Chewey

Even he is lucid at times though I disagree with him on about 99% of what he says. One does not have to be a racist to allow what is a racist effect to metastasize. One is still complicit as to that racist effect accordingly. Expediency. Indifference. Duplicity. These are terms that could be employed more roundly. They should just cut the "we honor your traditions and culture but...." garbage and just state that it's about money. We want to retain you at REA because of the money necessary to remove you. At least one could accept that and know that it's authentic. Weren't you the one complaining previously about being disingenuous about the claims of honor and respect? Well, we're all seeing that displayed by Jody Hodgson and Tim O'Keefe and Grant Shaft among others.

The number of Native American groups were not and are not SR and SL and how does that comport with the SI poll showing just the opposite? In any event, the NCAA simply got a feel-good notion in its head and adopted a policy based upon simple hyperbole (that's a charitable reference too) and applied it cumbersomely without doing any investigation as to the various impacted tribes and universities. The issue of racial stereotyping, so-called, is highly nuanced. The NCAA was not smart enough or just didn't care enough to get the fact that such a policy involving such an issue must be applied delicately and with an appreciation for nuance. If one NA group doesn't want it, fine. The minute that group sponsors an NCAA athletic team the NCAA policy can apply to it. Ira, I know you're an educated individual and find what you post to be relevant and enlightening at times. However, don't tell me that you do not think 3 of the most powerful men on the planet (two of them sit on the Indian Affairs Committee) could do nothing. Scott M delineated exactly what they could do earlier if they wanted to take a switch to the NCAA. What could they do? Are you serious about that question? For starters, they could have stated publicly that SR should have allowed for a vote and that the NCAA should withhold application of its policy until one was held. Second, they should have publicly stated that SL supported the nickname and logo and that many on SR did too and that perhaps the NCAA could examine its policy accordingly. Third, they could have told the NCAA that they would call for public hearings as to various issues the NCAA does not want addressed publicly. Don't give me that "what could they do" stuff. Saying this was a state issue and washing one's hands accordingly is a completely disingenuous and simplistic take on it. 3 of the most powerful men on planet earth could do nothing about this? Really? Bunk.

UND and the Alumni Association have brought forth so many convenient platitudes I think they've done a better dance than JTA, Lucy Ganje, etc. and their switcheroo trying to associate the name and logo with racism.

There sure is discrimination in that statement in that one entity is telling the tribes that it's trying to protect them against racial discrimination by implementing an enlightened policy and another entity is telling the tribes that it respects customs, history, etc.

Not tilting at windmills necessarily. The majority of people who post here probably aren't familiar with how things are done in Indian Country, except for Scott M and Watchmaker and a few others. Archie Fool Bear will tell you himself that things take a lot longer to wind through the political "processes" (so-called) there. I clerked for the TMBC during the summer of 1993 where we worked to re-codify the tribal consitution and visited at length with tribal elders to incorporate traditions, customs and history in the revised constitution. This was one of the funnest jobs I ever have had and, as a white boy, I got a little kickback - both friendly and maligning -- from some of the natives. But, I got to play golf with the Tribal Council and got to know Jiggers LaFromboise before he was bounced as tribal chairman by Twila. In short, they are not bound by the white man's timetable. If the NCAA and UND had been truly understanding and sensitive to this and had they actually involved the Sioux people, they would have realized this. As it stands, neither party really cared about them or how they do things. Eunice and Archie and Frank Black Cloud all worked behind the scenes to do what was done. It did not fall within the white man's timeline so they are blamed along with all of the anti-NA's. Like I said and I will happily reiterate here, I would now tell Jody Hodgson and UND to expunge every image and every mention of the nickname and logo from the arena and from campus - just as everyone wants. What we have now is this entirely expedient hypocrisy by REA and UND and by the Alumni Association and by many right here: We want to get rid of you because it will cost too much and the sacrifice will be too much to keep you (NCAA sanctions). However, we want to keep you because it will cost too much to get rid of you (REA). And, we'll blow smoke in various of your bodily orifices by telling you that we're trying to maintain some respect for the Sioux history and culture by endeavoring not to change REA when the real concern is that it would be too costly to change the REA. If the imagery at REA was a lot less ornate, how quickly do you think Jody and Tim and Faison and Kelley would have made changes? They would have been made in 2 weeks when Peter Johnson put out the expungment clarion call and any claims of respect for Sioux tradition and history would have been thrown on the dust pile with the nickname and logo. We've seen how much respct they have for these things and a case in point is how they scoffed at the pipe ceremony. Now, after stating this reality, I say again: Is such a school and such an alumni association and such a fanbase worthy of retaining the Fighting Sioux logo and nickname. My response is an emphatic NO. UND is still not in compliance because of the REA. So, be consistent at least and agree to make changes to get compliant. Don't exhibit some grotesque form of fealty to the monster by begging to save $$$$$$$. Personally, I'd hate to see the beautiful imagery go and have that beatiful building defaced at the PC altar but it should stay for the right reasons. I can't divine what people think or feel but I can state the obvious as I've done above and that is indicative of duplicity and hypocrisy. To be sure, it's a more understated and polished form as compared to the form employed by the NCAA and JTA and others with the "racist" tripe but it's still duplicity and hypocrisy. I am not the grand arbiter and my opinion means squat except to myself but you are complicit in this as are the 3 Congressional members whom you and the Alumni Association let off the hook. I can tell you that from the CUR and SL point of view, Hoeven and Conrad have lost a considerable amount of cred and certainly do not have the moral authority to sit on the Indian Affairs Committee. While a lot more is discussed there than this issue, the heart of this issue is racism -- understated and skulking and shifty racism (the most sinister form) - and they did nothing about it.

You are still accused as racists by your opponents. I don't think you are either but many non-racists or non-this or non-that allow it to be perpetuated by doing nothing or by subscribing to a facially valid but inherently flawed and over-stated and well-propagandized position. The NA's who supported the nickname and logo (the vast, vast majority) did nothing except realize that the SBoHE and other parties were not acting in good faith after months/years of trusting in "the process" and then get organized themselves to fight for their nickname and history and sacred customs only to be sold out by those who claimed that nickname and logo were being used with reverence to honor them. When the time came to truly honor them, the ones who were so good at proclaiming that they were and had been honoring them became all wobbly and sold out displaying how weak their claims of honor and respect always were. Part of me feels ok that it's being retired because the presence of such a symbol of honor, strength, courage, resilience and fortitude is truly out of place given such people and at such an institution. If I were the pro-nickname NA's, I would align myself with JTA, etc and demand that every image of the nickname and logo be expunged from such a place. I did all I could and invested all the time and $$ capital that I could - and then I invested more - to honor them. I can visit with Archie Fool Bear, John Chaske, etc and know this and know that they know this. I could even visit with JTA, RHHIT, Erich Longie David Gipp, Lucy Ganje, etc. as respectful adversaries and engage them knowing that I engaged them and their racist allies at the NCAA with the full of my being, the full of my admittedly limited intellect and the full of my "talents" and with as much of my pocketbook as was within my ability.

Lol Watchmaker! I fit the sanctimonious bill quite well on most things but not on this one. I feel more like Nathan excoriating King David after King David sent Uriah into battle on the front lines to be killed so as to continue relations with Bathsheba with less of a guilt factor. I guess that's an image about the fortitude-less invertebrates that we can both appreciate..........

Well, what do you do when a corrupt and powerful organization throws its weight around? That's right. Knuckle under, allow the abusive entity to continue throwing its weight around and stop demanding accountablilty from your elected U.S. representatives to allegedly protect $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Wait a minute, that's allowing, enablng and particpating in it. Wow, who'd a thunk it!

I like DaveK. Though I don't always agree with what he says, he has passion and commitment and, quite frankly, balls. To most on here and the utterly sanctimonious save the athletic programs sophistry that was propagandized with effect by so many, I would encourage reflection on the imagery of white sepulchers in Matthew 23:27. Were I ever in a French foxhole, amazing as it sounds now, I'd want Archie Fool Bear, Frank Black Cloud, DaveK, Fetch, JTA, RHHIT, Erich Longie, Watchmaker, David Gipp, Lucy Ganje, etc as opposed to O'Keefe, Faison and Co. As odd as it sounds and as strange as it feels, in defeat, I feel much more kinship with and have much more respect for those with whom I have been diametrically opposed on this issue than with those who used to be allies. May you revel in the marrowless husk of your victory knowing not only that you allowed racism to be perpetuated and native peoples to be abused for $$$$$ but also that even your temporary allies have no respect for you and still consider you "racists." How bittersweet are the workings of irony.

Yes, but that's all the more reason of why it will be. Any nickname process will be awash with the necessary fealty shown to that crowd.

Keep deluding yourselves that you're going to have an option. Presuming the nickname and logo stay gone, any one of the final "popularly selected" names will have to pass the NCAA/UND Faculty sniff test. Get ready for, "Here's your University of North Dakota SUNDOG scoring!!!!!!!" For many alumni, in so "choosing," or thinking they're choosing they may experience the unique pang akin to a Benedict Arnold choosing which estate to appropriate in England circa 1784. Only, many probably won't go bankrupt. Criticize Jeanotte, Longie, and even Watchmaker all you want but they've stayed loyal to their convictions and remained resolute throughout. This is more than can be said for the enablers and the compromisers. Jeanotte and Longie are consummate racists who are hopelessly lost. Watchmaker, though I've roundly criticized him before with some considerable chagrin as to my method, actually would very likely have the capacity to employ reason and discerned judgment to shift around all of this racist trip trap that's been thrown out there. Contrast this with those who have been in the light and have helped augment and perpetuate a more sinister and inscrutable brand of racism and helped to validate the NCAA tactics through expedient disassociation and, essentially, a self-inflicted evisceration of principle itself. O'Keefe, et al advocate retirement of the nickname and logo and are still labeled "racists" by Longie and company, after all that's gone on and after all of the professed sadness at having to retire the nickname and logo? WTF? What an irresponsible, insensitive and racist slap in the face by that crowd vis-a-vis O'Keefe and Co. but that is the wage of forgoing conviction. Even at the latest hour, I still remain convinced that Hoeven etc could have been moved had people presented a unified and collective voice. The Florida delegation came through for FSU when the NCAA was skulking around that school making demands. Hoeven, Conrad and Berg, being United States Congressmen, are three of the most powerful men on planet earth and they could have done something to rein in the NCAA. Oh well, after 80+ years of tradition, UND will live on with half a heart and half a lung and the same dyspeptic whiners will label O'Keefe, Strinden, etc "racists" and this will be labeled "the healing process." Mission accomplished!!!!!

I agree. The Sioux nickname and logo probably very well were/are the ransom to be paid for d1 status. All the more reason in hindsight that UND should have jumped when NDSU did.

Funny how the consideration seemed important enough to the Florida delegation. The "more important things" did not stop them. At its core, this matter is an assault by a monopolistic and low-core aggressive entity against a State owned and operated institution and against the people/government of that state. That would seem to be an important consideration for anyone truly worthy of holding elective office.

Practically every individual on here is a nickname and logo supporter. Ironically, out of a concern for UND athletics that has some legitimacy (I think the basis for such concern has been overstated, propagandized, and unduly magnified - See Faison vs. Wanless, Faison "misstatements", Shaft's irresponsible commentary vis-a-vis Notre Dame etc.), some supporters have as their focus the same end result as the Jeanotte's, RHHIT, JTA, Lucy G, David Gipps, etc. of the debate. The fact that many of the former strongest supporters of the nickname and logo are now aligned in focus with many of the victimizers, albeit for different reasons, who have assaulted and besieged UND for years is a bitter reality. I would suggest that some here ply their energies more effectively as June 12th approaches. Any further debate on this matter is a waste of energy and only serves to display conceit and theatrics. It is what it is and people are not going to be convinced otherwise. If anyone wants to assist in going door to door, disseminating fliers/signs or going around the state in the "Save the Fighting Sioux" RV, let me know via private IM. After all, we have $250K and cocktail parties to work against.......

I'd like to know how the Alumni Association and all of UND's supporters across the state and out of state could not prevail upon ANY of the 3 Congressional invertebrates to get the NCAA to reconsider and/or back off. Even as Governor, Hoeven gave some tepid statement of support allowing the people to vote; presumably this came after emails and telephone calls from UND supporters. I just don't get how these guys just sit on the sideline irrespective of overwhelming support. I guess I'm ashamed to say that Hoeven is from my hometown and even graduated from the same Catholic high school (1975, I believe). Very disappointing.

Very credible poll. The same one that predicted Pomeroy would slam Berg. The same one that only polled 12 people in Sioux County. Would not put too much faith in it.

I like Hakstol but, in truth, I think Eades may be the better coach. The guy has won wherever he's been. In a couple of years when Mike Hastings leaves back for UNO, MSU-Mankato will be wide open again. Would love to see Eaves in the Kato, though I'd still cheer for the Sioux.

My family and extended family and all of their contacts (or so I'm told) are voting "No."

It is not intended to castigate him or vilify him necessarily. I know his history playing hockey and about the nickname. The whole 250K and cocktail parties thing would not sit well with me regardless of the person involved. I think a lot more could be done by him and by the SBoHE in terms of publicly requesting ND's Congressional delegation to intervene - surrender agreement or not - and in terms of exhibiting solidarity in the face of a monopolistic and abusive national entity. How is it that Hoeven sits on the Indian Affairs Committee and does not bother to even comment on this or take a position on it or even write a responsive letter to the SL Tribal Council? There's more at stake than the nickname and UND. The voices of the Native Americans - at least the ones referenced in the surrender agreement who may support the nickname and logo- have been completely squelched and their word, their traditions are being besmirched. In light of this, how does Hoeven maintain the moral authority to continue sitting on the Indian Affairs Committee? The nickname and logo and the way they were given to the university mean something to a lot of Sioux Indians. To consider those complexities in a wholly truncated and cynically expeditious manner, under the auspices of the surrender agreement, and conclude the matter over is simply wrong and, yes, a manifestation of racism in and of itself. How many times and in how many contexts have native americans been viewed and considered in this way by the dominant white culture of which the NCAA is simply an extension? Irrespective of Bernard Franklin and members of other minorities being in positions of authority there and irrespective of the NCAA's specious and fanciful sophistry about stamping out racism through misguided policies like the one impacting UND now, you have racism being perpetrated and augmented. Talk about paving the way to Hell with "good" (and I'm giving the NCAA considerable deference there) intentions. Tim, the Alumni Association, UND and ND's Congressional delegation are all allowing themselves to operate as functionaries in all of this. Protecting the university and its athletes and its athletic programs should not even be necessary. The school and its teams should not even be akin to hostages with respect to this or any issue but that's exactly what they are. This makes the conduct and position of the NCAA even more immoral. "It's just a nickname" and "we have a surrender agreement" are simplistic characterizations of this. It's the fairly inscrutable racist pathology behind those phrases, as evidenced and effectuated by the NCAA policy and the ostensible bases for it, that's really at issue. The Native Americans themselves are leading the fight against this. As one very closely tied with SL and CUR, I can assure anyone that these are not people who have simply been propped up or co-opted by a few white nickname and logo supporters. Like I've said before, Roger Yankton and the SL Tribal Council and Archie Fool Bear, Linus End of Horn and others from SR and the CUR could pull the plug at any time.

Don't you read the GF Hurled? You have Tim O'Keefe and Alumni Association and 250K and all of the "cocktail parties" providing your answer to that one. And, they're right. You don't get 250K in the bank and fly around ND in an NDSU-owned jet for a badminton match. 250K and cocktail parties tell me that O'Keefe, SBoHE et al believe there will be a lot more than 3 "No" votes.

I agree, with the exception of the idiots part. I have grown up knowing North Dakota as the Fighting Sioux and it will surely be tragic and different for them to be known by some other nickname if the vote and/or initiated measure fail. UND and the alumni have themselves to blame in the end for not nurturing good relations with the tribes way back when regardless of the nickname. I don't know what they did do or what else they could have done but it's clear that some in positions of authority, particularly at SR, have considerable enmity and racism against white people and against UND and especially against other indians who support NA imagery. At the heart of this is not whether someone went to college or didn't and should or should not have a basis to give opinions about a university or its teams or its nickname. At the heart of this is racism in reverse which has been exacerbated by the NCAA's "policy", which was implemented ostensibly to counter such racism, and it has been augmented by the abuse of the NCAA's monopolistic power - all nothing more than a cynical maelstrom that has been allowed to rage unchecked by even ND"s spineless Congressional delegation. This is made worse by many people on this board and Tim O'Keefe and the Alumni Association who simply accept what is not acceptable (i.e. "we've done all we can and we can't do any more") and help to allow ND's Congressional delegation off the hook. It is unacceptable for the native americans who are true to their customs and traditions, UND, it's fan base and it's players and its coaching staffs and it history to be rent asunder by the NCAA. What should be done is for all of the parties to say that they've taken all they can stand because they can't stand no more vis-a-vis the NCAA and its antics. Settlement agreement or not we should have the following: 1.)The vast majority of NA's in ND support the nickname and logo; 2.) Those at SR have given the nickname and logo via 1969 and its history and meaning should be more thoroughly explored if there are questions about it and if the NCAA is truly concerned about native american opinions; 3.) In the event that no vote is allowed and given that there is significant evidence that overwhelming support would be obtained if a vote were held, default to the one-tribe rule irrespective of not having met the deadlines of the white man's time line. Publicly proclaiming that you're concerned about native american input and then denying and frustrating the reality of that input simply because it has not been provided according to the white man's time line - not provided in large part due to co-opting and aligning with racist forces at SR who wont allow a vote - is racist and cynical and expedient. To waive a surrender agreement in everyone's face and to indicate that issues as relevant and complex as native american input, sacred customs and ceremonies have just been "dealt with" accordingly is simply wrong. The fine folks at the NCAA -- all of whom have Phd's -- are motivated by an agenda and basically a political stance based upon some obscure thesis written a long time ago by (surprise!) someone opposed to NA imagery. The agenda and political stance must be furthered and effectuated regardless of significant, salient details which if discovered through investigation would reveal the agenda and political stance to be a fraud. No matter because the agenda and/or the political stance itself is the graven image that must be serviced and respected. The agenda or political stance is nothing more than sheer arrogant conceit held by a certain number of people who have the economic and/or political power to enforce it and characterize it as "right." It is allowed to metastasize when good people simply knuckle under thinking there's nothing more they can do. it's allowed to metastasize when good people refuse to hold their public officials accountable. It's allowed to metastasize when the "objective" press is co-opted by the agenda though I've been impressed during the last year with Haga's coverage. He's been balanced and deserves to be validated for that. I haven't always liked what's been written but he has done a pretty good job. You have this with the Republicans and Democrats. You have this with big business, as most cynically hyper-exemplified by the Supreme Court's "free speech" case involving campaign donations by businesses. You have this obviously with the NCAA. It must be opposed with inflexible resolve and intellectual rigor to be able to parse through propaganda designed to sustain the agenda.

That may work well for the "No" vote. Tie that sentiment to the NCAA and you have a very good basis.

Their bankruptcy court clerk's office does a pretty good job and they just got a new bankruptcy judge who is a UND grad who seems to be doing well. ND has some pretty decent exemptions for bankrupts so that they can keep property to reorganize with. Also ironically, the amended code of 2005 was actually a boon for debtor-lawyers and for debtors. If the amendments were interpreted literally, it would be even more beneficial than the pre-2005 version. Drafted by credit card lobbyists and mortgage servicer lobbyists instead of bankruptcy academics, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the language that result in unintended graces for debtors. Pretty funny that the credit card lobbyists invested over 100 million over 8 years and still get screwed over by the code that their lobbyists drafted. They did draft it irrespective of what Charles Grassley, one of the biggest recipients of credit card $$ in the Senate, says.

I am down the totem pole cognitive-wise. You're dead on about Workers Comp. It's more about protecting businesses and employers who pay into it than protecting employees and/or compensating them. Bankruptcy law is a volume practice, at least when one represents debtors. ND is the one place in the country where people are employed so not many are going to be filing for bankruptcy relief. A trustee whom I know and who was a running back for NDSU indicated that the ND Chapter 13 trustee for all of the state had a total of 600 cases to administer and that's very slim.