Chief Illiniwek Supporter

IIRC, the committee here was the Marquette Board of Trustees. And there were at least two differences from your situation IMHO: they were changing from a nickname (Golden Eagles) that wasn't only unpopular with most (the replacement for the still-supported Warrior nickname) but even among those who don't hate it, the nickname failed to capture even mild interest. IOW, people either hated it or were apathetic about it-and the Board acknowledged this when they they tried to change it. The other difference IMHO was that their attempted nickname change was kind of a suprise: rather than your situation it was more of "well, lets change it and do it today". Two things that I do recall with great amusement: the Chairman of their board released a "its going to be Gold from now on, so deal with it" statement-and within about a week he was backpedaling just as fast as he possibly could. And someone on their board was the president of a Milwaukee PR firm and he/she predicted great success for the nickname. Soon after they were bombarded with bad publicity, the Board of Trustees announced an online poll of students and alums (specifically noting that any votes for "Warriors" would be disregarded) and among the unispired choices they threw in "Golden Eagles": the very nickname they previously said didn't generate enough support and needed to be changed. And today, they're known again as the Golden Eagles. And from what I've heard, at least once per game you'll hear the crowd chanting "Let's Go Warriors".

I also like the quote which says in so many words "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". I think that applies to the current situation also.

I hope it doesn't come down to a committee to choose a new nickname, because I see nothing wrong with your current nickname. However, what I will add is that in case push does come to shove, I would go heavy on alumni and light on current students. The more flippant an attitude some younger people will bring, the less time people will spend on committee work; and that could lead you to being stuck with one of those "Bananna Slug" nicknames simply because people won't have a lot of time to waste with clowns.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x18...atick-team-name At least one comment mentioned that the original nickname was coined simply because the team wore red uniforms, and that was also the case with St John's University. You would think that the board would consider the "Bradley Compromise": keep the name, lose the imagery. Of course, the comments include the mandatory "lets move on" blather from those who simply REFUSED to move on when the nickname was Redmen.

Big, big difference between the Chicago Stadium and the UC: not as many "L & O" chants. Or perhaps opponents and/or refs just don't fall over their skates as often in the new place. If this is the Neil Diamond song, I wouldn't count on hearing it ever again.

For me, the question of whether it is a HBCU depends on the word "historically". I can't call Chicago State a HBCU simply because its a college that dates back to the 19th century, and I'd guess that up until the 1960's the student population wasn't majority African-American. That doesn't pass muster as "historically" Black IMHO. I don't think a school can be transformed-it either started that way or it didn't. I have many, many criticisms of Illinois state politics: but IMHO the present-day racial makeup of CSU's enrollment is mostly based on its mission as a limited scope, commuter college. I can't see where politics is involved. I couldn't agree more. The fact that its the Emil Jones Jr. Arena tells you all you need to know. He's the current President of the State Senate, the school is in his district and his record of trying to get money to the school (as well as trying to quash investigations of how the money is spent) is well documented.

Exactly right on why Chicago State is overwhelmingly a "black" school today: the fact that its primarily a commuter school (and does a lot of work with teachers returning at night on a part-time basis for their Master's degree) has given it its present racial makeup. Personally I don't see how it could be called "historically black": IMHO, that designation should be based upon the idea that the college was founded to educate African-Americans. That cost may be correct, and I can confirm that its an on-campus arena, but I'd like to add a few more facts. Capacity is about 6,000, and it has literally NEVER been filled. Average attendance for the college games is something less than 900. (That's per a Chicago Tribune report/expose less than six months ago.) The biggest crowd for an athletic event this past year was for a HS basketball doubleheader IIRC. Besides all that, the athletic department has had money trouble: earlier this year they weren't funding their athletic scholarships, so students were being stuck with tuition payments after they had been awarded scholarships. BTW, that $30 million cost was all from the taxpayers. It has no chance of ever being repaid, unlike many other college athletic facilities in our state.

Mostly-but Vinson, Nimitz and at least one other non-President are out there these days, correct? I guess you have to be at least an admiral: or, a politician who works to increase funding for the Department of the Navy.

I will offer one small revision: if the name is changed, the victims will claim new wrongs are occuring "because the nickname change TOOK TOO LONG". On this we wholeheartedly agree. Once they sense they have acquired some power (which they probably know already), they'll keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Not long ago, some Asian students at Northwestern were protesting because Northwestern didn't offer ENOUGH Asian studies programs or courses. At least one interviewer asked the question I had: did you know this before you (voluntarily) enrolled at Northwestern, one of the most selective and expensive Universities in the United States?? After all, as a Northwestern student you must have had many other opportunities to attend a different college. Their protests never got very far; but IMHO if the college had given in, all sorts of other groups would have been out there with placards.

I don't know. Let's ask the captain of the "Bonhomme Richard", John Paul Jones. However, this will be interesting. Naval vessels usually have some sort of insignia or logo, displayed in the ship's galley if nowhere else. Odds are this is becoming more and more "PC" no matter what the name: this one promises to set a new record for number of committees formed to design a 2 square foot plaque.

Are you referring to the resolution denying funding for a reservation-wide referendum? The resolution that (according to the Grand Forks newspaper) "...spends by far the most ink, however, on a November party by UND

I saw an interesting editorial in today's Chicago Tribune. It told the story of a court victory by a true "David" over a Goliath-a Goliath with virtually limitless money and IMHO a fair amount of clout within Congress. I found this paragraph interesting: I took out the names just for fun to see if it was obvious what the case was about. I thought the circumstances compared favorably to the court case many people here wanted to see-a case against the NCAA which many people seemed to consider an unbeatable Goliath. (I underlined the words I have substituted for the original text.) Perhaps not an exact comparison, but IMHO interesting nontheless.

"Changeover Gophers, 4-2." If you brought in that undersized RB for third down plays, he would be a change of pace Change. Hmmm-where would you hear the line "A Change will do you good"?

Exactly. The US Calvary came in with the goal of killing Indians; that sounds like ethnic cleansing. How can we possibly support that?? (I guarantee that someone will make that argument. A while back, during an organized crime crackdown, someone accused the Chicago Police Department of "ethnic cleansing".) A while back, someone wanted to change the name (because someone found it offensive and therefore he found it offensive) to something "nice and neutral: something we can all get behind". And many, many, MANY people pointed out that what one person finds "nice and neutral" the next person finds offensive. One little paragraph that contains "goal", "formal negotiations" and "offensive to any ethnic group". IMHO, that paragraph could cause years of yapping and claims. You'll never please everyone. The question is the same with a new nickname as it is with the present one: how small of a offended minority do we ignore? And of course, which preferred group gets an outsized voice? And as you will be replacing one person's offensive nickname with another person's offensive nickname: what's the point?

Obviously I'm not an expert on tribal constitutions either. But in the original story (here), it appears that some of the tribe who are not council members presented a resolution to their Tribal Council calling for a referendum. The Tribal Council refused (by a 7-5 vote) to fund such a referendum, effectively killing the idea. So it sounds like its within their constitution, even if it's (IMHO) a high-handed power play. And quite honestly, I don't know if they have a judicial branch where such a decision could be appealed. I think what any number of people here want is to make sure that the irreversable step of changing the nickname is actually the will of the people of the tribe, rather than merely the will of seven of the twelve council members present on that particular day. It certainly seems like a referendum would answer that question. And another referendum could be held in 2009, and things could change-but at least all the people would speak at all times. Agreed: but OTOH, it might be someone abusing their power. I think a referendum would help to remove those "mights". And of course, a dozen or so people arguing on a internet forum won't make it happen one way or another. Here's the quotation, which comes from 30 months ago: In the resolution, the United Tribes board also called on the state Board of Higher Education and Kupchella to hold formal negotiations with the state

My mistake: I took the word "Board" and incorrectly expanded it into the term "Board of Trustees". Here's where I started down the wrong path: http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...1&start=331 Thank you for ensuring that all terms are accurate.

Within your state/region-I don't know that. But here on this board, one poster advocated asking the tribes about his particular preferred new nickname: even though he admitted it had no possible connection to the tribes. And furthermore, even if the tribes gave it the thumbs-down he said he'd go ahead and adopt his nickname anyway. I couldn't even begin to understand his logic with that one. But to answer your question with a question: don't you think that someone (either within the Native-American community or someone on your campus) will advocate giving the tribes a voice, "since we've stolen their identity for so long without consulting them"?

Couldn't agree more with the idea that the alumni and students should have the sole voice here. But personally, I'd tell the Board of Trustees to go somewhere. They agreed to this mess, so its highly doubtful that anything they do would be helpful: it's far more likely that any "contribution" they made would be entirely and totally counterproductive. Today's posts point up the idea that any voice you gave to the tribes wouldn't be a true "popular vote" but rather the choice of very few people on the reservation. That's simply the icing on the cake: they had their say-so and it was "no" so their role is ended.

It looks like the people who are preventing a vote on their own reservation aren't sure which way the balloting would go either. Could be. But I know I'm far more interested in what happens in my local city and school board elections. Those affect me on a day-to-day basis much more than what happens (or doesn't happen) in DC. And IMHO that's why this board gets more traffic than the one where you can talk about Washington, DC. I wish that message would get thru to some of the people your administration and the NCAA have empowered with their nonsensical decisions. And if that happens, all will move on. But only some people will move forward. If you don't even want to hear what the people you represent say, what the people who are so INSULTED really think then you are obviously incapable of moving forward at this late date in your life.

I think some of the hard-core anti-nickname people on those reservations will read something like this and take it as "proof" that they're on the right course, and celebrate a victory. I think the reality is 180 degrees opposite: to the outside world this will show that the leaders simply don't want any sort of discourse that may disagree with what they want. Daiges, I really think that the leaders who want to have their own way and thwart any possibility that their rulings might be overturned. And I think part of stems from the belief that once one of their decisions is overruled, people may start looking more closely at all of their rulings. I believe this moratorium would have happened whether or not some sorority had a party. This mindset existed long before any particular party.

Quite an article. Okay, that's just plain poor writing. If it was a misshapen swastika, then by definition it was also a misshapen infinity symbol, a misshappen 4-leaf clover and a misshapen drawing of the Milky Way galaxy. Please. Again, defining the terms "isolated" and "far from RA's" is up to each individual. Lets face it-no room SHOULD be isolated from RA's: and if such a room existed the party animals would be requesting it. So its hard to believe that the University staff felt they were offering this student an "isolated" room. And what would the student propose is an equitable solution??? Move someone else out of their dorm room so he could move in? This is a bit much IMHO. If you want your parents or a trusted guardian there, fine. Even if you want the prof who ran the student organization to sit in: that's okay. But insisting on a lawyer in this situation is overkill IMHO.

Thank you for reminding me of the impending changeover. I didn't recall that at all. I did look up some of the earlier posts in this thread, and here the wording is something like "much closer to a resolution" rather than a definitive "wrapped up": so I offer that for whatever its worth. http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...9502&st=269 I do agree that just over a month is a very short period of time to "announce" a committee, have them meet, and finally announce that the committee has made more than one decision.

It's JMHO, but I'd say the committees have been formed and a lot of PR types have drafted memos. They're just not public knowledge as of now. I'd also say that there are a lot of timelines, etc. being drawn up to lessen the harm.

I agree. As noted, when someone starts releasing email correspondence to the press, and when the emails contain phrases akin to "let me tell you how to do your job" that leads me to believe that at least one desired effect is publicity for the author. As far as that professor's interview-he admits that for years his response to concerned parents was something like "our campus isn't perfect, and while your child won't be part of the majority there's nothing to be worried about so feel free to attend". Yet a single incident caused by some mope with an ice cream cone has turned him 180 degrees? He gave an endorsement to the campus for many years and in a matter of months he has completely reversed field? And regarding that incident: this student was a freshman, a resident on your campus for about six months or so I assume. Wouldn't it also be interesting to hear the perspective of a senior, or even a graduate student? Or how about a recent alum? If the campus as a whole is at fault, can this really be the first time something like this has happened?

I don't have enough info to call anyone here a liar. My strongest reaction was towards the prof/advisor: he certainly seems like he loves publicity if he's releasing emails which include an acknowledgment of a privacy law and a claim that he speaks for the student. But that's really not the biggest point or problem here. One account says the victim spoke with dorm authorities who promised to talk to campus police, and then a "complaint was never filed". I don't know what it takes to make a complaint, police report, etc but perhaps someone at the police station felt it was a he said/she said case? Maybe if they had to respond to each and every case of "he yelled at me in the dorms" there would need to be a lot more cops? I don't know the answers to those questions. But just as you're saying they "appeared" to do nothing, I am willing to say that appearances can be deceiving sometimes. Not always, but sometimes. And IMHO, that prof would have made sure this made the media; if nowhere else in the advocacy press. That newspaper harped on the idea that someone refused to call an abstract drawing a swastika. They've got an agenda-and "anything to help..." so the logo would have been drawn in. Englestad was mentioned here: as if somehow a ten year-old story about him being a collector of Nazi items was the reason why some mope with an ice-cream cone chose to attend UND and then draw stuff on a elevator door. That's REALLY a reach IMHO. I don't know what the police chief said (or didn't say) to anyone-but it appeared that the professor simultaneously complained that he was not informed by campus administration but he also knew of the limitations written into a privacy law. That was the reason for my comment on privacy. I didn't see anything about the police chief in any of the news I could read. I agree-its JMHO, but these things can snowball quickly. Once someone gets bullied and complains in a dorm-like situation, things can go downhill in a hurry. That doesn't make it right, but it happens. Think of the old "barracks" you see in war films. And it can be difficult for authorities or superiors to get out ahead of the situation in time. So while the harassment, taunts, threats, etc. might have started as one sort of "ism", it also might have continued for all sorts of other reasons. As noted, everyone is free to judge the speed/effectiveness of a response-I just don't have enough info and that begins with the fact that I'm only reading a very small portion of the newspaper articles. Also..... This is reply is marginally off-subject: don't forget that ANYONE can draw a symbol on your campus. It could be a UND student, or a member of the public, or students from your biggest hockey rival..... anyone. If they know it will stir up a tempest, they have incentive IMHO.