A few random thoughts and questions from a supporter of the name who is trying to understand the issue as best as possible:
1) This all started with the NCAA's labeling of "Fighting Sioux" as "hostile and abusive."
a) While I think the move to the Big Sky conference is something worth fighting for and will be great for the University's sports teams, will changing the name to do so have a much larger impact on issues such as free speech, the will of the people, etc.?
b) Many argue that by not changing the name, we are hurting the student athletes. Currently, that appears to be a solid argument. Admission to the Big Sky is at risk; and with other schools not willing to schedule our teams, the harm to our student athletes is obvious to me.
c) On the other hand, I wonder what we lose by changing the name? Does changing the name admit that our use of "Fighting Sioux" was "hostile and abusive? At the minimum, I believe it will be portrayed that way by many. Any transition plan must deal with this aspect.
I think a name change is probably inevitable, and in the short term for certain, will help our move to Division I. However, I wonder what (if anything) we lose in the long-term? What lesson will this ultimately teach the students at UND? Does it show that we have a much worse relationship with the NA peoples in North and South Dakota if we can't reach agreement like other schools did? Does it show that we gave up--or didn't wage our defense of the name in a manner that could win? Or, is changing the name the right thing to do as our society evolves? Is that evolution, or PC run-amok?
2) As stated previously, It may be the NCAA's game and they may make the rules - but to what degree does that go unchecked?
a) I cannot make sense in my mind the drastic inconsistencies in the NCAA's application of this policy. How do Native American names fall within the policy, but other names referring to people are not within the NCAA's concern? How is it that some use of tribal names is allowable, but others are not? Yes, I understand the local tribal approvals, but if the name is truly abusive, wouldn't that apply across all of them?
b) And, while not directly applicable, how do the Washington Redskins win lawsuits on their right to use the name, when that name appears to me to be much more inflammatory than others?
c) When the NCAA accepts sponsorship dollars from corporations who also use NA names/symbols, I just grow more confused.
The checks and balances in our national government and devised by our country's founders have been touted as genius and a reason for the USA's success as a nation. Where are the checks and balances within the NCAA? I know they are not a Government entity and I'm not advocating Gov't involvement/oversight; however, as an organization approaching monopolistic-like power on college athletics, some type of balance of power would be preferable. Or, has a checks/balances already occurred with the settlement of the previous lawsuit -- are these types of legal processes the appropriate checks/balances on the NCAA?
3) The "Fighting Sioux" name is much different than most other school names/logos (animals, colors, etc.) ... our intention is to link our sports teams with the very best of a proud people--characteristics such as courage, honor, and strength--along with the history of these peoples in our region. Those NA peoples do not agree that this is a positive connection--some do, some don't. I think that's why this issue is so contentious -- for many, there is a much stronger connection to the UND name that makes being labeled "hostile and abusive" unconscionable. For others, the feelings are as strongly opposed to the use as they feel that this use wrongly places the NA peoples as objects, or worse. It is the unique nature of this name that makes this issue so contentious, and polarizes those of us who are interested in this outcome.
This is why this issue is so complicated. It's not "just a name" to either side of this argument. That's why those who say the issue will never go away if we keep the name are correct. Keeping the name would require a long-term, conscious effort to manage the various relationships. I can understand if that makes changing the name to be your preference; however, I personally think the name is worth that effort. It could be a win/win situation.
4) I enjoy reading the various viewpoints espoused on this site. I enjoy the logical, legal, and philosophical arguments more than the emotional ones. However, I fully understand the emotional pleas -- we are fans ... we are fanatical ... we get emotional highs (and lows) from following UND Fighting Sioux sports. There has to be an emotional aspect to this. There has to be room for opinions. However, on the flip side of that, I don't think the personal attacks add anything to the discussion. I can certainly disagree with a point made on this board ... I can even think an opinion is so unsupportable it is simply bad ... I must be very careful to transfer that to the person and his/her character. I can't derive that from this board--plus, it doesn't help any argument I'm trying to make.
5) I am disappointed that the UND leadership hasn't supported the name as consistently as I'd hoped. I have reduced my financial support of the school as a result. I understand the argument that my doing so hurts the students; but this is my most effective (and appropriate, in my opinion) mechanism with which to send my objection to the current administration. Plus, I have redirected those funds to other charitable organizations whose leadership hasn't given me cause for concern. Although I haven't seen anything I consider factual on misbehavior of the UND leadership, some of the discussions I have read drive concern, and I hope our media continues to look into the situation in the watchdog role they provide to our society.
6) I want to see a meeting between UND, the North Dakota legislature, and the NCAA. Many of the questions above would likely come up in that discussion. It's not a simple issue -- and discussed appropriately -- most parties would agree on that alone. In the end, the NCAA's policy could stand and we will stop using "Fighting Sioux" to refer to our sports teams. I'm still a supporter, and still think there are options available. In the end, I worry about the long-term implications--although I'm not certain what they may be.
I realize this is a long post ... thanks for your time ... I'm looking forward to any comments.
