November 1, 2005

Mr. Ronald L. Stratten
Vice President for Education Services
NCAA
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana  46206-6222

Dear Mr. Stratten:

Attached is the NCAA Self Evaluation Examining the Use of American Indian Mascots, Nicknames and Logos at the College of William and Mary. After reviewing the report, exploring the facts, and discussing the issue with an array of campus, alumni and regional Native American leaders and communities, I have reached the conclusion that William and Mary’s nickname and logo should be retained.

The College has been asked by the NCAA to explore whether, broadly speaking, the use of the nickname “Tribe” is “hostile and abusive” to the Native American community. This is, without doubt, a most serious undertaking. It is surely true that some university nicknames, logos and, particularly, mascots, may demean and offend the groups or organizations depicted.  The task force that conducted the self-evaluation, the Board of Visitors and I, however, find no basis for concluding that the use of the term “Tribe” by the College of William and Mary violates NCAA standards. There are several reasons this is so.

First, the “Tribe” moniker is designed to communicate ennobling sentiments of commitment, shared idealism, community and common cause. As countless students have told me, “Tribe” powerfully and pointedly describes the remarkable sense of attachment and commitment that William and Mary students, staff and faculty feel toward one another and their institution. Two decades ago, on its own initiative, the College abandoned the use of its traditional nickname “Indians” and a mascot deemed to be potentially offensive and inappropriate. The “Tribe” nickname (without a mascot) was substituted to eliminate concerns over expropriation and disparagement while embracing ideals of inclusion, belonging and dedication. It has, in the intervening decades, come to be understood in that fashion. It is neither meant to be derogatory nor understood by the broader community to be so.

Second, the use of the term “Tribe” appropriately highlights the defining, historical connection between the College of William and Mary and the education of Native Americans. As the report details, a principal element of the College’s founding mission was the education of indigenous peoples. Our Brafferton School began enrolling young Indian men from tribes throughout the American southeast in 1697. Focus on the study and development of Native Americans, frequently in conjunction with Virginia tribes, continues today through College initiatives such as the American Indian Resource Center, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, the Center for Archeological Research, and the remarkable Werowocomoco Project on the York River. An unusual array of faculty members produces world-class research and courses of interdisciplinary study in Native American history, politics, language and culture. The College has long dedicated special attentions and resources to the study and education of Native Americans.    

Third, regional Virginia tribal leaders, with whom we have consulted, indicate that they clearly do not consider William and Mary’s use of the term “Tribe” to be “hostile and abusive.” To quote, for example, Chief William Miles of the Pamunkey Tribe, with whom I spoke:  “I speak for my tribe in saying that there is no perception whatsoever that William and Mary uses the term “Tribe” in a negative way. We’re worried about poverty, homelessness, health care and the like for our people. Not the use of the name Tribe.” Leaders of the Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, and Mattaponi tribes offered similar conclusions. And as a current William and Mary student, who is a member of the Chickahominy Tribe, responded, “I actually consider it a compliment that they want to characterize themselves as a tribe … my opinion is that they should not change the name from the ‘Tribe’.”      

I close with two additional points.

It is possible to read some of the preliminary NCAA determinations concerning the use of Native American names and mascots as penalizing the display of any Indian-related name or imagery – regardless of its character or offense – unless the name “is owned” by a particular tribe which then gives permission for its use. The term “Tribe,” of course, is generic and overarching. No individual tribe has the capacity to authorize its deployment. But if more generalized terms like “tribe” are thus made presumptively or even inherently impermissible, despite their obviously diminished potential for offense and expropriation, the “hostile and abusive” standard is effectively turned on its head. The entire “mascot” inquiry is rooted, at least initially, in broadly-based societal perceptions. Under a “permission-only” standard, patently offensive and particularized nicknames may well be exempted from sanction, while far more innocuous symbols are prohibited. That can’t be readily squared with the notion “hostile and abusive.” Nor could it possibly make sense to the broad spectator base which is the rule’s primary audience. It would also be ironic if it were deemed impermissible for the College to use the overarching and aspirational term “Tribe,” but perfectly acceptable for it to employ one of the four particular tribal names from our locale expressing support for the name.

Finally, as a newcomer to the College, I feel compelled to express the hope that when the NCAA actually explores the operation of intercollegiate athletics at William and Mary, it will quickly come to recognize that we have much to teach the nation about the fusion of excellence in athletics with excellence in academics. With a broad array of intensely competitive programs, the College, last year, achieved the fourth highest Academic Performance Rating in the nation. A remarkably accomplished football team amassed a 100 percent graduation rate. I have, perhaps, more experience with collegiate sports programs than some university presidents. Never have I seen a program so clearly committed and so clearly successful in making the term “student-athlete” a reality rather than a farce.       

Sincerely,

Gene R. Nichol
President