On Facebook a few days ago, Teaching Tolerance applauded the Houston Independent School District for ditching mascot names like “Rebels” and “Redskins” and replacing them with more inclusive ones like “Texans” and “Warriors.” The district put its money behind the decision, too, by allocating $250,000 to updating the offensive names in one fell swoop.
We’ve advocated for this change, explained that American Indians are not honored by these mascots and discussed the injury they perpetuate. We’ve also offered activities for students to examine their own schools’ mascots.
I was not surprised to see reaction in the comments—team names and mascots engender strong loyalties. But my head jolted a bit when I read this: “Seriously??!!!! Political correctness is getting extremely expensive and ridiculous!!!!!!”
I looked at the comment and thought, “This is what privilege looks like.” You can dismiss someone else’s perspective by sneeringly calling it “politically correct,” confident that yours is the only rational view. You don’t really need to take another person’s or group’s injury seriously. You can call it ridiculous.
We published a blog last week on the n-word and whether its appropriation by black youth could neutralize its power. That’s another topic that always generates conversation; several online commenters echoed the sentiment of an individual who posted, “It all comes down to intent.”
Does it? I don’t think so. If intent were all that mattered, we’d keep the offensive names—after all, they were coined during a time when we were oblivious to the fact that they were offensive—and simply say, “Hey, that’s not what I mean.” If intent were all that mattered, you’d never expect someone to say “I’m sorry” when they accidentally step on your toe or nearly collide with you while rounding a corner at the office.
But we do expect someone who steps on our toes or inadvertently knocks against our shoulders to apologize and acknowledge the intrusion. As our mundane social manners reveal, impact matters.
In fact, impact should be our first concern. Whether it’s words, names or actions that are at issue, our first question should always be, “What’s the impact?” And as equity-minded educators, we should be asking it with nondominant groups in mind.
That question can be applied in all sorts of school situations: What’s the impact [on LGBT youth] of requiring only male-female couples to attend prom? What’s the impact [on children in foster care] of asking for “parent’s signature,” on a form? What’s the impact of making assignment to advanced classes dependent on grades in a system that tracks students?
Is intention beside the point? Not at all. Bad intention seriously heightens the offense.
Impact and intention. Both matter.
You want to call it political correctness? I call it responsible civility.
Costello is the director of Teaching Tolerance.
