Chewey

Julie Evans would not have a legal job but for the unversity position that she holds. Shaft, Kelley, Johnson and Faison, etc I'm sure only fanned the flames but using imagery as "scrubbing", etc and the issue with access to the Ralph only generated sympathy, especially when people saw the petitioners collecting signatures in freezing temps during the Gopher series. Shaft, etc only showed their gross insensitivity and gross incompetence by making misstatements about things like Notre Dame's non-existant concern with the nickname and using verbs such as "scrubbing". Irony much?

And, watching Watchmaker49 attempt to construct a cogent thought process here is like watching a video of Harry Harlow's rhesus monkey experiments in first-year psychology. Now there's an image both entirely pertinent and unique given the subject matter.

Obviously, it's more than a nickname. When I think of UND, I think of good years in law school there, being dressed down by Larry Kraft when I was not ready in Torts, the Malpractice Bowl, beating NDSU in FB, the Down Under, Zep Grinders pacifying beer munchies, pancakes at 2 am at what is now Simonson's on Highway 2, and yes, many hockey games. Add to that now the idea of a university that's been assaulted for no good reason at all by an abusive and unaccountable monopolistic entity. While UND is more than just a nickname, like it or not "Fighting Sioux", after 80 plus years, its ID calling card. While it is known for aviation and while there are many, many good programs there, the thing that has brought it the most national recognition has been the "Fighting Sioux" hockey program via all of the players it has sent to the NHL. What you say is true, in large part, but it is a simplistic take on it erring on the side of minimizing. Nicknames do not cause problems. Drunken idiots cause problems. Now the "academics" want to ban (or at least not teach) such classics as Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" (evidently the phrase "barbaric yawp" was just too much for them to take and too traumatic for the Native Americans according to white professors, of course), Huck Finn (yes, the use of the "N" word in that book is just too much, even though it was part of the vernacular in Twain's time and even though his use of the word was purposeful to enhance the literary effect of the novel), and the Lysistrata - one of the funniest classic Greek comedies one will read (evidently, women withholding sex in order to stop two warring Greek armies is just too insulting to modern day feminists). Like the nickname and logo, these classics do not cause "problems" or "concerns." Rather, it is the hypersensitive conceit of various literary "professionals" imputing their own particular twisted psychological phobias onto such magnificent works of art that is the genesis of any "problems." Might as well just have a bonfire and burn books. You oppose this phenomenon regardless the particular manifestation. It is more than just the nickname. It is the inscrutable, malevolent conceit which imputes "concerns" and "offensiveness" to books or nicknames that is the thing to be opposed with inflexible resolve. This is political correctness at its core.

With 13,500 signatures collected and with the present state of affairs between the Legislature and the SBoHE, the SBoHE will likely not recommend anything other than adhering to the will of the people - regardless of whether the basis may be unconstitutional. UND and SBoHE has an out to the NCAA in terms of blaming the ND people and would probablly be able to persuade the NCAA to allow it to play out, accordingly especially if the litigation continues. UND would probably start a campaign of some sort against the nickname and logo on the ballot. Persuasion would be the smart way rather than trying to ram-rod anything. The incompetence and duplicity of the SBoHE is why we are where we are. If the SBoHE had not ramped up the date for the transition after the SL vote and had they not specified 30 year timelines not specified in the surrender agreement, etc. we would NOT be in this position.

They are and it may well become one. If 13,500 and 26,000 signatures on any petition in ND are obtained, the political weenies will be asked about it and will have to take a position on it. If Berg determines that the election with Heidi (I've been on the public dole for all of my professional life - yes, like Conrad Dorgan and Pomeroy) is going to be a close one, he'll be schmoozing big time. With any Democrat, the position is a foregone conclusion. If a Republican can make some "liberal elite"-style crap with it and characterize an opponent as being part of that crowd, you can bet that arrow will be pulled out of the quiver and used. Heidi is just uninformed, obtuse and lacks any kind of private sector perspective and follows the Democratic mantra in entirely knee-jerk fashion. No creativity in terms of defining or developing worthwhile public policy on ANYTHING and certainly possesses no semblance of an independent core that would inform any sound decision making capacity. In typical Republican fashion, Berg is a slippery and opportunistic weenie who is not above jumping on a bandwagon to get elected. But, at least he has some perspective when it comes to operating a business and making a payroll. If the election is close, you may see him pursue the issue that may have generated - by that time - 26,000 signatures.

Astute points, to be sure. Perhaps you change tactics and rename the teams "Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux." Satisfies the surrender agreement in that the name is changed to something other than "Fighting Sioux". Satisfies the NCAA namesake tribe exception to its asinine policy. Satisfies most of the people because the tradition is still preserved, etc. Sounds like a win-win to me. Spirit Lake will be an ally. Case in point, one tribal council member was removed a month or two ago and Erich Longie really thought he had an ally in the Tribal Council only to be disappointed when the guy he thought was going to be his ally really was even a stronger supporter of the nickname than the tribal council member who had been removed. Sorry Erich......

Shh! It's actually much more nuanced than that and this is an entirely simplistic and myopic viewpoint concerning the issue. In 1982, no one held a gun to anyone's head who wanted to use a telephone and had to use Bell Telephone Co. A person back then could have used the mail or a telegraph, I suppose, or smoke signals. The NCAA is a monopoly and it is a monopoly that is arguably so interconnected and intertwined with publicly funded institutions and venues so as to be a theoretical state actor. That's a simplistic and knee-jerk response.

Slight difference in that those groups do not hold the monopolistic financial sway or the state actor persona that the NCAA possesses.

Yes, why don't we? And, add Billy Jack to the mix too. It's the same sort of tyrannical thing and the difference is in degree and manifestation. It's opposition against an arrogance or a malevolent fixation on control which is entirely inscrutable except for how it is expressed with respect to "concerns" over the moniker and logo. It is the mentality of forcing one side to do something and threatening "consequences" otherwise. Just how badly does one need to be mistreated and screwed to justify a protest? A wrong is a wrong and an injustice is an injustice. Yanking 80 + years of tradition away for no reason at all except that the NCAA has UND in its sights and wants to do it, is an injustice perpetrated by a monopolistic and unaccountable entity. To say that one is not going to advocate against an injustice simply because one perceives it as "petty" in the grand scope of things fosters an anarchic perspective in terms of determining which injustice is worthy of advocacy which essentially translates into preferential advocacy for only those issues or injustices for which payment is duly received or marketed effectively by lobbying groups or propagandized and distorted effectively.

"Immolating"? Bringing out the heavy imagery now. Probably more accurate that the NCAA will burn at the stake or crucify all not in line with its mercurial and illogical dictates

Cliffs Notes for blog posts? I think 82may be on to something there. Gandhi Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, George Washington and Jesus would disagree with you.

All's fine and well if you're in to bowing to totalitarism. The fight is not over, however. The "good fight" is ongoing. You've just allowed yourself to be cowed and bridled. So, you fought the good fight and what did that entail, pray tell? You probably contributed to the law suit, wrote letters to the NCAA, the Alumni/Alumnae Association, Shaft, Backes, Kupcake, Goetz, the AG, SBoHE, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, etc as I did and as many others did. When these people either did not respond to you or betrayed your confidence by not working the terms of the surrender agreement in good faith or just told you "we've done all we can and we'll have to just live with it" you accepted it. What you fail to grasp is that what the NCAA has done and, in a broader and probably more relevant and significant context, what Goetz, Shaft, SBoHE, Backes, Faison, Kelley, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, have failed to do is completely unacceptable. What has transpired is wrong. The failure of these parties to conduct themselves in good faith was wrong. The failure or unwillingness to fight and redress a wrong because of a threat from the wrongdoer is wrong. You may have fought some of the good fight earlier but you have not acknowledged anything except your own acquiescence. You and others may chortle that the petitioners are harming UND. That is a disortion. The nickname and logo did absoutely nothing harmful for over 80 years. The ones harming UND are the ones that have assaulted it and the state of ND from the beginning. You're not at the Stockholm Syndrome level yet, at least. You're not saying anything different than others who have been in the same situation in years past. You're psychology is evidently to warn against fighting a dictatorial entity for fear that said dictatorial entity will inflict even more damage/hardship. For an example of the mentality you're acquiescing to, see the assassination attempt (ultimately succeeding) of Reihnard Heydrich by a few Czech heros and the resulting liquidation of Lidice. Not on the same scale, obviously, but certainly related and certainly exhibits an elemental or developmental state of such ultimate lunacy.

"Self-Esteem Studies" majors? You've got to be high. Can't say I disagree with most of your sentiments concerning the surrender agreement. Genocide, however, is exactly what happened to the native americans though. When you're an embarassment to even BRIDGES, you know you're out of options. I guess they can tolerate it when a white guy tries so explicitly to be a native american but repeated plagiarism goes too far even for the BRIDGES crowd, although falsely claiming "racism" and "harassment" etc. is obviously still ok and, as far as they're concerned, always has been. The far PC left has made a mockery of liberals and, in a larger capacity, the Democratic Party which is why I do not identify as a member of either crowd anymore. Just sickening.

I've always thought that the NCAA should be in the crosshairs (for those so inclined -- see Watchmaker -- I don't mean that literally. It's entirely metaphorical and people do use things like metaphors when writing or even speaking) legally, ethically, etc since the start but I don't believe that is the only villain in this process. And, for those who think I'm stupid enough to be a card carrying GOP supporter (I guess who would be bored enough to really care in the first place), I'm a longtime member of PETA and ASPCA (although I really like Ted Nugent). Maybe Watchmaker will now go check the roles of those groups to scour for attorneys who are also members.

And, just how do you know. It certainly seems as if you're engaging in the very hypocrisy you seem to criticize by presuming that the NA's are just "pawns." The SL Tribal Council are not pawns and neither are the members of the Committee for Understanding and Respect. The plug could be pulled by them at any time. Like it or not and believe it or not, they are the ones moving this. :You presume much and are inclined to cynicism about people you know nothing about and that's unfortunate. You're entitled to that cynicism, of course, and I certainly understand your points. Regardless of your conclusions as to the petition process, lawsuit, etc, you're dead wrong as to your other conclusions. I would expect usage of the terms "prairie niggers" and "wagon burners" some someone as opaque and cognitively benumbed as Watchmaker or his cynical compatriots at BRIDGES who have trotted those terms (and worse) out and claimed "racism" only to have self-serving claims not supported by one shred of documentation but it is a bit of a surprise to see someone as yourself engage them. The Native Americans in this process have not been "pawns." They've been people who have not been engaged at all in the process and they've been people who have spoken but have not been listened to. Isn't it a cynicism on your part to conclude and presume that the NA's could be nothing but pawns in this process? I acknowledge your insights as the the various legal merits but you're dead wrong on the others.

Of c Ah, and "vapid" personified joins the conversation. The last thing I'd be is a member of the GOP and I haven't dealt with a trust or will since Al Bott's class so there's another swing and a miss.

I'm sure some of them donated to the law suit, as I did. I'm sure some of them, as I did, actually believed that the SBoHE and the school administration would act in good faith vis-a-vis the surrender agreement instead of seeing it as a 3 year buffer period to get people used to the idea that the name would be gone. Instead, we get the duplicity and outright equivocation tactics of Goetz, Shaft, Kelley, Faison and the SBoHE. When it became apparent that this is exactly what was happening, there was the vote on SL and then we saw this duplicity further accentuated by the SBoHE in speeding up the retirement process. Irrespective of the funny speak of Goetz, Brand and Harrison about how Native Americans should have a say on usage of the nickname and logo, none of tribes were signatories to the surrender agreement and none were deposed during the litigation. Now, the parties to the litigation who should have brought the tribes in and made them parties to any final surrender agreement but never did are blaming the tribes and are asking "where were the tribes?" I would not view what has been happening as "self-indulgent opportunism." Rather, particularly with respect to the Native Americans, it's more akin to witnessing bad faith and duplicity and doing something about it. What Kelley, Shaft and the SBoHE should do is state publicly that there will be no nickname during the cooling off period, that the teams will not be referred to as the "Fighting Sioux" during that period but other than that it will be status quo, and that the nickname and logo will be assumed if any litigation is successful. The litigation is why there was a 3 year cooling off period. The 3 year cooling off period was essential in getting the legislation passed. From what I understand, this was suggested by some higher ups in the Alumni Association so that the legislation would pass. The petition process is not contradictory, especially if many of those signatures come from SR and SL. If Kelley, SBoHE and the NCAA and a two-councilperson majority on the SR Tribal Council preventing a vote on SR will not accept the fact that a majority of NA's support the nickname and logo, one avenue is the petition process.

Now is the time to fight the NCAA. The stars are aligned correctly - bad press from several corners, public references to the NCAA by families of athletes, coaches, U.S. Representatives as the Gestapo and the Mafia, a tribe who is supposedly a beneficiary of an asinine policy suing the NCAA over that policy and over anti-trust claims, etc. If you're so interested in taking down the monster and helping UND and retaining the nickname and logo, then go circulate some petitions. It is not the time for pusillanimity. WTF you guys? So, the NCAA could "retaliate", even in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit? Really? It's either right or it's not, as the below article illustrates. It's either abusive or it's not, as the below article indicates. You either have backbone to oppose this crap or you don't and you live with a bully's ongoing destructive antics. Many of you would have fit quite nicely in 1930's isolationist America. So, the coin of the realm is that it's ok for a tribe to be disrespected as long as that same bully - for now - does not assault us? It's ok for someone else to get beaten up and I can watch and do nothing and feel ok about it just as long as that bully does not touch me? Indeed, if it did who would be there to help you. Certainly, some other person abiding by the same reasoning would be of no help. It really does not take a lot to see how craven and insipid this position is. http://www.nytimes.c...d.html?emc=eta1 "So long as schools continue to cower in the face of N.C.A.A. abuses, those abuses will continue. The Temi Fagbenle case was a perfect opportunity for Harvard to stand up for what’s right. Maybe next time." Many could learn from this and much good and timely corrective action would be obtained, if people listened to and followed this sage advice. You never stop fighting against this. Otherwise, go join the ranks of the Vichy French. Standing by and doing nothing is tantamount to collaboration, in my opinion. It's collaboration by inaction.

Nothing's happening and if the one side had lost so much ground what was feared to happen would have happened already, presuming it would happen at all. If the requisite number of petition signatures are obtained and UND is known - again - as the "Fighting Sioux" nothing is happening to UND's transition to D1 or B.S. membership this summer, especially if the lawsuit remains. A tribe has sued the NCAA regarding its nickname policy and regarding how it operates. No one really appreciates the significance of this, evidently. The NCAA and all ancillary parties involved do and they understand the gravity of many of the counts. Doing anything to strengthen that would be foolhardy - yes, even more foolhardy (according to some of you) than gathering signatures for the petition drive. There is no better time to pursue the signatures, in truth, than now.

Agreed

UND is not going to be precluded from D-1 status because of the nickname and logo. Period. If otherwise were the case, any anti-trust claim would be stronger. The attendance figures for the Big Sky, save UNC and the Montana schools, are abysmal. UND offers a lot of what the B.S. needs: a rabid fan base; strong teams; a school from a state flush with cash (i.e. financial backing for research, etc.); strong alumni/ae support. UND brings more assets to the table than most of the present conference membership

Wow, your creative muse must have really been taxed for that one. I'm sure that the slightly hovering dust and barely undulating cobwebs from your brief and weak cognitive exercise are quite imperceptible.

Interesting. The NCAA's days hopefully are numbered. They profit huge $$$$$$ off of the backs of the athletes and offers little in terms of remuneration. Sure, you can say that athletes get free rides/scholarships, room and board, etc but that pales in comparisonn to the $$$$$$$ the NCAA makes. And, it's the universities giving the athletes those benefits and not the NCAA. Athletes, universities, taxpayers are subsidizing the NCAA, correct? It's beyond time that this ogre get taken down. The weenies in the ND Congressional delegation don't seem to want to do it. Let's hope SL can. If successful, how long does anyone think it will take the Congressional weenies to jump on the SL bangwagon? So, there are at least a few Congresspersons saying that the NCAA is like the mafia. There are parents and university officials and coaches comparing it to the Gestapo. There are human rights groups clamoring that athletes are being discriminated against and exploited and demanding that they be paid. There are other groups fighting the NCAA on the nickname issue. There are scandals after scandals evincing a complete lack of NCAA control or supervision. One word: inertia. Keep it moving against the NC00.

I like it even more now that it's offended you. You're certainly "phobic" about the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, I would venture. See my previous post about intellectual lethargy and creative oblivion which your latest hamfisted and trite missive exemplifies.

I hear much of what you're saying. But, the contract is/was part of the FOIA response; it's there. As for U of M, U of W, etc., not one of those schools sent a missive to John Chaske and the Committee for Understanding and Respect indicating that those schools would stop playing UND because of the nickname. There is a very good reason for that. They are undeniably public institutions supported by and funded by public monies and they employ people who are paid with public funds. U of M already has nailed one hand into the PC cross with its previous and,evidently, ill-advised statements about the nickname and logo. U of W recently did indicate that it would continue playing UND. To the extent that any refusal to play UND can be tied to the NCAA policy, that's just more arrows in the quiver for an anti-trust claim, isn't it? The Big Sky has not come out and said anything other than UND will be "marginalized" with respect to its position with the NCAA. Essentially, it is saying "we don't care but if you piss off the NCAA your financial standing could be impacted which could impact the conference. Resolve it with the NCAA one way or another please." That's the long and the short of it. As far as the Big Sky itself is concerned, it has been floundering and losing members such as Boise State and, I believe, U of Nevada Reno to other conferences. From what I recall, it rejected NDSU's bid at least informally several years ago after NDSU went D1. The attendance reports of all of the schools, save the Montana schools, are abysmal. It is not a conference that is flush with money. UND is a good addition to it because UND has a vibrant and well-funded alumni, rabid fan base, etc. The Big Sky would be insane to dump UND and it would take a majority vote of the Presidents of the members to do it. The Big Sky needs UND financially.