There are many UND faculty in science and research who oppose the university's use of the Sioux nickname, as this letter to the editor in today's Herald demonstrates. William Sheridan, a Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor of biology. says:
The question Sheridan doesn't answer is: How does UND's retention rate of American Indian freshman students compare to other colleges and universities in the region? He also conveniently ignores the fact that UND's American Indian enrollment has increased nearly 30 percent since 2001, the year that the new Engelstad Arena went into operation and the new Sioux logo came into widespread use. Sheridan says:
While providing no evidence, Sheridan concludes that the reason freshman American Indian students are retained at a lower rate than white freshman students is because the Fighting Sioux nickname creates a hostile environment on campus and in the community:
Once again, the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that any minority on campus that has a difference of opinion with the "white racist" majority is treated as if it has the right to impose its opinion and its will on the majority.
I'll bet that if someone conducted a survey with questions based on today's social issues, the results would show a wide gulf between the political opinions of the "white racist majority" and the American Indian minority. So what does that mean? Must UND rid itself of those with differing points of view on certain political issues in order to retain more freshman American Indian students? How far do we take this ridiculous idea?
When I started college in the early 70s, the Vietnam War was still on. A large majority of students my age were opposed to the war and were supporters of South Dakota's then U.S. Senator George McGovern. The war and McGovern (who had just lost the 1972 presidential race to Richard Nixon) were topics of discussion everywhere on campus.
My roommate, Jim, and I were both pro-war and couldn't stand McGovern. Jim actually got into a fist fight with a McGovern supporter who taunted him at every opportunity. Many students had anti-war and pro-McGovern posters on their doors. When we put up posters supporting Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leo Thorsness, a Medal of Honor winner and former Vietnam POW, they were ripped off our door by other students.
Was I living in a hostile and abusive environment because my political views differed with those of the majority? Yes. Did I expect the university to censor or rid itself of those who disagreed with me? Absolutely not. I believed in the right of free experession. It was my responsibility and my right to defend my point of view and convince others of it. The thought never crossed my mind that the university owed me a friendly environment that coincided with my political views or my opinions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Allowing a minority of a minority to dictate to the majority only widens the divide between races and increases racial tension. I have no doubt that Sheridan and others who share his views are well intentioned, but they would be much better off using the power of free expression to influence and sway the majority than relying on the NCAA or government to beat it into submission.
