Newsletters

Get Well+Being delivered to your inbox every Monday Morning.

President Obama’s Redskins Comments Put the Team and Their Lawyer on Defense
Lanny Davis says it is not fair to single out the Washington team. By Carol Ross Joynt
Comments () | Published October 7, 2013
The Redskins’ lawyer Lanny Davis says eight in nine Americans are not offended by the Redskins name. Photograph by Carol Ross Joynt.

Dan Snyder’s Washington Redskins are feeling increasingly put upon by the push by some Native American groups to force the team to change its name, says the team’s lawyer in the dispute. President Obama was the latest to voice his concern about the racist tinge of “Redskins,” saying over the weekend that if he were the team’s owner he would “think about” changing the name. On Monday morning, the Redskins’ lawyer, Lanny Davis, responded, “We wonder why the protests are just about our 80-year-old Washington Redskins—and not all the other teams. Is there a media magnet here in Washington, you think?” He also emphasized that companies that support the Redskins have not balked at the name. “FedEx shareholders just voted to support keeping the name,” he said. “Not one sponsor has complained.”

Davis, in an e-mail exchange with Washingtonian, pointed out that the Redskins are just one of several sports teams using a nickname of Native American derivation. “We are no different than fans of the Cleveland Indians or Chicago Blackhawks or the ‘tomahawk-chopping’ Atlanta Braves,” he said. We know President Obama loves his hometown Chicago Blackhawks, winner of the 2013 NHL Stanley Cup, and has never suggested a name change for that team.

The Associated Press asked President Obama about the Redskins name in a wide-ranging interview. “Obviously people get pretty attached to team names, mascots,” said the President. “I don’t think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I’ve got to say if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team . . . in . . . if . . . it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people I’d think about changing it. . . . I don’t know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.”

Davis, in one of several e-mails, said the Redskins agreed with the President, if he meant that the team should consider all Native-Americans feelings. Citing a (by now familiar) 2004 poll from the Annenberg Institute that found “nine out of ten Native Americans were not offended by the name,” Davis said, “President Obama said it would have to be a ‘sizable group’ to cause a name change—and we agree with President Obama, therefore, that on that basis the Redskins team name should not be changed.” He said the figure for all Americans is eight out of nine according to a 2013 AP poll.

We also asked Davis about the recent comments by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in two radio interviews, one of them with local 106.7 FM. While earlier, particularly in a letter to Congress, Goodell appeared to firmly back the position of Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who has said he will “never” change the name, in the radio interviews there was the slightest pivot. “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,” he said, adding, “We’ll find a solution.”

Davis said the idea that Goodell had softened his stance is pure media spin. “It is inaccurate Goodell changed positions,” he said. “Never, not one word, did he say he supported name change. If you get him to say he favors name change, I will buy you a huge dinner.”

Categories:

Local News Sports
Subscribe to Washingtonian

Discuss this story

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. The Washingtonian reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.
  • Indian Joe

    What you don't understand is the true origin of the word was choosen by the Indians themselves. Throughout history there are references to "red man," "red people," and "red skin," used by Indians in a way that was not offensive. It was the same as calling someone white, or black skinned. It is an adjective...not a racist term. What these anti- Redskins people have done is turned a common name into something racists...and that to me is throwing fuel on the fire. The true racists are the one's building this story and not letting it go.....look up the origin of the word Oklahoma...should we change that?

  • Indian Joe

    And a name needs context to be racist. If I said..."Bunch of stupid Redskins" that's very racist... If I said..."That tribe is full of strong willed, intelligent and proud Redskinned people," not so bad is it?

  • dharman

    89% (8/9) of Americans are probably not offended by a lot of derogatory terms for various ethnic groups. That does not relieve the 11% who know better than to use them of a moral responsibility to try to persuade others that they ought to be offended.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Posted at 11:20 AM/ET, 10/07/2013 RSS | Print | Permalink | Comments () | Washingtonian.com Blogs