The fact that the university is a “public institution” raises other issues. In lawsuits about campus persecution of “offensive speech,” courts have repeatedly found that public institutions dependent upon federal money must make every effort to uphold civic freedoms. This means ... that the mere fact that some students take offense at speech does not warrant the punishment of the speaker, since such punishment denies the federally protected right to free speech. But as previously mentioned, the federal guarantee of civic freedom also forbids acts of discrimination by institutions, and the Chief [Illiniwek of the Univeristy of Illinois at Urbana] seemingly results from just such an act.
Good argument. But, to keep his argument strong, Mole should probably excise the following point:
How would supporters of the Chief feel if, say, the Holy Eucharist were re-enacted as a halftime skit at the Superbowl (admittedly, a rather boring one), or if a mascot dressed as a Bishop chased young boys around during the seventh inning stretch? Many Christians would doubtless find many reasons to be offended by these antics, but I suggest they’d especially dislike the fact that a symbol they hold sacred is functioning as ribald mass entertainment.
This point is weak, and I think it actually detracts from his argument. Many Christians are obviously entertained by such symbols in a sports setting. Consider the following college mascots:
Ohio Wesleyan Battling Bishops
University of Pennsylvania Quakers
Wake Forest Demon Deacons
I can't remember hearing about any protests of these college teams, and I doubt if such protests have taken place. I also can't recall any outcry over the professional teams known as the Saints, Padres, and Angels. For this reason, Mole should cut the religious angle from an otherwise thought-inspiring essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment