It has been a rough season for the Redskins, and not just because of their current 3-6 record, as of Nov. 7.

The team’s 80-year-old nickname, which spurs from the founding of the team in 1933 when four players and the head coach were Native Americans, has faced criticism, deemed by some as a racial slur towards the indigenous group.

Beginning in 1992, several Native American groups petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claiming the trademarked name was illegal.

The groups stated the name was unlawful because to some the name is considered a racial slur, stemming from the 18th and 19th century when the term “redskin” referred to an offensive and derogatory name for Native Americans.

In 1999, the case was dismissed. However, recently the issue was brought forth upon Congress to change the Redskins trademark, which includes the name and logo.

Junior Sequoia Carrillo, who is of Native American heritage, believes the name should be changed.  “It is a good idea to change the Washington Redskins [name],” Carrillo said. “Redskins is derogatory.”

In an interview with the Associated Press, President Barack Obama stated that he would think about changing the name if he were the owner of the Redskins.

“If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” Obama said.

Assistant Principal Mark Penn agrees with Obama, stating reasons in the interest of the public.

“I think it should be changed in the spirit of protecting all people,” Penn said. “Other teams have changed their names for whatever reason. If the goal is to protect all people and make sure there is equity in all races, the name should be changed. You shouldn’t protect one group of people and hurt another in the process.”

While some support the name-change, it is ultimately up to Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who does not wish to change the name.  On Oct. 9, Snyder addressed a letter to “everyone in our Redskins nation.”

“That name was never a label,” Snyder said. “It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.” According to Snyder, the Annenberg Public Policy Center polled 1,000 self-identified Native Americans from across the continental United States and found that 90 percent of Native Americans did not find “Washington Redskins” to be “offensive.”

“It is a symbol for everything we stand for: strength, courage, pride respect,” Snyder said. “The same values we know guide Native Americans and which are embedded throughout rich history as the original Americans.”

Junior Matt Crump agrees that the name should remain. “They should not change the name of the team,” Crump said. “It is the team’s history.”

In an Associated Press survey cited by Snyder, 79 percent of respondents stated that the Redskins should not change their name.

“They shouldn’t change their name since it’s not offensive to the majority of the people,” sophomore Nihal Virk said. “It is impossible to have a solution to the problem that is accepted by everyone.”

Others would like to know what the new name would be in order to take a side.

“It entirely depends on what they change the name to,” senior Samyukta Venkat said. “But I don’t think it was ever meant to be offensive.”

Supporters of the name change announced that they wish to re-name the team the “Washington Redtails.

“If they did rename the team it should be something that is true to the history,” junior Daniel Frisbee said. “The Redtails would ruin the legacy.”

Regardless of what the new name is, a change would result in monetary loss for the team.  According to Forbes.com, if the trademark is canceled, the Redskins are projected to lose millions of dollars in merchandising sales.

Fans would also face the costly price of new gear.

“I think it would be unfortunate because everyone would have to get new apparel due to the name change,” senior Carter Schultz said. “But it would also be cool because the old Skins apparel would be vintage.”