By Diogenes ( articles ) | Oct 12, 2006
Parental discretion advised: the shocking image on display here may be disturbing to some viewers. However, there are some issues of public morality too gruesome to be discussed in the abstract, and this is one of them. CWN regrets the circumstances that attend the necessity to link to the hosting site.
Well, it was a close call, but in the nick of time, JUSTICE PREVAILED. Social justice, that is. Cackling imperialists at William & Mary just got a prime weapon of psychological oppression knocked from their hands. Karen Hall points us to their rueful concession of defeat:
The College of William and Mary has notified the National Collegiate Athletic Association that during the next academic year the College will phase out the two feathers that are currently a part of its athletic logo.
The decision comes in response to a recent NCAA ruling regarding William and Mary's athletic logo. While the Association stipulated that the nickname "Tribe" was not problematic, the College was forced to change its logo or face sanctions that would restrict its opportunities in NCAA postseason play. ...
William and Mary's decision to change its athletic logo is related to a review that began in 2004 by the NCAA of more than 30 universities' use of mascots, nicknames, logos and imagery associated with Native Americans to determine whether they were "hostile and abusive." In May 2006, the NCAA ruled that William and Mary's "Tribe" nickname was neither hostile nor abusive but determined that the athletic logo -- which contains two green and gold feathers -- could create an environment that is offensive.
The use of green and gold feathers is offensive to whom, exactly? Parrots? Perhaps the keen thinkers that make up the NCAA's Thought Police have a personal investment in the decision that they'd prefer not to advertise.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Sep. 29, 2010 9:39 PM ET USA
Interesting. They can state several "falsehoods", but they never identify ANY clinic by name--though I gather the locations may be found by following a link--nor do they substantiate their claims with any useful research studies. Then, they make no effort at any "sting" operations like Lila Rose did, but require us to assume that THEY surely wouldn't lie. They must assume I trust Planned Parenthood a great deal. Not exactly credible, ladies.