Last month, several community members reached out to the Source Weekly and to representatives of the Bend-La Pine Schools district to share concerns around a local ammunition manufacturer’s very visible sponsorship of the football and soccer programs at Mountain View High School. After the district’s decision to maintain the status quo for the time being, a sign promoting the company will once again go up on the scoreboard of the school’s stadium.
It should be obvious that promoting the use of weapons and ammunition doesn’t belong in a school – and certainly not one where a deadly shooter recently attended. BLPS’ own policy around sponsorships bans promoting the use of “illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling or firearms and products or services not permitted to minors by law,” a policy seemingly ambiguous enough so as not to outright ban the promotion of bullets that go into said firearms.
The district says it plans to review its sponsorship policies during this current school year so as to remove any ambiguous language, but heck, right now, a medical marijuana company might have an “in” to market themselves at local football games as well. That, too, is not illegal and is available to minors with a prescription.
When pressed about this issue, both district representatives and the school’s principal pointed out that Nosler, the ammunition manufacturer in question, has been sponsoring programs in the district for 25 years and that until the sponsorship review is complete, nothing is going to change. Some community members who weighed in about the issue were also quick to point out that the company employs a lot of people, is family owned and truly cares about the community.
It also employed Ian Cranston, who is now in prison for shooting and killing Barry Washington on the streets of Bend after illegally carrying a weapon into a bar while drinking.
People and companies can contain multitudes. They can, all at the same time, care about school sports and be good people and create products that can be used to do anything from hunting to inciting violence. All of these things can be true at once.
What is also true is that a company could, in theory, choose to support a cause at a local school and not ask for any quid pro quo. It could, in theory, see that times have changed in the 25 years it has supported a school, and that school shootings and recent deadly violence in proximity of the school, and more by a former employee, don’t necessarily endear all community members to their brand. They could, in theory, simply support school sports programs with the dollars that help keep programs running, and not expect the support to come with a session of haggling over the size of the sign that will hang under the school’s scoreboard for everyone to see.
Any company or individual can choose to separate altruism from marketing for the good it offers to the athletes involved. Not everything needs to come with a quid pro quo.
This article appears in Source Weekly October 5, 2023.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I am happy you all wrote this opinion piece. I couldn’t agree more. If Nosler truly cares about supporting youth and school sports then do so anonymously. Also Nosler should also have a discussion with his employee that commented last week that was threatening, rude, unprofessional and brought politics into the conversation. This is a community issue about a common sense and not about politics. He certainly didn’t paint Nosler in a good light.
Agree! Thank you for the editorial of a nuanced community concern. It captures much of the thoughts/conversations we’ve been having as a family (recent MVHS grad, current MVHS student, and middle school student).
It would be helpful to know…
1) how Nosler has supported schools over the last 25yrs. Has their logo always been used (quid pro quo) and the community is now simply more aware bc of Safeway/Cranston? Or have they been donating anonymously (altruistic) in previous years recently found someone willing to “thread needle” of current policy at MVHS/other schools?
2) the school district’s formal review process & if/when/how community members can participate?
In addition to the policy language & points of consideration included below, Principal Hicks also asked parents to take “the opportunity to learn from one another and move forward in a supportive and positive manner. Our students and children need to see that differences are surmountable, and that at the end of the day we all have more in common than in difference.”
——————
“The regulation further states that the district will not accept certain advertisements. Those include any which:
-Promote the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling or firearms;
– Are associated with any company or individual whose actions are inconsistent with the Districts mission and goals or community values;
– Promote any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
As we seek to interpret and apply this policy, we must consider:
-What is meant by promote, and does a sign featuring the company name/logo promote the use of firearms?
– Would an interpretation extend to any business, including sporting goods stores and general retailers, that sell firearms and/or ammunition? What about businesses that produce and sell alcohol, such as local breweries?
– In Oregon, minors under age 18 may not purchase or possess a firearm, although minors are permitted to use firearms for hunting and target practice. “