Chief Illiniwek Supporter

I did. A major reason that a lot of people "think" this is because free speech is a Constituional right. They are adding CONSTITUITONAL statutes; not to block free speech, but rather to limit where/when it can be expressed. This is no different than the early 20th Century limitation on so-called "fire in a crowded theater" expressions. You could always yell "fire"; the limitation was on where and when. Illinois was an early adopter of the funeral protest limitation after we were visited by the"God hates fags" group. There's now a definite area around churches, funeral homes, cemetarys and the like where protests are not allowed. However, outside those limits (say in the downtown Chicago Civic Center plaza) that group can still yell all they like. They can still say "we're protesting the funeral of PFC John Doe, buried today in Chicago; he died because God hates the USA" as much as they want. FWIW, in the period of time between their first protest and when the Illiniois law could be passed, one other thing happened. Some veterans groups/motorcycle groups got together and joined the funerals of servicemen coming home from Iraq. Lots of motorcycle engines drowned out the group from the church. One particuarly effective way of expressing your constituionally-guaranteed right of free expression on a windy day was to have a lot of people holding good-sized American flags. Those flags whipping in the wind also drowned out a the church protestors. I can have a block party: I can't have it at 3:00 am. I can organize a St. Patrick's Day parade: but not on an expressway at 8:00 am. I wrote: The article stated: Therefore... No, you didn't. Civil disobiedence happens. They police break it up. That doesn't mean the original protest didn't occur. This group could have planned to break the law for all I know.

If the two parties are getting the "let's not waste the court's time" lecture from the initial judge, imagine the reaction if they try to get it before the Supreme Court. And that might take upwards of 5 years. In that case, I hope you guys get a TRO if it doesn't go your way.

Glad this happened. After all the lectures about "settling out of court" and "keeping costs down", to allow some sort of fishing expedition would be totally counterproductive and only lead to more litigation down the road. No matter what the letters to/from North Dakota to/from a wealthy supporter could have possibly said, what difference would it have made to the case? I can't think of anything here. As noted, even if the University pledged to the Englestads that they would defend the nickname to the end-what would that prove in this litigation? Federal Civil Rights correspondence? That's a stretch. Either its a matter of public record already, or there's a good reason why it isn't (and shouldn't be). Besides, most of those investigations come in response to complaints; and I'd imagine most of the complainers will be right outside the door of the courthouse during the trial, looking for anyone willing to listen (again) to their "grievences". American Indian programs at UND? Isn't that also already a matter of public record? And again, even if no such program ever existed at all at UND, what would it matter here? All in all, I hope that this also signals a "no nonsense" attitude from the judge as regards the entire case.

Churches usually don't go bankrupt, except when they try to hide the Rev. Micheal Jackson.....

Which I don't mind. But why does the blog single out Illinois? "War dance": hardly. But, demonizing Chief Illiniwek fits their agenda, so accuracy be damned. "Banned hostile and abusive mascots": except at FSU, SDSU, Pembroke, Bradley.... and any place that had a mascot that they couldn't somehow tie to native Americans: e.g. Notre Dame. (emphasis added) Ah, of course. Since they criticized it, they must be right! "A film critic said that 'Titanic' is a waste of time and shouldn't get an Oscar. To no avail." "A pro football writer said that Reggie Bush shouldn't be NFL Rookie of the Year. To no avail."

Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funeral of the Va Tech victims: http://www.abpnews.com/2094.article I wonder if someone who sadly misunderstood the only Poli Sci class he ever wandered into will tell them that the US Constitution bans offensive speech; and therefore they can't protest?

Shhh!! Please, you're upsetting his agenda!

A few moments of research turns up this: She was the winner of an award from the Great Lakes Colleges Association: http://www.answers.com/topic/louise-erdrich (look under Prizewinning First Novel). And the Great Lakes Colleges Association consists of (warning-controversial material ahead, not for our more sensitive readers) Wabash University, Earlham College, Wooster, Albion and Kenyon College, among others. Wabash: Little Giants (BLATENT HEIGHTISM and from an ALL-MALE SCHOOL, no less!!) Earlham: Quakers (MAKING FUN OF RELIGION!) Wooster: Scots (CULTURAL INSENSITIVITY TO NATIVE EUROPEANS!) Albion: Britons (see outrage above under Wooster) Kenyon: Lords and Ladies (TOTAL DISREGARD OF INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVMENT AND GLORIFICATION OF INHEIRTED STATUS) I'm sure by now she's thrown that award back, or held a public burning, or something.

That line from the movie was inspired by the actual incident. And... I'll be darned: Belushi and Ackroyd had just as much of a right to "offend" the Illinois Nazis as the Illinois Nazis had to offend residents of Skokie. Why can't more people take Poli Sci courses and become unchallengable experts about the Constitution??

It would be interesting to see how many other honorary degrees she has accepted; and from whom......

You got that right. I'd imagine the judge's "lets get this settled out of court" is a standard speech he gives for all civil litigation.

Interesting. What could possibly be "illegal" in correspondence with the Englestads? Embarassing, yes. But if the administration told the Englestads (or anyone else) that the University would defend the nickname to the last, what difference would that make to the case? If the University had asked the tribes to give its blessing: again, so what? The NCAA made it plain that they would lay off if enough namesake tribes gave permission to offend.

Wow, someone here needs to ask for a refund of their Poli Sci tuition money. The Nazi party held a parade in Skokie, IL a few years ago. I'll guarantee you that several people in Skokie found that highly offensive. Skokie wasn't chosen by accident-several Holocaust survivors were living there at the time. The Nazi's WANTED to offend. At least the Illinois Supreme Court (and perhaps federal courts) granted them permission to march. The ironic thing was that many of these people who hated the Nazi's paid taxes to support the police department that protected them that day. And a few (very, very wealthy) comedians too.

I'm certainly no legal expert, but I really hope that this is EXACTLY what happens. All the blather about how much this lawsuit costs-I don't know why the cost shouldn't be transfered over to the party who created the need for it (assuming the lawsuit goes the way we all want it to). A lot of people talk about the cost of lawsuits and the NCAA's unlimited funds. People don't tend to remember the Tarkanian suit or the Assistant Coach's lawsuit. Those two ended up with the NCAA paying out money.

When Illinois had a very expensive (something between $250-350k) "intake session" a few years back, the numbers worked out to about 85-90% of the people who bothered to respond supporting Chief Illiniwek. I could have told them that for half the price. And as many pointed out at the time, the really motivated group was the people who didn't like Chief. If any opinion wasn't offered, more than likely they were pro-Illiniwek.

Yes, because the new logo will automatically be controversy-free, and supported to the same extent as the old logo by all who presently support the Sioux. And of course, the new logo will be chosen by.... why, it will be chosen by you and your classmates. The ones who have already discussed this, and come to all the conclusions necessary. I am so glad that Illinois is not the only place where these "arguments" are presented as the ultimate solution.

Not the Sioux logo, but the Illiniwek logo; the original artist wants it back. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...ts_rights_to_it Seems to me that he has just as much (or more) claim to the artwork as the family of Frank Fools Crow had to the costume that they wanted "back" from Illinois.

Yes. It could be someone who loves North Dakota, someone who hates North Dakota. It could be someone who loves the nickname; or... it could be someone who HATES the nickname... Don't discount any possibilities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Wirtz family, who owns the Blackhawks (and they owned 100% of the old Chicago Stadium) probably owns at least 50% of the UC. The United Center was co-developed by Wirtz and Jerry Reinsdorf's Chicago Bulls. And directly across the street from the north entrance to the UC is a large statue of the Black Hawks logo.

Here's another good quote that caught my eye: Fighting Steve

Remember, the Illini were in the Final Four exactly two years ago this weekend. The NCAA already had us in their sights by then. BTW, North Dakota has the same bar that was assigned to Illinois back in 2005. Coincidence? You be the judge.

For the basketball Final Four a few years back, each team was "assigned" an official bar. I'm not sure who does the assignments, but either the Alumni Association or your Department of Intercollegiate Athletics should be publicizing this very soon.

From the newspaper editorial: This is a good point-this was raised in the earlier thread about the NCAA keeping their notes private. If the newspaper would have editorialized about that decision, it would have made their newest commentary more relevant. Again from the newspaper editorial: Hmmm, "get away with it"? Okay, we get your point; you don

Interesting, thank you for that information. Simply as a request for info, any ideas on where the "populations" of various tribes might be listed? Again, I appreciate the information. I'm learning a lot today. We never had anything like this at Illinois, our arguments were all based on theories rather than specific tribal resolutions.

Off the original subject, but speaking to the sensitivity of the media: perhaps some of you have seen the story originating in Chicago about an off-duty cop who beat up a bartender. The cop is 6-1, 250 lbs; and the female bartender is 5-4, 115 lbs and a mother, so you can see that it was a fair fight. In any case, the woman was on television last night and by her own request they didn't give her last name-she feared for her safety, since she's already been threatened. But the largest newspaper in the city decided it was okay to print her name today. How thoughtful of them.