PCM

If nobody knows about the protest marches on campus, how can they be expected to know about UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo?

Vaht?

If true, I should get a hefty raise for all the time I've spent defending Ralph.

It can't happen this year because the part of the NCAA policy affecting the hosting of playoff games doesn't go into effect until Feb. 1, 2006. And stop jinxing the football team by saying that they'll go undefeated.

Hey!

Ralph didn't make the decision. He only influenced it. The NCAA didn't make the decision. It's merely using coercive tactics to get the results it wants. But the State Board of Higher Education is responsible for all state-run institutions of higher learning in North Dakota. It has the legal authority to make such decisions.

I could be wrong, but as I recall, the problem wasn't that the Red Cross kept "money earmarked" for the Grand Forks flood, but that it refused to earmark money for any particular disaster. If you gave money to the Red Cross in the belief that it would go to Grand Forks, you couldn't be sure that it would actually ever be spent there.

Does this help you legal types at all? It comes from an NCAA document entitled: Policy applies core principles to mascot issue. As I read this, it says the reason the NCAA decided that American Indian nicknames, mascots and logos weren't merely offensive, but "hostile and abusive" is because offensive speech is constitutionally protected speech. To get around that pesky First Amendment, the NCAA used its vast judiciary powers to declare that the names, mascots and logos it doesn't like are "hostile and abusive."

Do not.

Yes. That's exactly what I said.

Me too.

KnowtheFacts,Sep 1 2005, 05:00 PM I wasnt here at the time of the SBHE's decision but I know that there were things that happened in the background (because of leaked documents and such...) that were NOT public information. Anyway, I wasnt referring to that event. I was referring to the event that I recommended. North Dakota has an open meetings law. Therefore, the meeting you recommended would have to be open to the public. There's no way around it. I don't know that he doesn't have his facts straight. I know that you have your version of how and why and when the Sioux name was adopted. It doesn't jibe with everything I know. And there's a possibility that Kupchella is referring to some information that neither of us has seen. Suffice it to say that there a lot on the history of the name that's open to interpretation. I still don't really see how it matters that much. This is an entirely different issue from what you originally stated, which was that "officials at REA dictate how we run our school." I don't see what it has to do with this discussion. Which has what to do with the Sioux name issue or how American Indian students are treated on campus? I don't think so. As I recall, Kupchella said during his Aug. 12 news conference that he couldn't envision covering up the logos at the REA. I hadn't heard anyone from UND or the REA say anything like that before that date. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. That's what I thought we were discussing, too, but you're dragging in other subjects that have little or nothing to do with the name and logo. I've read and heard all about that. I've also thoroughly read the minority report. To be perfectly honest, parts of it very insulting to those of us on campus who have worked hard in an Indian-related program to benefit Native Americans on campus and in other parts of the state. It's difficult to see something in which I take great pride being discussed as if it's insignificant or doesn't matter. I hope you can understand my perspective. As I read this report, I get the distinct impression that the authors feel that any meeting held with the administration in which the nickname issue isn't up for discussion is essentially a meaningless meeting. Am I wrong about that impression? And you should know that the vast majority of people in town and on campus in no way condone such behavior. If I saw anyone doing that, they'd hear about it. It's inexcuseable. That's why it pains me when I see accusations made that paint Grand Forks as a racist town or UND as a racist school. That doesn't mean that there is no racism, but I do strongly believe that such characterizations are grossly unfair. It might get worse temporarily, but I don't think it will stay that way for long. There will be a few idiots who'd use the loss of the Sioux nickname as an excuse to do and say stupid things. Again, they will be in the minority. The vast majority of people around here won't put up with that behavior. I agree completely and have said so in previous posts. Fear and intimidation -- in any shape or form -- should not be a part of why the name is retained or changed. I'm sure you're right that we all do things that are biased or appear biased, sometimes without even thinking about it. However, you also have to admit that there are people who look for reasons to be offended and will cry racism simply because they interpret something in a way that was never intended. What can anyone do about that? For example, I have a relative who's gay. She's very difficult to be around or to speak to because she's constantly interpreting what even her closest relatives say as being anti-gay or homophobic. She, of course, has every right to her hair-trigger sensitivity on gay issues. However, many of her relatives and former friends choose not to communicate with her or involve her in activities because she's so difficult to be around. It has nothing to do with her being gay and everything to do with how she treats the people who care most about her. It's sad, really. It doesn't have to be that way. Thank you for the reasonable discussion. I enjoyed it.

Thanks for posting this information.

How about the Mad Log? That one is scary cool!

I happen to know that you've already placed your order for the Super Bunny mascot costume.

In the men's room.

C'mon, Mike. The Grand Forks Herald sponsors power plays. Get it right or KnowtheFacts will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

That's a great story, JESUS,family,rutgers. Thanks for your kind words and your support.

Adam Wodon, who's an editor and columnist for US College Hockey Online and sometimes a college hockey commentator for ESPN, wrote this opinion piece for collegesports.com: The Price Of Progress Implementation of new NCAA mascot policy proves troublesome

Not a bad idea if some issues besides UND changing its nickname can be discussed. The meeting at which the State Board of Higher Education voted to have UND retain the Fighting Sioux name was on the radio. I listened to it. Is that not public enough for you? They never did. How about discussing other issues that relate to American Indian eduction in addition to this matter? How about you focus on something that actually makes a difference rather than whether or not someone got an irrelevant detail correct? How about you not assuming that every white person who attends UND or lives in Grand Forks approves of such behavior, assuming that it did happen? How about getting rid of that gigantic chip on your shoulder? It would make two-way communication much easier.

Does it repeal the First Amendment?

I've never been one to argue with logic.

What relevence do these references have to the story? I'll admit, I'm probably too touchy about the subject. But if you read INCH stories related to UND often enough, you'll see that taking digs at Grand Forks and its climate are standard operating procedure.

The University is "in the clear" now.