SiouxFan9

I was at the Sioux shop over a month or so ago and I asked the worker if they're going to put ed's logo on center ice. She told me that they were still debating that. She also said they were leaning toward not doing it this season because the uniforms won't have it. At least that's the story I got...

Something Mr. Anderson is being "asked" to wear I'm sure... They decided against putting in on the ice:

Yes, actually it did if you go back and look at the criteria used by the committee to select the name and what stakeholders (other than Ed, of course) told SME what they wanted for a symbol. Of the criteria used to select the name they certainly missed the mark with being unique, and likelihood of name being abridged resulting in different name or name similar to existing name. As one other “Hawks” institution put it, “welcome to the hawk family”. Even another college in the state was concerned that people could become confused with their nickname, the Blue Hawks. Seems that the Blue Hawks and Fighting Hawks have already been shortened to just “Hawks” justifying their concerns. It’s early, but the nickname being a unifying and rallying symbol don’t seem to have been met as well. Just because the old name and symbol aren’t coming back means I have to like the new one. Why are you trying to force people to like it?? Here’s what some UND students are doing with their “free” shirts and propaganda that is being spread all over campus this fall. You can't turn around without seeing ed's logo. Brainwashing in full force. It's crazy!

don't like the name, hate ed's logo

I missed that one, thanks! I like his comment about this being an institution of higher learning and wanting to focus on those greater issues. I also like the comment about not having an issue with those who wish to hold on to the prior nickname.

yeah, I agree...nothing. I'm curious to see how the new president address the issue though.

I'm basing it on the TV interviews and articles of people that supposedly had input into the logo and they all say the same thing, "they didn't listen to what we had to say". You're right, opinions are subjective, and you never will satisfy everyone. We've all heard that before. However, when nearly 71% of people who responded to a poll voice their objection something is wrong, or don't you think so? A clean slate, really??! Do you really buy that argument?! It was his intent to leave his logo on the school all along. An interim present is supposed to ensure the day to day functions of the university are addressed until a permanent replacement can be found. Their job is not to make decisions that will affect the university for decades to come. You think that just because Ed put his logo out there that it would instantly end all the controversy and everyone would be happy??!! All Ed did was flame the fires and walk out the door with a storm of controversy and upheaval for the in coming present do deal with - thanks Ed.

It will be interesting to see what comes of the logo petition...any guesses??!

I know, crazy, right?!! HAHAHA He was one of the people with "input" that spoke out now that he's no longer part of the program.

The only input that occurred was a ruse so that Schafer could say he had input. Apparently the past artist, students, athletes, alumni, and fans suggestions were ignored during this process. Mr. Schafer took it upon himself to make the selection. He and he alone decided what the symbol would be and was “very hands-on” with the design and outcome. He had his “favorite going in” to the process and nobody was going to persuade him otherwise, not even past logo creator Bennet Brien and UND hockey standout Troy Stecher. People that came forward saying they were called in all said "they didn't listen" to them. In the end, after all the fan fair with Mr. Schafer patting himself on the back for a job well done, eerily reminiscent of what’s done every two years at the state capitol, Mr. Schafer will have forcibly left HIS mark on the school. As for me, if I have a choice in something that will effect me (even a choice that doesn't include what I'd like; nickname. Yes, I did vote; RR), I will be a little more excepting of it rather than getting it shoved down my throat; freedom of choice approach (with independence day being yesterday - lol). That's what causes these types of issues... And we do have the option of changing the logo. That's the whole point! Even the Fighting Sioux logo changed over time. Ed can keep his logo.

The whole issue with this logo is that it's not ours, it Mr. Schafer's. It wasn't selected by the students or alumni, or anyone else for that matter. Mr. Schafer was the sole person with "hands on" involvement. This is a symbol of Mr. Schafer and that's it. That's why people are having a hard time excepting it. Unlike the nickname, WE didn't choose it. Anyone see this article in the GF Herald?! http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/4066032-jim-whitehead-light-and-law-smoke-and-mirrors-und Here's a line near the end of the letter that sums it up: And let's hope Schafer's personal logo selection will be the last instance of dictatorial decision-making at UND for a long, long time

Not a symbol of UND As someone who grew up in Grand Forks, attend UND, have siblings and parents that attended UND, have a parent who is a professor at UND, and gone through this same process with my high school, I feel I have some insight into the issue. I feel there have been a number of injustices that have gone on throughout this process, from the mishandling of the issue by the State with the NCAA, to the blatant disregard of the facts, the oppression of the wishes of the people on the Standing Rock reservation, and to the debacle of the name and logo selection. The university did receive permission from the tribes to use the name. Why was that fact ignored? Did the tribes rescind their permission of its use? Why didn’t the State stress this fact when dealing with the NCAA? Why didn’t the NCAA accept this approval of usage that was given when the namesake was first established? These are just a number of questions still out there. What is lost in all the timelines that I’ve seen is the fact that the people of North Dakota overwhelmingly voted to have the university keep the name and symbol by voting it in as a law! The people reversed its decision only after being threatened and bullied by the NCAA with sanctions against the university. Yet that fact is absent from timelines. Only the vote to remove the name is mentioned. The incontrovertible majority of the Spirit Lake Reservation voted in favor of keeping the name, yet the Standing Rock Reservation was kept mum and not allowed to voice their opinion the issue because the people who spearheaded its removal happened to be in a position to oppress their voices. If the name is so offensive to the tribes why are they using it in their own schools? The school in Solen on the Standing Rock Reservation calls themselves the Solen Sioux. They even have a symbol that is reminiscent of the one used by the highway patrol. Why is that acceptable and UND’s usage not? The majority were once again ignored by not allowing the choice of “none” in the naming process. This is another case of where the minority is deciding what the majority will do, which seems to happening a lot these days. Why force the people to make a selection. A name could be chosen at a late time. Why force the issue? Of the criteria used to select the name they certainly missed the mark with being unique, and likelihood of name being abridged resulting in different name or name similar to existing name. As one other “Hawks” institution put it, “welcome to the hawk family.”. Even another college in the state was concerned that people could become confused with their nickname, the Blue Hawks. Seems that the Blue Hawks and Fighting Hawks have already been shortened to just “Hawks” justifying their concerns. It’s early, but the nickname being a unifying and rallying symbol don’t seem to have been met as well. That being said, we’ve moved on to the symbol. This symbol is not a representation of UND. It’s a symbol that represents Mr. Schafer and all the injustices that have occurred with this whole process. An interim present is supposed to ensure the day to day functions of the university are addressed until a permanent replacement can be found. Their job is not to make decisions that will affect the university for decades to come and leave a fire-storm of controversy and upheaval for the in-coming present to deal with. As Mr. Schafer put it, the selection and creation of the symbol should have been left to the professionals. It’s obvious that Mr. Schafer wanted to leave his mark on the school. Apparently the past artist, students, athletes, and alumni suggestions were ignored during this process. Mr. Schafer took it upon himself to make the selection. He and he alone decided what the symbol would be and was “very hands-on” with the design and outcome of the symbol. He had his “favorite going in” to the process and nobody was going to persuade him otherwise, not even Bennet Brien and UND hockey standout Troy Stecher. As for the logo itself, was the thought process behind the symbol to make it as plain, generic, and, well blah, as possible so that nobody could find a reason to be offended by it; except the people that it represents? To people who say this is just a symbol and not to get too excited over it, have you ever heard the phrase a picture paints a thousand words? I think everyone expected more than what we got. To hear Mr. Schafer refer to the petition going around as a very small voice of the alumni was just outrageous. He completely ignored the alumni and student body with his selection of the symbol, but now he uses them as a convenient reason not revisit the issue??! Irony abounds!! Did the name change and symbol stand a chance against the old name and symbol; not a chance. Nothing will ever be as good, ever. However, UND had the opportunity to ease the transition and persuade people into accepting the new name by creating a logo by the people for the people, which would allow them to take ownership of it and feel part of the process. It takes leadership to make that happen… Having the university use the name and symbol allowed the people to be remembered, bring to light their plight, to not be forgotten. Every time UND would be represent by the students in any competition around the nation, academically or athletically, people would wonder what the Sioux were and why the university would use that name. They would look up the history of the tribes and learn what the Sioux nation was all about and their history. Now that the namesake and symbol have been removed and no longer in the forefront of the activities of the university, the Sioux tribes will fade out of the minds of the rest of the nation and fade out of existence. Is that really what the tribal wants? I will, of course, support and cheer for the athletes of the university as I always have. That hasn’t changed and never will. What has changed is my opinion of the school’s philosophy and administration. I for one, can no longer support an institution that can’t uphold its values and morals by allowing itself to be bullied by the NCAA, and a minority of individuals who happened to be in the position to make a lot of noise, and oppress those who would speak up against their wishes, into removing their name and symbol. For all of the detractors out there that feel that people are sulking because they merely want the old name and symbol back are missing the point. This is no longer about the old name and symbol. People have moved past that. This is about being forced into accepting something without having any input into the issues. It’s about being told what we can have with a false facade of a vote. The detractors seem to be the ones hung up on the old name and symbol and not the real issues at hand. They are the ones with the narrow focus of just the old name and a symbol. I say to the in-coming present, what is the harm in allowing the students and alumni, the key stakeholders, to have a say in what the new symbol would be. Have local artists, students, and alumni (people who have lived in the region, understand the culture, attended the school, and know the history of the university) select the next symbol that will represent them. It won’t cost anything to do this. Put them all up for a vote, including the logo selected by Mr. Schafer, and let the people decide! Another option would be to use the logo selected by Mr. Schafer as a shoulder patch and create a new logo for the front of the jerseys. It won’t undo the injustices that have been done, but it will help ease the transition.

Anyone else think INTERIM president Schafer overstepped his bounds on this one?!

let me know if these look familiar: