A controversial Tax Commission decision that allowed the use of the term "REDSKIN" on a Utah license plate was reversed and assailed by Utah Supreme Court justices on Friday.
The ruling came more than two years after two American Indians asked the Tax Commission to revoke three personalized license plates with variations on the "Redskin" word, including "REDSKNS" and 'RDSKIN."While the owners of the license plates defended them as expressions of support for athletic teams -- particularly the Washington Redskins -- Michael McBride and Jay Brummett called them offensive and derogatory.
On a 3-1 vote, the Utah Tax Commission ruled in late 1996 that the terms on the vanity plates were not racial slurs. Individual commissioners based their votes on whether they were personally offended by the terms, whether the "general public" might find them offensive and, in the lone dissent, whether "some people" might find them offensive.
Attorney Brian M. Barnard appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that the commissioners had applied the wrong standards in reaching their decision.
In a splintered but essentially unanimous opinion released Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with Barnard. The justices ordered the Tax Commission to reconsider its earlier ruling and to use as its standard of review "that of the objective, reasonable person."
"In other words," wrote Justice Leonard Russon, "under (law), the commission had to determine, in light of all the evidence presented, whether an objective, reasonable person would conclude that the term 'redskin' contains any vulgar, derogatory, profane or obscene connotation, or expresses contempt, ridicule or superiority of race or ethnic heritage."
Justice Christine Durham said it's a no-brainer. Citing the "genocidal practice" of paying white soldiers a bounty for "red skins," Durham said there is no doubt that the term is a "racial epithet."
Durham dissented from the 4-1 majority to the extent that she would have reversed the commission order and immediately revoked the plates without sending the issue back for a redetermination based on the majority's standard of review.
"(McBride and Brummett) introduced overwhelming evidence showing that the term 'redskin' is derogatory and profane, that it expresses contempt and ridicule, and that it references the historical domination of a defined class of persons based on race and ethnic heritage," Durham wrote.
She also said the majority had failed to address the "telling" argument that the definition of 'redskin' in the dictionary "mirrors almost exactly the dictionary definition or the counterpart term for another racial minority -- the 'n' word."
No court in the country would approve a legislative or administrative decision allowing the use of the 'n word' on a license plate, Durham said.
"It is to be hoped that one day all offensive and derogatory language, speech and symbols predicated on race will be completely eradicated from our culture," Durham said.
"In the meantime, public officials have the obligation to ensure that they are not used with the imprimatur of the state."
Justice Michael Zimmerman concurred with the majority but, like Durham, said the outcome should not be in doubt.
"Without prejudging the matter, it appears that it would be extremely difficult for a 'reasonable person' to find that the term 'redskin' does not have at least one offensive connotation," Zimmerman said.
Russon wrote in the majority opinion that the court could have easily made a final determination but chose to exercise "judicial restraint to maintain the integrity of our judicial system."