NCAA Bans Native American Mascots in Postseason

[west3man]

I know the general subject of the propriety of names like "Seminoles" (with mascots and "fan participation," especially) has already been debated here. However, having an organized effort from THIS side of the ticket counter (and in spite of the fact there is some Native American, for instance, support for such things) is something else, in my opinion, and worthy of a bit of discussion.

Below is an excerpt from the article I read. I can't say that I fully understand the last paragraph, but that's probably just my sports-ignorance shining through.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/article.adp?id=20050805110309990028

INDIANAPOLIS (Aug. 5) - Fed up with what it considers "hostile" and "abusive" American Indian nicknames, the NCAA announced Friday it would shut those words and images out of postseason tournaments, a move that left some school officials angry and threatening legal action.

Starting in February, any school with a nickname or logo considered racially or ethnically "hostile" or "abusive" by the NCAA would be prohibited from using them in postseason events. Mascots will not be allowed to perform at tournament games, and band members and cheerleaders will also be barred from using American Indians on their uniforms beginning in 2008.

Major college football teams are not subject to the ban because there is no official NCAA tournament.


What do you think about this action?

[BcAugust]

I honestly think it's about damn time. *shrugs* Then again, I grew up in a town that had "Dead Indian Highway". So I'm just a tad sensitive on stuff like that.

[Expletive Deleted]

Anything that pushes my school to get rid of "The Chief" is fine by me.

[DarkBlade]

There's a difference between "Dead Indian Highway" and the Seminoles supporting the name of the school though...

[BcAugust]

There's a difference between "Dead Indian Highway" and the Seminoles supporting the name of the school though...

Well, yes. But then again, how many tribes don't support having their names taken? Honestly, I'd prefer them to go "Ok, if the tribe says it's ok, and you have thier permission, it's good." But that's not going to happen. *shrugs* Honestly, a lot of this strikes me as "Hey, they're finally realizing we're people too." Then again, I've been involved in a lot of naming debates out west that most people aren't even aware of, that color my view on it.

[Puma]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that it is okay to have such nicknames during the regular season but not during the playoffs. Is it because of the increased national televison audience?

[J Dog]

Well, Aztecs (San Diego State) is still acceptable.

[Winslow]

I think the NCAA should keep its PC nose out of things that should be decided at a local level.

[west3man]

There's a difference between "Dead Indian Highway" and the Seminoles supporting the name of the school though...
I think there are Seminoles who are cool with it and Seminoles who aren't.

In my case, even if 51% of Blacks were cool with a Zulu mascot, 49% is a huge number that should not be ignored. I think it's that kind of issue.

[west3man]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that it is okay to have such nicknames during the regular season but not during the playoffs. Is it because of the increased national televison audience?
I didn't understand all of it, but I got the impression that this was all they could do at this point, but there are plans for more strict regulations in the future.

Dunno for sure, though.

[Valmore]

Below is an excerpt from the article I read. I can't say that I fully understand the last paragraph, but that's probably just my sports-ignorance shining through.

Do you mean this one?

Major college football teams are not subject to the ban because there is no official NCAA tournament.


This is simple to explain. NCAA Division I doesn't have a sponsored college football tournament - the BCS handles all Bowl games, and teams only get in by invitation. A team could, in theory, turn down every last bowl game and not play past November/December, and it wouldn't hurt their record in the slightest. Unlike other college sports, where the NCAA is the official planner of the sport's post-season. They're the ones affected.

Frankly, I find the action stupid. Either force all of the colleges to get rid of Native American nicknames and symbols entirely or don't do a thing about it. This halfway solution the NCAA came up with is utter bullshit.

[Dreadstar]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that it is okay to have such nicknames during the regular season but not during the playoffs. Is it because of the increased national televison audience?

I think it's along the same lines as why they're not saying anything about football, per se. The NCAA doesn't actually have anything to do with regular season games. The football national championship isn't actually an "NCAA Championship," in that they don't really sanction such a thing.

On the other hand, the basketball championship *is* an "NCAA Championship." The NCAA runs it and recognizes the champion.

I'd think they (as in football) don't actually sanction the non-tournement games in any sport. Theirs is primarily a governing body concerned with the rules of individual and team participation, and not the contests themselves.

Reading that again, I'm not sure I explained it quite as well as I'm thinking it, and perhaps "sanction" is the wrong word to use.

I just can't think of a better way to explain it.

EDIT: If you add in what Valmore was saying, I think you can get the gist of what I'm trying to get at.

[Valmore]

I think it's along the same lines as why they're not saying anything about football, per se. The NCAA doesn't actually have anything to do with regular season games. The football national championship isn't actually an "NCAA Championship," in that they don't really sanction such a thing.

On the other hand, the basketball championship *is* an "NCAA Championship." The NCAA runs it and recognizes the champion.

I'd think they (as in football) don't actually sanction the non-tournement games in any sport. Theirs is primarily a governing body concerned with the rules of individual and team participation, and not the contests themselves.

Reading that again, I'm not sure I explained it quite as well as I'm thinking it, and perhaps "sanction" is the wrong word to use.

I just can't think of a better way to explain it.

EDIT: If you add in what Valmore was saying, I think you can get the gist of what I'm trying to get at.

Pretty much. Although what's stupid is that, basketball (and other sports) aren't affected by it during the regular season, either. It's only when you reach the NCAA tournaments that the ruling comes into affect.

So what the NCAA is saying is: You can have your Indian names and logos during the regular season and Conference tournaments, since we aren't really in effect there, even though you're playing by all of our rules and regulations, including drinking from the right Gatorade cups if your game gets televised, but once you hit the National Tournament, screw you, buddy, we don't want your Indian names here!

It's really lame. Either go all the way or none of the way. Halfway says, "Well, we don't have enough balls to tell everyone in the NCAA that having Indian names and mascots and logos is either offensive to our organization or not."

[macul]

I think there are Seminoles who are cool with it and Seminoles who aren't.

In my case, even if 51% of Blacks were cool with a Zulu mascot, 49% is a huge number that should not be ignored. I think it's that kind of issue.

Osceola (sp) was contacted by a local Jacksonville sports guy about this. His response was something along the lines of, "This is just another stupid example of the white man telling us what is best for us." He didn't like the decision.

My opinion is that there are clearly some nicknames that can be considered offensive. However, there are also others, such as the Seminoles, that I can't fathom being offensive. Maybe we are getting too caught up in the PC craze of making sure none of the names are offensive and in the process hurting those that aren't.

[Valmore]

Osceola (sp) was contacted by a local Jacksonville sports guy about this. His response was something along the lines of, "This is just another stupid example of the white man telling us what is best for us." He didn't like the decision.

My opinion is that there are clearly some nicknames that can be considered offensive. However, there are also others, such as the Seminoles, that I can't fathom being offensive. Maybe we are getting too caught up in the PC craze of making sure none of the names are offensive and in the process hurting those that aren't.

In Florida State's case, they pay the Seminole tribes of Florida for the right to use the name, so long as they don't use the name and mascot and logos in a demeaning way. So the Florida Seminole tribes benefit from these relations that the NCAA is trying to muck up.

Seminole tribes outside of Florida are the ones that complain about it.

[west3man]

Maybe we are getting too caught up in the PC craze of making sure none of the names are offensive and in the process hurting those that aren't.
There are Native Americans who do find these things offensive, so it's not as simple as that, imo.

[Puma]

have to say I'm appalled that SE Oklahoma State (Savages) use a cartoonish Native American as their mascot.

[macul]

There are Native Americans who do find these things offensive, so it's not as simple as that, imo.

I didn't say there aren't. My point is that some of the names just aren't offensive. Seminoles. What is offensive about Seminoles? Now Fighting Savages I can see. Redskins I can see. I don't see Seminoles. And how do you rectify the fact that some NAs aren't offended at all?

[west3man]

I didn't say there aren't. I know. You said, "Maybe we are getting too caught up in the PC craze of making sure none of the names are offensive and in the process hurting those that aren't."

That implies that there aren't people who are being hurt by this (i.e. "lesser" names like "Seminoles"), right? (real question, btw)

My point is that some of the names just aren't offensive. Seminoles. What is offensive about Seminoles? I've got a theory, but first I'd like to point out that our potential inability to see the harm doesn't mean it's not there, so we'd run the risk of hurting those with genuine, valid concerns - even with names like "Seminoles."

Now Fighting Savages I can see. Redskins I can see. I don't see Seminoles. And how do you rectify the fact that some NAs aren't offended at all?
Some Black people aren't offended by the use of the word "nigger"*. The way I rectify that with the fact that some African-Americans are offended by it... is by not using it.




* - No, I don't think the terms are exactly the same, but they only need to be analogous in enough ways to enough people. That's reason enough to stop a practice, in my opinion.

[Slam_Bradley]

I think the NCAA should keep its PC nose out of things that should be decided at a local level.


Preach on Brother Winslow.


Slam Bradley...at one time a Runnin' Ute. And proud of it.

[macul]

I know. You said, "Maybe we are getting too caught up in the PC craze of making sure none of the names are offensive and in the process hurting those that aren't."

That implies that there aren't people who are being hurt by this (i.e. "lesser" names like "Seminoles"), right? (real question, btw)

I'm saying the NCAA is going overboard.


I've got a theory, but first I'd like to point out that our potential inability to see the harm doesn't mean it's there, so we'd run the risk of hurting those with genuine, valid concerns - even with names like "Seminoles."

OK, then, how about the UNLV Running Rebels. I'm a southerner. Can I be offended by the use of "Running Rebel"? Makes rebels look like cowards. How about Fighting Irish? Why isn't that included in the ban? Is Seminole more offensive than Fighting Irish?


Some Black people aren't offended by the use of the word "nigger"*. The way I rectify that with the fact that some African-Americans are offended by it... is by not using it.




* - No, I don't think the terms are exactly the same, but they only need to be analogous in enough ways to enough people. That's reason enough to stop a practice, in my opinion.

Not only are they not exactly the same, they aren't even remotely comparable. Seminole is a genuine word used to describe a group of people. Same with Aztec. There is no negative connotation or intent with it. If Bob is a Seminole and I call him a Seminole he isn't going to get offended. If I call you a nigger then that's a different story. I think intent is what we need to keep in mind.

[Boldido]

From what I understand, there are only four of five teams that fall under the genuine name category: Seminoles, Utes, Illini, Choctaw. The vast majority of the teams were named "Indians" and then there is the aforementioned "Savages".

Having grown up in Cleveland, I grew up with Chief Wahoo everywhere. Could I see how some people could find it offensive? Sure. Do I care? Honestly, no, not in the least. So in the present case, I also don't really care. If a team is Florida based and the Florida tribe of Seminoles oppose what the NCAA is doing, then the policy strikes me as pretty paternalistic.

"You can't use the name, because it offends that group of Seminoles over there."

"Yeah, but your ban offends and hurts our Seminoles over here."

"Fuck them! Clearly they are sell outs who don't care about their own culture. Besides we know what's best for them. Stupid savages."

Does anyone else find it odd that they just focused on Native American images but didn't and won't touch the "Fightin' Irish"?

[west3man]

OK, then, how about the UNLV Running Rebels. I'm a southerner. Can I be offended by the use of "Running Rebel"? Of course.

Makes rebels look like cowards. How about Fighting Irish? Why isn't that included in the ban? Is Seminole more offensive than Fighting Irish? You'd have to ask the NCAA. My suspicion is that it isn't an example in which protests and lawsuits demonstrate that it's offensive to large numbers of the people in-question.

Not only are they not exactly the same, they aren't even remotely comparable. Seminole is a genuine word used to describe a group of people. Same with Aztec. There is no negative connotation or intent with it. If Bob is a Seminole and I call him a Seminole he isn't going to get offended. If I call you a nigger then that's a different story. I agree that those things are what make them dissimilar, but the things that make them apply to the point I was making aren't in your list.

You asked about how one reconciles the fact that some members of the group find the term offensive while others don't. I gave an example of such a word. If that example doesn't appeal to you (and apparently it doesn't) consider the following example:

The Fight Negroes!

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Oscar_Arredondo/negroes.jpg

"Negro" is a term that has largely been associated with African-Americans without (much) objection.

Change it to the Fighting Africans if that helps.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Oscar_Arredondo/negroes.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Oscar_Arredondo/oscar_arredondo.html&h=535&w=364&sz=35&tbnid=0de8fT93rPgJ:&tbnh=129&tbnw=87&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnegroes%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 D%26sa%3DG

Make the skin tones closer to the realistic skin tones of Africans and African-Americans, if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people who'd rather not see themselves or the groups they belong to depicted as mascots. They'd rather not see tens of thousands of people (or more) associating their ceremonial garb with a sports event.

Sure, there may be people who are cool with it, but just like with the use of certain words, if a significant number of people object, it might be a good idea to make a change.

I think intent is what we need to keep in mind. I agree, but intent to harm is not a prerequisite for harm to be inflicted. It's the harm that matters the most.

[Slam_Bradley]

I agree, but intent to harm is not a prerequisite for harm to be inflicted. It's the harm that matters the most.


I agree that intent to harm isn't necessary for harm to be inflicted. I absolutely disagree that it is the harm that matters most. The intent is clearly the controlling issue. Without intent the harm is incidental to the action. We virtually never hold people liable for harm that was caused with NO intent.

[Rallura]

Just a few thoughts. I do understand, and agree that the use of stereotypical racial mascots is not good. I think however that a blanket ban is also a not good thing. I would prefer they look at this case by case.

I do also wonder, from a practical standpoint, have they given the schools enough time to make the switch? From what I remember in college, and I went to small colleges, the logos are everywhere, not only uniforms but letterhead and programs and in the gym, etc, etc. How far does the NCAA intend to go with this? How far can they feasibally go with this?

This is a big problem though. Did anyone happen to scroll down the page from the link West gave us? The artist also did a large scale collage dipicting the many ways the image of the Native American has been used for advertising. It's a bit sobering when viewed like that.

A Mile in My Moccassins (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Oscar_Arredondo/mileinmocassinsD.jpg)

[Winslow]

I agree that intent to harm isn't necessary for harm to be inflicted. I absolutely disagree that it is the harm that matters most. The intent is clearly the controlling issue. Without intent the harm is incidental to the action. We virtually never hold people liable for harm that was caused with NO intent.

I agree 100% . . but I voted that intent was a vital factor in the online ethics poll that was posted this week.

I really think this needs to be a local, case by case review. The NCAA sould stay out of it.

I cannot fathom why any university would select a Native American mascot with intent to insult, or portray Native Americans negatively. Negative slang that has become offensive (like Redskins) I can understand changing, but a blanket condemnation is PC censorship.

[Rallura]

I agree 100% . . but I voted that intent was a vital factor in the online ethics poll that was posted this week.

I really think this needs to be a local, case by case review. The NCAA sould stay out of it.

I cannot fathom why any university would select a Native American mascot with intent to insult, or portray Native Americans negatively. Negative slang that has become offensive (like Redskins) I can understand changing, but a blanket condemnation is PC censorship.

Part of the overlying problem is, these things weren't chosen yesterday. Most of those type of nicknames were chosen before anyone cared who they insulted and how. Sometimes I think they were so intrenched in the idea that ethnic minorities=second class citizens they couldn't even see what they were doingor how pervasive it was. I don't think it's a good excuse though. Maybe the intent to insult wasn't actually there at the start, but now that most of us know better, isn't the responsible thing to do to address the problem? I am just not sure the NCAA solution is the right one. I truly dislike blanket policies.

[Valmore]

Does anyone else find it odd that they just focused on Native American images but didn't and won't touch the "Fightin' Irish"?

What I want to know is this:

The University of Notre Dame is named after a French Cathedral.

Their mascot and nickname are "The Fighting Irish."

Can anyone explain that one???

[Puma]

What I want to know is this:

The University of Notre Dame is named after a French Cathedral.

Their mascot and nickname are "The Fighting Irish."

Can anyone explain that one???
Notre Dame was founded by Sorin and seven Holy Cross brothers who came with him to the United States from France in 1841, hence Notre Dame



Notre Dame began athletic relations chiefly with local colleges founded by various denominations. Press reports would refer to the schools as the "Baptists" or the "Methodists," and the like. For Notre Dame it was the "Catholics," or the "Irish." But the players were never all of Irish ancestry; nor were they all Catholics.

When the religious origin of other colleges lost its significance, the emphasis shifted to conventional names, and to their school colors. But history is recorded remembrance in our blessed heritage here at Notre Dame. Fighting Irish! It's more than a name; more than a people. It is the Faith!

Since Irish was used to refer to Catholic at the time the school began playing intercollefiate sports this is a little different than a school filled with Anglo-Americans choosing to name themselves and use as a mascot a Native American tribal name or image.

[HomerJay]

Just a few thoughts. I do understand, and agree that the use of stereotypical racial mascots is not good. I think however that a blanket ban is also a not good thing. I would prefer they look at this case by case.

Of course that would be the sensible thing to do, but "sensible" and "politically-correct" do not often make good bedfellows.

REDSKINS = a potentially offensive term
SEMINOLES = used as a tribute

The Marquette University Debacle
Here in Milwaukee several years ago, Marquette University changed their nickname from "Warriors" (with a Native American logo) to the milquetoast "Golden Eagles". Boosters and fans had been voicing their displeasure with the new nickname ever since it came to be, always wanting to go back to "Warriors" (I still know people that refuse to call Marquette "The Golden Eagles"). The University in it's infinite wisdom mistook people's displeasure with the nickname with just disliking the nickname itself, when in fact most people just wanted "Warriors" back. One very prominent booster even announced he would donate several million dollars to the University if they just changed back to "Warriors".
Marquette then announced they would make the fans happy by changing the nickname once and for all (they were VERY clear about that) to...the Marquette GOLD. As you can imagine, a collective "WTF?" echoed through the community. Several hundred University Boosters announced they would no longer contribute funds to MU, so in one of the most spectacular cases of backpedalling ever seen, Marquette dropped the nickname and offered several alternatives for people to vote on (guess which nickname was missing). Even a write-in vote was allowed, but MU made it clear they would NOT even consider "Warriors" despite the almost overwhelming support for it. After the vote, the "new" nickname was...THE GOLDEN EAGLES. Sigh...

Here's a good article about the whole mess: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/marq/jun05/337468.asp

A question: Does anyone think "Warriors" is even remotely offensive? Would the middle-aged white men that run Marquette find "Noble Native-Americans" to be offensive as well?

[Rallura]

A question: Does anyone think "Warriors" is even remotely offensive? Would the middle-aged white men that run Marquette find "Noble Native-Americans" to be offensive as well?

I think that the best thing to do would have been keep the name, change the logo. How about a nice sword and shield?

[Puma]

I think that the best thing to do would have been keep the name, change the logo. How about a nice sword and shield?
a rival High School was/is the Woodway Warriors. Damn ugly colors: green and orange but their mascot was a leprechaun so no offense given

[HomerJay]

I think that the best thing to do would have been keep the name, change the logo. How about a nice sword and shield?

That's EXACTLY what I said while all this was going on. Just change the damn mascot to a Roman Gladiator or something, that way everyone is happy. But like I said, the terms "sensible" and "PC" are rarely compatible.

[Valmore]

Considering how dumb people can be:

My Elementary School mascot and nickname used to be the Trojans.

Parents complained, because none of them ever picked up a history book to realize what the Trojans actually were, and only associated it with the condoms of the same name.

So now they're the Hawks.

No word on if the Audubon society has complained.

[west3man]

I agree that intent to harm isn't necessary for harm to be inflicted. I absolutely disagree that it is the harm that matters most. The intent is clearly the controlling issue. Without intent the harm is incidental to the action. Intent is the controlling issue in determining the character of the groups and individuals inflicting harm.

The harm experienced by those or any group is what should be considered most in determining whether the actions which lead to that harm should be changed. Whether that's by government, NCAA, or local mandates is another story.

We virtually never hold people liable for harm that was caused with NO intent. One example that comes to mind is a drunk driver. He or she may or may not have intended to get drunk. He may not have intended to drive after drinking (but it just worked out that way). He may not have intended to hit someone. However, if one's actions result in harm to others, it's probably a good idea to avoid such actions in the future.

Punishment is another story, as well.

[Slam_Bradley]

One example that comes to mind is a drunk driver. He or she may or may not have intended to get drunk. He may not have intended to drive after drinking (but it just worked out that way). He may not have intended to hit someone. However, if one's actions result in harm to others, it's probably a good idea to avoid such actions in the future.

Punishment is another story, as well.


Absolutely incorrect. It is physically impossible to drive without meaning to drive. Additionally, unless the individual was forced to consume alcohol, they clearing intended to drink the alcohol. Whether there was a collision or not is immaterial to a charge of DUI.

[west3man]

I think you missed the point I was making.* Intent to do harm is what we were discussing, I thought. So, I mentioned that a drunk driver may not have intended to do harm. The harm inflicted upon others was not the person's drinking or driving, but the fact that they hit someone. Drinking and driving is potentially harmful to others, but it is not, in and of itself, harmful to others.

I hope that's clearer.

Whether there was a collision or not is immaterial to a charge of DUI. You're talking about legalities and I'm talking about whether or not it's a good idea to make a change. That's why I punctuated my statements with comments about how punishment is another story.



* - No, I'm not saying that because someone disagrees, they must not understand. I'm saying the person is misunderstanding because, in this case, the above response focuses on a different intent than the one I was talking about.

[Alex]

Good thing all the schools have the money to change their uniforms and mascots, since we all know how cheap that is. And it's not like they have restrictions on what they can spend or anything.
....
This is stupid.

[Slam_Bradley]

Intent is the controlling issue in determining the character of the groups and individuals inflicting harm.

The harm experienced by those or any group is what should be considered most in determining whether the actions which lead to that harm should be changed. Whether that's by government, NCAA, or local mandates is another story.



Well then I'll address the apparently more important issue. I'm frankly not sure I understand the first sentence.

In this case, the harm experienced is of a sort that, given a lack of intent, doesn't need to be redressed, in my opinion.

[west3man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slam_Bradley
I agree that intent to harm isn't necessary for harm to be inflicted. I absolutely disagree that it is the harm that matters most. The intent is clearly the controlling issue. Without intent the harm is incidental to the action.

Originally Posted by west3man
Intent is the controlling issue in determining the character of the groups and individuals inflicting harm.

The harm experienced by those or any group is what should be considered most in determining whether the actions which lead to that harm should be changed. Whether that's by government, NCAA, or local mandates is another story.

Well then I'll address the apparently more important issue. I'm frankly not sure I understand the first sentence. Maybe I didn't use "controlling issue" the right way. If so, I'm sorry if that caused any confusion.

I was just agreeing that intent is important, but that it is more important to the issues of the character (and, perhaps punishment) of the harmer than to the question of whether a change in behavior/actions is warranted.

Anyway, it was just one link in our conversational chain. Hopefully, it wasn't one of my rustier ones.

In this case, the harm experienced is of a sort that, given a lack of intent, doesn't need to be redressed, in my opinion. I guess we agree to disagree. *shakes hand* Thanks for the discussion, so far.

[west3man]

Well then I'll address the apparently more important issue. I had to revisit this since I think you were picking up an intent from me that wasn't there.

I wasn't trying to imply which was more important. I was trying to stay within the context of the statement, of mine, that you first replied to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by west3man
I agree, but intent to harm is not a prerequisite for harm to be inflicted. It's the harm that matters the most.

I was saying that it's the harm that matters the most... in deciding whether a change (in the actions or type of actions that caused the harm) is warranted.

Anyway, I hope that shows where I was coming from and why. Maybe I should make sure to add those extra bits to my statements. I'll work on it.

[K'Nort]

I really don't think the amount of harm matters the most when determining charges, etc. Sometimes people are killed in car accidents and no charges are filed. When it is a clear accident.

And I do believe drunk driving counts as intent. No one gets behind the wheel unaware of the high risk they are taking. If they get to their destination without hurting anyone, they're just lucky. Like the technical legal term 'negligent homicide.' If it was an accident but you really should have known better, you get charged. Another way of looking at it, I guess, is whether it could have been prevented.

[west3man]

I really don't think the amount of harm matters the most when determining charges, etc. Sometimes people are killed in car accidents and no charges are filed. When it is a clear accident. "ChaNges"... as in, "of behavior."

And I do believe drunk driving counts as intent. No one gets behind the wheel unaware of the high risk they are taking. If they get to their destination without hurting anyone, they're just lucky. Like the technical legal term 'negligent homicide.' If it was an accident but you really should have known better, you get charged. Another way of looking at it, I guess, is whether it could have been prevented.They know the risk but that doesn't mean they don't have the intent.

Harm resulting from negligence of risk is not the same thing as harm resulting from intent to do harm.