Long Island school district slapped with federal probe over plan to drop Native American team name
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the feds will probe Connetquot school district after it was revealed officials have been quietly working out a deal with the state to remove its Thunderbirds name.
'New York's patronizing attitude toward Native Americans must end,' McMahon said. 'We will continue to support the Native American community and ensure their heritage is equally protected under the law.'
Advertisement
3 Connetquot High School is set to receive a federal probe over a potential plan to drop their Native American team name.
James Messerschmidt
The Trump administration has blasted the ban as discriminatory, in part because it singles out Native American imagery on logos and in sports team names. McMahon told Connetquot its efforts to cut a deal to rebrand as 'T-Birds' could be a violation of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act.
Connetquot had sued to keep the use of Thunderbirds in defiance of the state Board of Regents' ban, which was set in 2023 but is still going into effect.
Advertisement
The school district has allocated a jaw-dropping $23 million to phase out Thunderbirds – name shared with a sports car, an Air Force squadron and a Canadian Hockey League team.
Both the Suffolk County district and the state Education Department had been silently negotiating a deal to contract Thunderbirds to 'T-Birds' — a phrase already used at the schools — as opposed to finding a new team name in late June.
3 Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon announced the probe on Connetquot's school district.
Jack Gruber-USA TODAY via Imagn Images
That was a turnaround after the state had previously said 'T-Birds' was not an acceptable alternative, according to a longtime Connetquot school board member.
Advertisement
'Last month, they wouldn't allow it…They would not allow T-Birds or any derivative, not even Thunder,' Jaclyn Napolitano-Furno, whose time on the board since 2019 ended in July, previously told The Post.
McMahon was called on by President Trump and toured Massapequa High School in May. There, the team name of the Chiefs had come under siege by the ban — one that can result in state funding cuts and removal of local board members.
She criticized that only Native American team names were under scrutiny, whereas others like the Dutchmen or Huguenots were perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the state.
'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools,' McMahon added.
Advertisement
'During my recent visit to New York, many individuals in the Native American community express their deep pride in their heritage and local mascots. Images like the Thunderbirds and Chiefs are seen as symbols of strength, honor, and identity – not of disrespect.'
3 Connetquot High School sued to keep their team name, the Thunderbirds, in defiance of the state Board of Regents' ban, set in 2023.
James Messerschmidt
The Native American Guardians Association, which had a handful of its nearly 85,000 nationwide members join McMahon on stage at Massapequa High School, also filed a preliminary injunction against the ban and the Board of Regents last week.
'My clients are tired of it. They're tired of people pretending to speak for the Native American population — and they're tired of people trying to erase their history. It's unconstitutional, and we're not gonna put up with it,' NAGA attorney Chap Petersen told The Post last week.
'It's not even a state law. It's an ordinance,' he said, adding 'What they're doing is they're trying to erase history…a key piece of American culture.'
Petersen also agreed that the terms being scrutinized have no offensive intent.
'It could be as innocuous as Thunderbirds, and as a result, you could lose your school funding…I just think that people have had it with this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Florida's illegal immigration detention center is a constitutional nightmare
In the heart of the Everglades — sacred ground for Native American tribes and ecological treasures — Gov. Ron DeSantis has carved something unthinkable: an unregulated and patently unconstitutional detention center for immigrants. Republicans have mockingly dubbed it Alligator Alcatraz, evoking racist nostalgia for the 1950s treatment of Black Americans dumped in Miami swamps. This grotesque history now repeats. This swamp prison is not a federal facility run by ICE, but a state-run black non-site imprisoning people for political theater with $500 million of Florida taxpayer money annually. Though described by Florida's attorney general as a 'low-cost, temporary detention facility,' the truth is far more sinister. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Florida has no legal authority to detain immigrants simply for being undocumented unless that person is also charged with a state crime or subject to a federal detainer. Even then, a judicial hearing must be held within 48 hours to determine probable cause for arrest. This is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Yet those imprisoned in this Everglades camp hellhole — many with no criminal record — are held indefinitely without charges, hearings or meaningful access to legal counsel. That is not immigration enforcement; this is state-sponsored kidnapping. In holding immigrants as political pawns, DeSantis' message is clear: cruelty is intended. The suffering and neglect should horrify every American. The facility floods routinely. Toilets often don't flush. The food is scarce, often a sandwich. Medical care is nonexistent. This is not a detention facility. It is a constitutional crime scene. There is no space for attorney-client meetings. Lawyers are turned away or forced to communicate through fences and chain-link barriers — in plain violation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The state of Florida ignores these protections and in response activists have begun filing suit. Moreover, the Everglades — home to endangered species and a UNESCO World Heritage site — is environmentally and culturally desecrated. The Miccosukee and Seminole peoples, who have lived in harmony with their sacred land for centuries, now fight back — suing to block the project because it violates environmental law and their sovereign treaty rights. One lawsuit this week prompted a temporary stop to construction at the camp. But DeSantis has bulldozed ahead, prioritizing ideology over ecology and cruelty over conservation. Even ICE — not known for its compassion — has distanced itself from this disaster, confirming that this is not a federal facility. If that is true, then ICE has no legal oversight, and detention is occurring outside any authorized federal immigration process. Thus, those imprisoned here are held solely by the state of Florida, which cannot incarcerate people who have not committed a state crime. This is not a gray area but a flashing red alert. The Constitution allows only the federal government to detain for immigration enforcement, and even then, only within the bounds of due process. Even if Florida claims to hold undocumented immigrants on ICE's behalf, it is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is the time for bold legal action. Every person detained is entitled to immediate release or a judicial hearing. Lawyers should file habeas corpus petitions in federal court now. Civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be brought against every Florida official responsible. The Justice department should open a civil rights investigation. Congress must hold hearings. And if this facility is allowed to stand — if the courts do not act, if the public does not resist — then it will not be the last. The architecture of tyranny is modular. This is not just about immigration; this is a moral disgrace, an environmental catastrophe, a violation of tribal sovereignty and a constitutional abomination. It must be shut down. The Constitution applies everywhere — even in the Everglades. Justice cannot be confined by geography or politics. If you or someone you know is detained in this facility, fight back with every legal tool available. Our democracy depends on standing up to unlawful detention and demanding accountabilitybefore more lives are needlessly destroyed in this swamp of injustice. Irwin P. Stotzky is a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. The views expressed here are solely the author's and not that of the university.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders colleges to prove they don't consider race in admissions
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump's Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement that there has been 'rampant racial preferencing in college admissions.' As such, she directed the National Center for Education Statistics to collect admissions data on higher education institutions. 'It should not take years of legal proceedings, and millions of dollars in litigation fees, to elicit data from taxpayer-funded institutions that identifies whether they are discriminating against hard working American applicants. Going forward, universities will be required to provide this data directly to us through an existing data system,' McMahon said. Colleges and universities must report data on their applicant pool, admitted students and enrolled students separated by race and sex across the institution. Data will include standardized test scores, GPAs and other academic achievements. 'We will not allow institutions to blight the dreams of students by presuming that their skin color matters more than their hard work and accomplishments. The Trump Administration will ensure that meritocracy and excellence once again characterize American higher education,' she said. The role of race in admissions has featured in the administration's battle against some of the nation's most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Harvard University is still in talks with the Trump administration over a potential deal. Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures. The executive order makes the same argument. 'The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of 'diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' said a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing. The impact of the Supreme Court ruling The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Read more: Top colleges are losing diversity. State and community schools are seeing a boost Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges, which are prohibited by law from collecting information on race as part of admissions, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents. 'Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,' Fansmith said. 'But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.' Because of the Supreme Court ruling, schools are not allowed to ask the race of students who are applying. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. In this political climate, many students won't report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrollments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025. More Higher Ed 'Severely lacking': Trump admin has backlog of 27K student loan complaints Legal document shows discord between Harvard and Trump admin amid negotiations Harvard and Trump admin await judge's decision as deadline ticks closer 'They fear deportation': University student newspaper sues Trump admin over free speech Is Harvard considering a $500M deal with Trump? Faculty don't think so Read the original article on MassLive. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Orders Colleges to Submit Admissions Data on Race
Trump Orders Colleges to Submit Admissions Data on Race originally appeared on L.A. Mag. President Donald Trump has issued a directive asking colleges and universities to hand over detailed admissions data, including applicants' race, gender, test scores and GPAs. The executive action, signed on Thursday, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to ensure compliance from institutions that receive federal financial aid. Noncompliance could trigger penalties under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The directive also mandates rigorous accuracy checks and public release of admissions memorandum claims that despite the 2023 Supreme Court decision abolishing affirmative action, colleges continue to use "diversity statements" and other "racial proxies" in their admissions processes, which some conservatives consider illegal discrimination. Thus, the administration seeks to expose and possibly penalize colleges suspected of ignoring the ruling. The Trump administration has already forced data-sharing settlements with Columbia University and Brown University in exchange for restoring their federal research funding. This directive establishes that model see it as a step toward greater transparency and compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. But critics argue the move is designed to pressure schools into abandoning legally permissible diversity efforts. Richard Kahlenberg, an advocate for class-based affirmative action, warned that collecting race data without socioeconomic data could risk misrepresenting admissions outcomes. For example, data might appear to show that Black and Hispanic students were admitted with lower test scores, in defiance of the Supreme Court decision, when a college might have actually been using information about students' family income as a factor."By failing to request the socioeconomic data, it looks like the administration is going to take us down this very extreme path where a university that achieves racial diversity is suspect, even if it uses a race-neutral means like socioeconomic status,' Kahlenberg said to the the aftermath of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, colleges have adapted by adding personal essays to gauge applicants' lived experiences. The ruling allowed race to be discussed if tied to a student's character or resilience, although banning it from explicit consideration. Data from the first admissions cycle after the ruling showed mixed results. Some schools, like MIT and Amherst, saw steep drops in Black student enrollment, while other schools, like Princeton and UVA, held University of California system, which struck down affirmative action in 1996, could offer a glimpse into the potential long-term effects. Within two years of the ban, Black and Hispanic enrollment dropped by half at UC Berkeley and UCLA. The system has since implemented programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students to expand racial diversity at each Trump's executive order leans on existing federal data requirements, legal challenges may emerge. Critics point to potential violations of the federal student privacy law, arguing that the administration's goal is not necessarily enforcement, but ideological directive represents a significant expansion of federal oversight into college admissions practices, particularly those involving race and diversity. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Aug 8, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword
