Teeder11

That is a principled stance. It sounds a lot like what was being said 15 years ago in Grand Forks in regard to the Central High School Redskins knickame. It wasn't very long, once they finally settled on the new nickname, that Knights apparrell dominated. Today it is rare to see anyone wearing Redskins apparrel in Grand Forks. You might find it on occassion, but it is rare.

You aptly summed up the feelings of many of us on this board who have cheered our hearts out for the Sioux since our earliest memories but who also love this University and ALL it stands for so much that we are willing to let something that is so dear go so that the greater whole might survive and flourish.

Um..... that would be you.

Dr. Kelley does not deserve that. The NCAA, which started this whole mess, does.

USC seems to do OK with Trojans.

Yeah, Like the Miami Hurricanes! What a riot! Sun dogs is pretty lame, though, IMHO. It smacks of some contrived minor league hockey team novelty gimmick!

Totally agree. Nothing would prove opponents' claims that, we care nothing about American Indians and only want "our" nickname, more than eliminating our fine American Indian programs at UND over this issue. These programs are the envy of the nation and are present at UND for far greater reasons than the fact that our nickname and logo has been the Fighting Sioux for the past 80 years.

That was the crux of my debate with Leigh..... he did not like those nicknames on the reservations, either, but in those cases they were chosen by the people they represent, so I think it settled with him a little easier. I always said that that kind of inconsistency is what makes it hard for non-natives to understand the whole controversy and offer any support. It's kinda like where the "N" word can only be used by a particular set of people. I don't think it's right, but it's become generally accepted, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

I too would love to see the American Indian population of the state, and for that matter, the nation come into par with the rest of society on those issues. I am not so delusional to believe that a nickname and logo change will precipitate those changes. From my conversations with Leigh, he doesn't either. His opposition to the monikers always revolved around his belief that it was wrong to objectify a race/culture of people, and in his, words, reduce those actual people (who are still alive to see it) to a nickname that could be ridiculed and mocked by opposing fans. I argued with him about this logic and the fact that the name actually honors the Great Sioux People, but he was entrenched in his belief. More power to him. However, never did he say to me that the elimination of the name would solve all American Indian problems instantly or even with time. I may have missed it, and I know other opponents have made this ludicrous claim, but I don't think it was Leigh. I would not be offended if you prove me wrong. I would welcome the enlightenment so I could call up Leigh and have one of our great debates. Anyway, again, I too hope that one day the plights of the American Indian can be more inline with the rest of Americans, if not eliminated totally.

I talked to him after today's meeting outside of his office, and he was anything but gleeful. He didn't crack a smile nor dance a little jig nor did he high five Mr. Shaft on his way out the door. He did look very wore down, like a dog who'd been kicked around the block. He didn't complain, though. He looked like a leader who supported an unpopular decision, but one that in his heart of hearts, was the best decision for the future of the University as a whole. Think what you want about what you read on partisan blogs. Believe what you want about what you hear second and thirdhand. I'll believe what I see firsthand and hear from the man himself.

Interesting. Thanks!

Extremely. I've wrote many UND nickname articles in my days at UND and then later at the Herald and I always thought it interesting that two polarized sides could see the exact same series of facts, quotes and background text so differently. I would get phone calls, e-mails and, in that day, snail mail letters, about articles from folks on both ends of the nickname debate complaining that their side was wronged, slighted, maligned, marginalized, misquoted, a victim of biased reporting, had facts purposefully omitted, was not given equal column inches, etc. Now, mind you, I am not talking about the sources within these stories, rather these were comments from readers who contacted me and revealed their stance on the issue one way or the other. And again, these were not a series of charges leveled against me and my coverage of the issue as a general rule, rather these opinions would be offered up from both sides about the same single article. Two colored perceptions reading the same thing and coming to two complete opposite opinions about that same single piece. That's what made the nickname issue, in particular, so hard to cover. I did my best (as a nickname supporter) to set my biases aside and just report on the facts and quote both sides, but that didn't seem good enough for either side.... so to answer your question, with this hyper-polarized, hyper-sensitized issue, in this hyper-PC and hyper-anti-PC reactionary environment, it is very hard to do.

Ditto!

I wasn't defending/criticizing the Herald or Doug Barrett with KNOX radio, or Neil Carlson with KVLY-TV, or name any reporter with WDAZ, or any other hometown media who didn't do the story first. My clarification was that it did appear in the local media before it did appeared in the Williston Herald. Now I will offer some context that will border on defense of the local media (all local media; everyone seems obsessed with the newspaper): Scoops happen all the time in the media. This was quite certainly an AP exclusive, or AP scoop. My hunch is that local reporters had no idea that this was even taking place at UND. Yes, that is sad, but things like that fall through the cracks all the time. I am sure there are a lot of things going on at UND, or Altru/Mayo or American Crystal Sugar, or the State Mill, or Noridian or the Alerus Center or the Air Base, etc. that the local media does not know about and that the public would love to know about. So, if this was an AP exclusive, there is no way that the local media was going to find out until the story was done (if they didn't stumble upon it themselves). Once the story was ready, then and only then, was it shared with all AP member newspapers and media that cared to run it. The Grand Forks local media jumped on it right away as it was a story originating in their coverage areas. No cover up, no apologist motives on the media's part. It was just a case where one media (AP) got a tip or got info that others did not. They (AP) did the story first and the others followed on.

Be nice to Goon, at least he is doing something productive with his sociology degree.

Wouldn't it be subject to North Dakota Open Meeting Laws, then? That is something NCAA doesn't want, but it might not matter at this point, if all they are going to say is "Thanks, but, no thanks. Deal stands!"

Star, Point of clarification... The original story about Caleb Warner and his case with UND was published as an Associated Press Story on March 6, 2011. It actually appeared in the Herald, the next day on Monday, March 7, with a photo image of Caleb Warner. Two days later, on the same day that the Williston Herald reporter wrote his piece, Tom Dennis came out with his own take on the situation in an editorial, which you can read below in its entirety. The Williston Herald reporter and Tom Dennis cited the same AP story as their main source for information to form their opinions. Tom Dennis Editorial, March 9, 2011: Should UND reopen the case of Caleb Warner, the former student who was expelled from school for reasons that now have been cast into doubt? Let's put the answer this way: UND should consider reopening the case. Based on the story in Monday's Herald, there seems to be a fair chance that an injustice was done and that Warner was wrongly disciplined ("UND refuses to reopen expelled student case," But make no mistake: That's ultimately for UND to decide. Cases such as these that involve privacy laws always are tough for the media to report. Readers typically get the aggrieved person's side of the story, but the rules prevent the other side - in this case, UND's side - from fully presenting its case. So, there may well be more to the story than was reported in the newspaper. If that's the case, then UND has every right to let the expulsion stand. But the school should review the circumstances before it makes a final decision. That's especially true because campus disciplinary hearings don't give an accused the same due-process rights that he or she would get in a courtroom - including the right to various appeals. That raises the odds of a miscarriage of justice. UND should be diligent about discovering whether that happened here. "The school told Caleb Warner not to set foot on campus for three years, after a student relations committee ruled in February 2010 that he violated four sections of UND's code of student life, including 'violation of criminal or civil laws,'" the story reported. Warner was never arrested and never charged. "He admitted having sex with the alleged victim, a UND student at the time, but has maintained it was consensual." And not long after Warner had to leave campus, "Grand Forks police issued an arrest warrant against the alleged victim for filing a false report to law enforcement. Warner asked for a rehearing based on new information, but was denied for reasons that didn't jibe with his request." There the matter stands. Clearly, questions remain that the story didn't answer. What was the nature of Warner's other three actions that brought the censure of the student relations committee? Did alcohol play a role in the incident or incidents? How strongly do the police suspect that the alleged victim lied? Perhaps most tellingly, why do the officers suspect that about her? Based solely on the news story, there isn't enough information to exonerate Warner. But there's certainly enough to raise questions about his case, which is why it became a news story in the first place. Harvey Silverglate, a civil rights attorney and expert on college disciplinary rules, echoes that thought when he's quoted in the story. "Law enforcement agencies do not lightly charge complainants in sexual assault cases with filing a false report," Silverglate said. "It seems to be that the campus tribunal has an obligation - surely moral and ethical and arguably constitutional as well - to reopen the case to examine the basis for the criminal justice's system of filing a false statement." Most readers likely reacted as Silverglate did when confronted with the facts in the story. That doesn't mean Silverglate or the readers are right. But it does mean UND must weigh the evidence with care before declaring that they're wrong. - Tom Dennis for the Herald

Amen, brother.

No. Not even close. Good luck with that.

This just in .... The so-called "new" VP of Public Relations position is not new, in fact, it's the very same job that was once held by Don Koijch, who is now back working for the University of Illinois Alumni Association and Foundation. The position was "turned off" when Don left. Now the President, as is his pervue, has elected to turn it back on. This move was being seriously talked about long before Alice was let go without cause and long before new VP Lori Reesor was brought in. This was not a quid pro quo situation as is alleged. Peter Johnson is currently the head of PR at UND. All "informal state questions" have always gone through Mr. Johnson's office and Don Koijch before that and Dave Vorland before that. This is no change. Now back to regular programming.

^^^^

Exactly.... I can go on and on and on citing examples of universities, big and small, that have changed their nickname for a myriad reasons, and in no case does the NCAA, the media or anyone start the clock back at zero as far as the number of regional, conference or national titles a school has earned. One example, and I repeat only one, and there are hundreds more, The Syracuse Orangemen won three national basketball titles (2 pre-NCAA tourney and one in 2003 in the NCAA tourney.) Since then, the school's athletic program has changed its name. They are still regarded by everyone as having won three Division I b-ball titles. No change. Nada, nil, zilch.

Agreed. Good points.

You don't say? We wouldn't have guess that. That said, I contacted the NCAA to let them know the truth. Let's hope it works.

Do you know the meaning of the word "partisan," because you throw it around like you've never heard the phrase "pot calling the kettle black."