Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mascot Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses state'level mascot law, exemption denials and possible pushback over Thunderhawk identity
Summary
Board members reviewed the 2023 state law on school names/images referencing American Indian tribes, described inconsistent application across districts, and debated whether to pursue repeal, a legislative hearing or legal/advocacy action; the state extended the compliance deadline to September 2026.
District leaders updated the board on a 2023 state law that restricts school names or images that depict or refer to American Indian tribes, individuals or traditions. The superintendent reported the district submitted an exemption request with support from the Indian Education Parent Advisory Committee and related tribal contacts. The district received mixed responses from tribal nations; several tribes responded with denials while the deadline and process have been inconsistent across districts.
Board members described irregular treatment across districts: the presenter cited examples in which two districts with similar names or imagery received different outcomes from the tribal review process. Staff said the law originally required a change by the upcoming September but that the 2024 legislative session extended the deadline to September 2026 and added a reporting requirement that the district must now file.
Several board members expressed strong opposition to the law or its application. One board member argued the district's Thunderhawk logo does not depict Native American imagery and that the district should push back through testimony to the legislature and by telling the district's story in committee hearings. Another board member raised the fiscal cost of a forced change, noting estimates that replacing uniforms and branded materials could total roughly a quarter of a million dollars for the district.
Board members discussed advocacy options: waiting for further legislative action, testifying in support of funding or repeal, or pressing for clearer and consistent criteria for exemptions. A legislator referenced in the discussion, Senator Farnsworth, has signaled interest in addressing the issue and suggested a possible hearing on funding and process; district staff said they would notify board members if a hearing is scheduled and welcomed board participation.
Why it matters: The requirement could force wide-ranging changes to district branding, uniforms and facilities if exemptions are denied; the process also raises questions about statewide consistency and the cost burden on school districts.
