I hate politically correct orthodoxy, that reflexive tendency to corral thought and language into neat little “good” and “bad” boxes. To me, it’s a kind of social disorder, a self-imposed censorship that often stymies honest exchange, ascribes malice to those who “misspeak,” and tends to create privileged classes of speakers. There are those — in this day and age, most often minorities and women — who are allowed to cross a line and those who wouldn’t even dream of tiptoeing up to it. It explains the left’s defense of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s prideful embrace of the “wise Latina” and what would have undoubtedly been a severe rebuke of, say, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., if he had dared assert that white male judges were equipped to make better decisions because of their life experiences.

Which brings us to the name of our local football team.

Every few years or so, it seems, a movement gathers to force a renaming of the team. The argument: The term Redskins is offensive to American Indians, a throwback, according to some sources, to a time when white bounty hunters presented scalps — or “redskins” — to prove their success in slaying the enemy. Team owners, including current boss Daniel Snyder, have refused to budge, arguing that no offense is meant and that the franchise could lose millions if forced to adopt a new name or logo.

I can sense a lot of eye-rolling out there among my conservative friends. Let me explain. First, I think the challengers are right on the law. Statutes governing patents stipulate that no patent shall be issued if it contains “matter which may disparage … persons, living or dead … or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” I don’t see how the term Redskins even comes close to passing the smell test.

The law also allows a challenge to an offensive patent to be brought “at any time.” The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether a lower court erred by dismissing the American Indian challenge as having been filed too late. It makes sense for the justices to take up the matter to resolve a conflict among several federal appeals courts.

I’m certain that offending American Indians is the furthest thing from the minds of fans or franchise. I suspect the truth is that most of us simply don’t think about it. We’ve become comfortable with the word, complacent. And that has made us unwilling to challenge our own thinking or our assumptions about whether it might be offensive to those whom it describes. But can you imagine anyone in their right mind today trying to coin the name Washington Wetbacks? How about California Chinks? Or Kentucky Krauts? It wouldn’t take a legal challenge from Latino, Chinese, or Germans to put the kibosh on those ideas. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit now to bring an end to an such an unfortunate and hurtful name.

Eva Rodriguez is a writer for the editorial page of the Washington Post. A version of this commentary was published on Sunday.