Chief Illiniwek Supporter

I replied rather quickly the other day, and I didn't have a lot of information. From reading the post I has assumed that there was more than one sub-tribe of the Chippewa tribe that was headquartered within North Dakota. I was wrong to make that assumption. A cursory exam of Google (not my favorite source, but more info than I had before) seems to indicate that the Turtle Mountain group is the sole (federally-recognized) Chippewa tribe within N.D. I am changing my opinion from my earlier posting. IMHO, if you get the sole Chippewa Tribe within your state to agree, I see no reason why the NCAA could logically prevent you from callling yourselves the University of North Dakota Fighting Chippewas, or just Chippewas. (And my emphasis on the word "logically" results only from many years of reading what the NCAA spews as gospel.) Thank you for gently encouraging me to research the topic further.

And the University of North Carolina at Pembroke Braves. http://uncpbraves.athleticsite.com/ And an interesting photo of their clocktower here. (You have to scroll down a little.) Why the NCAA came down with the idea that all Indian nicknames are bad (unless specifically agreed to) remains a mystery. Clearly they were wrong, and the way the Seminoles pinned their ears back within days (if not hours) should prove something. If these nicknames were so horrible the schools would suffer-and they're not.

This is just one layman's opinion: but I'd say that if you got support from the Turtle Mountain Chippewas but not any of the other local Chippewa tribes, your team could be called the Turtle Mountain Chippewas. But in that case you could not use just the single word Chippewas.

I haven't read that book, but I do agree that wiping out these nicknames isn't going to make people remember the Natives, much less look upon them kindly. The unfortunate thing is that the NCAA gave this power to the tribes in the first place. And I'd like to add something that's overall to this thread rather than a particular response here: the USA Today story mentioned that Newberry may be exploring a way to have their nickname be the "Cherokee Indians" (with the cooperation of a local tribe). I've advanced the idea before that if one tribe works with your school, your team could be called the "Spirit Lake Sioux". I wonder how the signed settlement might affect this option for North Dakota.

Not that I would like to see this actually happen: but I would enjoy witnessing the tortured logic and semantic-gymnastics that would be used to try and justify that.

I add my voice to those who support "no nickname". Anyone else detect a little bias in that newspaper article? The print edition has the subhead "Hard feelings persist for ex-Indians supporters": as if somehow everyone should just accept this. As if they would write "hard feelings persist for ex-protestors" if the decision at Newberry would have been to keep the nickname, or if they would write about "hard feelings persisting" among those who don't support Seminoles or Utes. No, those people are happily quoted about a "societal sea change". And of course, "Clinging to a tradition". I think we just went thru an election with the word "clinging" attached to a political viewpoint. Thanks for the unbiased reporting. Final quote from the ariticle:

This board is going to have a lot of arguments once the number gets down to double-digits, arguing about which player was the BEST #77, #35, etc.

According to the website this person was at one time the president of Cankdeska Cikana Community College and holds a doctorate. Must be quite a lucrative consulting business. http://www.spiritlakeconsulting.com/ Key words there: as a result of the logo. Well, the logo is supposedly causing of havoc all over the place. People holding up pictures of someone's grandma skinned and all that. Don't the problems extend to people who haven't been to this University? Why shouldn't they get a vote? (BTW, key word in my statement: supposedly.) All in all, this guy seems to be AGAINST a referendum (which is the most democratic of all possibilities) and also against having anyone who hasn't been to UND (!) have any say over the matter. And coincidently, that would raise his own personal influence on the matter. We've been down this road before. Do the votes of students or attendees get weighed based on how long they were at the school? How about on-scholarship vs not-on-scholarship, any difference in voting weights? If you got a good grade, does that allow your opinion to count for more or less? Right now I have to agree: this person has an agenda. His blog is quite clear on the matter http://www.spiritlakeconsulting.com/d/ I can't see this person bringing an "open mind" to the Nickname Resolution Committee. Addendum: This business claims to have gotten money from the University of North Dakota's Center for Innovation: Spirit Lake Consulting, Inc. , a firm based in Fort Totten, North Dakota on the Spirit Lake Reservation has received a $2,500 grant from the University of North Dakota

I know it's a breach of netiquette to respond to your own post, but I wanted to post one other thought on the benefits of having a popular vote. Many of us have written about the tenuous nature of the NCAA-imposed agreement; even if the tribal council(s) gave permission, it could be withdrawn at a moment's notice. IMHO, if there is a tribal popular vote in favor of the nickname, it would make it that much harder (politically) to withdraw the support without another vote. Set the precedent that the support is granted via a referendum, and the withdrawal of such support should only come from another referendum. IMHO, that will get control of the issue further away from a few screamers.

Certainly both tribes would have to create some sort of negotiating committee to deal with UND representatives if an agreement is to be reached. But OTOH, right now there is no movement in that direction from the tribes. A referendum vote in favor of allowing UND to use the nickname certainly would have the effect of telling the ruling council(s) to "start the process". And ideally, you'd have one series of meetings with all parties present: but that may not be possible if only one tribe is willing to move forward.

I hope that the solution does not specifically, formally tie scholarships to the nickname. I can see the the idea of revenue sharing from the proceeds of the sales of t-shirts, etc. BUT: scholarships should be handled on a statewide basis, with leadership from the statewide Board of Higher Education; the participation and eligibility should not be limited to UND, but ND State, any other state-supported four-year colleges, the community (junior) colleges, etc. should also play a part here. If this is a good idea, it stands on its own regardless of your nickname. And I feel the same way about the "tolerance" classes: if this is a good idea for college-level students, it's an even better idea to teach it in high schools. And those classes should have some leadership from the people on the reservations. Furthermore, I'd love to see a way to ensure that some of the scholarship money results in a "return on investment" directly to the reservation: in other words, some civil engineers who study in North Dakota on these scholarships should return to the reservations to help with roads, etc. Same for the medical, education and business disciplines. In practice, I'm not sure how that could be enforced but IMHO it's a laudable goal.

"It took me three hours to figure out that FU meant Felix Unger!"

My first thought is "why aren't the titles either 'UND Alum' or 'UND Prof' or whatever?" Personally, I don't particularly mind that there are necessarily tribal members on this committee: but isn't there anyone from the tribes who has graduated from North Dakota? I also think that given the size of this committee, having two people whose only connection to the University is being a member of a Native American tribe located in your state is giving them outsized influence. (I recognize that once you have a member of one of the NCAA-blessed tribes you need both, but that's still too many for a committee of this size.) And with that said, I also have to say that IMHO an employee of your arena shouldn't be on a "nickname resolution committee". Someone needs to explain this title. (I added the emphasis.) You have to turn this around Jim. This is the question for you: why are there any Sioux fans out there who are NOT on SiouxSports.com? Oh, and Jim? One more thing: "Shut your mouth!!"

I just think that all of those schools like Wisconsin with "policies" bend over backward so that their ideals don't actually cost them money. No, we don't play them because of their nickname. It's all about them. Uh... Unless they're in our conference. Or, unless it's a bowl game with lots of money and exposure on the line for us. Or, unless it's the NCAA basketball tournament (again, with lots of money and exposure on the line for us). So we definitely will NOT play them in JV Lacrosse, or Cross Country or Gymnastics. But a sport that makes a lot of money for us? Yeah, we'll consult our policy for the exception that covers that and get back to you with a date and time. What always suits their fancy is making money. "Policy" is somewhere down the list.

What? The NCAA being hypocritical? Pshaw. Never in a million years. Remember that when you're watching the NCAA Tournament, brought to you by Pontiac; official car of the NCAA. And you might just see an advertisement for the Jeep Cherokee. And your arena isn't suitable for the NCAA tournament, but the Chicago Stadium (with Blackhawk logos on every other row, and a 10-foot tall logo dirctly across the street) certainly is.

I would consider scholarships that are available only to members of two tribes an existing "outreach program". So if the tribes want to talk about expanding those programs and in return, giving the NCAA the okay for the nickname I'd say that's open for negotiation. But I can't agree with the idea that the University should have started outreach long ago. IMHO, outreach does exist.

Attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with you by demonizing them, saying they fail to support "basic human rights": oldest trick in the book. You'll be the sole judge of what is and isn't a "basic human right". And as far as the namecalling? Politics ain't beanbag. Ron/Thunder is a politician, and there is a long tradition of "anything goes" in political mudslinging. For all we know, right now some Kim Jong Il supporter is mad because he's being compared to Ron/Thunder. People have a right to make political comparisons, and they also have a right to disagree with those comparisons; its as simple as that. However, silencing someone else's opinion is most definitely NOT a right in the USA.

I would like to ask the locals this question: if one of the tribes does hold a referendum and the supporters of the nickname win, do you think that will at least put pressure on the leadership of the other tribe to schedule a similar referendum?

Well, I never said it would be an easy task. Let's face it, there was a newspaper story about something as democratic as an holding an election. It's obviously quite the occassion to have a tribal election-otherwise it wouldn't be news. As noted, places like Venezuela, Cuba and Soviet-era Russia had "strongmen" government for up to 70-some years. It's not right, but it happens. Hopefully, a little sunlight will be a good disinfectant. Better to have an election (or at least try to have an election) than to give up. Make this woman go on record opposing an free election. If there is an election and if the side favoring the nickname wins and if the small number of elders/rulers declares that the election was invalid, wouldn't they say that they need impartial observers in order to hold a fair election? (Same thing would hold for the next general tribal vote for leadership, wouldn't it? Might be self-defeating for them to scream "fix" too loudly on an election that doesn't affect the people in power.) I'll let the locals comment on this-but are there no "outreach" programs right now? No scholarships, no favored admissions? There's a long way to go, but if the tribe is willing to negotiate I'd say the other side (the University) has everything to gain and nothing to lose by listening and talking.

If I'm reading this the right way, you seem to be saying that the tribal governments are pretty much like Iraq under Saddam. Or maybe Cuba or Venezuela. (Or the City of Chicago for that matter. ) I don't know very much about the way the governments of the tribes operate, so for all I know you could be right on. But regardless, I'm still going to say that holding an election is better than not holding an election. If the vote turns out to be tainted, so be it: as long as the election conditions are no better or worse than any other on the reservations, the common people have no one to complain to IMHO. Let's say the vote turns out to show that the majority of the tribe members do NOT object to the name Sioux. In that case, do you think the leaders will try to declare the vote tainted? And if so, won't that lead to some rigorous oversight of a revote, and/or some rigorous oversight of every vote on the reservations? Exactly-and in that order too! They start with the idea that the nickname isn't meant to denigrate: it was chosen to evoke the ideals of bravery, honor, valor, the spirit of healthy competition and never giving up. Every team chooses a nickname that way! And then this committee goes on to propose some good things that can occur as long as they work together with the University. As many have noted, it's a start; the first time (AFAIK) that this has even been proposed. There may be a lot of work to be done, but IMHO its quite a step in the right direction.

Has anyone discussed Title IX compliance? Unless a school has "room to give" under Title IX, starting a men's sport usually means one of two things has to happen: A) an equal number of scholarships for a new women's sport must be given out, or B) a men's sport must be dropped. Most schools have found dropping a male sport is the easier way to go.

I'm going the other way. I think many people here have talked about how unfair it is not to have a vote, that a few people are denying the wishes of the many. Yes, some sort of "vote fraud" may occur; or only those motivated one way may turn out on election day. And certainly those are things you run into in any election. But in spite of all that, I'd say let the vote take place. And if there are "massive flaws" then hopefully they will be reported as such and discussed openly. And this group's proposal now stands as a motion for a vote: if it doesn't come off, someone from the leadership should be asked to explain. I will agree with the idea to use all of the time though. I hope that a solution can be reached, but it looks as if it won't be quick. A few quotes from the article:

That's sad, isn't it? If you're not offended or hurt, that's not quite as understandable. "We realize some will be offended..." I guess that wasn't good enough. But it is the NCAA party line. We'll be the judge of what's offensive; you have to prove that someone who has more power over a word than we do agrees that it's not offensive. It can't be the other way, that once someone claims to be offended we'll judge what power they have to sue: we're going to start with the presumption of guilt. I wonder if this person issued statements when Spartans, Sooners or Aztecs were scheduled?

Yes, but the difference is that if/when the nickname goes, sooner or later your campus will become no different than ND State, Harvard or Hawaii. The ties to the Native community will be no more or less than anywhere else at that point. The incessant complaining will get just as much traction in North Dakota as it does in Texas or Oregon.

Well, I don't disagree that if/when the nickname changes, the new mantra will be that UND didn't change fast enough. But sooner or later that line of thinking will have to fade away. UND will be no different than any other school. And I really think that there will be a backlash: people will start to look at the tribes as mere obstructionists, unable to use common sense to compromise about a situation that is clearly overblown. That's when apathy towards Indian causes will set in. JMHO. I'm not a legal expert, but AFAIK the Seminole nickname and association with Florida State University has/had no bearing on the ability of the Seminole tribe to open casinos (or conduct any other type of gambling) within the state of Florida.