Teeder11

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."

What's with the personal attacks! Though I agree with your sentiment, why would you resort to calling Leigh a name like that? I violently disagree with Leigh when it comes to the nickname and logo, and I have told him as much. But nowhere in my dealings with him have I ever thought that he acted as you describe him just because of an ideological difference. Leigh is a nice person and a gentleman who has strong opinions. I think they are misguided opinions rooted in fallacious ideology but that does not make him any less of a person. Wow! We are better than this, aren't we?

Amen, brother.

+1 Excellent post! I already used up my positive vote on your post, so I thought I would send another your way.

True, but "Carolina" (taken from the Latin word for Charles (Carolus) honoring King Charles I of England) in North and South Carolina originates from a human source, such as "Dakota" does for North and South Dakota. I wonder if the descendents of King Charles are offended by the Tarheels' and Gamecocks' abusing their heritage? I ask that rhetorically, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I understand your greater point that nothing the NCAA does can be described as rational, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that an institution cannot use a derivation of its own state name, and by extension, its own name. I think UND has another case to be made, as the word "Dakota" is more than a name of a tribe in that it is also a word meaning "friend" or "ally." What a mess! Thanks NCAA. Wish you weren't the only game in town, because it really sucks that we are so desirous to be part of an organization for which we have such collective disdain!

Open land just west of the Chester Fritz Auditorium along University Avenue.

No problem UND Fan and Siouxbooster. Thanks for seeing it for what it was, just additional insight.

I see what you are saying. I think it is because of my intimate knowledge of the way things actually work inside the Herald that it is coloring my perceptions and maybe limiting yours (which is not a slight or a dig at you.) I spent 13 years with the organization and left on very good terms. I was never once made to feel awkward nor ashamed because of my very pro UND Fighting Sioux nickname position. Instead it was just the opposite. So with that said... please take the following as an attempt to explain how things are set up in the newsroom and not as a means to shoot holes in your opinion. Jacobs and Dennis are not editors in the sense that most people associate newspaper "editors" to be. They are not fact checkers or spelling checkers or story assignment editors, per se. There are other mid-level newsroom editors who fulfill those roles. The mid-level editors are the ones who make the hour-by-hour, day-by-day decisions in the Herald newsroom. They are people who you've never heard of, but who actually wield more influence internally in the newsroom than Jacobs or Dennis. As an aside, every one of these mid-level editors (city editor, night editor, managing editor) are the biggest Fighting Sioux supporters you'd ever want to meet. Go figure. So anyway, Jacobs role is more on the publishing side. His day and week is spent worrying about the bottomline and how all of the individual departments affect that result. The newsroom is among at least 10 different departments at the Herald and it is about at the midpoint as far as number of employees. Some of the others are Advertising, Circulation, AgWeek, Mailroom, IT, Printing Press and Marketing). Jacobs has his fingers in all these areas and has little time for the day to day decision making that it would take to manage the news content of the newspaper. He has the same limited role in the other departments. He is a jack of all trades and master of none, so to speak. He leaves the news decisions up to the mid-level editors. They, with the other Department Heads, make the "Daily Miracle" happen. Jacobs does at times suggest a story that could be done if he hears about something or gets a tip that no one else has already received, but for the most part the editorial decisions of the daily newspaper are left to the mid-level assigning editors. The most involvement that Jacobs has is at the so-called daily "budget huddle" where he gets a brief rundown from the mid-level editors on what is going into the paper the next day. This happens at about 3 p.m. every afternoon and it is more of an FYI to him than anything else. He has been known to suggest changes, suggest new stories or ask that something be held for another day, which is his right as the top dog of the newspaper. The buck stops with him, ultimately. But he absolutely does not have intimate involvement or influence over the reporters as has been suggested. Tom Dennis has even less influence. His job is simply to write editorials. He has no editing, mentoring or assigning involvement of any kind with reporters. In fact, Tom's editorials are edited for him by the same mid-level news editors that I wrote about earlier, the ones that hold the real influence. For these reasons, I have no problem with Jacobs or Dennis writing editorials about the nickname -- pro or con-- and I don't really care how many they write nor how much they pile on on a particular day, because I know that their collective influence on the reporting that is done on the news side is nearly nil. That's my take after spending many years on the inside.

I hate that, too! Damn, NC$$!!!! Let's get 'em, North Dakota. Go Sioux!

Good points! Yes, it is true that opinion writers have a little bit more responsibility than, say, the man on the street or the anonymous message board scribe in that they actually put their name on the line with their opinion. True, most newspapers don't identify their editorial writers as up front as the Herald does, but you can still easily find out who the editorial writer is. Not so in other more anonymous forums. So yes you are right on that. But that's where it stops. I still contend that newspaper opinion writers have no more or no less responsibilities on what their opinions are than the man on the street or message board posters. The big one that does exist is that they all must be cautious not to make libelous claims. That's about it. It is not the Herald's fault it is a monopoly. Many years ago, George Winship invested in a small privately owned river city newsletter and grew it into a dominant source for news, opinion and advertising for many years in the northern Valley. That's the American dream at work. I am sure there were threats to its monopolistic hold along the way, but it was able to thwart them off, again, in the private sector. Now, I am not so naive to think that it's easy to start up a newspaper and compete against an existing giant. But the opportunity is still there for anyone ( I would advise against the traditional newspaper model, though). I do know that the Herald does get public money for being the official public record in the area, but that is something that we the taxpayers vote on. If someone wants to start up a public access publication (online or otherwise) and vie against the Herald for that public money, they are free to do it. So, in the spirit of full disclosure, I acknowledge that there is public money used by the Herald (and I am sure there was heap of public assistance received by the Herald and many other private sector businesses after the Flood of 1997,) but the fact remains, that it is a private sector, independent business. It will live and die by its ability to attract and maintain readers and advertisers (voting with your pocketbook is the immediate feedback that controls the Herald, akin to the instant checks on a message board that you alluded to) I find it curious that with all the general conservatism and and free market stances that are celebrated here that anyone would begrudge a business its right to think and opine how it wants to. I just get nervous when there is even a suggestion that anyone in this great country of ours should be censored or somehow have their freedom of speech limited. That's all I am saying in all this. I would fight tooth and nail if anyone tried to do something like that to Siouxsports.com