So much has been written and said about the NCAA position on Native American mascots since the policy was implemented last August.

In the worst cases, rhetoric and anger have prevailed, further illustrating why the policy was created in the first place. For the most part, however, our membership has discussed this matter in a civil, collegial manner. Even where agreement has been hard to achieve, the give-and-take has been more constructive than the public might believe.

Certainly the appeal involving the University of North Dakota has been among the most challenging to be considered by the staff committee that is responsible for reviews. But even so, President Kupchella makes clear in the accompanying article that he finds no fault with the NCAA for taking a position on the matter of Native American mascots. His question pertains to how much teeth should be applied to enforcement of the policy.

It may help readers to review how the Association arrived at this point. The study of Native American mascots began in April 2001, prompted by three factors:

• The Executive Committee's review of the Confederate battle flag.
• A request from a member institution's president that the Executive Committee consider a resolution that the Association does not condone the use of Native American logos and nicknames.
• A statement by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the negative impact of Native American images and nicknames as sports symbols.

The matter was referred, quite appropriately, to the NCAA Minority and Opportunities Committee (MOIC). By October 2002, the committee developed a comprehensive report detailing its research on the issue and outlining several recommendations. In August 2003, the Executive Committee voted to allow institutions using Native American mascots to begin a self-analysis and, later, to complete a checklist to determine if the use of mascots, nicknames, logos or behavior could be viewed as offensive. This self analysis was to be based on a broad review and was to include input from the athletics department, faculty, staff and community, along with student-athletes and local Indian tribes or community leaders. Corresponding requirements were established for conference offices.

At that time, the Executive Committee also voted (among other things) to establish criteria for NCAA championship sites to include a review of the visibility of Native American mascots or imagery.

In June 2005, the MOIC reviewed all institutional self-evaluations and, as requested, reported to the Executive Committee Subcommittee on Gender and Diversity with recommended actions. In August 2005, the Executive Committee approved those recommendations, which now make up the current policy. Contrary to some reports, the policy only applies to championship events and does not require any institution to change its mascot or nickname.

While the Executive Committee's August 2005 action took some institutions by surprise, the fact is that the decision was backed by four years of study, data-collection from interested institutions, psychological and academic research and discussion within the NCAA structure. The Executive Committee approved the policy without a single “no” vote and with one abstention. Consistent with general NCAA practice, aggrieved institutions were given multiple appeal options.

I know that some institutions have been frustrated with the review process. Suffice it to say that I believe our review structure is fair. Most notably, any institution has more than one level of appellate review and, ultimately, may appeal a finding to the Executive Committee itself.

I regret that so much discussion has focused on identifying so-called winners and losers. Each time an article or commentary focuses on the mechanics of the process, I feel we have taken a step back from the ultimate goal, which is to elevate cultural sensitivity.

There is no doubt in my mind that Native American mascots and nicknames negatively affect the psychological health of Native Americans. We have seen research showing that exposure to social representations such as Indian mascots lowers the self-esteem of Native American students, reduces their belief in community efficacy and reduces the number of achievement-related goals they set for themselves. This would not be tolerated for any other racial group and should not be tolerated as to Native Americans.

Paradoxically, research also shows us that while exposure to Native American mascots reduces the self-esteem of Native American students, it “raises” the self-esteem of other students through a condition known as “stereotype lift.” This lift makes others less likely to understand why the images offend the target group.

It is true that some sovereign tribes have not objected to the use of nicknames and mascots, and those sentiments are reflected in waivers of this policy for some institutions. After all, an important part of the process is to create a climate in which we all listen to what the Native Americans themselves have to say.

But nobody should believe for a moment that such support reflects the sentiment of the overall Native American community. More than 80 organizations representing Native Americans have objected to the use of Indian mascots and imagery for athletics teams.

The NCAA is hardly alone in addressing this question. Over the past thirty years, organizations all over the country have spoken out against the stereotypic use of Native American nicknames and imagery in sports. Recognizing the harm created by use of these racial stereotypes, many colleges and universities, like Stanford, Syracuse, St. Bonaventure, St. John's (New York), Miami (Ohio), Marquette, West Georgia, and most recently, Midwestern State, Southeastern Oklahoma State and Carthage College voluntarily eliminated their nicknames   or mascots. In 2001, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a resolution opposing the use of Native American mascots and nicknames in sports. The American Psychological Association also issued a resolution calling for the immediate retirement of Native American mascots and nicknames in sports. These are consistent with other studies. Supporting these data are the many kind letters I have received that thank the Association for taking a difficult position.

I do not dispute that this question is challenging. It involves the always-difficult intersection between NCAA policy and institutional tradition. It also may involve differences of opinion over what constitutes local tribal acceptance. And if those factors aren't challenging enough, the media often exacerbates the problem by injecting hyperbole into the discussion without a full understanding of the narrow scope of the policy.

These challenges are significant, but they should not distract us from the real issue, which is to treat Native Americans with the respect they deserve.

Amid all the controversy, that concept is quite easy to comprehend and I hope it is equally easy for everybody to accept.

Bernard M. Franklin is NCAA senior vice president for governance, membership services and research.