Chief Illiniwek Supporter

Any sort of chant or motto, just like a nickname, cannot be forced. Those types of things evolve thru popular support. JMHO. Seems to be a hockey tradition, doesn't it? At least in the days before the NHL took a hard-line stance on family friendliness and such. Kind of goes along with the memories of a lot of cigarette and cigar smoke in the old Chicago Stadium. :-)

Everyone has to judge for themselves exactly what is a good enough reason. But the reality is, the NCAA doesn't ask for a "good enough" reason. They have handed the various tribes (the Sioux as well as the Seminoles, Utes, Chipewas, etc.) this power, and the reasons they need to accept or reject the nicknames are moot. Not that much different than any other election, is it? Think of the long, lengthy debates during the last election for U.S. President; and then think of how many people you know who said it comes down to "I just don't trust that guy" or "he sounds like a liar".

I haven't followed all of this discussion: but the Ute Tribe is certainly alive AFAIK. And I believe they are cooperating with the University of Utah in the matter of the nickname-I don't know how formalized the relationship is, but I don't think the University is planning to (or has to) change its nickname, or any part of the football helmet design. http://www.utetribe.com/ The NCAA started off with "having an issue" with the nickname "Illini". One of the key arguments that got them to back off was showing how long we had been using "Illini" and for how many years before say, the 1920's or so we had used "Illini" with no connection to Native Americans. That, and the idea that its not a name of a tribe but rather a form of a word that has been translated from a Native American language to French (with the resultant changes in pronunciation, etc.) helped get the NCAA off our back on the name issue. And strictly as an aside: I believe there are more than 500-600 Sioux in Florida: but I also believe that their membership requirements are quite strict. Take this paragraph with a grain of salt because I haven't looked that up in a while.

Well, you may be more on the "cutting edge" of legal theory than me. My limited legal knowledge is quite old. From a 2004 article: http://writ.findlaw.com/dean/20040312.html The article does talk about how some legal scholars wanted to change the applicable law; maybe that has happened in the 4 or 5 years. I agree-some of the messages I have seen on this forum have been so obviously false it makes you wonder how far people actually will go. Remember the hockey scout who was chased (the wrong way) on an Interstate by gun-totin' nickname supporters? Or the band member who saw pictures of skinned Indians (of course, on another campus)?

You can't libel someone who is dead. I can safely (from legal standpoint) say that Ronald Reagan loved the Soviet Union, and that Dwight David Eisenhower was a Nazi. I can't be sued by their family any more than I can be sued by Benjamin Franklin's descendants for saying he was a closet Royalist. AFAIK that stems from the idea that Reagan et al can't suffer any damages from my statement. If they had said something about the daughter herself, there might be a legal solution. I have to think that the newspaper's lawyers carefully steered clear of that. The person or persons passing that stuff around should be held responsible by the public at large-but OTOH I don't think those people care very much. OTOH, that affidavit is fairly meaningless AFAIK. Englestad isn't here to defend himself.

I think we have to admit that if this decision comes from Brown University and not some outside commission, association, etc. that it is their problem; and ultimately they will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. It's JMHO, but this is exactly what many of us argue in favor of: let the school decide what they can live with. Many here say "if the Sioux name is so offensive, we will suffer in admissions, contributions, etc and therefore get rid of it." It's no different for the Board of Trustees at Brown.

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Ultimately, the issue here is the fairness of the judgement. What if retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were to listen to the arguments? Would her judgement automatically be less valid? And of course, what if a Sioux judge were to be in charge and issue a ruling opposite of the way many of us here feel the case "should" go? One last thing from the article:

I'm not sure I see violence on election day. But it's absolutely ridiculous to think that such a small minority of people (a minority among both the NA's as well as the NCAA) could cause such a large disruption in the daily workings of a governmental entity. And as noted before, if (and that remains a big if) someone is willing to cheat, lie and steal-or at the very least expend political capital-over an issue that has no actual, direct economic result; imagine what would happen to an election where there was real money at stake? Even at this point-well before a vote- just try to imagine the time and money that have been expended over something that polls and surveys have consistently shown to be a non-issue for the vast majority of NA's! There's the real "thank you". All style, no substance: that's your NCAA at work! As noted, this is all speculation and conjecture right now: but the only thing that stops political scandal and outright fixes is publicity.

AFAIK, the NCAA settlement says that both of the tribes must give permission to the University and that the permission must come in a way that's supported by their tribal constitutions. IMHO, these votes can be compared to an advisory referendum: they're something that shows of the will of the people, but not an action that creates a binding law. I'd say that a TRO or summary judgement could be obtained rather easily if the tribes support the nickname/logo and then the NCAA tries to change the rules. Besides, if that were to happen it would look as if the NCAA was not only fighting UND but the tribes as well. It's one thing to fight evil European-American oppressors, but quite another to oppose the people that they themselves have declared "victims". (See FSU and the Seminoles for further details on how fast they had to backtrack when the NA's got mad.) Personally, I think the NCAA will be hard-pressed to stick to the settlement if the vote shows support but the tribal councils, etc. fail to act. Others here think differently. A) The NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction over FAA call signs (yet), and... B) Don't give them any ideas.

Well there is a long way to go, but accepting your conditions for a moment, I'll give an opinion. I'd say that your university needs to get together with some of who are the people leading the fight to get a referendum on the ballot (and I'd say do it before the vote, if possible) and lay out the proposals and try to come to an agreement. That way the people would know what they're voting for. Hopefully there could be an agreement that since the tribal permission came via a popular vote, the only way it could be rescinded would be via popular vote. As far as keeping it permanent-you'd be in the same shape as FSU and Utah, correct? And this is where making the tribes a fair proposal that they would see as beneficial to all parties comes into play. Quick denial of permission? I'd say that you need to make sure the NCAA agrees that any change could only take place at the begining of an academic year at the best: or after the ending of a particular sport's season at the worst. So if a sport begins it's season with the nickname/logo, they should be entitled to end it without changing uniforms, nicknames, etc. I'd say that once the tribes give you the okay (and the NCAA recognizes it in the same way they recognize FSU et al), Minnesota should treat you the same way they treat the other schools with that same permission. (IOW, they should bend over backwards to create exceptions, special rules, etc. )

You're not a fan of the Green Bay Pickers, are you? It's PETA. Unfortunately, they do more harm than good when they reduce themselves to a ridiculous parody with these types of stunts.

Well, another way of interpreting the "something that should have happened long ago" statement is that the general public should have made sure that leadership carried out their wishes, and did that long ago. AFAIK the NA leadership has not only been adament in their opposition to the nickname, they've also tried to block a referendum. Apparently more than a few people from both tribes are unhappy with their representatives. And in a more general sense, this is seemingly one of the few instances in American history when someone has given out "control" over a word to a group. It will be interesting to see if they continue to make it their fight. That's undeniably true.

Sounds as if the tribal supporters have gotten a lot accomplished-and that's just about everything the non-NA supporters could ask for right now. If both tribes support the nickname via popular referendum, IMHO the NCAA is going to have a hard time trying to deny the use of the nickname by UND. I know the agreement refers to the tribal constitutions, but even at that-the will of the people should prevail. There's still a long way to go even if the voting shows tribal support for the nickname/logo: but it's a great step forward IMHO. I'd say bring the pro-nickname people from both tribes together ASAP to try and present a united front: IOW, let the people of both tribes know exactly what they can expect from University leadership, and that both tribes are going to be treated fairly.

When you hit Education in that link, here's the very first item: No hot links, no anything else. So what's Minnesota Pronunciation Guide? Is this supposed to be a guide to saying the word Minnesota? Or does this state have its very own pronunciation protocol, somehow different from the other 49? :-)

No, not really. What it does do is allow some people to say "look, the UNIVERSITY SENATE is against the nickname-how can North Dakota continue to defy the overwhelming majority of scholarly research, etc., etc.: even their own campus is solidly against the nickname!" It's just like the language in the resolution. This is supposed to impress other people. I do find it interesting that these 25 people won't stand up and say "we're the 25" and put their names to their support for this resolution. Even the guy who wrote it doesn't have the courage of his convictions. Edit: Sorry, I guess that should be 23. The first post here identifies the author as Bill Sheridan of the Biology Department: and the person who raised the resolution was Wendelin Hume (apparently of the Criminal Justice and/or Women's Studies Departments). Wendelin is linked to quite a number of interesting websites.

Sorry Wendelin, it's yours now. You own it baby. There's absolutely NO WAY I can just put something on your desk and have you sponsor it unless you agree with it.

Is the list of people and how they voted (or whether they abstained or voted present) a public record? Ought to be interesting to see who put their money where their mouth is.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Isn't it amazing how all the "scholarly research", blah, blah, blah just doesn't seem to hold at Pembroke, FSU, Utah, etc.?? I'd love to see how that scholarly research differentiates between Native Americans and any other ethnic group. Sounds vaguely discriminatory to me. Hope our wonderful friends in academia aren't discriminating on the basis of national origin. (BTW, can't ANYONE introduce a wordy resolution? I'd imagine some supporters can whip up some sort of blather and have it voted on.) One other thing: Good point. So do us a favor and shutup; you're the ones causing the controversy. There's PLENTY of people (including some people on a reservation taking a vote) who don't think it's very controversial at all.

Agreed. I think if it passes at all it will pressure the other tribe to either approve the nickname at the ruling committee level or put it to a popular vote of all tribal members. But if it does just squeak by the interesting thing will be seeing if there is a call for a recount; and what the tribal election history is on close elections and recounts. We will see-but if there is shenanigans about an election on merely a nickname, one has to wonder what lengths people will go to influence a real tribal election with real consequences. BTW, Big A HG: I saw a homemade Toews chair (with say the height of a barstool or something like that) the other day: the back legs/backrest was made from two hockey sticks. I wish I would have had time to take a picture.

Perhaps that means that the poster personally wears a Sioux jersey with pride but can't muster up that same feeling for a jersey that just says North Dakota. I can understand his feelings. I think that nicknames evolved for a reason.

That's certainly a valid point: but I think the signed agreement takes precedence over all of that. I will also point out that this could be the beginning of the "no nickname" era.

Not surprising. The University administration hasn't shown much stomach for a fight. There's been far more pushback from the alums IMHO. (Which should give the administration some pause; but so far that hasn't happened.)

I agree: if nickname/logo supporters had said something similar, it would have been jumped on by the nickname opponents so swiftly there would have been a thunderclap.

I've got a long list of names for them. If you want to talk about one ethnicity, you need to talk about them all. So let's start with Fighting Irish. And if you look at the first two seconds of this clip from ESPN, you'll see that the Providence Friars are still mocking religion here in 2009! Hostile and abusive! I would just love to see them try this. Just love it. The Pandora's Box would be opened so wide that they would be (even more) exposed for the hypocrisy they already demonstrate.

Yep, you'd better believe that they will do exactly that... And any new nickname will automatically be labeled "nice and neutral" whether it's the Fighting Dungflies or Pine Cones or whatever.