Chewey

Talk about a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

The ones who have screamed about the nickname the loudest could not give two $#!+s about either the sports teams or the university. The few jackals at UND in the English department and like dens of desperation and those protesters for hire bused in from St. Cloud State, etc. could care less. So these people sow mayhem and then lecture everyone else about how they should just deal with it and subordinate themselves to it "for the good of UND athletics" and "for the good of the UNIVERSITY"? This is twisted. None of this has ever been for the good of UND sports or the university. If the welfare of UND sports and the university were truly in focus, none of this would have come about. The issue you're expressing is only this, nothing more and nothing less: Keep the nickname and allow UND sports to fail or abandon the nickname and allow UND sports to function. The second you tie this to what is good for the university, you lose the correct focus and drift off unintentionally into equivocation-land and justification-land and double-speak land. Getting rid of the nickname is not good for UND athletics or the university generally. Rather, getting rid of the nickname is necessary to save UND athletics from oblivion - the course that was set in motion by some very destructive, self-absorbed and narcissistic and racist elements right there on the UND campus. Whatever the result, I would caution against surrendering and compromising the sanctity of your reason and powers of logic by according any legitimacy to any of that utter sophistry.

I get it. I will cheer for UND regardless of the nickname because I went there for grad schools and I am from there - well, Western ND anyway. I agree that the history and tradition and identity would be ripped away and there would be a huge void there that would take a lot of the lustre away from the athletic program. The Four Horsemen would not have the same meaning if Notre Dame changed its name to the Fighting French (oxymoron, I know -- I am of French decent for anyone looking to throw out PC "thou shalt not" barbs). The "Purple People Eaters" would not have the same relevance if the Vikings changed their name to the "Blossoms." The "Orange Crush" would not have the same ring if the Broncos changed their name. Indeed, they were stupid to change their uniforms to blue and the "Orange Crush" certainly has less meaning because of that, in my opinion. Riddle me this: How in the hell are Kelley and the other geniuses supposed to accord due respect and relevance to the "Fighting Sioux" past -- ostensibly to make everyone feel better -- when the whole name and moniker are so "offensive" and "hostile and abusive"? If giving the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo history such "respect" and "acknowledgment" is such a noble and important thing, shouldn't we just be able to retain them? What's wrong with retaining them? This is only one example of how haphazard and illogical this whole "debate" is. This only makes sense in the encrusted and decaying asylum that is the mind of some "academician" who has probably been bored and lacking mental stimulation to the point of suicide for the past 20 years. In the marketplace of ideas (gosh, aren't universities supposed to be a part of that marketplace?) such childish reasoning would last twenty seconds and then the few people parroting it would be told to go associate with the other freaks in "that corner over there." It's sheer agenda. It's sheer ideology. But, the powers that be have the authority to ram it down on everyone, whether they like it or not, and they have eager propagandists (See Grand Forks Herald) willing ignore facts or impute their own facts to justify it and rose color it for them. Hmmm, where have we seen that sort of hubris before?

A big DITTO for me.

Jack, I appreciate your insights and singling me out certainly is no big deal; that what this board is for. I've been practicing law for over 16 years -- no great time line, but certainly not an insignificant one -- primarily in bankruptcy law and I've certainly seen stranger things happen. There have been discussions about encompassing REA within some framework of the settlement -- or a related but independent settlement (God only knows between whom - NCAA and REA and UND / NCAA and REA / UND and REA?). In addition to the points I made before, this would probably be a reason why either party or both would want to re-visit it. Obviously, sua sponte action would be out of the question but I don't think it's pollyannaish to think that it's beyond the realm of possibility. I've always thought it strange that REA was not included in all of this at the beginning. I presume the following however: 1.) REA would have told them to pound sand; and 2.) The parties to the litigation and the powers that were at the time really perceived the surrender agreement as sort of a buffer period rather than a meaningful time period during which good faith and meaningful discussions to retain the nickname would seriously be pursued. I believe that they really thought that everyone would have 3 years to just get used to the idea and then acquiesce to it when November 30, 2010 rolled around. While no one obviously acknowledged this, It's pretty transparent and these things have basically been verified by the conduct of the SBoHE (imposing stupid time lines), the Summit League ultimatums, etc. after all of the "players" were shocked by the April, 2009 vote at Spirit Lake. All of the super-speak by Walter Harrison, Goetz, et al about the settlement agreement being a vehicle for the native people themselves to have a voice on this issue was only the start of the on-going scatological storm of double-speak and feigned negotiations propagandized as "good faith" detente that was the implementation of the settlement agreement. Say what you want about Al Carlson and the legislature but they are the ones who truly took any action in fulfillment of the stated purpose behind the settlement agreement - to give the Native Americans, and everyone else for that matter, a voice on this issue. All of the parties that should have been able to participate in the 3 year negotiation period were ignored or, at best, begrudgingly tolerated while the clock ticked and while all of the players were fixated on November 30, 2010 and the expedient retiring of the logo and nickname. As I've said before and as I am reiterating now, if people are looking for villains or, to be more politically correct, people who had absolutely no good faith in this process, some of them are as follows: RRHIT, Jesse Taken Alive, Faison, Robert Kelley, Leigh Jeanotte, some of the administrators and professors on at UND on the taxpayer dime, John Hoeven, Rick Berg, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Earl Pomeroy, etc. Al Carlson is not one of them. So, all of the people who were ignored for 3 years email Al Carlson and the rest of the legislature AFTER November 30, 2010. Then, Al Carlson and the legislature take action to validate the will of the 98% who were ignored, including and especially Native Americans at both Standing Rock and Spirit Lake. He represented his constituents' collective viewpoint on this issue and that's what he was elected to do. Personally, I hope he's runs for and is elected to higher office. Whatever some may think his motivations are/were, there is this basic fact: He heard people who were ignored and disrespected and did something about it. What have Conrad, Berg and Hoeven, Dorgan and Pomeroy done? That's right, they left their spines in their closets irrespective of the super-majority that has been ignored. And, we're supposed to trust that they'll stick up for ND, or its institutions, on even greater and more consequential matters when they have been MIA as UND has been bullied by the NCAA and the NCAA's PC jackals?

The AG should petition the Court for an amendment of the settlement agreement. From what I see, the Court did not divest itself of jurisdiction so it could be opened up and, given the impossibility of getting a vote at SR and given that SR is mostly in SD and given the ND legislative action, I am sure "cause" could be found somewhere.

That would be prudent. Having REA sign on to anything would be a good cause to modify the present settlement agreement's terms. It could be amended to include REA and Judge Jahnke could approve the amended settlement agreement and whatever terms are in it. Perhaps the NCAA would modify given the Spirit Lake Sioux support. Perhaps they'd allow retention of just "Sioux" rather than "Fighting Sioux." Long shot? Maybe. Having REA party to any agreement would provide at least some basis for some changes to the settlement agreement which could favor keeping the nickname and logo for an additional time, at least. Kelley and Faison may have to man up and present a "united front" with REA officials and state legislators to get it done but stranger things have happened. Kelly and Faison and the SBoHE have been a collective canker on the whole process in large part. Kelley and Faison, at least, (and the SBoHE - although some of the members did try) knew of all of the support on the reservations and among alumni and among the state and, irrespective of all of that, simply had eyes for the expedient retiring of the nickname and logo and only that. How disrespectful. Had there been a united front from the beginning, we may not be in this position now. They couldn't have been so naive as to thing that so many people were just going to be ignored and sacrificed at the alter of expediency, right? Al Carlson is NOT why were are here. The legislature is NOT why we are here. The cynical implementation of the settlement agreement "process" is why we are here. The view that the settlement agreement timeline was just an inconvenient but necessary timeline during which the nickname and log would just have to stick around but after which everyone would just go along with their retirement is why we are here. These views existed but have never been acknowledged directly. The reactions of the people involved, including the SBoHE, after the Spirit Lake vote acknowledged these viewpoints for everyone. The legislature and Governor were the only public bodies that showed leadership on this issue and they listened to the people that should have been listened to and should have been allowed to participate in the "process." The bungling of the SBoHE and people like Kelley and Faison and Goetz -- and let's not forget the good academicians and administrators and UND -- are why were are here. Oh, and let's not forget the biased and incomplete coverage provided by the GF Herald. Archie Fool Bear, Steve Fool Bear, Tom Iron, Eunice Davidson, Myra Pearson and so many others on the reservations have been the real advocates. They have been the ones who have conducted themselves in good faith and in an entirely professional manner. If people are looking for villains to blame, a lot of them are right there in Grand Forks pure and simple.

I respect your points, Jedi, but I disagree with you. If that's the case, then a lot of professors and administrators at UND would have been fired by now like DamStrait said. Hak can say whatever he wants on the issue irrespective of the position he holds.

Yes, and enter the lawsuit for being fired for expressing that opinion.

Well said Knickball and Blackburn87! Scott M and GeauxSioux and others bring up some very valid points about what some consider to be the pragmatic way to go and I can understand that viewpoint. However, the cynical actors here are the NCAA and the SBoHE and, of course, the "activists" opposed to the nickname and logo. If they were so concerned about UND sports/athletes, the nickname and logo would not be an issue. If it was a truly "trivial" thing, it would not be an issue; people would be indifferent to it. The NCAA needs to be told, over and over again, that this surrender agreement was drafted and agreed to with the idea that the Native Americans would have a voice in the process. Some have been given the opportunity to express that voice; some have not been given that opportunity. The legislature has been the ONLY body to give weight to the Native Americans who support retaining the nickname and logo. The fact that the legislature also had the benefit of input from alumni is a separate matter. If the NCAA truly cares about giving Native Americans a voice on this issue, then they should be willing to listen and modify their stance. If they want to be expedient and intransigent and trample on the wishes of Spirit Lake and the many other Native Americans who are being prevented from having a say on this issue and just plow ahead with the present course, then that indifference to Native American wishes and the sham that was/is the settlement agreement should be identified loudly. The legislators should approach the NCAA this way: "Look, the UND community and state would support retiring the nickname and logo if that is what the Native Americans in ND want, as per your settlement agreement that you (Walter Harrison) announced with much ballyhoo. We listened to the many tribal members who want to retain the nickname and logo. Why don't you listen to them? One tribe approved the nickname and logo by 70%. The other tribe would do likewise but its members are being prevented from having their voices heard. Why hold this against UND and against Spirit Lake and against the many other Native Americans who support the nickname? By not caring about what they think, aren't you acting in contravention of what you set forth your Almighty settlement agreement? Why not keep the nickname and logo until the other tribe's members have been able to express their wishes?" This presumes that the NCAA even cares about the Native Americans, which they probably don't. It's worth a shot, as I see it.

From a recent posting to Tom Miller's article: Mr. First Amendment, meet Mr. Big Sky Conference. Mr. Big Sky Conference, meet Mr. First Amendment. To the extent the NCAA has been involved in this latest drama, the sights can be set on it too legally. Let the lawyering begin........ From a legal standpoint, this opens up the door. So, you want to deny/rescind membership in the Big Sky because of what we call ourselves? And, you say that it's the NCAA's policy that you're following? Alright then, let's have that fight and I'll bet the farm on the First Amendment. Wayne, here's your encore invitation. Let's get going. This UND alum is ready with checkbook waiting.

The point is that the whole policy has been idiotic from day one and there should never have been a need for a legislative vote, there should have never been a need for the Big Sky to write this letter, there never should have been a need to have a lawsuit. It's crazy. Plan B should be to have Hoeven and Berg (Conrad's a lost cause -- always has been and always will be. Mark Andrews: You were sorely missed and I will always be pissed at you for suing the Fargo doctors) start talking to the NCAA. Time to get the computers hot with emails again.

What's truly sad is the need for you to have qualifications Note 1 and Note 2 on what you said. No one who knows how you post would even assume any of that. I disagree with the viewpoint expressed but I am certainly not going to drum up some paranoid presumptions concerning what you wrote. Your Notes 1 and 2 is a microcosm of the mentality behind this whole silly nickname business that people feel the need to placate. By your Notes 1 and 2, you're acquiescing to that sort of paranoia and giving it weight and credence. You have no need to qualify your statements. You are not among Leigh Jenotte's or RHHIT's here. Say what you have to say and let those with paranoid presumptions take their problems to their shrinks. You never know, what you say may be cathartic for some such person in terms of starting a process to improve one's mental health.

Cryptic words from a cryptic and equivocating and double-talking guy. I'm sure he means getting the legislature reversed/invalidated by the Supreme Court and proceeding "expeditiously" with the nickname change. Good riddance.

I would rather have Fighting Sioux hockey and the Fighting Sioux hockey nickname.

Sadly, this is the way how things like this are done these days. Pretty tacky but I'm sure they'd say that all of the "research" says that terminations should be done quickly and perfunctorily. It's too bad. Given that UND is extremely top-heavy administratively, I think this is the first of several such layoffs/terminations.

Well put. +1

So, there is concern about whether fans from schools other than U of M and U of W would travel to St. Paul for the league championship. If that isn't prescient about about BTHC financial/attendance issues, I don't know what is.

I would agree that the use of profanity has no place here and, as some have indicated, its use discredits the arguments presented by its user. However, I am not sure that banning would be appropriate necessarily but that is up to the moderators. While I am diametrically opposed to anything and everything this person has said, his positions have at least some measure of limited -- and I emphasize the word "limited" -- relevance/value. Respectful and cogent disagreement is welcomed so, hopefully, there is a teachable moment somewhere here.........

In case anyone was still wondering where all of the "offensive" name/nickname stuff was heading..... http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/122528314.html This is a good response to an article advocating the renaming of Lake Calhoun. Remarkable. Let's take Washington off of the dollar bill and lets rename Washington State and Washington, DC. He owned slaves too, after all.

I didn't see anyone here calling for the heads of those who voted for the law. There were those who may have had different opinions about the legality of it and there were those who were, in my opinion, overly concerned about the football program and what they felt the law meant for its future. They had and still do have valid points but the opinion that I and, I think, many others had and still do have is that those fears are exaggerated. I wouldn't classify that difference of viewpoint expression as calling for the heads of people who voted for the law. Bob is pointing out that the collective pro-nickname viewpoint of the vast super-majority of people was not seeing the light of day and the legislature and Governor did what they were supposed to do and what they were elected to do which is to provide a voice for and listen to their constituency. I commend them for doing this. I commend them for listening to what I believe is the vast majority of NA's who support the law and who wanted it enacted. The cynical, perfunctory and previously unyielding machinery of the SBoHE and the consummate duplicity exhibited by that body and by Kelley, Faison and others in the UND administration and faculty was short-circuited - finally. All that was needed was a collection of people with a collective backbone willing to listen to their constituents. Bob is pointing out clearly that Glassheim and his ilk really think they know what's better for people than the people themselves. Bob is correctly pointing out that this sort of thing is not emblematic of representative government. Bob is correctly pointing out that it would be political suicide for the democrats to go along with Glassheim. Representative government, the natural consequences of which were exemplified by the ND Legislature's and Governor's actions concerning the nickname bill, is foreign to Glassheim and others of his ilk - some UND administrators and professors in particular, in fact -- because they subscribe to the philosophy that 80% of the people are stupid and that they are so much more well connected and smarter than everyone else. They believe that only a certain collection of people -- the people whom they view to be truly smart - should be deciding things for everyone else. Even my own brother who is 12 years younger than I am and who is himself an English professor (gee, there's a surprise) of writing and rhetoric at a private, liberal arts college believes this. He proudly wears his green Fighting Sioux jersey at his school and around his "colleagues" and says that if some white, holier-than-thou ex-hippie is offended by it that's all the more reason why he should wear it. The point is that he's balanced on a lot of things but he's spends a lot of time around so-called fellow educators and shares this Star Chamber legislative mentality. Glassheim was an educator, right, as was Lonny Winrich? The point is that they can say and believe whatever they want at their wine socials where they talk about "white privilege", how the majority of Americans are stupid and how only a select few should decide things and other perceived and imputed societal "ailments" but that is not representative democracy. Bob is simply pointing out that if one throws in with that sort of crowd one should be held politically accountable. I have had the blessing of a very good education. One should not allow one's own arrogance and one's own emotional shortcomings to twist the blessings of education into the collective, democracy-averse monstrosity that we see expressed by the Elliot Glassheims and Lonny Winrichs of the world or my brother, for that matter. The belief in this philosophy combined with the pseudo-egalitarianism expressed by such types is truly sickening. My brother's coming around but I think there's no hope for Glassheim and Winrich, etc.

The NCAA does, at least, have a rationale that I can understand with the whole domination of culture and appropriation of culture, etc. I don't agree with it, obviously, but I at least can understand the argument and begrudgingly assign some ostensible credibility to it, at least in terms of logic. Where the NCAA loses everything is when it employs the haphazard double-standards and imputes concepts such as "hostile" and "abusive" to native nicknames. One may think that the usage of native nicknames may be tantamount to employing some sort of dominion over another set of human beings. However, such usage is not hostile and abusive. These are two different positions that do not mesh at all. If the NCAA is going to object on the dominion/appropriation of culture theory, the supposed wrongfulness can not be purged by the so-called namesake tribe exception or by any other standard. Throwing the hostile and abusiveness business in there just clouds the matter even more. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all and the NCAA needs to have the backbone to enforce the policy uniformly or not at all. The NCAA is the only player and UND seeks to be part of it by necessity only. The NCAA really should be broken up into various regional entities. The sooner the legal issues on this get resolved the better and the Governor and legislature need to take charge now and aggressively, yet diplomatically, advocate for the nickname. Sitting idle would be the absolute worst thing, in my opinion.

Like it. +1

Yes, the same old usual suspects: Grandforkian, Mirthful, Denny (I think this makes a peanut gallery).