Chief Illiniwek Supporter

The Spirit Lake Tribe along with other tribes who are against the nickname are based within North Dakota, correct? I would argue that if Spirit Lake alone was based in your state and all of the dissenters were based out-of-state, your hopes of coming to a compromise with the NCAA would be far greater. That's JMHO. The other thing FSU had in its favor was the larger in-state population of their namesake tribe vs. the Oklahoma Seminoles. I don't know how that works for your situation. And I would argue that the NCAA has no standards at all; but that's neither here nor there. That's true. I had forgotten about the "resolution that wasn't a resolution". Thanks for that correction. That definitely hastened things along. Personally, I'd say that even if the Oklahoma Seminoles had passed a resolution against the Seminole nickname five years ago and decided to stand behind it in 2006, the NCAA would still have been scrambling to get out from under the threatened lawsuit backed by the "full faith and credit" of every politician in Florida. But that's JMHO. What does Florida have, the third or fourth most votes in the Electoral College? Even I can't believe the NCAA would be so stupid as to try and buck that in Congress. They gave us a fifth BCS bowl just based on Louisiana's (far smaller) amount of clout. What they spent four years doing was listening to one side, and only one side. Kind of like our Board of Trustees at Illinois. Well, something sure had to be invented, and invented quickly in order to get them out of a PR disaster (as well as one whopper of a lawsuit). BTW, another PR disaster averted was the Pembroke University situation. Now IIRC, they had no namesake tribe simply because they are either the Indians or the Braves. But, their local Tribe quickly moved behind the school, noting the University itself originiated to serve Native Americans. I guess we can term this the "Goodwill" exemption. I'm still unclear what got the Bradley Braves off the NCAA s-list. I think the fact that one idea floated by locals was to simply rename the teams the Bradley BRAVE (and let people mistake them for the Braves) might have been influential. Maybe this is the "We Got Outflanked" exemption.

I don't know what the situation was with Utah and the Utes, but thinking about Florida State-they only had partial support IIRC. What got the NCAA off their back was two things IMHO: the fact that they had support from the in-state tribe and the dissenting tribe was out-of-state; and also the idea that the Seminole Tribe in Florida apparently was willing to join Florida State University (and the State of Florida) in the proposed lawsuit against the NCAA. North Dakota doesn't have either of those things going for them right now AFAIK.

(emphasis added) Not particular to this case, but a general comment: The person was from the class of 1951. Which probably means he was born in say, 1929 or so. Making him at least 77 years old. And this thoughtful reporter called a classmate, apparently also at least 77 and got him to talk. How wonderful to call up a senior citizen to ask about an old friend and then print it in the newspaper.

Sigh. We could have avoided a lot of aggravation if we would have had the guts to file a few papers. The NCAA would have had to sit on their hands for years.

I think it would be interesting if the compromise included one (but not all) of the namesake tribes giving its blessing to your school, and the NCAA declaring "that's good enough for us" and taking you off their s-list. I wonder if the other tribes would sue? And if they do sue, who would they sue? The school? The NCAA? See also-Box: Pandora's.

Glad to hear that there's been some reason given. My first reaction was "why shut it down now? What was the reasoning behind a separate structure in the first place, and what has changed since then?" I could understand if there was a cost savings in terms of not having to set up some sort of corporation or trust, etc: or if the needed to make sure that an Alumni Association person was only working on Alumni Association matters. Simply curious here, when the first requests came out, what name was given as the "make checks payable to" entity?

I would like to thank everyone for their info on the jersey. Have any of the lawyers, etc. given an estimate on how long the case will take to wind its way thru the courts? Our Board of Trustees refused to fight, and rationalized their cowardice by saying it was better for our teams in non-revenue sports to have the chance to host playoff games. It seems to me that if we had gone for the injunction on Day One, we would have hosted both last year and this year. Seems like your case will take at least a year to adjudicate, starting from the date of the initial filings last fall.

I'm curious, what does this board think a "compromise" would entail? The only thing I can think of that would satisfy both sides would be for some of the namesake tribes to bless the name. And in that case, I'd lock up a long-term ironclad agreement; because in a few years someone else in that tribe will claim "Grandpa never meant to sell that suit of clothes; oh wait, I meant he never meant to grant rights......" and all the PCers will be up in arms over this "outrage" that you perpetrated upon the poor "victims".

I'd love to see this discussion start, as would most North Dakota fans. The sooner we start talking about treating ALL people equally, the sooner this PC vendetta can be stopped. Ironically, the champions of equality in higher ed see no reason to apply this logic to athletics.

As I understand it, the case will begin in November, 2007. Has anyone given a prediction as to how long it will take to litigate and decide? BTW, I saw someone wearing a Sioux hockey jersey in Chicago a few weeks back. Is the black version your regular jersey, or is it considered the "third color alternate"??

Reminds me of a humorous definition I once heard: if you can play it with a beer in your hand, its not a sport. That logic is often used to deride the Chicago tradition of 16-inch softball.

Well some may consider him a loose cannon or crackpot. I personally happen to agree with him on this issue. And on the subject of crackpots, the other side certainly has no shortage: consider the full professor at Colorado. I'd refine this one more step. People who could be considered part of a "minority" are often denied their status as even a member of that minority group if they should decline to fully embrace the idea that all minorities are automatically victims of discrimination by "the man". An interesting corollary is being played out in national politics on the presidential level. Barack Obama is being attacked on the basis of the color of his skin-and the people who are attacking him consider themselves leaders in the Black community. One comment from another thread-the movie "300" isn't going over well in Iran. Their government officials apparently think that it depicts the people that the present-day Iranians descended from as "lacking in culture and humanity", and "only interested in attacking other nations and killing". (Those are paraphrased quotes, but you can see the story in most newspapers today.) Therefore, we need to immediately get rid of this movie. While the movie isn't offensive to me personally, it is offensive to many Iranians, and for that reason, I too find it offensive and feel it has to go. I've talked to several other people who feel the same as I do. This movie needs to go away, and the only way to do it destroy all copies of this movie. Start showing something nice and neutral. Then we can get back to the business of supporting our chosen entertainment with everything we've got. I honestly want to see the human race move forward. I'm more interested in getting this movie behind us rather than fighting about it. Can I suggest that we get rid of this movie by burning it? Gather up all the copies, put them into a big pile, wait until nightfall, and then fire them up. Invite the people who hate the movie to witness the bonfire too. And while we're at it, if there are any books that the movie is based on, lets throw them in too. You know, a good old-fashioned book burning.

Yes, the vote was merely a formality; we would have had more trustees speaking out if it was going to go the other way. The latest lawsuit remains interesting, but the more I think about it the more I think that our old governor purposely changed the bill in order to insert the ambiguity of "may remain" instead of "shall remain". One other thing: Here's one for all those who think the Native American community is totally united against these symbols. Its from our student newspaper (notorious for taking quite a while to link): American Indian denounces University's Chief decision So when you say "Indians don't like it" think about this guy. And the Seminoles. And the Utes. And PLENTY of others. Why the people who don't like Chief should somehow own the sole vote is beyond me. Unless of course, its simply because they agree with you; and therefore everyone else is just wrong. And whatever argument you need to get others to agree, you'll throw out there-facts be damned.

Out of curiosity, I have to wonder what happens when their sports teams go into the locker room to change? Does everyone get to go to the locker room of their own choice? Because sometimes, well, I kind of think about my own identity. And I might become confused if I know that someone like Anna Kornukova or Maria Sharapova are around, and wander into the women's room. Or maybe Natalie Gublis-yeah, right about then I'm thinking that I'll just try it out. You know, just to make sure that I'm not more comfortable changing next to her instead of next to someone like, Tony Siragusa for instance.

Thanks for reminding me that the judge did indicate that he'll release those docs he feels are needed for the case. I hope that your opinion about the procedural matters, etc that you give in the first paragraph does pan out; but if not, those "secret docs" will be haunting this case for years to come IMHO.

As HockeyMom and others have pointed out, you guys have been there and done that. I found it highly amusing to see the same "gee, if only the other side caves, then everything will be hunky-dory because they'll just have to give up; meanwhile, we'll NEVER give up" types of arguments from people who want you to think that they're being reasonable (as long as you give them their way, of course) that I saw on so many other boards. I came to the conclusion long ago that posters like this are usually trolls, disguising themselves as "can't we all get along" types but eventually coming out as the most strident of anti-Chief protestors. Every once in a while you get the honestly naive person who simply thinks that the other side will cave in once this "divisive" symbol is eliminated-the code words like "put this behind us" are usually parroted by this crew. But IMHO, those people are very very few and far between. The waste of money issue is almost always thrown in: its as if Newton's laws have suddenly been repealed, and dropping a long-held, revered symbol isn't going to cause a loss of revenue. Sure, I don't think there's any reason at all for you to eliminate Chief Illiniwek and I don't believe you're thinking rationally: but if you do go ahead and get rid of something I hold dear, with the short time I have here on earth I'll continue to work to give YOU money to waste. Yeah, that's going to happen. I laughed, but its quite true. These professional protestors and their tenured, out-of-touch enablers will simply move on to the next "fight" like saving the snail darter, why can't we have electric cars in Chicago in January (if we all shouldn't be riding bikes instead) or something. They'll certainly find a new outrage du jour once this one fades.

Here's news of a lawsuit against our Board of Trustees. FINALLY. http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/293...7illini.article The statute referenced is kind of funky though. When it passed the legislature, the governor at the time insterted some term to make it purposely vague. I think that the "and may remain" wording is what was inserted. And that may hang up this lawsuit.

University of Illinois will have a Board of Trustee meeting tomorrow: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...rustees_meeting http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200..._chief_decision http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200..._to_oust_eppley I find the last article most interesting. You can bet that if somehow Chief had been confirmed without the Chairman of the Board of Trustees talking to everyone, the squealing from the PC patrol about "violations of the Open Meetings Act" would have been heard in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Absolutely hilarious. So when they refused to play the Bradley Braves, it was because of their holier-than-thou "policy". But today, with the sweep of a pen its okay for them to play the very same school with the very same nickname and the very same imagery as was present when they told Bradley that they were just too insulting to Indians for the Hawkeyes to even consider playing them? I would have been laughing ten times harder if there wasn't a limit on emoticons.

Returning to the original purpose of this thread: I can't understand the judge's ruling here. He has to know that if he ultimately rules against North Dakota in the court case, the role and contents of the "secret documents" will be the source of speculation for years to come. That would only undermine the confidence the people place in the judicial system. This one is a real head-scratcher IMHO.

I was so glad to see this posted here. I really thought this sort of attitude was only prevalent among those who visited Illinois message boards. Here's an open challenge for ANYONE, doesn't even have to be the original poster: give us your proposed new nickname since you think "Sioux" is so bad. Please, let us know what moniker you think won't be "offensive to some". Here's a blank to fill in for your convenience: ---------------------------- I'll guarantee you that within twenty-four hours of your posting, someone will find it offensive. And then you will need to try again. And your next suggestion will suffer the same fate. And over and over and over. Does this remind anyone of the myth of Sisyphus? Sorry, I should have read the entire thread. There's another repeat from our discussion boards: The idea that certain groups (but certainly not ALL groups) somehow own a portion of history is something that I'll never understand. Who has to approve "Dances with Wolves" before its released? Or "Cheyenne Autumn"? Did Scorcese run the script for "The Departed" past anyone in Boston's Irish-American community before he made it? I'll wait for your suggestion. I mean, everyone gets to judge what is neutral, correct? Its not just you and your classmates. I'm sure you and yours will agree that we're all equally capable of being judges here. Bill of Rights and all that....

I'm not a grammar expert, but to me "fiasco" seems to imply some sort of accidental or unintended occurance. IMO, the NCAA has been quite purposeful in trying to obtain its goal of political correctness (balanced against revenue, of course).

I agree that those are reasons why the NCAA could want the proceedings kept secret. I am wondering why they think a judge would let them keep this trial (or any part of it) a secret. As a matter of public policy, the justice process should be open, above board and totally transparent. I can't think of an argument that the NCAA could make in order to try to countermand this very basic principle of jurisprudence. -Is this trial a matter of national security? Hardly. -Is there a possibility of tainting a jury pool? I can't see this. -Is there anything akin to a trade secret involved? No way. Everything a university does is so public it isn't funny. From the number of female athletes on scholarship to the makeup of the student body by gender, race, etc. records are very public. And therefore, what sort of "secrecy" could the NCAA (an organization composed of these very "public" institutions) claim to need?I'm not a lawyer so I can't say the above list is complete; nor can I say that I have anything other than a layman's understanding of the law when I said this was a "contractual law" case. But I think the NCAA lawyer trying to seal these proceedings would have to deliver some very tortured logic to rationalize any sort of secrecy request.

BTW, if you think the thought police are ever going to give up despite having some sort of official sanction from the University, I think you ought to read this: http://www.620wtmj.com/_content/news/story_7021.asp Marquette Student Told Not to Wear Indian Headdress to Games Once they've convinced someone in the administration of their offended-victim status, they'll go on and on and on. T-Shirts will be next.