Chewey

Well, I agree with you on that. They certainly can not hide anymore. They are seen for what they are now -- people from out of state with an agenda. My point is that Hoeven, Berg and Conrad really need to start hearing from people as the ND legislature did. One joint telephone/letter call with/to the NC$$ by all three of them, or at least 2 of them since Conrad is probably hopeless, in support of the nickname and the issue is resolved. Hell, they could even get "sample" materials from the Florida delegation.

A most excellent email. Good job there. I couldn't have expressed my own frustrations better. With the hypocrisy of the NC$$, the lack of backbone by carpetbaggers like Faison and Kelley who were brought in to change the nickname and logo, and overt racism propagandized with impunity by some UND faculty and administrators who are against the nickname and logo and the double-standards enjoyed by FSU, Utah, CMU, etc., the anti-nickname/logo position is tantamount to the twilight zone (as if it were ever anything else, right?). Ultimately, the NC$$ has created this monster and it's time for the NC$$ to man up and either get some consistency and disallow NA imagery for ALL schools or allow UND the same standard that other, similarly situated schools enjoy. How cockamamie does the NC$$ look in all of this? Do they actually have the arrogance not to care? Personally, Frank should be sending strongly worded emails to John Hoeven and Rick Berg. Faison and Kelley are just carpetbaggers who were brought in for a purpose and they are trying to fulfill that purpose. Hoeven and Berg and Conrad are the real political mush in all of this. I am no defender of Kelley and Faison but Hoeven and Berg and Conrad really are the ones in need the Lyndon B. Johnson style "treatment" in all of this. Conrad could probably care less since he's done in 2 years (at least at this point). However, the AG and any other Republican who's interested in running need to continue hearing from people and be reminded of where the people stand. And don't give me any of that "it's just a nickname" garbage. The nickname and logo issue is simply an indication of a larger and more sinister issue -- not listening to one's constituency and caving to certain groups.

Actually, that would be a good thing and I am sure that's what happened. The Metis are half-French and half-Chippewa so I don't know how many Metis would be living on a Sioux indian reservation. The Metis, like Leigh Jeanotte, have no card to play in the Fighting Sioux nickname issue other than a personal agenda of racism and, probably, jealousy. The majority of the Sioux natives on both reservations are opposed to the PC Weltanschauung espoused by idiots like Jeanotte and Lloyd O. It's about majority will taking precedence over big mouths that propagandize hate and racism.

Exactly. Without "racism" where would those two yahoos be? Of all the people, they are the ones who would most want to see racism continue.

Right. That idiot needs his head examined. He's the racist who's associating gorillas and black people. Asinine.

Very well done. Let's hope it passes.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Haga can't even get that fact right? I guess it's back to journalism 101. That paper truly is a consummate fish wrap. Ironic that they have to scour this site for material to handicap their dilatory protocol and lack of independent and objective coverage.

Maybe the IRS would be interested in this "in kind" compensation?

Amen Ox. Amen.

That's the point though. A majority at SL have said that the name and logo do not offend them and are not racist. SR would say the same thing, if they were allowed to do so. What is racist is the denial of a vote. What is racist is white professors and administrators saying that the name and logo are racist irrespective of what the majority of native say or want. What is racist is a minority of native americans, many of whom are Chippewa, at UND who want to make that decision for everyone else. I'm sure you're not a disloyal fan but you are, evidently, buying the sophistry hook, line and sinker. What's racist is racist. I just love the "logic" employed by gays where they say that they can use the "f" word because it takes the sting out of the word and takes power out of the word. I have no desire to employ that word and I think using it is a nasty thing to do. However, according to their logic the "sting" of the word is lessened by the number of times it is employed. WTH?!?!?! Under that logic, the more times it is used by anyone and everyone, not just gays, the more the sting of the word should be taken away, right. Why is it not racist for CMU and Utah and FSU to use native imagery when they've obgtained tribal approval (one tribe) but the imagery is for UND because UND has not obtained the approval of 2 tribes? If something is racist, it's racist and no one should employ it. If something is racist, it should be taken out of town names and off of road signs and even native americans themselves shouldn't use the term, right? Anything else is equivocation that lessens the intellectual integrity of the argument, right?

I don't drink so, no, I wasn't drunk. Actually, it's pretty simple. U of M and U of W are state run bodies and those state run bodies have publicly stated that they would refuse to schedule UND because of its nickname and logo. This is discrimination by a public body based on speech.. Historically, they've played us. If that changes, why? Would the reason be economics? Of course not because Sioux/Gopher hockey games and even FB games in the TC would earn a ton of money for both schools because there are so many Sioux fans in MN like myself. Would the reason be uncertainty about competitive parity? Of course not. Would the reason be low television ratings? Of course not. Would the concern be cost of travel? Of course not. Would the concern be some sort of team generated malevolence that would serve to cause injury to players? Of course not. Bottom line is that there is a course of dealing and an historic association there that has never been problematic except for, you guessed it, the nickname "policy" and the simple lockstep adherence to the NC$$'s asinine "policy." There's a lawsuit there somewhere. And, if it were brought against UofM or UofW or whomever the NC$$ could be joined anew because there would be a brand new claim asserted. Free speech rights are sacrosanct. Who in God's name would have thought that corporations, of all things, would be endowed with free speech rights to donate whatever they want to compaigns? Well, it happened and they do. If you want to view the position with incredulity now, fine. It certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility. I am sure Pat Seaworth is a nice enough fellow. He was always pretty professional and courteous when I spoke with him. But, in my opinion, there is no doubt that he is anti-nickname. At the very least, he succums to the various doomsday prophecies most of which have no factual support whatsoever. At the very best, he is among the insipid "I would love to save the nickname but" crowd who would blithely abnegate 80 + years of tradition so as to wrap everything up with utmost cynical expediency. Such widespread milklivered pusillanimity among those who were supposed to have advocated for the university/nickname/logo/students/alumni/state in all of this is one of the reasons why this process is at its present juncture. PM me and I will send you Pat's diatribe. Most of it is doomsday regurgitation that falls squarely outside the parameters of the surrender agreement. At the time of the surrender agreement, did Pat and others not know of the terms FSU, CMU and Utah had obtained? At best, the legal team who negotiated the settlement agreement obviously did not do the most thorough job and UND was sold out short, accordingly. At worst, the whole process was designed simply as a 3 year buffer period during which all UND fans and alumni would just get used to the idea that the nickname and logo would be retired and would simply accept it once November 30, 2010 rolled around. With people so willing to sell out 80 + years of tradition involved in the process, the terms of the surrender agreement really are not surprising. They are unacceptable. The nickname and logo do not hurt UND or UND athletics. Rather, it's the whimsical and capricious and completely unjustifiable animus that the NC$$ holds against UND that would serve to hurt UND and UND athletics. The few members of the SR Tribal Council who are cynically preventing a vote who are hurting UND and UND athletics. It's the taxpayer funded, self-aggrandizing professors and administrators at UND who are hurting UND and UND athletics. Indeed, they see the reality that 98% of Native Americans on both reservations have no problem with the nickname and logo yet they, in entirely Captain Ahab fashion, continue to fixate on the nickname and logo, impute some brainwashed "racism" element to it and try to protray their own views as being more important than the rank and file majority simply because they're "educated" (charitably described, given present context). Every Milquetoast imbued with false rationalizing and equivocating that acceding to such purile, low-core aggressive antics "will really help UND and UND athletics" actually hurts UND and UND athletics. The psychology on the other side is so 5th grade. All the nickname supporters have every asked for is a vote on SR and a continuance and validation of everything that has been factually proven to date. Namely, that the school uses the nickname and logo with the utmost respect, the vast majority of SL and SR natives support the nickname and logo, that the majority of alumni and ND citizenry likes the nickname and logo, that the nickname and logo have NEVER been a detriment to UND or UND athletics in the past, that there have been absolutely no incidents where the nickname and logo have caused anyone any harm except those emotional glass jaws who have concocted stories otherwise. UND has done nothing wrong. The nickname and logo have done nothing wrong. The majority at SR who wish to have their voices heard have done nothing wrong. The majority of alumni, students and ND citizenry who have actually had a backbone have done nothing wrong. The wrongdoers are the NC$$, the majority of the SR Tribal Council, the "truly intellectual heavyweights" on the faculty and administration of UND, and people like Pat Seaworth who strive to pacify and enable every petulant outburst disgorged by that crowd. Kelly and Faison and the SBoHE have bosses - the legislature and the people of ND whom the legislature represents. If they're smart, they'll realize that they have de facto bosses in the UND alumni. Why not put energy into showing the NC$$ that SR really would approve but they are being cynically prevented from expressing their opinions? Why not put energy into showing the NC$$ that UND has done what other similarly situated universities have done? Why not put energy into opposing a bully? Why not put energy into laying forth the truth that neither the logo nor the nickname has caused UND any injury at all historically? Why waste your energies being a wobbler? The only reason there's any controversy about all of this is that the people who oppose the nickname and logo aren't used to being opposed. Now that they're being strongly opposed they don't like that very much and don't know what to do about it except equivocate, cry "racism" and try to obfuscate the obvious. Thankfully those tactics, though vigorously employed, have met with significant resistance. Like someone else on here said, this is exactly where the issue needs to be and I am thankful that so many have exhibited the strength necessary to enable the majority to be heard.

Ah, ok. Believe what you want. It's not an issue of a nickname being a protected class. The issue is a school, a state actor, refusing to play another school BECAUSE OF what the other school/state chooses to call its teams. I'm sure reasonable minds may differ, but there is a lawsuit to be made there.

Yes, the doomsayers will be out even in more full force now and you can count on the anti-nicknamers to continue to fixate. I bet that each and every one of them telephoned the NC$$ on the hotline not 10 seconds after the result was in. The majority wants the nickname and logo. The majorities of SR and SP want the nickname and logo. They will not be denied. Let the NC$$ be publicly portrayed as acting in concert with the few cynical SR Tribal Council members in preventing a vote by SR on this issue. Let the NC$$ be portrayed as entirely hypocritical when the obvious is repeated and repeated -- that one of the groups whom the surrender agreement was supposed to benefit and give a "voice" to is being actively prevented from expressing that "voice." Let's continue the truthful publicity because it looks very bad for the NC$$. Next, flood Hoeven's and Berg's Senate/House email accounts. We already know what a fish Conrad is. We can only hope that the U of M, U of W, etc. refuse to schedule UND because of the nickname and logo. Then, the 1st Amendment rears its head (U of M and U of W obviously are state actors) . If we truly are not able to sue the NC$$ on 1st Amendment grounds by virtue of res judicata, we surely could sue the U of M and U of W and, if victorious, the NC$$'s "policy" becomes unconstitutional by implication. This means that if some other party sues the NC$$, there would already be some manner of precedent that its asinine "policy" infringes on free speech. As many on this board have said, this is exactly where the issue needs to be. Too many people have been content with just rolling over and stating public support for the nickname and logo and then working assiduously to retire them in the dark and behind closed doors. This is the democratic process at work and it serves to shine a light on where everyone stands and that's a good thing. The fact that it seems so unfamiliar to some people is disconcerting and is all the more reason why it should continue. The lack of comfort some have with this process, to me, only lends validation and credibility to the process and it speaks volumes as to the absolute necessity of having the experience. It is a healthy thing.

I agree. The doomsdayers desperately did not want this to pass. As many have pointed out, the worst thing that would happen is that UND would be on the "sanctions" list. We should still pressure the Governor to sign the Bill and then pressure Hoeven and Berg to do something at the national level.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/196469/ You were saying......... Time to wind up the obvious for the NC$$ and publicize it. Namely, the Surrender Agreement was intended to be a vehicle allowing the people of SR and SL to express a vote on UND's retention of the nickname and logo. SR, one of the groups the agreement was drafted to benefit, would approve but they are being cynically prevented from doing so and the NC$$ could care less. Pretty hypocritical but that's par for the course for the NC$$.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/196469/ Doesn't sound like the NC$$ will be kicking out UND from the NC$$. They were smart enough not to provide a source for further litigation. The doom and gloomers in opposition to the Bill overstated things a bit. UND will not be able to host post-season events in FB for a couple of years anyway. BB, Basketball, Hockey and, to my understanding, most other sports have post-season events at regional sites anyway. So we just get to wear the "North Dakota" jerseys (most of the sports teams have these anyway) and we get to press a vote on SR. Hopefully, Archie Fool Bear will be elected to the Council in the near future.

Thank God.

A spokesman for Gov. Dalrymple says he hasn't decided whether he'd sign the bill if it passes the senate. So what's up with this Governor? It's hard to imagine him not signing such a law that has such support, especially with a re-election bid coming up in a couple of years. I know he ran against Dorgan for Senate in 1992 and lost but that's about all I know of him. What his story? Is he committed to his constituents or is he all wobbly?

And the reason it will not happen concerning hockey is $$$$$$$$$$$$$. I guess even the PC pinheads know that "principles" can be eschewed where good money is to be made.

This is absolutely WONDERFUL news!!!!! Good job ND House. Now, let's hope the Senate does the same thing. Curious how the anti-nicknamers claim, "this isn't the biggest issue, so why is the legislature focusing on it." Yet, those same anti-nicknamers rant and rave against the nickname so it's plenty big to them. Like Al Carlson said, "it's not the biggest issue but it is a big issue to a lot of people." Awesome work Al!.

Very good post!!!!!

It's Tom Dennis, after all. Those of you in Grand Forks, please call your legislators and ring the phone or computer red hot with calls and emails. OUR OPINION: Listen to local voices on UND nickname As the North Dakota House takes up the question today of UND

Enough of this sort of tripe. This whole "my hands have been tied by the SBoHE" thing is really tiresome. When the SBoHE was trying to get a vote on the nickname and when it itself expressed favor for retaining the name by trying to get a vote, where was he? Did he ever conclude, "hey, most of the alums like the nickname and logo and the SBoHE is trying to get tribal approval" so I should speak out in favor of retaining the nickname? Has he ever done anything in support of the nickname and logo? No. He was chosen, I think, because he had no ties to UND or to the state or to the alumni. His position on the nickname and logo has always been, at the very least, silent and willing acquiescence as for their retirement. I am willing to bet that he's been, in conjunction with the anti-nicknamer faculty and administrators, very active behind the scenes working for their retirement. He should be fired as he has no ear or respect for the alumni. The SBoHE has done a massively terrible and irresponsible job of handling all of this but they at least tried to work with SR and Kelley was simply silent and said silence spoke volumes.

Just referring to what he indicated in a previous Herald article. Maybe the additional time request is to allow Kelley to importune the REA officials and family to allow any changes at all. We all know what the settlement agreement provides for the REA but I don't think anyone from REA has publicly indicated that they informally signed off on the settlement agreement and agreed with the changes.

Jody Hodgson said it already: Not one thing in that beautiful building is being changed. If UND does not get to host NCAA events there from here until perpetuity, c'est la vie.