I find a strange logic working in the editorial "Hurtful mascot" (SN 11/8). The staff opinion states "Mascots work better sticking to the realm of animals and mythological creatures" and "isolating and ascribing certain behaviors to a group of people will cause only one thing - prejudice."

However, our own mascot here at MSU is not an animal nor a mythological creature. Spartans were citizens of the city-state Sparta in ancient Greece. Sparty himself is supposed to be a Spartan warrior, a character normally associated with ruthlessness and one who desires victory at all costs. According to The State News' logic, every mascot that is not an animal or mythological being - let's also add in inanimate objects, such as the Pistons - must be changed to avoid racism. Therefore, we as MSU students and fans are guilty of prejudice for ascribing behaviors to the Spartans. I guess we have to change our mascot now, too.

Or, does this not matter because we're talking about people who lived millennia ago and in essence no longer exist? One could make the same argument about the hundreds of Native American tribes that are no longer with us due to the actions of the American government and also lend their names to mascots.

Of course changing our mascot is ridiculous, both ideologically and financially. I think a parallel lies here for schools and teams with American Indian mascots. There is a difference between highlighting a certain character and using it for inspiration and blatant racism. Unless there is a large public outcry that the use of a mascot is specifically racist and engaging in terrible stereotypical behavior, then it's foolish to get rid of that mascot. You can't please everybody in a society such as ours.

Lindsay Beth Willett
political theory and constitutional democracy and chemistry senior