Chewey

So the possibility of retaining "North Dakota" wouldn't be a new development either.

It's gone already. Why is it so hard for Kelley, et al to put substance behind their verbiage and actually take steps that evince respect for the tradition and history associated with it? Why is it so hard for Kelley, et al to actually be frank and indicate that they want a new nickname fast so that people are encouraged to stop yelling "Go Sioux" at games (because, what's wrong with you, we're not the "Fighting Sioux" anymore) sooner rather than later. I'd say that it's Kelley, et al who have a hard time letting go of it because they are obviously trying so hard to get people to stop saying it.

It's not trying to get around anything with "weasel words". North Dakotans do not suffer being dictated to. North Dakotans value both openness of dialogue and the responsibility to be frank and honest in their dealings. North Dakotans got dictated to - something that wound up not being within their control if they wanted to preserve the solvency/viability of the athletic programs at UND. North Dakotans did not get openness of dialogue or honesty or frankness in communications from NCAA or Kelley, et al or the SBoHE vis-a-vis the whole sordid history concerning this issue (retirement of the nickname irrespective of a 75% vote of approval at SL, etc.). North Dakotans are not getting honesty or respect or clarity with suppositions, scare tactics and faux exigencies asserted by Kelley, et al. North Dakotans are not getting fairness or respect or decency when plied with meaningless, ham fisted verbiage such as "let's move on", "let's let the healing process start", etc or assaulted with what appears to be a predisposed "process" for selecting a new nickname that's simply dressed up as a thorough and meaningful good faith protocol intended to get the input of the "stakeholders". North Dakotans did not even get frankness and clarity with the surrender agreement. There is no "weasel quotient" in either pointing out that it's ambiguous or making conclusions that appear obvious or, at least, possible as a result of that same ambiguity. The theme underlying paragraph 2d of the surrender agreement is what may or may not offend "the Policy." If UND did not receive namesake approval, it was to transition to a new nickname which did not run counter to "the Policy" or render it subject to "the Policy." How does just "North Dakota" violate "the Policy"? How does "North Dakota" render UND subject to "the Policy"? Why did the NCAA not snark at the legislature's "cooling off" mandate? If one thinks it's because the NCAA was sensitive to what it did, whom it offended (particularly the supermajority of NA's who wanted the nickname retained), or how it imposed subsequent costs upon various parties as a result of its own arrogance and its employment of what amounted to nothing more than economic terrorism for the sake of "correcting" a self-appointed "moral wrong", one is a bona fide Pollyanna. The surrender agreement does not prohibit the no nickname option, either inferentially or explicitly, because the no nickname option does not violate "the Policy" or render UND subject to "the Policy". For those who think that it may, the solution is simple: "Our school is called the 'University of North Dakota.' Our teams go by the name 'North Dakota.' Nothing to see here and have a nice day." The old nickname and logo are no longer used formally or informally by the school. The fact that people may still yell "Go Sioux" or "go Fighting Sioux" or wear "Fighting Sioux" apparel does not bootstrap the school into formally or informally continuing to use either the nickname or logo. To adopt a new nickname to try and get people from doing this is nothing more than a thinly veiled exercise in viewpoint/language management. North Dakotans certainly don't go for that. The former nickname and logo are not sentient beings that can reason, put together thoughts or sentences or consciously make "people feel" discriminated against. It's from the same playbook that leftist progressives use as to anything else that runs counter to their weltanschauung (guns, oil exploration and development, etc.). As far as fears about a "hostile and abusive environment" being created at UND, the use of "North Dakota" does nothing of the sort. No NA imagery is being employed by the school through its usage. If people yell "Go Sioux" at a game that is something that can't be micromanaged by the NCAA or the school.

Last I heard, that name change was voluntary and done to respect his mother rather than forced by some outside entity so not exactly apples to apples there.

Any ambiguity about the surrender agreement as far as the policy and what 8 in violation of that policy would be construed in favor of the school/state. Having the Fighting Sioux nickname was in violation of its asinine policy regarding "hostile andabusive" nicknames. That was clear. That clarity is not present with the surrender agreement as to the " North Dakota" issue. I've said it before: How can not having a nickname violation of a policy or surrender agreement that address hostile and abusive nicknames? It is not a violation. Pursuing this would require the NCAA to contort itself even more to "correct" a double negative: not having an offensive nickname and not doing anything that violates a stupid policy. The NCAA is not above pursuing inanities but there must be some faux "policy" that's being violated or there must be some self appointed "moral outrage" that must be addressed. Not having nickname completely insulates the school and state from such capricious and arbitrary progressive moralizing and subjectivism. No baloney about not having a nickname impacting the collective self esteem of certain groups. No papers could be written about how not having a nickname is "racist" or "insensitive" or "an appropriation of cultural symbols that perpetuates white privilege". So Sicatoka and others HAVE to have a stupid substitute nickname to rally around the teams and school? I thought we were all following the clarion call to be proud and supportive of being UND after all. The ham fisted attempt to get a new nickname for "marketing" (translation: we really want people to start saying and wearing things other that Fighting Sioux or Go Sioux because we want no vestiges of that nasty evil terminology ever - anywhere - because of the ongoing emotional harm it will cause to the psyches of a few perpetually outraged perennial students/professors) is a most facile and transparent faux "urgency". PhD s dripping around UND and Kelley et al couldn't be more creative than that? People with years of business and marketing experience advising Kelley and loss of "marketing dollars" is the supposed extremity that must be avoided? They didnt have the collective intellectual muse to be more creative than this?

Well, there is additional empirical evidence from the survey and the fact that no nickname was/is a huge preference asserted by many who filled out the survey, attended the "town hall meetings", etc. There is ambiguity in the settlement agreement language. It says that UND will transition to a new nickname and logo that do not violate the NCAA policy or cause it to violate the NCAA policy. It does not specifically prohibit the no nickname option. Any prohibition would clearly be foolish. I'm not sure if that option was entertained when the document was drafted but the fact remains that not having a nickname is NOT in violation of the policy against "offensive nicknames". So, UND is going from having a "hostile, abusive, capriciously offensive" nickname that is in violation of the policy which subjected them to sanctions to not having a nickname which clearly is not in violation of the policy which will subject them to sanctions when this latter scenario was not clearly contemplated or prohibited? There's nothing petulant about this. There's nothing petulant about holding Kelley, et al to their exaggerated pieties about respecting tradition, being inclusive, staking out a path towards healing, etc. All of that, as we're seeing now and as we knew when it was said, is nothing more than meaningless hyperbole.

Good for Louser, et al! With the history behind the Sioux nickname and with the sheer majority of people still angry about how the school, state board, etc handled it and with that same majority still incredibly angry about the PC hacks on campus, in the media and the 3% of actual Sioux members who were behind it, more time than 3 years is necessary to transition into something else. Kelley and his ilk don't give two cents about mending fences, respecting tradition, respecting the majority of Sioux who wanted to retain the name or respecting the vast majority of "stakeholders" who want to keep it North Dakota. Kelley wants to use the "sales are down" meme as a justification for a quick transition to a new name. So, sales of "UND", "North Dakota" merchandise are down? To any reasonably educated person, that shouldn't be a shock when one juxtaposes that to how sales went when the "Fighting Sioux" nickname was employed. That's an entirely fallacious argument. So, changing the name to SUNDogs or Roughriders or whatever is going to appreciably increase merchandising sales even when compared to "North Dakota," "UND" items? Baloney. Being known as just "North Dakota" is entirely unique; UND is the only school doing that. That uniqueness is marketable. To be known as something else just so that people stop saying "Go Sioux" or stop wearing Fighting Sioux attire at games or at school, etc. is an entirely asinine premise that is expressed and rationalized through code words such as "healing", "moving on", "improved marketing", etc. Yes, it really is THAT transparent.

Keep the name "North Dakota" and there's no additional cost. Pretty simple, really.

"Nicknames" are simply labels for a school's sports teams. If the school chooses to label its teams as "North Dakota" or "Team North Dakota", there's nothing there for the NC00 to get its panties in a bunch about, surrender agreement or otherwise. Using a state's actual name to label a schools sports teams is good enough. The slogans that one could use would be so easy, "What's wrong with North Dakota?" "What's the matter with North Dakota, it's ok" (There could be a catchy tune attached to that one).

Actually, it is. The nickname is "North Dakota" and the new logo is the interlocking ND. There's no policy against using your state's name as a nickname. Our school is "the University of North Dakota" and the name we apply to our teams is "North Dakota". We've chosen to use part of our school's actual name and the name of our state as a label for our athletic teams. If the NCAA did not intend to allow for this, then the surrender agreement and the NCAA policies need to be more specific.

The "town hall meeting" garbage is a way for them to gauge both whether the "cooling off period" has worked and whether there is still significant sentiment against choosing a new nickname. Good to hear that a significant number of people are telling them that there is no need for a new nickname. Stay "North Dakota" for at least 10 years and then start the "process" of selecting a name. That is the only pragmatic approach. It is the only means by which all "feelings" of all the "stakeholders", including (gasp!) the supporters of the Fighting Sioux nickname, will be assuaged. Adopting a stupid nickname for the sake of "marketing" will only result in the marketing of an stupid nickname which will only result in terrible sales. That whole marketing meme is code speak for simply adopting a new nickname quickly in order to have one and, more important for the "synaptically challenged academics" like Kelley, to say that we aren't the "Fighting Sioux" anymore (even though we aren't right now). This is it in a nutshell: We want a new nickname, even an imbecilic one, so we can tell everyone that we're no longer the "Fighting Sioux". I got it. Let's call UND the "Satans". Best nickname in the state of ND when D.L. had it and only very few of the right group - Christians - would be upset about it. No harm, no foul there. In my line of work, I see many of the students who labor under the 1.3 trillion of national student loan debt. In 2005, the average student loan debt was $17,233 and in 2012 the average was $27,253, a 58% increase (Forbes Magazine 02/21/14 "1 Trillion Student Loan Problem Keeps Getting Worse). It galls me to no end to think that debt will only increase to pay idiots like Kelley and the "Diversity and the Cultural Sensitivity" Vice President and legion other V.P. and related administrative boondoggles. There should be debt forgiveness to save our economy from what's inevitable. That loan forgiveness should be paid for by a dollar for dollar reduction in funding for higher education nationally. For 25 years the spigot of easy, government guaranteed money has run freely and the blob that is higher ed has done nothing "for the betterment of the students" in terms of cost control.

All the more reason to just keep in "North Dakota"

"Anything with historical significance remains...." Except, of course, peoples' associations, remembrances and pride in "Fighting Sioux". These must be disrespected for the sake of expediency and expunged as quickly as possible by the overnight selection of a new nickname to sate the quarrelsome, apoplectic dyspepsia of the very whiners who assaulted everyone with this nonsense in the first place. People with cold, pallid slime in their heads will accept this. People with functional gray matter with active electrons, neurons and pulsating synaptic animation will not.

Yes. That's the whole thing in the most simple, succinct and clear manner. The irony, lunacy and hypocrisy of the "change the nickname" meme cause the position (charitably speaking) to be self-refuting and cause the argument to rise up in protest against itself.

You're missing the point, entire conversation or no. The point is "positioning statement" or not, the informal use of the Fighting Sioux nickname by fans yelling this or that and the lack of a nickname is not offensive or hostile and abusive or otherwise. The school is not using the nickname or imagery associated with it and that's what was "hostile and abusive" as per the NCAA and the professional pouters. The nickname is "North Dakota". If fans associate "Fighting Sioux" with it, how's that "hostile and abusive" on the part of the school or its teams? It's not. End of story.

So what? As long as the university's teams are not going by it, there's nothing hostile or abusive. Just having "North Dakota" is a perfect solution. No imagery. No offensive displays of hostile and abusive monikers around campus or on the facia of the Ralph.

The "position" is an example of what is ailing education - cognitive malaise and the 60's generation. Under the guise of "investing in our future", "concern for the children", "we must compete better globally", "strengthening education", there has been a decades' old infusion of way too much money into academia that has basically created an economic fiefdom for still radicalized and half-baked 60's Vietnam War protestors and their acolytes who still travel in the parlance of "the military industrial complex", "no justice no peace", "equal pay for equal work", "power to the people", etc. and who would never be able to get jobs in the private sector. If you want proof that this pablum is still recited and if you have taken your anti-nausea medication, take a listen to Sirius XM "Progress" 127. The point is that the ones who do the educating and the ones who actually maintain the schools and make them work are getting economically shafted. Given the shrinking pool of money, this will only get worse. There is a definite schism that has developed between two groups who have previously been politically allied - college administrators and college faculty, maintenance workers, etc. The juggernaut of economic reality is now doing what politicians failed to do- turn off the money spigot. Both groups are still trying to stay politically allied to maintain the cash flow but the reality is that professors are getting hired on an adjunct basis only with no benefits, no health insurance, etc. In many instances, neither faculty nor support workers are seeing raises (not even cost of living adjustments) for 4 or more years. Universities, especially public ones, are now more cauldrons of "social change" and petri dishes for varying social agendas than bona fide institutions for education. Now, Vice Presidents (I can't get over offensive irony that such a noble title has when one sees what comes after it) of "Gender Equity", "Inclusion", "Queer (insert insane label here)", "Diversity" are getting the lions share of the $$ instead of the physics, economics, Shakespeare professors. It's absolute wastefulness. It's ludicrous. If someone with such a title got bounced and had to interview for a job in the private sector and actually revealed the title, any prospective employer with laugh his or her hind quarters off. Taxpayers are not going to continue funding this nonsense and prospective students are seeing that the product being offered is too costly and is of very little value.

My brother is a college English/Writing and Rhetoric tenured professor at a school in suburban Chicago and he complains about what much of what I stated and I have a couple of friends at a large Minnesota university who share those concerns. I do only bankruptcy work and I see a lot of student loan servitude and I see people in academia who are being economically restricted. While I don't know everything, I do have some perspective. Too much money poured into one thing causes a bubble effect and that's what's happening in education. Those who are in the trough - the ever shrinking trough - recognize it and they don't like it and they want us to pick up the slack through taxes. Unlike the "too big to fail" banks, I don't think they'll have the political clout to insulate themselves from it.

"Sandra Mitchell, UND Associate Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion" Leave it to the geniuses in academia to come up with a boondoggle like this. Were it not for academia and the ongoing taxpayer shakedowns to fund it, one with such a "title" would be warming up fries at an Arby's. 1.3 trillion of taxpayer guaranteed student loan debt has created quite an ox that's starting to be gored by the sheer weight of inexorable and inevitable economic reality. Nationally, fewer and fewer are willing to incur thousands and thousands of student loan debt to hear someone lecture them about "diversity and inclusion" and "gender equity" only to get a job that pays barely a living salary. It's the 25 to 30 year-old shower of government guaranteed cash that's created something that collectively is so lacking in intellectual stimulation and creative inspiration to come up with a "position" as vapid, insipid and useless as this. Nationally, professors are fighting legions of administrators for the ever shrinking trough of money that both groups bathed in for so long. Now, there are more administrators than one can shake a stick at all making 100K, all drawing taxpayer paid healthcare and retirement benefits and all fighting with faculty to retain their stake of the shrinking pie. Now, you have a lot of faculty being hired by those administrators on an adjunct basis only - a way for the administrators to keep their gravy train. It's truly a beautiful thing. So, these people are all going to go back to their "constituencies" and "stakeholders" to get nickname suggestions for Kelley? And, everyone will feel really good and "included" in the "well thought-out" and "well-crafted" process? What a bunch of truly surrealistic nonsense. The economic door has been kicked in and the whole rotten edifice is starting to falter. In the words of Bill Murray from one of my favorite movies, "I have to laugh."

I still like "Roughnecks".

It's the voice of dissidence and it was and is predictable. Forcing some "process" down everyone's throats just to have a nickname, "because it's time", will only worsen it. You'd think 60's radical draft-dodger types would relate to that. One is being a Pollyanna to think that it will just go away with a new nickname. If there is reasonable and deliberate participation by even those who wanted to retain the nickname, that's one thing. But, any process will not involve that. Any process has been predetermined, as has any replacement nickname. Kelley, et al are not interested in healing or balanced participation. They're only interested in appearances.

You're racist by concluding that the use of "North Dakota" is akin to employing the same "racisim" and "cultural insensitivity" that UND assaulted everyone with through the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo - "racism" that the NC$$ sought to eradicate by forcing the school to nix the name and logo. You're craning in racism where none now is being employed, according to the NC$$ policy, because the nickname and logo are gone. Yes, the onus of racism is yours. You're obtuse by concluding that the school is actively or passively "encouraging" use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo by using "North Dakota". If you'd criticize the Ralph or the school for selling Fighting Sioux gear or if you criticize the NC$$ by amending its policy to allow additional imagery to remain in the Ralph, you'd have a point. There is no basis for you to conclude "encouragement" with the simple employment of "North Dakota". So selling Sioux gear and amending the the surrender agreement do not constitute "encouragement" but using "North Dakota" does? This is the nonsensical, haphazard, contradictory web that all of this has become. It makes sense to the NC$$. It makes sense to the PC hacks on the UND campus and on the GF Hurled editorial board. It, evidently, makes sense to you. It does not make sense logically, unless one is twisting things to justify and excuse unjustifiable conduct. It's called "equivocation" and "dissassembling". The techniques are employed with great skill by so-called progressives to self-amputate from truth and reality. It allows "progressives", such as yourself, evidently, to proclaim partial points of view, such as "the Fighting Sioux nickname is 'racist'" into absolutes. That's called "totalitarianism".

Obtuse, much? Using "North Dakota" is not encouraging usage of anything. You may not have noticed but I think the teams actually no longer have "Fighting Sioux" on their uniforms and, if memory serves me correctly, they actually dropped the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. It's really racist of you to associate "North Dakota" with your own prejudices. "North Dakota" is not "Fighting Sioux". It's that simple. It really is; at least as far as the surrender agreement and the NC$$ policy go.

No. He's saying that by not adopting a new nickname we're respecting the old nickname and the indigenous people. He's saying that by adopting a new and stupid nickname we're disrespecting the people for whom the sports teams were formerly named. As has been said, the perennial pouters will want a new nickname to bury the old one. Anything process that does not do that is "tepid". If there are associations or remembrances of the Fighting Sioux with just the name "North Dakota", that is something that can't be tolerated by the language/thought police. The nickname MUST be something different even if it's completely inane and stupid. Of course, they will resort to cynical tactics such as propagandizing about "marketing" insecurities/forthcoming tragedies and claiming racism at every turn regarding how "tepid" and craven UND is by not starting on a process for a new nickname. The thought police do not want any associations or remembrances of the nickname. Progressives "so-called" are absolutists. They try to circumvent the free exchange of ideas and speech by labeling anyone who disagrees with their weltanschauug a "racist" and they will boot-strap petty offenses to their puerile sensibilities as "human rights violations". "North Dakota" by itself is already "instantly recognizable". Why don't they just stop with the baloney of propagandizing about "marketing" disasters and state that they view any associations or remembrances that people may have as also racist and offensive? This is the underlying problem with keeping just "North Dakota" and not concerns about marketing, at least as far as the GF Hurled editorial staff is concerned.

To that, I would ask for clear language to that effect in their policy and in the surrender agreement and I would ask why, if this is the case, we have not been subject to sanctions the last 3 years irrespective of what the legislature/Governor mandated. I would also clarify for them that not using anything at all is not perpetuating or facilitating anything. I would also clarify that they amended the surrender agreement to allow retention of some imagery in the Ralph and that the Ralph and other stores (I think) in the GF area probably purchased about 100 Million worth of "Fighting Sioux" stuff that they continue to sell and will continue to sell for the next several years. The school/Ralph have already actively, according to this standard, promoted and facilitated the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo and there's not been any problems with it. They wanted the nickname and moniker gone off of uniforms, hockey sticks, ice rinks, etc.; they're gone. UND is not mind-washing people or facilitating anything by doing nothing.