Chief Illiniwek Supporter

Sioux-cia, while I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be timely investigations, I do have some other questions. And before going any further, I need to disclose that all I can view are the first paragraphs of the stories in the general-interest, North Dakota newspaper. The student moved out 4/18, after "several months" of verbal taunts, etc. So does that mean these incidents started even before February? And if so, when were they reported, and to whom were they reported? Email from advisor-undated, but the article was published 4/24: this cites a "hate crime" that occured "almost two months ago". Now again, are we talking about the February incident only? Or something before that? "Lack of punishment": so have the perpetrators been identified? (Apparently one person was charged, but five days after this email exchange was published.) Also, the author seems to acknowledge that there are privacy laws to be considered, and my first reaction to that was "why didn't the student who felt victimized go to his advisor earlier?" We apparently are talking about a very small group of students, less than two dozen. If this was a disturbing incident, didn't the victim tell any of his fellow students in the club? Or did they know about it and respect his wishes to keep quiet? Just judging from that first paragraph, the advisor seems to be way out in front of the facts with charges like "hate crime" and "perpetrators". If he was "dismayed" that Dean of Students didn't talk to him (even though he acknowledges privacy laws) how does he feel about any of the students who didn't talk to him? All in all, much like a robbery in a dorm or similar crime this should be investigated in a timely manner. But right now I have a few questions about the person in question that I'd want answers to before I indict the Dorm authorities for negligence. JMHO. And to echo the thoughts of many others-this thing could (and perhaps does) happen at many universities with homogenous populations. The nickname has no relevance, despite how much the other newspaper wants to tie it in.

I have to agree here-the drawing pictured does not immediately jump out at me as the Nazi symbol. At first glance, it seemed to be a somewhat diagonal "infinity" symbol. Granted, the words underneath perhaps made conclusions easier to draw. Also, from the article-(some) UND professors "refused" to make "allowances" for religious holidays? And the stats quoted indicated that the population in question was perhaps two dozen out of 13,000 students? Everyone can define "allowances" and "refusals" as they wish of course, but IMHO the very small group on campus makes it difficult to reasonably ask for much-otherwise, many many MORE people will be inconvenienced; and what about THEIR rights? C'mon Goon, you know the drill by now-anything unpopular is tied to (or caused by) your nickname. If they could, they'd blame the nickname for identity theft, child porn and forest fires.

People will find the diagonal lines on the back of playing cards "symbolic" if they want to. My word choice would perhaps not be eerie, but rather predictable. I don't like that. I need to find a reason why people should support me. I'll keep throwing stuff against the wall until something sticks. You better believe it. Keep trying until you win, them move on to the next outrage du jour.

Sure you do. Just like your major donor served as a Field Marshall in Nazi Germany, they're burning crosses in front of the houses of people who's religion they don't like, your homecoming parades feature pictures of skinned humans.... For the haters, there is no such thing as inaccuracy. They will happily tell you that the drawing of the logo is a "mascot". Trust me-we NEVER had a mascot. Chief was always described (officially) as a symbol of school spirit. The haters just ignored that. They decided he was a mascot; therefore he was a mascot. The haters hope that casual fans will lump the U of I and North Dakota in with the people who have guys running around with paper-mache heads shooting t-shirts into the crowd, riding ATV's around the stadium and mugging for cameras.

They do. Just ask Marquette University. However, they do not own "Braves". Bradley gets to use that one (at least for the time being).

Don't forget one of my personal favorites: how the so-called "smallpox blankets" of the 19th century are a reason why a nickname simply must be changed here in the 21st century. What one has to do with the other is beyond my simple understanding.

I repeat: Ecofeminism. We have someone being paid a professor's salary to talk about Ecofeminism.

Wow. Your school is really going to have a tough time when the entire English Department resigns en masse and goes to the reservation(s) to volunteer their time as teachers.

Oh, I quite agree. People are saying that they'll withhold financial gifts from the University and others argue "but you're punishing the students". My response is that when I gave to the University of Illinois I was "punishing" Illinois State, Northwestern and a lot of other schools-not to mention many, many other worthy charities. Its no more a punishment to change who you support than it was a punishment to not support others in the first place. The person who designed the work of art was a student at the School of the Art Institute, so the director didn't make a direct, overt choice to display this work-but at some level, someone judged that it was okay to be put into the museum. Bad judgement and that person should have paid a price IMHO. No, its not a Black Spruce: I believe its a White Pine so they're okay. Oh, wait a minute....

The interesting thing about "art" is that its totally self-defined. To HER, it is art. This reminds me of the "How to display the American Flag" exhibit of maybe ten years ago at the Chicago Art Institute. (BTW, the Art Institute is one of the most respected museums in the world. We have no need to take a back seat to the Louvre or anything in London or New York.) This display was by one of the students and it invited people to write down their ideas about how to display the flag in a notebook on a table on a wall. That was about the entire work of "art"-a table containing a notebook and a sign asking for suggestions. Oh yes, one more thing: an American flag was on the floor directly in front of the notebook. To write in the book, you had to step on the flag. Quite "arty", no? Suprisingly, a few people didn't consider this to be the epitome of artistic talent and protested at the Art Institute. The museum director was on TV after that saying things like "we must protect freedom of expression", "art is many different things to different people", "we cannot stifle the learning process" and other pious pronouncements designed to educate the great unwashed masses. So the next day the protest moved to one of the major sponsors of the Art Institute (either a utility or a major department store) and the president of THAT company was on television announcing that they were re-evaluating their financial support: great applause, and the protestors said they were going on to the next sponsor that following day (meaning Day Three). On Day Three, the Museum's director was on TV again. No pious pronouncements this time: the guy was LITERALLY CRYING on television. Have to balance things, not a cause for people to stop supporting "art", blah, blah.... Odd how time changes things, isn't it? That was a very long two days.

See, you just don't quite get it. Its not the small minority of people whining about a picture that are divisive, obstinate, need to get a life, etc. The problem here is overwhelming MAJORITY of people who have to look at things they don't like all day and realize there's nothing they can do about it. Its that one nickname that's the problem. The NICKNAME. Not the whiners-they're not causing anything. The nickname is causing everything! Even if you acknowledge that there's no difference between Sioux and Ute or Seminole-this one nickname is the problem. The nickname is preventing UND from "moving forward".

Yes, we still use a word in a language. Edit: Yes, we still use a shortened version of a French translation of a word from a Native American language. But we've never used the name of any tribe.

Sioux cia, its obvious that insults are stopped by national boundaries drawn on maps as well as the oceans. While everyone in California, Florida, Maine, etc. is insulted by the "hostile and abusive" use of Sioux and some other names. every single person in the continental USA realize that the Aztecs were originally from Mexico. So they can no more be insulted than the Irish, the Scandinavians, the Greek, etc. And within the lower 48, "Warriors" obviously ALWAYS means Indians. In Hawaii? Different meaning entirely. Sure, if you want to look at it from a cynical point of view it might have something to do with the lack of any Federally chartered Indian tribes in the Hawaiian Islands-but I'm sure there simply must be more to it than that. (Why state boundary lines on maps cannot stop insulting images and language but national boundaries can is something I can't explain, but it makes perfect sense in Indianapolis.)

I disagree. As you said, one nickname/logo cannot be "hostile and abusive" while an identical one is not. The Fighting Sioux nickname can no more be a "burden" than Ute, Seminole or Pembroke

IIRC, members of the Sioux tribe were in Washington recently to accept a Congressional Medal of Honor. Did they themselves use this "derogatory" term? Did the various politicans and military leaders also use it? Was there some sort of uproar? Please, enough of this canard that somehow the word itself is derogtory. Also, let me point out that we now have not one but two trolls present; that should be more than enough to let everyone know that this thread is going nowhere fast.

Listen, Big Tuna wants you to quit mentioning Giancana and Doves. Dere good friends of his. Oterwise, he's gonna want No Nose and The Clown to come talk wit you. And before youse even start: leave The Waiter outta dis entirely.

Rather than start up a new thread, I'll respond to the most recent posting. Congrats on getting to the Final Four. I'd say most of Chicago would have been Sioux fans on Saturday-as it was, they were BC fans. I read the posting about how a youngster got the goalie's stick after the last game and the player actually visited him at home. Obviously there's a huge difference between the schools that are located within large cities and those in small towns-seems to me this is one of them. And from a different thread within this forum: Chicago is death on cougars. Okay, the full story: a cougar was shot within city limits tonight. They're going to check it out on the chance that someone put a microchip under the cat's skin. Now if someone did that, I'd have to nominate him for dumbest criminal of the month.

This is the part most of the anti-nickname/logo screamers just don't (or won't) understand. The nickname didn't cause your "problems", and removing it won't change a thing. Do you really think that ANYTHING about that frat party a few months ago would have been different if your nickname was 'Bananna Slugs'?

Yes, and as many others have pointed out-if the Illini played FSU at Tallahasee, a face-painted student wearing buckskins and riding a horse could fling a flaming spear into the ground at midfield (BTW, directly into their logo) and nobody in Indianapolis objects. Now if we played them at Champaign, the very possibility that anyone could REMEMBER our Chief at halftime (and at halftime only) would cause the world to explode. (BTW, has anyone here seen the new controversy about Absolut Vodka's ads? Right now, it seems to be centered around Mexican complaints. I wonder if all parties have been heard from yet? )

I agree, an interesting letter: I sincerely hope that this poster is who he says he is, and I hope that (at least) on his reservation and at his tribe's political meetings he stands up and gives this same speech.

Thanks. I've never completely understood academic nomenclature. We have someone who is in charge of the three campuses of the University of Illinois, and he's called a president: reporting to him are three chancellors of each individual campus. So it seems as if the same duties are being done by a "president" at some places but a "chancellor" at others. In any case, it seems as if he (Goetz) is more of a politician than an educator at this point in his career. That position seems to deal more with budgets, etc. than setting up academic programs.

From the newspaper...

If I were cynical about this, I would point out that by putting on an upopular logo the only thing the NCAA would accomplish would be cutting their own Final Four-on site sales by about a quarter. This is probably a more accurate answer-the NCAA feels they've won the war and they don't need to restart any publicity which may expose their hypocrisy. Nothing promoting or denigrating a particular website, but I would be extremely careful about online sales. I've heard way too many horror stories about people visiting sites and buying the shirt, etc. with our popular Chief logo and actually recieving something with the orange "I" logo instead.

No, it can't hurt but I agree with those who feel that it won't do anything. Your administration already knows how the vast, overwhelming majority of people feel.

As I have a few minutes, and as I continue to be absolutely astounded by the number of people who are seemingly fascinated by the idea that an ad hoc "censorship" can be effectively and equitably enforced, I'll play along. A few questions: -Who gets to say what is "unacceptable"? Unacceptable attire, unacceptable speech, unacceptable music-how big of a committee should be setting these guidelines? -How far of a radius from your campus are these parties "banned"? Is it a tiered ban; say, all parties banned within 5 miles, one party per year 5-10 miles, two parties 10-20 miles, etc? Or does it apply to all of North Dakota? Age limits? I mean, what if the party in question is being thrown by someone age 30? -Let's say a local busybody is cruising around town one night, wearing his aluminum foil hat and using his Area 51-approved listening device to monitor shindigs for unacceptable activity: suddenly, he detects someone wearing (one, two or three-take your choice) feathers!!! Who does he call? The FBI? Local police? Campus police? Or does he himself have the authority to break down the door and snap some cellphone pictures to preserve the outrage for the internet? -Once one of these parties is busted, who pays the legal bills for the lawyers who will be called in once an adult realizes it's simply not illegal to dress any %&^$ way you please? I'm sure I'll have a few more questions as time goes on, but in the meantime, I'm looking for answers to any of these. Because I certainly can't think of any. (BTW, as long as we're banning parties based on what someone thinks of the shirt you're wearing, can anyone tell me just what sort of an area should be banned from viewing "John Wayne Week" on AMC??? )