ScottM

Considering the amount of cash it takes to go/be D1, this seems like a patently stupid action. I never knew UND was in danger of slipping below the residents' collective radar. If anything, Kupchella's fight the past few weeks over the name/logo seems to have boosted the school's stature in the region, and nationally.

Considering how much the WCHA dominated the hockey scene last season, looking at these classes leads me to believe that should continue for the next couple of seasons.

It's been a few years and more since I'd even used the term, but I was trying to be "polite". Plus, I had to account for inflation.

Anybody who makes a Linnean leap that a school's name/logo is a catalyst for another person's racist actions/words, really needs to pull their head out of their "Fifth Point of Contact". Those people are just as likely to say/do the same crap on any other campus, or any other part of the world. As to another point, I really don't disagree that the use of the name/logo on gear, REA, etc. should bear some serious consideration and thought by the UND administration. Then again, the NC$$ doesn't seem to mind the licensing fees that come from shot glasses, shorts with "Sioux" on the rear, Welcome mats, etc., inspite of their little edict.

Everytime the Hurled prints anything by Doreen YellowBird, on any topic, it just reinforces its tabloid status.

Agreed. If anything, it seems the NC$$ policy has more than galvanized public support for UND and the other schools across a wider spectrum than if the issue had been raised locally again by the "usual suspects".

Some interesting comments by a number of parties, including Kupchella. Link

You'd better listen to this guy.

I remember chanting/shouting "Bison Suck" and "Gophers Suck" many times as a student and alum, but I haven't seen PETA or ALF make a stink about it ... yet. Good grief, if "Sioux Suck" is her idea of "racism" she really needs to pull her head out and give it a good shake.

Maybe she doesn't understand German?

That is effectively what they are saying with regard to uniforms, etc. worn by representatives of the affected schools. Basically, the NC$$ is saying that if you are good enough to get to the post-season wearing your team's name/logo, you are not good enough to wear the same unis, warm-up gear, etc. during the tourney, unless you're FSU, Utah, UNC-Pembroke or CMU at this point. As to Pat's other point, I think it would be a very effective argument that the NC$$ is requiring UND to violate a dictate from its governing body, as well as interfering with the business of a sovereign state.

And like most studies purportedly based on "statistics" it can be easily skewed to reflect the author's biases. I'd bet Angela probably used the most egregious examples she could find to elicit the responses she "reported". Then again, I'm of the opinion that the "science" of psychology is about a half step above divining the future with animal entrails or colored stones.

Reminds me of those "sensitivity panels" that used to pop-up on campus every once in a while when somebody felt slighted by some comment or conduct. Basically a bunch of people of the same mind, preaching to each other to make themselves feel better. Maybe it was just you, Angela.

As I've noted earlier, the terms "abusive" and "hostile" probably emanate from Title VII employment cases that dealt with racial and/or gender discrimination or harassment. The NC$$ if it relied on that standard would have to show the use of the name/logo creates a "abusive" or "hostile" environment on campus. This was something even the CCR was unable to do a few years ago. As Pat noted, the NC$$ is effectively contradicting its own constitution by this rule. Yes, the NC$$ can espouse equality, diversity, etc., but it effectively precludes itself from mandating policy for the schools. The NC-Pembroke exemption reeks of racial discrimination on the basis of a count of the campus' American Indian student composition. By granting the exemption on this basis alone, the NC$$ must effectively demonstrate how this is not racial discrimination when it effectively stated it as its justification. The terms "abusive" and "hostile" were not defined to the member schools, and effectively are subject to personal interpretation, rather than an objective standard. Anybody with modicum of common sense, their personal sensibilities notwithstanding, should not be able to look at Florida State's use of Chief Osceola, the Chant and the Chop, and somehow determine that they do not fall under the these terms if UND's use of its name/logo do. Moreover, the NC$$'s own appellate criteria do not limit themselves to tribal permission, as much as the recent exemptions might infer. If the NC$$ is not truly hypocritical, they would take each school's appeals on their own merits, and not hang their hats on the grounds granted to FSU, Utah, etc.

Anybody have any idea on David's health? I recall that he went back to Colorado shortly after the last regular season(?) for medical treatment. Maybe a season off helped?

Unfortunately, I missed the opening stuff, but ABC continuously flashed back to "Chief Osceola", some white kid in this case, when it was running promos of the game, as well as at the end. Therefore, I suspect the pre-game ritual has not changed a whit. As well, it was pretty amusing to watch the students doing "the Chant" while talking to their friends or on a cell phone.

I was watching the Seminoles barely beat the Hurricanes last night on national TV, and listened to "The Chant" (supposedly sacred to some Indians), watched the crowd do "The Tomahawk Chop" en masse and saw the 'Noles logo and "The Rider" and heard their name at nearly every turn, and had to wonder if the NC$$ really appreciated how much they've humiliated themselves the past few weeks. "Abusive" or "hostile" indeed.

I would have to agree that by making tribal "permission" a main criteria, the NC$$ got the easy ones out of the way first. UND's case, and its particular appeal, are less concerned about permission, so much as its mission which is different from the other schools'.

I believe the terms "hostile" and "abusive" come from a line of Title VII cases that dealt with racial and gender discrimination/harassment primarily in the work place. The entire atmosphere of the workplace was considered as to whether it was "hostile" or "abusive". Usually it was a top-down environment where management either condoned, participated in and/or did nothing to stop racial epithets, sexual harassment, comments, conduct, etc. The standard is very rigorous, and fact intensive. I really doubt the use of the Sioux name/logo even approaches that threshold, regardless of the fact a few hypersensitive souls disagree with its usage. And as Harmeson pointed out, correctly, "Sioux" is in the public domain, for better or worse.

Victory is mine!

Nope.

1. Ice on the RR eventually melts, and 2. Summers are "short" in GF, especially compared to parts of the country where you can still golf in December.

I highly doubt it. Afterall, the "Fighting Irish" don't really represent a people nearly as "oppressed" as various Indian tribes, farm animals, etc., depending on the interest groups. Moreover, the NC$$ would never, ever tangle with Notre Dame. But they'd have no problem beating up some small college like Grambling, as another columnist noted, if they used the same/similar name.