[PCM]

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 10:47 AM, said:

Suffice it to say that if we're relying on the First Amendment to force others to accept our use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, we're wasting our time.

That's never been the argument. The free expression argument is about whether the minority of a minority has the right to censor words and images in the public domain that it finds offensive.

Quote

The case against the NCAA is a breach of contract case (with an uphill anti-trust count).

Which does not preclude a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds at some point in the future.

Quote

The "case" against other schools who don't want to schedule us is...well, nothing. There is not a court in this country that will force schools to schedule us because of the First Amendment or any other legal theory. It is merely a matter for public opinion and public discourse. And while we may hold public opinion amongst the general population, we certainly don't hold it on major college campuses. The people in positions to make these decisions might as well be living on another planet from you and me.

Does that mean that university administrators can't be held accountable for their decisions and the examples they set? Because as the parent of a student attending a public university, I do expect accountability. As a taxpayer who foots the bill to support public institutions, I expect accountability.

While I'm sure that administrators of certain universities would prefer to make decisions in a vacuum -- free from public scrutiny, discourse and criticism -- I don't plan on issuing them a pass simply because they've managed to establish free speech exclusion zones on their campuses. It's an issue of such critical importance that it transcends UND's DI plans and the desire of some Sioux boosters to mimic NDSU.

This post has been edited by PCM: 20 December 2006 - 12:56 PM

[Shawn-O]

ScottM, on Dec 20 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

MplsBison, on Dec 20 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

Lets say UND wins the lawsuit and the NCAA says you can use Sioux and host playoffs, etc.


Then, would not being able to play Minnesota in football, basketball, etc. be a big deal to you guys?

It would be "nice" to play Minnesota, and given Maturi's earlier comments probably even possible if the NC$$ pulled its head out of its ass. However, I think the larger, looming issue as mksioux notes, is that the people who drive these decisions aren't always in the AD, so much as buried in academia and detached from reality. So what we're seeing from Minnesota may be a harbinger of things to come from other quarters, and UND may not be the only school "blackballed" by these clowns either, including the NC$$'s golden goose, FSU.

And since "If it's offensive to one person in a group, it's offensive," seems to be their mantra, where do I complain in the NC$$ appartus about the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame and their mascot/logo? Can we start a petition among Irish and non-Irish folks?

You know what's scary? It's the Linda Bradys of the world that are "educating" our 18-24 year olds. She happens to be "teaching" them about child development, which is doubly scary. These are the future leaders in our businesses and communities, and this is the type of garbage they are being fed. The political correctness flywheel is gaining speed by the second, until the silent majority steps up and asserts its will. That's why I'm proud of the stand that UND has taken.

[mksioux]

PCM, on Dec 20 2006, 01:54 PM, said:

That's never been the argument. The free expression argument is about whether the minority of a minority has the right to censor words and images in the public domain that it finds offensive.

I agree it's never been the argument. I'm not the one trying to make it one.

I completely agree that a minority of a minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority on this issue, but that doesn't necessarily make it a First Amendment issue.

Quote

Which does not preclude a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds at some point in the future.

A lawsuit against whom? For what? Honest questions.

Quote

Does that mean that university administrators can't be held accountable for their decisions and the examples they set? Because as the parent of a student attending a public university, I do expect accountability. As a taxpayer who foots the bill to support public institutions, I expect accountability.

They should be held accountable, but accountable to whom? I bet nearly every faculty member on campus agrees with them and applauds them for taking this action. Accountable to taxpayers/parents? Most parents and Minnesota taxpayers won't even become aware of this issue. The ones that do will probably disagree with it in theory, but won't care enough to do anything about it. Unless it affects people directly, people give PC lip service and move on with their lives.

Quote

While I'm sure that administrators of certain universities would prefer to make decisions in a vacuum -- free from public scrutiny, discourse and criticism -- I don't plan on issuing them a pass simply because they've managed to establish free speech exclusion zones on their campuses.

College campuses are the very essence of making decisions in a vacuum - there is less free speech and diversity of thought on college campuses than anywhere else. It's a group-think mentality.

Quote

It's an issue of such critical importance that it transcends UND's DI plans and the desire of some Sioux boosters to mimic NDSU.

I'll take that as a shot at me. That's fine. I've been a big advocate for DI. I believe a successful transition to DI is essential to UND's future. Whether I'm right or wrong is a topic for an entirely different thread and forum. But it doesn't matter anyway because these same issues would eventually catch up with a DII UND, particularly with hockey. It just wouldn't come to a head quite as fast. But the DI-DII decision has been made - it's important to be successful at it. It is undeniable that Minnesota is one of the most important schools for scheduling. Losing them is a very big deal and will without a doubt will hurt the athletic department. This is the second-biggest blow UND has taken on the nickname issue behind the NCAA sanctions - but the big difference is that there is nothing we can do about this one. Appeals and lawsuits are not options.

The future success of UND and the Sioux nickname are two of the most important issues to me. Based on the way the world is undeniably changing, it's not way off base to predict that we'll eventually have to choose between one or the other. Will it be better if we fight to the bitter end, setting the school back an unknown number years, and then have to change the name anyway? Maybe. But it's an issue we should be thinking and talking about.

[The Sicatoka]

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

The future success of UND and the Sioux nickname are two of the most important issues to me. Based on the way the world is undeniably changing, it's not way off base to predict that we'll eventually have to choose between one or the other. Will it be better if we fight to the bitter end, setting the school back an unknown number years, and then have to change the name anyway? Maybe. But it's an issue we should be thinking and talking about.

OK, let's talk.

Who's paying for the costs of a change.

Also, what'll be the next "social cause de jour" the NCAA plans to take on so we can figure out if it affects UND and how much cash we'll have to 'capitulate out' on that one?

[PCM]

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

I completely agree that a minority of a minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority on this issue, but that doesn't necessarily make it a First Amendment issue.

There are legal minds out there who tell me that ultimately it is a First Amendment issue. It's not simply my opinion. For me, however, the proof is the fact that the NCAA purposely moved American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery out of the realm of "offensive" and into the realm of "hostile and abusive." They did that because the courts say that "offensive" speech can't be censored, but "hostile and abusive" speech can.

Does the NCAA have the right to ban UND's legally registered trademark from display at public events? Can the NCAA arbitrarily declare UND's name and logo "hostile and abusive"? Does UND have no legal recourse to challenge a ruling that it believes is arbitrary and capricious, a ruling that clearly infringes on the right of free expression? It seems to me that those are legal issues that could yet be decided in court.

Quote

Most parents and Minnesota taxpayers won't even become aware of this issue. The ones that do will probably disagree with it in theory, but won't care enough to do anything about it.

And by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that we are powerless to do anything, that outcome is assured.

Quote

College campuses are the very essence of making decisions in a vacuum - there is less free speech and diversity of thought on college campuses than anywhere else. It's a group-think mentality.

You choose to accept it. I don't. It bothers me to no end that universities that were once the bastions of free expression, groundbreaking ideas and diverse opinion are now dominated by people who think nothing of trampling the rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

Quote

This is the second-biggest blow UND has taken on the nickname issue behind the NCAA sanctions - but the big difference is that there is nothing we can do about this one. Appeals and lawsuits are not options.

This is where we differ greatly. While you can't sue the University of Minnesota or any other school for not playing UND, you can put the issue in the court of public opinion to expose the hypocrisy and demagoguery of those behind it. Ultimately, it's the taxpayers and voters who hold public institutions accountable. If we fail to exercise that authrority for whatever reason, we get what we deserve.

[sioux7>5]

No i am sorry Notre Dame makes the NCAA way to much money for them to ever take on that issue. I agree with you that if UND has to change then so should Notre Dame, but the NCAA even if you got a petition with one helluva lot of signatures, they would not even consider it an issue.

ScottM, on Dec 20 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

MplsBison, on Dec 20 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

Lets say UND wins the lawsuit and the NCAA says you can use Sioux and host playoffs, etc.


Then, would not being able to play Minnesota in football, basketball, etc. be a big deal to you guys?

It would be "nice" to play Minnesota, and given Maturi's earlier comments probably even possible if the NC$$ pulled its head out of its ass. However, I think the larger, looming issue as mksioux notes, is that the people who drive these decisions aren't always in the AD, so much as buried in academia and detached from reality. So what we're seeing from Minnesota may be a harbinger of things to come from other quarters, and UND may not be the only school "blackballed" by these clowns either, including the NC$$'s golden goose, FSU.

And since "If it's offensive to one person in a group, it's offensive," seems to be their mantra, where do I complain in the NC$$ appartus about the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame and their mascot/logo? Can we start a petition among Irish and non-Irish folks?

[ScottM]

sioux7>5, on Dec 20 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

No i am sorry Notre Dame makes the NCAA way to much money for them to ever take on that issue. I agree with you that if UND has to change then so should Notre Dame, but the NCAA even if you got a petition with one helluva lot of signatures, they would not even consider it an issue.

And what better way to show the NC$$ at its hypocritical "best"? Get a bunch of people with Irish-surnames to file a protest online or do one of those on-line petitions. Hell, Brand & Co. have already said nobody's complained about Notre Dame's name/logo. Get it into the blogosphere, and it will show up in the mainstream media shortly. So, we complain, make a stink and force their hand. Even if the NC$$ creates another "exception" because a bunch of drunk Micks in South Boston or St. Paul signed a cocktail napkin, other Irish-Americans, including me, can go on the record opposing it.

UND may have to give up its own name/logo at some point, but I see no reason to go about it without a good deal of noise, blood and animosity toward our detractors.

[82SiouxGuy]

ScottM, on Dec 20 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

sioux7>5, on Dec 20 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

No i am sorry Notre Dame makes the NCAA way to much money for them to ever take on that issue. I agree with you that if UND has to change then so should Notre Dame, but the NCAA even if you got a petition with one helluva lot of signatures, they would not even consider it an issue.

And what better way to show the NC$$ at its hypocritical "best"? Get a bunch of people with Irish-surnames to file a protest online or do one of those on-line petitions. Hell, Brand & Co. have already said nobody's complained about Notre Dame's name/logo. Get it into the blogosphere, and it will show up in the mainstream media shortly. So, we complain, make a stink and force their hand. Even if the NC$$ creates another "exception" because a bunch of drunk Micks in South Boston or St. Paul signed a cocktail napkin, other Irish-Americans, including me, can go on the record opposing it.

UND may have to give up its own name/logo at some point, but I see no reason to go about it without a good deal of noise, blood and animosity toward our detractors.

I'm with you. My mother's maiden name was Murphy so I have plenty of Irish blood.

[mksioux]

PCM, on Dec 20 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

There are legal minds out there who tell me that ultimately it is a First Amendment issue. It's not simply my opinion. For me, however, the proof is the fact that the NCAA purposely moved American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery out of the realm of "offensive" and into the realm of "hostile and abusive." They did that because the courts say that "offensive" speech can't be censored, but "hostile and abusive" speech can.

Does the NCAA have the right to ban UND's legally registered trademark from display at public events? Can the NCAA arbitrarily declare UND's name and logo "hostile and abusive"? Does UND have no legal recourse to challenge a ruling that it believes is arbitrary and capricious, a ruling that clearly infringes on the right of free expression? It seems to me that those are legal issues that could yet be decided in court.

My thinking is that if there was legal merit to those arguments, they would have been included in UND's complaint. But I don't claim to be a First Amendment expert, so maybe I'm wrong.

Quote

And by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that we are powerless to do anything, that outcome is assured.

I base my opinion on the reaction after the NCAA policy was annonced. There was a firestorm of negative publicity at the outset, which evetually quieted down, and then everybody forgot about it and moved on to other things. And this issue doesn't have near the traction as that one did.

Quote

You choose to accept it. I don't. It bothers me to no end that universities that were once the bastions of free expression, groundbreaking ideas and diverse opinion are now dominated by people who think nothing of trampling the rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

We agree on this one. Look, I'm a big David Horowitz fan, I frequently read frontpagemag, I've read good books like Shadow University and the Diversity Hoax that have documented the downfall of universities. I wouldn't say I've accepted it, but maybe I'm a little resigned to it. Besides, kids keep getting dumber, so I don't expect things to change anytime soon.

If you want to get philosophical about it, I believe that college athletics, in part, allows universities to get away with what they've done. Heck, even some of the most conservative people in Minnesota staunchly defend a notoriously leftist institution like "the U" because of their beloved Golden Gophers. But that's an entirely different topic of discussion.

Quote

This is where we differ greatly. While you can't sue the University of Minnesota or any other school for not playing UND, you can put the issue in the court of public opinion to expose the hypocrisy and demagoguery of those behind it. Ultimately, it's the taxpayers and voters who hold public institutions accountable. If we fail to exercise that authrority for whatever reason, we get what we deserve.

I didn't renounce my citizenship, or decide to support Ralph Nader for President. I was looking at the landscape and trying to figure out the best way out of this mess. It turns out that a major fact I was relying on turned out to be false, so it's kind of moot point anyway. But I still think if an opportunity for settlement presented itself that would include us getting to keep "Sioux", we'd be foolish not to seriously consider it.

[PCM]

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 06:30 PM, said:

I didn't renounce my citizenship, or decide to support Ralph Nader for President. I was looking at the landscape and trying to figure out the best way out of this mess.

This might be one factor to consider: Which school do you think Gopher fans would rather play in football and basketball? UND or NDSU?

I know it's not an "either/or" question. However, I can't help but wonder how many Gopher boosters might be telling the AD that he's nuts for not finding a way to schedule the Sioux, especially when he's not bound by the advisory committee's decision. We have a traditional and heated rivalry with Minnesota. NDSU doesn't. Which games are likely to put more butts in the seats?

Quote

But I still think if an opportunity for settlement presented itself that would include us getting to keep "Sioux", we'd be foolish not to seriously consider it.

I agree. I hope that UND is working toward some type of goal with that end in mind, either with the tribes in North Dakota or with the NCAA attorneys.

[Chewey]

PCM, on Dec 20 2006, 08:58 PM, said:

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 06:30 PM, said:

I didn't renounce my citizenship, or decide to support Ralph Nader for President. I was looking at the landscape and trying to figure out the best way out of this mess.

This might be one factor to consider: Which school do you think Gopher fans would rather play in football and basketball? UND or NDSU?

I know it's not an "either/or" question. However, I can't help but wonder how many Gopher boosters might be telling the AD that he's nuts for not finding a way to schedule the Sioux, especially when he's not bound by the advisory committee's decision. We have a traditional and heated rivalry with Minnesota. NDSU doesn't. Which games are likely to put more butts in the seats?

Quote

But I still think if an opportunity for settlement presented itself that would include us getting to keep "Sioux", we'd be foolish not to seriously consider it.

I agree. I hope that UND is working toward some type of goal with that end in mind, either with the tribes in North Dakota or with the NCAA attorneys.

Settlement = appeasement. As one who settles cases a lot, I am intimately acquainted with the value of settlement and saving fees, not putting the matter into a 3rd party's hands who will make a decision that neither party will like, etc. However, this is different. Settlement is only one more "feel good" step in the NC$$ policy of attrition/erosion. It only offers them an opportunity to come back later and arrogantly demand more. I don't think anyone here really appreciates how fickle reservation politics can be. Every two years different tribal chairpersons assume the helm and sweep in an entire cadre of sychophants. This is crazy. No way should UND, its fans and its teams and alumni be on a yo-yo like that. Besides, it is not necessary. UND has legal rights to the name and it should do everything to enforce and protect those rights. Continue the fight, get the issue publicity and get people riled up about it. Expose a lot of this crap going on in academia for what it is. Write articles calling out weenie legislators like Earl Pomeroy to take a stand and pass legislation reigning in the NC00. Better yet, sponsor legislation breaking up the NC00 into regional associations. It is now nothing more than a money-grovelling cesspool of corruption, a large part of the athletes can not even read or write at a fourth grade level and many of the athletes at the non-"hostile and abusive" institutions have been involved in violent acts and, in Colorado's case, prostitution.

Being pusillanimous will only invite more trouble later. All of UND alumni should be writing letters to their local newspapers, radio stations, etc. Scott Hennen should try to contact his friend, Sean Hannity, and get the topic on his radio and television programs. Settlement is the worst thing, in my opinion.

[Matt]

I'm trying to figure out under what circumstances the gophers change this policy. A troubling aspect of this is how the "advisory" comittee seems to want more than an advisory role. I get the feeling they are prepared to make a lot more trouble on campus if Maturi didn't act on their wishes.

So, who thinks a game can ultimately get scheduled, and when?

[choyt3]

Sioux name in the blogs

[Chewey]

Other than the facts that the UofM is close, there are a lot of Sioux fans/alumni in the TC, and the Gopher FB team sucks, why play them at all at first. I thought the Sioux were going DI-AA. Why not play Boise State, Montana State, etc.? I am sure money is part of it, of course. But really, the Gophers suck and the game atmosphere is like being at a wake. Their games are not well attended, unless they play Wisconsin and most of those fans are cheese heads. It is not the kind of money that a Michigan/NOtre Dame game would bring. The Sioux would their butts kicked if they were to play Wisconsin in FB. Given UND's size, I don't see them playing any of the Big 10 schools consistently anyway. I don't think it really adds a whole lot to a program when that program plays larger, more well known schools and gets pounded by 40 points. There are plenty of I-AA schools that would fit very nicely into UND's schedule.

[mksioux]

Matt, on Dec 20 2006, 10:17 PM, said:

I'm trying to figure out under what circumstances the gophers change this policy. A troubling aspect of this is how the "advisory" comittee seems to want more than an advisory role. I get the feeling they are prepared to make a lot more trouble on campus if Maturi didn't act on their wishes.

So, who thinks a game can ultimately get scheduled, and when?

I don't think the advisory committee was wanting more than an advisory role. They went out of their way to tell the reporters that they were merely advisory and the AD could schedule whomever he wanted. Maturi doesn't have the guts to schedule UND without "cover" from the advisory committee and risk protests and all the crap that would go with a game against UND. And really, that's the problem. As an AD at a major university, it's just easier not to schedule UND than put up with the crap that goes with it. I don't agree with it, but I'm sure that's what they think.

You'd probably need a new group of people on the committee before the policy would change. I have no idea how they are appointed and how long their terms are. But taking Maturi at his word - and that's all we can do - UND will not be playing Minnesota anytime soon.

[Smoggy]

mksioux, on Dec 20 2006, 08:28 PM, said:

You'd probably need a new group of people on the committee before the policy would change. I have no idea how they are appointed and how long their terms are. But taking Maturi at his word - and that's all we can do - UND will not be playing Minnesota anytime soon.

I think the article said one guy had been on the committee for like 7 years. I don't feel like reading that crap again. Maturi is weak and I don't see him lasting much longer. BTW, he's actually groomed at UW.

[bincitysioux]

Chewey, on Dec 20 2006, 08:26 PM, said:

Other than the facts that the UofM is close, there are a lot of Sioux fans/alumni in the TC, and the Gopher FB team sucks, why play them at all at first.

The appeal of playing Minnesota in all sports are: 1) Tons of alumni in the TC (like you said; possibly benefits fundraising), 2) huge payout for football approaching $300,000 for a game DI UND could be competetive in, 3) Recruiting (we recruit the TC heavily), 4) TV games (football, basketball, and hockey would all likely be on FSN North), 5) Proximity--not only would we be paid for each FB/BB game played at UMTC, it is a close drive to get there, 6) UofM is considered the top teir school in our region of the Upper Midwest, if we want to elevate our position in the region, it would help to be able to do it on stage head-to-head with our region's big dog.

I've sent my check to the Nickname litigation fund, and I'm a huge supporter of keeping it. But I am also a huge supporter of this DI move, and if the nickname is going to prevent us playing the 3 most geographically friendly major DI programs in our region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa), perhaps it must go. I don't know if there are any other DI programs that UND fb/bb fans would get more excited about playing than the regional/hockey foes of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

FWIW, if in the end we can no longer offically be known as the Fighting Sioux, I'd prefer to go with no official nickname at all. Sell the rights to the name and the logo to a newly formed apparel subsidiary of REA Inc. and they can make and sell as many shirts, jerseys, and sweaters with the Logo and Name as they want, just without reference to UND.

[bincitysioux]

Smoggy, on Dec 20 2006, 08:40 PM, said:

Maturi is weak and I don't see him lasting much longer. BTW, he's actually groomed at UW.

At least he is smart enough to realize that U of M fans and alumni would want to see games against UND. I give him some credit for that.

[mksioux]

Chewey, on Dec 20 2006, 10:26 PM, said:

Other than the facts that the UofM is close, there are a lot of Sioux fans/alumni in the TC, and the Gopher FB team sucks, why play them at all at first. I thought the Sioux were going DI-AA. Why not play Boise State, Montana State, etc.? I am sure money is part of it, of course. But really, the Gophers suck and the game atmosphere is like being at a wake. Their games are not well attended, unless they play Wisconsin and most of those fans are cheese heads. It is not the kind of money that a Michigan/NOtre Dame game would bring. The Sioux would their butts kicked if they were to play Wisconsin in FB. Given UND's size, I don't see them playing any of the Big 10 schools consistently anyway. I don't think it really adds a whole lot to a program when that program plays larger, more well known schools and gets pounded by 40 points. There are plenty of I-AA schools that would fit very nicely into UND's schedule.

It's not at all uncommon for a I-AA to schedule a I-A game and many do well. It's not a guaranteed 40-point loss. Off the top of my head, NDSU and Northern Iowa played within a touchdown of Minnesota and Iowa State respectively. Montana State beat Colorado (before losing to DII Chadron State the next week). There's no reason (other than the nickname), that UND couldn't regularly play one Big Ten or Big 12 game on a regular basis.

For reasons cited by Bincitysioux, Minnesota is obviously the best of the bunch.

[SportsDoc]

An unfortunate "other" consideration, is that during the transition years into full D-I statue, we will need to continue to play D-II schools in some sports, especially football, basketball, volleyball and baseball.

The state of Minnesota, educationally speaking, is on record as opposing Indian nicknames. We may find that without a conference affiliation that St. Cloud State, Mankato, Duluth, Bemidji et al may fall in line with U of M and not play us either. This would leave us with NAIA schools and long travel partners to try to fill schedules. St. Cloud is already on record about this and I could see the others following suit considering Minnesota is just left of Ted Kennedy, politically speaking.