non-Native

Americans might skew these results by claiming to be Native Americans for a variety of purposes (2008, p. 8). They then polled households using more refined criteria to determine respondent ethnicity and found that Native Americans are more offended by teams using

American Indian imagery than are non-Native Americans.

The Oneida Nation was also skeptical of the results of the poll Snyder mentioned, so they conducted a poll of residents of the Washington, D.C. area using SurveyUSA (“Oneida Nation REDSKINS 8

Poll”, 2013). Their findings show that fifty-five percent of respondents said changing the name would not affect their support for the team, and eighteen percent said it would even increase it

(“Oneida Nation Poll”, 2013).

Even if we discount the results of the AP-Gfk poll, however, another significant hurdle remains: that of finances. A rebrand of the Redskins franchise would cost an estimated fifteen million, most of which would be put toward replacing the name at the stadium (McCarthy,

2013). There is also the matter of lost revenue should the polling prove wrong. Even with almost a decade of poor performance under Snyder’s stewardship, the Redskins are currently valued at 1.7 billion dollars, making them the third most valuable franchise. A poorly executed rebrand, even if done for the right reasons, could cost the organization millions if fans should decide to leave.

For the NFL’s part, Commissioner Roger Goodell has essentially left the decision up to

Snyder, saying in a recent radio interview, “Ultimately, it's Dan's decision (Burke, 2013).”

Goodell also stated that the league needs to represent the franchise's history and tradition in a positive way, but added, “If we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that (Burke, 2103).”

Taken as a whole, the NFL seems to support Snyder's contention that his team's name is not offensive. In response to a letter from 10 members of Congress in May urging the team to change its name, the NFL published a letter in response, stating “the Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context (Burke, 2013).”

Identifying the Publics REDSKINS 9

Any discussion of a potential solution to an issue should include identifying the involved publics. In the present case of the Redskins’ name controversy there are three principal active/activist publics, and one potentially pivotal latent/aware public. The first active group comprises those arguing in favor of change and includes the various Indian Nations, politicians, athletes, and journalists who have either called for the organization to change its name or refuse to use it in print. The second public encompasses those who wish to retain the current team moniker, and is generally thought to be composed of fans of the team or of the NFL in general, most Washington, D.C. residents and, as was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the NFL itself.

We identify the third public as Dan Snyder. Snyder occupies a unique position in this crisis in that, while he has consistently identified himself as a fan (Snyder, 2013, para. 3), he is also the team’s owner. As such, he is beholden to certain financial and social responsibilities that do not apply to the team’s fanbase, which might compel him to behave differently from the fanbase should circumstances seriously threaten the financial or social well-being of his organization.

The last group to consider is African Americans. Though we currently characterize them as a borderline latent/aware public, in Leveay et al.’s study African Americans agreed almost all strongly as Native Americans did toward changing names away from Native American Mascots

(2008). Given their somewhat contentious past with the Redskins’ organization, and the fact that

African Americans currently comprise about fifty percent of the Washington, D.C. populace

(“District of Columbia”) and roughly sixty percent of Prince Georges County in Maryland

(“Prince George's County”), they could potentially account for a huge shift in public perception of the team image should they start agitating for the organization to change its mascot. REDSKINS 10

Solutions in the Media

Though various solutions to Washington’s name/mascot crisis have been bandied about in the media, they can be grouped into three distinct categories: do not change the name, or the status quo solution; keep the name and change the mascot, or the People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA) solution; and change both the name and the mascot, or the wholesale change solution. All three solutions have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, and no solution, unfortunately, has the virtue of completely satisfying all three of the involved publics.

The status quo solution, while having the obvious disadvantage that it does nothing to resolve the current crisis, does have serious upsides from both an organizational and fan perspective. It preserves the tradition and identity that the fans value by retaining the name. It also makes financial sense for the immediate future because, in addition to ensuring a satisfied fan base, it also eschews the estimated fifteen million dollar cost rebranding would incur. It would not insulate them the costs of any future lawsuits from Native Americans, however, which could include substantial losses should their team trademark be revoked.

The PETA solution bears the distinction of being the most inventive. Rather than change the name and mascot, they argue that the team should keep the name, but change the mascot – to a redskin potato (Mullins, 2013). This solution has the benefits of pacifying those pushing for the team to change the name and will also save them the cost of rebranding. Despite PETA’s assurances that the potato would be a “noble mascot” (Mullins, 2013, para. 5), it’s safe to assume that fans of the team would be extremely hesitant to accept a vegetable for their team’s new symbol. REDSKINS 11

The final category is the one that seems to be gaining the most traction recently, as more and more sites have been putting out calls or conducting contests for new names and logos for the Washington franchise. Instead of enumerating their merits individually, we have selected two potential names that we believe have the most upside: the Hogs (or the Red Hogs) and the

Warriors (McGuire, 2013, para. 6-7).

Both names have the distinct advantage of preserving part of the tradition that the fans so value. Choosing the Hogs as the new moniker would honor the nickname given by offensive line coach Joe Bugel to the linemen who played for the Redskins from 1982 to 1992, perhaps their most successful decade as a franchise. Warriors, on the other hand, would embody the values of “strength, courage, pride, and respect” (Snyder, 2013, para. 10) that Snyder and the rest of Redskins’ fandom so prize. Though both names would involve some sort of rebranding costs, neither carries the weight or implication of any kind of ethnic slur (warrior being Middle English in origin), so it would remove the threat of lost revenues from any future lawsuits and, if the

Oneida poll is to be trusted, could potentially end in a zero-sum gain in terms of fan attrition.

A Path Forward

Given the complexities of this issue, if time permitted the optimal solution would be to incorporate some suggestions offered by Tim Halloran in a blog on the Harvard Business

Review. Halloran recommends contacting organizations who have successfully rebranded, such as the Washington Bullets, Tennessee Titans, or the New Orleans Pelicans, to see how they implemented their name change (Halloran, 2013). In the process, they might also discover ways to use “a potential name change as an opportunity to increase the brand’s value” (Halloran, 2013, para. 10). Most importantly, Halloran advises that the Redskins need to reach out to better REDSKINS 12 understand their customer base, both current and potential (Halloran, 2013). Doing so will allow them to either confirm or call into question the results of the poll conducted by the Oneida

Nation.

Unfortunately, certain situational exigencies may not allow for the amount of time required for the kind of outreach Halloran advocates. In an article recently published in The

Atlantic, Paul Glavic reported that Larry Dolan, who owns Cleveland Indians, is considering changing the team name to just “The Tribe” and dumping its controversial “Chief Wahoo” mascot (2013). As one of the other professional sports teams who have been targeted for both their name and mascot, merely discussing the possibility of a name change should introduce a real element of urgency into Washington’s own calculations, and unlike Snyder, Dolan will not be as concerned with the valuation of his franchise, which ranks in the “lower third of MLB team valuations” (Glavic, 2013, para. 12). By proactively rebranding his organization Dolan could potentially steal “whatever public goodwill is available in this situation” (Glavic, 2013, para. 14), thereby improving public perception of his team while simultaneously increasing the pressure on

Snyder to make a similar change.

It is due in part to the implications of Dolan’s announcement that we would strongly propose the Redskins’ change their name. With protests mounting1 and as more and more newsmakers and politicians call for a name change, the organization does not have the luxury of time if it wants to “future-proof” its brand. It only remains to choose a new name and logo.

For our part, we recommend the team change its name to the Washington Warriors. If done properly, it will allow for the satisfaction of all three publics. It will obviously satisfy

1 There was also a smaller protest in Denver before the hometown Broncos played the Redskins on October 27th. REDSKINS 13

Native Americans, as well as the politicians and other media makers who have sided with them, by replacing the controversial Redskin name and logo with something much more innocuous. If can also potentially satisfy fans of the team by retaining their connection to traditional team values. Lastly, it can appease Dan Snyder by safeguarding the value of his franchise, ensuring that as his organization moves forward, the Washington brand can focus solely on improving its brand on the field, instead of defending its decisions off it.

Theoretical Framework

Our thinking in this case was informed by two theories in particular: the Situational

Theory of Publics (henceforth STOP) and Situational Crisis Communication Theory

(henceforward SCCT). Beyond using STOP to simply “segment stakeholders into publics [and] to isolate strategic publics” (Grunig, 2006, p. 155), STOP was especially utilitarian in this study because it featured two active, external publics whose interests were basically the polar opposites of one another: satisfying one conventionally would only serve to further alienate the other (Kim

& Ni, 2013). Thus, in order to solve the problem it became necessary to leverage the needs and interests of the other publics.

We started by looking at Dan Snyder, our only internal public, and his organization’s crisis management strategies. Thus far the Snyder and his team have almost exclusively practiced denial response strategies to the crisis (Liu, Austin, & Jin, 2011), in that they have repeatedly attempted to claim that “Redskins” is in fact not offensive. This strategy was the same employed by Snyder’s predecessor Marshall when faced with integration, and its ultimate lack of success should serve as an object lesson for the organization’s present racial controversy. REDSKINS 14

We propose switching to a combination of responses. First, Snyder should use the

Waggoner article as a means to diminish the team’s role in the current crisis. By laying the blame at the feet of the duplicitous Dietz and the racist Marshall, he pushes the responsibility for the issue in the past. This also allows him to reinforce his relationship with his fans by lauding the pioneering African Americans who are responsible for the organization’s proud past, and pointing to it as a model for the future (Liu et al., 2011).

By representing the organization’s history as one with a progressive racial narrative,

Snyder can potentially not only soften the blow of the name change by directing their interest away, but engage their interest even more by appealing to the organization’s pride in its African

American icons.

From the Redskins to the Warriors: Message Strategies

The key to the success of rebranding the Redskins as the Warriors lies, of course, in the message strategies utilized to relay the information. Fortunately, even though there are three different active publics involved, we need only use two different message strategies. The first targets Dan Snyder, for without his consent the entire project cannot move forward. Once his consent has been secured, the second strategy will serve to communicate the change to the other two publics, pacifying the protesters and ideally minimizing the loss of fan engagement.

As an internal public, we would present our argument for change to Dan Snyder in the form of a presentation. This presentation would be structured around four key points. First,

Washington needs to change its name before the Indians, or any of the other controversial teams for that matter, change theirs. Not only will it help to secure some of the “goodwill” (Glavic,

2013, para. 14) referenced earlier, it has an additional positive corollary in that Snyder and the REDSKINS 15 organization won’t seem to be acting under a compulsion to change, which might imply either desperation or panic on the part of the organization and damage the brand even further.

Washington’s name change should also occur sooner rather than later because the organization might face a larger crisis if African Americans start to equate redskin as the Native

American equivalent to the “N-word.” As was mentioned earlier, Leveay et al. have already demonstrated that African Americans identify with Native Americans much more than do either

Hispanics or Caucasians on this issue. Considering they account for more than half of the population in geographical area occupied by the organization’s fanbase, a number which is likely to increase (“Census More”, 2013, para. 22), they could become a greatly influential public should the groups currently protesting the team name target them and turn them into an activist public.

While Snyder may demur, claiming that according to Advertising Age a rebrand would cost him fifteen million dollars (McCarthy, 2013), it can be easily argued that a one time, static fee will seem inconsequential when placed alongside the threat of mass erosion of the fanbase, recurring legal fees as well as the potential loss of trademark revenues.

Lastly, we argue that Snyder should push for changing the name to the Warriors now because, if he does so, there is a strategy and a persona he can embrace that will help sell this particular rebrand to his constituency of fans. Waggoner’s expose on William Dietz is only six months old, so if Snyder acts quickly he can still assume the persona of a misled fan, and claim that, though he was initially resistant to it, over time he came to realize that the organization that he loves has two traditions. The first tradition, that of exploitation and racism, was created by

William “Lone Star” Dietz and owner George Preston Marshall when they created the name and REDSKINS 16 culture for the Redskins. Snyder could then elaborate on how the second culture, the true culture, of the Redskins was the one that he referenced in his October 9th letter to his fans. It’s a progressive culture, one that celebrated the achievements of African American athletes like

Bobby Mitchell, Doug Williams, and Robert Griffin III.

Snyder should emphasize that part of the difficulty he had in coming to this decision arose from his experience as a fan. He can reiterate a statement he made in that October 9th letter, that the organization’s “past isn’t just where we came from – it’s who we are.” (Snyder,

2013, para. 8). In choosing to change the team’s name, he is keeping the tradition of the team and the values it honors.

As is customary with announcements of this magnitude, Snyder would deliver the message at a press conference, though the text would also be available on the team’s website and blog. It also would coincide with an announcement of the name change on both Twitter and

Facebook, replete with a link to guide the user to the complete text of Snyder’s statement.

It is important for the initial Twitter post announcing the name change, and future posts on the subject, to be nearly identical across both platforms to avoid confusion and the potential for misinformation. Both accounts should also be updated with the information at the nearly same time, and should be updated as soon as the change is announced to the media in the form of a press release. Both initial posts should include a short announcement on the name change and a link to the official Redskins blog, which will include the press release and a copy of Dan

Snyder’s letter to fans.

Posts should be worded in the first person, as in “We have decided to change our name,” as opposed to the second person, to promote solidarity with the team. In addition, posts should REDSKINS 17 include hashtags, e.g. #redskins, to reach those who may not currently follow the team on social media.

REDSKINS 18

References

Burke, Chris. (2013). Roger Goodell on Redskins Controversy: 'We Need to be Listening.'

SportsIllustrated.com. Retrieved December 8 from http://nfl.si.com/2013/09/11/roger-

goodell-dan-snyder-redskins/

Campbell, J. (n.d.). Rules of the Name. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from

http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/21-02-790.pdf

Census: More minority U.S. births than white now. (2012, May 17). CBS News. Retrieved from

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/census-more-minority-us-births-than-white-now/

DeBonis, M., & Davis, A. (2013, November 5). D.C. Council calls on Washington Redskins to

ditch ‘racist and derogatory’ name. Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-calls-on-washington-

redskins-to-ditch-racist-and-derogatory-name/2013/11/05/17cbbd66-4646-11e3-bf0c-

cebf37c6f484_story.html

District of Columbia QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

Farrar, D. (2012, October 18). Hail to the ‘Pigskins’? Two Newspapers now refuse to

use Washington’s football name. Yahoo.com. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/hail-pigskins-two-newspapers-

now-refuse-washington-football-212138986--nfl.html.

Furst, Randy. (2013, November 8). Dayton, protesters at Metrodome blast Washington

Nickname. Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN]. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/231062001.html. REDSKINS 19

Glavic, P. (2013, December 2). Another Front in the Redskins' Name-Change Battle: Cleveland?

The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/another-front-in-the-redskins-

name-change-battle-cleveland/281951/

Goddard, Y. (2005). “I am a Red-skin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression

(1769-1826). European Review of Native American Studies 19(2), 1-20.

Greenslade, R. (2013, September 9). U.S. Reporters Refuse to Use Name of Washington

Redskins. The Guardian. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/09/washington-redskins-

us-press-publishing.

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the Edifice: Ongoing Research on Public Relations As a

Strategic Management Function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176.

doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_5

Halloran, T. (2013, November 4). How the Redskins Could Ditch Their Name – But Keep Their

Fans. Harvard Business Review [Boston]. Retrieved from

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/how-the-redskins-could-ditch-their-name-but-keep-their-

fans/

Hemmer, J. (2008). Exploitation of American Indian Symbols: A First Amendment Analysis.

The American Indian Quarterly, 32(2), 121–140. doi:10.1353/aiq.2008.0017.

Hylton, J.G. (2012) Before the Redskins Were the Redskins: The Use of Native American

Team Names in the Formative Era of American Sports, 1857-1933. North Dakota Law

Review, 86, (879-903).

Hylton, J.G. (n.d.). Who Was the First Black Redskin? Marquette University Law School REDSKINS 20

Faculty Blog. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/11/08/who-was-the-first-black-redskin/.

Jessop, A. (2013, October 15) Inside the Legal Fight to Change the Washington Redskins’

Name. Forbes. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/10/15/a-look-at-the-legal-fight-to-change-

the-washington-redskins-name/.

Kim, J.-N., & Ni, L. (2013). Two Types of Public Relations Problems and Integrating Formative

and Evaluative Research: A Review of Research Programs within the Behavioral,

Strategic Management Paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(1), 1–29.

doi:10.1080/1062726X.2012.723276.

Leveay, F., Callison, C., & Rodriguez, A. (2008). Use of Native American Names and Imagery

in Sports: A Cross-Cultural Survey of Offensiveness. Conference Papers -- International

Communication Association, 1–26.

Leiby, R. (2013, November 6). The legend of Lone Star Dietz: Redskins namesake, coach — and

possible impostor? The Washington Post [Washington, DC] Retrieved December 8,

2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-legend-of-lone-star-dietz-

redskins-namesake-coach--and-possible-imposter/2013/11/06/a1358a76-466b-11e3-bf0c-

cebf37c6f484_story.html

Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies:

The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 345–353.

doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004 REDSKINS 21

McCarthy, M. (2013, September 24). Redskins Rebrand Would Cost $15 Million. Advertising

Age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/news/redskins-rebrand-cost-15-

million/244295/

McGuire, K. (2013, March 3). Washington Redskins: Top Five Recommendations for a New

Name. Yahoo [Washington DC]. Retrieved from

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/washington-redskins-top-five-recommendations-name-

143100765.html

Miller, J. B. (1999). Indians, Braves, and Redskins: A performative struggle for control of an

image. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85(2), 188.

Mullins, A. (2013, October 11). No Need for Redskins to Change Name, Says PETA. PETA.

Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/blog/no-need-for-redskins-to-change-name-says-

peta/

Nagel, M.S. & Rascher, D. (2007). “Washington Redskins” – Disparaging Term or Valuable

Tradition?: Legal and Economic Issues Concerning Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. Fordham

Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal, Spring(3), 789-804.

NESN Staff (2013, August 13). Slate, The New Republic, Mother Jones All Refuse to

Print Redskins’ Team Name Due to Racial Concerns. NESN.com. Retrieved

December 8, 2013 from http://nesn.com/2013/08/slate-the-new-republic-mother-

jones-all-refuse-to-print-redskins-team-name-due-to-racial-concerns/.

Prince George's County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24033.html

Richey, W. (2009). Washington Redskins Can Keep Team Name; Supreme Court REDSKINS 22

Refuses Native Americans' Suit. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 8,

2013 from http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/r14/USA/Justice/2009/1116/p02s07-

usju.html

Smith, T. (2002, March 5). Civil Rights on the Gridiron. ESPN [Washington, DC].

Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/page2/wash/s/2002/0305/1346021.html.

Staurowsky, E. J. (2004). Privilege at Play On the Legal and Social Fictions That Sustain

American Indian Sport Imagery. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 28(1), 11–29.

doi:10.1177/0193732503261148.

Steinberg, D. & Jenkins, C. (2011, October 26) Black fans have grown to love the Redskins.

The Washington Post [Washington, DC]. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-26/sports/35277560_1_black-fans-sports-

fans-lifelong-redskins-fan.

Vargas, T. & Shin, A. (2013, November 16). Oneida Nation is the Tiny Tribe Taking on

the NFL and Dan Snyder Over Redskins Name. The Washington Post [Washington,

DC]. Retrieved December 8, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/oneida-

indian-nation-is-the-tiny-tribe-taking-on-the-nfl-and-dan-snyder-over-redskins-

name/2013/11/16/10ef9290-4c88-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html.

Waggoner, L. (2013) On Trial: The Washington Redskin’s Wily Mascot Coach William

“Lone Star” Dietz. Montana: The Magazine of Western History. 63(1), Spring, 789-804.

Washington Redskins (1937-Present). (n.d.). In The Sports E-Cyclopedia (Est. 2001)-The

Ultimate Sports Resource. Retrieved from December 8, 2013

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/washington/redskins.html.

Washington Redskins Team Encyclopedia. (n.d.). In Pro-Football-Reference.com. Retrieved REDSKINS 23

from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/

Whittingham, R. (2001). Hail Redskins: A celebration of the greatest players, teams,

and coaches. Chicago: Triumph.