PCM

The negative PR argument is a red herring. UND has gotten more positive PR out of the NCAA's silly policy than I could ever have imagined.

I'm assuming that the NCAA has the resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. Charlotte Westerhaus, the NCAA VP for diversity and inclusion, is an attorney and has a journalism degree. I'm thinking that she might have a bit of knowledge about First Amendment issues.

Again, all I have to do is read the NCAA's owns words to understand that it thinks there are First Amendment implications here, even if you don't.

Marc Ranfranz on opposition cheering:

Why would the NCAA "unnecessarily" set itself up to prove a much tougher legal standard? Why even bother citing case law relating to free speech issues if it's not a free speech issue? That makes no sense. No it isn't. West got to say what he wanted to say in public. Nobody stopped him from saying it before he said it. And just because he said it doesn't mean that the news media or anyone else is obligated to repeat it. The media engages in self-censorship every day. It has that right. This is much different. The NCAA is claiming that it can exercise prior restraint to censor words and images that it doesn't like. And you could be right that a court would rule that because the NCAA isn't the government, it can legally censor free expression at its events. However, UND has already more than hinted that by engaging in this action, the NCAA is opening itself up once again to charges that it's a monopolisitc regulatory body. It's not as if UND can take its puck elsewhere to play for a national championship in collegiate hockey. What happened in the last anti-trust case in which the NCAA was involved? It settled it out of court for millions of dollars by buying its competitor. That tells me the NCAA isn't exactly confident of winning a case in which anti-trust issues are raised. By the way, there are others considering the First Amendment implications of what the NCAA is trying to do. The Broadcasting and Cable Web site has carried stories on this issue such as this one: And this one: Notice that ESPN isn't happily saying that it will comply with the NCAA's wishes. That's because the media has no problem with voluntarily censoring itself, but when a big organization like the NCAA starts requiring censorship, it's risking a big fight that it probably doesn't want, a fight that it will lose.

Look at the NCAA's own words describing its legal rationale for the policy: The NCAA recognizes that offensive speech is protected speech under the First Amendment. Hostile and abusive speech is not. That's why the NCAA on Aug. 5 moved the Sioux name and logo out of the category of "offensive" speech and into the category of "hostile and abusive" speech, even though it's a much more difficult standard to meet. I take this to mean that the NCAA doesn't think it would have much of a case if it went into court arguing that it had the right to ban the use of certain words and images at the public events it hosts because some people found those words and images offensive. I assume that the NCAA's legal counsel told it that "offensive" wasn't good enough, and that the words and images it wants to censor must be "hostile and abusive." I don't see how it's not about the First Amendment.

I suppose it could as long as you totally ignore the First Amendment.

So let me get this straight. You're equating UND taking the name issue to court with flying the confederate flag and joining the KKK?

Scott and other legal types, would the State Board of Higher Education's decree that UND must keep the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo play any role in a possible lawsuit? The NCAA says: The Executive Committe can believe whatever it wants, but in North Dakota's case, UND obviously doesn't have any more control over its nickname than the state flag. What gives the NCAA the right to think that UND has the power to disregard or overturn a state government decision?

What would you consider proof?

Must be a Canadian rule.

NDSU got a field goal and a safety? That's not bad.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand what anyone else is saying. Do you really want UND to run away with the NCAA stain of "hostile and abusive" to American Indians attached to its name? I don't because I know that it's not true. Maybe you like be unfairly tarred as a racist, but I don't.

This has been dicussed many times in other threads, but let me count the ways. If you read UND's appeal and Kupchella's open letter to the NCAA, you'll get a feel for the case UND would make in court. In this NCAA news release, the organization lays out some of its rationale for why it thinks what it did legally okay. It says: For my money, the confederate flag issue isn't even close to being similar to the issue of American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery, simply because Native Americans routinely use the words and images that the NCAA claims are "hostile and abusive." In contrast, blacks see the confederate flag as a symbol of oppression and intimidation. That's why you won't see a confederate flag flying from the top of the NAACP headquarters, but you will see the Sioux name and warrior image frequently used on reservations. Those who claim that First Amendment isn't an issue here might be surprised to learn that the NCAA thinks it is. A court would have to agree with the NCAA that the Sioux nickname and logo are not merely offensive, but also "hostile and abusive" to "a reasonable person." Offensive speech is protected under the constitution. Moving the issue into the realm of "hostile and abusive" is a much more difficult standard to meet. The Sicatoka pointed out this little gem in the NCAA constitution. The NCAA is fond of quoting the first two lines, but not the third and fourth lines. Hmm. Could someone argue that the NCAA is violating its own constitution?

Because they don't "own" the name and I believe in the First Amendment.

That's news to me.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd take a win in court over an NCAA exemption any day of the week.

That was Juan Williams, and I actually liked what he said. To paraphrase, he said that the big-name, big-money schools have already gotten exemptions because of the money and political pressure they can bring to bear. The smaller, non-DI schools will be stuck because they don't have the resources or political muscle of the big schools. This makes the NCAA look like a hypocritical bully, which is exactly what I'd hoped people would see. Considering that Williams usually espouses the liberal viewpoint, the fact that he sees it and says it works to UND's advantage.

The NCAA refused to allow anyone from their organization to be interviewed for the show, which I thought was interesting because they were a sponsor. The NCAA did release a written statement which, to me, appeared to be more strongly worded than what they've said recently. I could be wrong, but to me, the statement indicated that ALL namesake tribes must to agree to the use of their name. In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not Spirit Lake approves of UND's use of Fighting Sioux. As long as any Sioux tribe opposes it, the NCAA will oppose it. Perhaps someone who recorded the show could provide the NCAA statement or confirm my impression of what it said. I just remember reading it and thinking, "Uh oh. That's not good."

I'm aware that UNC-Pembroke was founded as an Indian school. But with only one in five students being American Indian and blacks outnumbering Indians, it's no longer an Indian school. In looking at UNC-Pembroke's Web site, I don't see anywhere that they even attempt to portray it as being engaged in its original mission.

Just as you are not all Sioux, that organization is not all American Indians. The National Congress of American Indians obviously doesn't represent the views of the Seminole tribes in Florida and Oklahoma or the Chippewa tribes of Michigan and North Dakota or the Ute tribe of Utah. Apparently they haven't spoken for the American Indians in North Carolina who support UNC-Pembroke. And we have yet to learn if they speak for the Spirit Lake Sioux. Therefore, my point is that while "many" American Indians may indeed oppose the use of tribal names and imagery by sports teams, the question of "relative to what?" is rarely asked. Certainly not all American Indians feel this way and the best available evidence indicates that most don't.

That has nothing to do with my point. Try again.

There are more blacks on the University of North Carolina-Pembroke's campus than there are American Indians, but the NCAA said it was okay for that university to keep its Native American nickname. Southeast Oklahoma State has a higher percentage of American Indian enrollment (38% vs. 21%) than UNC-Pembroke, but the NCAA said that SEOS has to change its name. The percentage of American Indian enrollment doesn't seem to make much difference to the NCAA. "Hostile and abusive" appears to be a sliding scale.

That's about where I started watching. Did they say much about UND other than showing the Ralph and a short clip of the hockey team?

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I saw most of the report, but not all of it. Overall, I thought it was fairly well done. Based on the statement they showed from the NCAA, I'd say that UND's appeal doesn't have much of a chance. The one problem I have with this show and others like it is that people are quoted as saying, "Many Native Americans are offended by this." As was the case tonight, the people making the statements aren't Native Americans. The question is never asked: How many is "many"? The polls showing that a large majority of Native Americans aren't offended are seldom mentioned. I think this tends to give people who aren't familiar with the issue a skewed view because they assume that "many" means "most."