After we forced the Chief out of the Homecoming Parade and sent him and his supporters scurrying back to whatever godforsaken cornfield or segregated suburb they had sprung from, I joined my fellow protestors as we cheered “don’t come back!”

Afterward, I quoted the brilliant Dr. Henrik Clarke and declared that there was no need to argue with Chief supporters because “I only debate my equals. All others, I teach.” With the #NotOurMascot protests, I reasoned, we had given Chief-loving white alumni and students and, more importantly, Chancellor Robert Jones an education.

Now that I’ve had a couple of days to reflect, however, I want to discourage those who recognize the Chief for what it is from overly investing ourselves in educating those who cling to it. It is clear that no amount of education can make the white masses forsake the racist symbols that give them pleasure and security. If it were possible to educate white people out of their fondness of the Chief, the decades of consistent indictment from the Native American community would have been sufficient.

If not that, the 1997 documentary “In Whose Honor?” that judiciously outlines the white supremacist origins of the Chief, would have been sufficient. If not that, the NCAA’s 2005 censure of the University for its continued use of the Chief (the censure that forced it to be expelled as the University’s official mascot) would have been enough.

At its root, the continued presence of the Chief at the University is not so much an issue of white ignorance as it is proof of white power. By continuing to embrace the Chief, white people and those who identify with them demonstrate that they do not need Native Americans’ permission to misappropriate native culture.

These people demonstrate that they can do what they like with what they like, and that no amount of logical reasoning or emotional appeals can convince them to admit to wrongdoing and change their absurd, voyeuristic behavior.

So, my friends, let us not waste time trying to reason with these white people; their love of the Chief is beyond reason. We will not secure the moral victory of a total Chief ban at the University because moral victories can only be achieved when our opponent has a conscience. As observed in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael, white America and its institutions have none.

Case in point: There are no laws within the United States that prohibit minstrelsy or racist symbology. In short, the University administration has no impetus to enact a ban of the Chief. Although educating whites will not secure us any moral victories concerning the Chief, we can secure the political victory of a new school mascot by spring.

That is what we ought to push for. Such a political victory would give the native community and their allies a mascot they can celebrate. More importantly, we do not need to waste time educating Chief-lovers to secure such a victory – it is fully within our rights as students of the University and fully within the University’s capacity.

[email protected]