Letters: Readers react to Redskins controversy
Arthur Higbee: "Naming teams after American Indians does not dishonor but pays tribute to them and keeps them alive in the national consciousness. In misguided notions of political correctness, we may soon find ourselves erasing Indian names everywhere. We'll have to rename Tecumseh, Mich.; Indian Hill Road in Winnetka, Ill., and thousands of other places. "

Daniel W. Kieper: "I am not one who feels that political correctness should trump every other consideration in our public dialogues, and I think reasonable people can have a conversation over the relative merits of team nicknames such as Braves, Chiefs and even Indians. But Redskins? That's a racial slur."

Kevin Welber: "Those who support keeping the Redskins name and those who find it offensive are overlooking a simple way to please both sides. Don't change the name. Change the team's symbol -- to that of a potato. In one bold step, Dan Snyder would not only cleanse the Redskins name of any racial overtones but would also support the White House's recent focus on home gardens and farmers' markets."

Get the Story:
Letters: What's in the Redskins' Name (The Washington Post 9/24)

Relevant Documents:
Petition for Certiorari

D.C. Circuit Decision:
Pro-Football v. Harjo (May 15, 2009)

Related Stories:
Courtland Milloy: It's time to release 'Redskins' (9/23)
The Independent: On the warpath over Redskins (9/21)
Column: 'Redskins' is the equivalent to N-word (9/18)
Column: Activists await last word on 'Redskins' (9/18)
Column: Not all 'Indian' mascots are offensive (9/18)
Turtle Talk: Redskins has Supreme Court appeal (9/16)
BLT: Supreme Court asked to take on Redskins (9/15)
Opinion: A shameful day in America with 'Redskins' (05/20)
Court sides with 'Redskins' in trademark dispute (5/18)