Redskins trademark ruling: Another Washington political football?

By canceling the 'Redskins' trademark on the grounds it is disparaging, the US Patent and Trademark Office has turned Washington pigskin unity into one more bone of contention.

|
Nick Wass/AP
Washington Redskins helmets sit on the field during an NFL football minicamp in Ashburn, Va., June 17, 2014.

The Washington Redskins used to be one of the few forces for political unification in D.C. Republicans and Democrats alike could cheer or bemoan the fortunes of the local football team on the field.

That may not be true any longer. The fight over the implications of the team’s name has seen to that. Many area Democrats view “Redskins” as a racial slur that must be changed. Many – but not all – local Republicans see it is an honored moniker with only gridiron connotations.

This conflict was brought into focus by Wednesday’s ruling by the US Patent and Trademark Office, which canceled the “Redskins” trademark on the grounds that it is disparaging.

When the news broke, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington interrupted a debate on the Senate floor to hail the decision. “So many people have helped in this effort, and I want to applaud them,” said Senator Cantwell, who helped organize a letter endorsing a name change that was signed by 50 Senate Democrats and sent to NFL offices earlier this year.

Contrast that with the reaction from Larry Hogan, the Republican gubernatorial candidate from next-door Maryland. The ruling “should offend anyone concerned about constitutional limits on government power and free speech,” Mr. Hogan said Wednesday.

Yes, we’re being a bit loose here in our definition of “area resident.” But the fact is that politicians elected elsewhere live here (usually), settle their families here (often), and have local as well as home-state sports loyalties. One of the biggest all-time Redskins fans was Richard Nixon – though there is little evidence he ever actually called plays for the team, as was widely alleged while he was in office.

And the Washington metro area is large, encompassing as it does the city itself, northern Virginia, and D.C.’s Maryland suburbs.

Plus, there’s no doubt the whole “Redskins” thing has become politically polarized nationally. Senate majority leader Harry Reid also hailed the decision, warning team owner Dan Snyder that the writing is on the wall, and it’s time to change the name.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are incensed. On his show Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh pointed the rhetorical finger directly at the White House. “All this stuff is coming out of the executive branch. All of this, well tyranny,” he said.

Well, we don’t know about that – the suit the Patent Office ruled upon was brought by private citizens years ago, long before Obama took office. The members of the appeals board which made the decision aren’t presidential appointees.

Furthermore, the scope of the decision is limited. This isn’t the government stripping owner Snyder of his right to use the “Redskins” name. What the Patent Office said was that the federal government will no longer register that name as a trademark in conjunction with an NFL team. State laws, as well as common law, still provide the Washington team with extensive protection against outsiders producing bootleg “Redskins” merchandise for their own profit.

Plus, the federal registration is still in place, pending the completion of the appeals process, which could take years.

The immediate impact is upon the team’s image and public relations. That’s not negligible, particularly for an organization that’s not exactly producing a juggernaut on the field.

In terms of partisan sniping, perhaps the most interesting fight at the moment is over what should come next – what Snyder should name the team instead of you-know-what.

Over at left-leaning Talking Points Memo, they’ve suggested the “Washington Taxations without Representations.” (D.C. has no floor vote in Congress, meaning local voters have no say on tax bills.)

At the right-leaning National Review, they’ve got a list that includes the “Washington Red Tapes,” and the “Washington Shutdowns.”

But our favorite comes from Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten. In our view, it perfectly captures the bureaucratic ethos.

“I repeat: Redskins should change name to ‘The Washington Department of Football Services’ ” tweeted Weingarten Wednesday.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Redskins trademark ruling: Another Washington political football?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0619/Redskins-trademark-ruling-Another-Washington-political-football
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe