Siouxbooster#33

Well, I feel much better, and I feel more informed.

I agree with much of what both of your posters are saying. I think the very minor divergence of opinion is where we draw the line -- if there is any line to be drawn at all -- of journalistic ethics. I would draw the line at a member of the press using his/her editorial access to pontificate repeatedly on one side of one subject. I believe insertion of themselves into a story by the editor of a daily news media source (a media source upon which resides much public trust) is unethical. Not illegal. And since this is a private for-profit media outlet, the public are free to stop purchasing the paper, and stop reading the paper, if they wish. The wonderful free market allows for both pontification on one side, and refusal to listen on the other side. If it hurts business, then the media outlet will have to address the matter (or not -- its ultimately the private media outlet's decision). Ethics is a funny, fuzzy term. And I appreciate views on the presence of ethics, and the imaginary ethical lines which can be drawn, will differ. But I tend to beleive the Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do not merely hold jobs as editors because they can accurately spot punctuation and spelling errors better than others. These men ( and most editors everwhere) are gatekeepers of information. they keep a hawk-like watch over their writers. Part of their job is dedicated to hunting down editorial content in news stories. Part of their job is to attempt, as best as can be accomplished, to erradicate bias from news writing. Part of their job is to make sure that their reporters, and through them their newspaper, do not become part of the story. Once the newspaper reporter and writer become part of the story, they compromise the silent contract that exists between the media and the citizenry in this country: The newspaper will tell you the facts, and the citizens can assume that the facts are not tainted by pique or gain or interest on the part of the newspaper. Part of their job is to ensure that the dignity and integrity of the newspaper is not compromised by "taking sides." The editorial slice of the newspaper is the refuge from this contract. But this refuge is not absolute. The silent contract cannot be simply turned off when the reader flips to the editorial section. And while citizens like myself are more than willing to let any editor say what they wish in the editorial section. Content is lovingly protected on the editorial page. We can disagree with the content, but we generally allow newspaper editors the freedom to print the editorial. So where is the line? When does the campaign by the editors compromise the central mission the media outlet -- providing the news? This is NO small item, in my opinion, because most nations in the world do not enjoy freedom to access of unbiased and uncompromised news. So if the editors are engaging in a whole-hearted campaign -- and now inserting themselves into the story and into the narrative of the event -- that is a problem. If this editorial crusade can be so easily linked to the nature and content of the alleged "straight" news stories on this same topic (the nickname) elsewhere in the paper, their editorial actions are now calling into question their editorial role in ensuring unbiased and uncompromised news coverage. And I believe that as a major source of news and information in this region, the editors have a duty (small "d" duty, not a legal duty) to the community in which they serve to protect the news. Their continued crusade and failure to protect the news from being compromised (and in probably most cases blessing the compromising of the news through their "straight" editing), is ethically questionable. And they would both be much better served leaving this issue alone instead of writing chicken little panic editorials about UND scheduling woes (on the same day UND announces an ESPN basketball game contract with Kansas, btw). A newsroom is no place for panic and fearmongering, let alone desperate campaigns. The people who rely upon the news media deserve better.

I would consider their editorials ranging into unethical not because of the content, but because of the drumbeat repetition of their editorials on this subject. As an example, each election cycle the editorial board presents the list of canditates which the board / editor supports. I have no problem with that -- an editorial by its very nature is the one rare instance (theoretically) that the editor can take off his journalistic ethical and professional restraint and speak his/her mind and give an opinion. Often times, the Editorial opinion relates to a top of the week. Often, the Editorial (in theory) will present a coutner-point to a hot issue in a measured and calm, allegedly third-party-outside-opinion. Sometimes the Editorial can give voice to a side of an issue or debate in which one side is unable, or unwilling, to defend a position for themselves in the public discourse. And I don't think there is anything wrong with this process. Furthermore, I'll go a step beyond and say that as a rule, I think Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do a very good job picking topics upon which to editorialize, and they do a decent job attempting to present a reasonable discussion. I don't always agree (often strongly disagree) with their opinions -- but I have no problem with the editors expressing their views. BUT, when does an Editorial opinion, as described by myself above, cross over the dangerous line to journalistic advocacy? I think Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs work very hard, and I am sure that they hammer the importance of ethical journalistic integrity to their younger employees. Consider the example of the political recommendation. What if Mr. Dennis wrote not just one political recommendation editorial, but instead wrote 5, or 6, or 10, all in favor on ne candidate. Every other month, or sometimes every month, Mr. Dennis wrote blistering editorials supporting only one candidate and attacking, frequently, the opposing candidate? What if Mr. Dennis uses his Editorial position to simply mirror and parrot the campaign talking points? Thus my claim: Mr.s Jacobs and Dennis, and regularly contributing editorial commentator Mr. Omdahl -- are not merely submitting Editorials for the public discourse. They are engaging in a long campaign on one particular issue. And they are not merely presenting their opinion. They are presenting their opinion again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Year after year. Week after week. They have left behind any semblence of journalistic ethical restraint years ago on THIS topic. This year alone, Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs have personally written multiple anti-Sioux name editorials. Then they publish multiple (at least three I can think of) editorial submissions from Mr. Omdahl on the same topic. Last week, Dennis, Jacobs, and Lloyd all submitted anti-name editorials in one week. This drum beat, this endless parade of anti-name editorials is when they cross the line from "merely giving their opinion on a matter of import in the public discourse," into advocacy. They are not making recommendations, nor are they taking up the cause of a side whose views and opinions are silenced. They are on a campaign. They are taking up the cause. And that is unethical (in my opinion). And my point is -- rather than engage in this repeated unethical journalistic activity, these two experienced and expert newspaper men (and Lloyd), should step away, before their integrity is shredded entirely. The have written all the Editorials they should ever write on this subject. 50? 100? Since the early 1990's? At least? They need to step back and leave the issue to the partisans involved in the fight. Their editorial practice has made THEM a partisan in the fight -- and that is a serious breech of their journalistic integrity and ethics. They have inserted themselves into the story -- and I think if these two otherwise very honorable men took a step back and realized this, they would probably agree.

Agreed. Mr. Omdahl has been steadfasstly against the name for 30 years. For him to have the nerve to write this article is almost beyond words! He, along with Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs, have been on a crusade for over 20 years to end the use of the name. They have thrown out every name, insult, accusation, and doomsday threat in the book -- all attempting to hook a few followers here, a few followers there. I cannot imagine more gaul, more outright bile-filled gaul, than for this man to have the unmittigated NERVE to declare he has anything but outright contempt for the name? Hogwash. Do not for any instant, ever, think that his goal has ever changed: He has written at least three-four articles a year, every year, for MANY years, extolling the necessity of killing the name. Meanwhile, UND scheduled Kansas in basketball today. Hmmmm . . .. yup . . . . those sanctions are killing us. Required Reading for those who wish to listen to the Herald Editorial Opinions on this particular topic: http://www.archive.org/stream/remarkablestoryo00bostiala/remarkablestoryo00bostiala_djvu.txt

I must disagree. The NCAA capitulated with all of the above listed schools, INCLUDING North Dakota. The settlement agreement came at the earliest of stages in the litigation. Discovery was barely complete, if completed at all, when the NCAA jumped into the settlement. The NCAA also capitulated even earlier with the other schools. The NCAA has yet to ever take a school to trial over this matter. The NCAA has yet to even get as far as a summary judgment argument with any school over this matter. The closest the NCAA came to court action over the indian-name-issue was North Dakota, and that case settled almost instantly (instantly when looking at the legal time-line and procedural process). The NCAA has a significant track record of capitulating on this issue. Florida State, Illinois, Central Michigan, Utah, and North Dakota -- any school that challanged the NCAA on this matter actually won. You can agrue the merits and quality of the settlement reached between ND and the NCAA. But in the end, the NCAA SETTLED. The NCAA has never attempted to take this issue to an actual trial. The NCAA has never even attempted to take this matter to a summary judgment discussion. The NCAA has never even risked taking this issue to mediation. The NCAA has done everything possible to avoid media scrutiny of this issue (up to and including cancelling simple fact-finding meetings in Bismarck, North Dakota, if the doors were open to the public). One has to wonder how dedicated the NCAA is to this cuase if they are unwilling to open their opinions to the media. This is not pro-nick-name rose-colored glasses. These are actually facts. Just disagree with the concept of the NCAA not giving-in on this issue. All they have done, since they enacted this absurd and arbitrary ruling, is give in.

It is a shame that our local media is so dedicated to its ancient cause, that it can't take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position. The journalistic integrity of the Forum/Herald on this particular matter is so thoroughly questionable that their own professional journalistic ethics should preclude them from making further comment. They are journalists who are so fully and totally compromised that I charge their recent spate of editorials and columns are unethical, and deserving of being told -- via e-mail and letters to the editor, that their behavior on this issue is damaging their credibility on many other subjects, and they should -- for ethical reasons - refrain from future comment.

Always with the negative vibes, Moriarity.

All of them, at one point in time. And Minnesota / Iowa / Wisconsin's scheduling policy is not tied to the NCAA. And yet . . . these schools all continue to play, nickname and all.

Is there proof that UM, Wisconsin, and Iowa will not schedule the Sioux? I see no proof, and in fact Wisconsin has scheduled the Sioux in basketball and softball in the past year. I don't care about Iowa. Push comes to shove, I really don't care about playing UM, UW, or Iowa --- if it means selling out our name to make some people on those campuses happy. I think that is selling the name pretty cheap. But any proof of these schools refusing to schedule UND? As for Minnesota . . . I am not in that group of people who feel that playing Minnesota in non-hockey events is some measuring stick of any serious value. Minnesota is a low-ranked, pathetic excuse for a Big Ten athletics program. I would prefer that we keep the name and play more Western-based schools rather than wring our hands in enrvous worry that "Big Minnesota might not like us." This includes hockey. I am not living my life, nor am I willing to sell my ideals, so cheaply just to make the regents of the University of Minnesota pat us on the head and say, "There's a good boy." But I ask again ---- any proof of any of this, are is Faisson spouting the doom and gloom party line? I see no proof, I only see cheap parlor tricks disguised as logic. I only see a shell game and three-card-monte. I only see a pack of left-leaning PC police officers frustrated that not enough people are taking them serious. I only see a gaggle of left-leaning Crusaders from the 1970s (Glassheim, Tom Dennis, Mike Jacobs, Omdahl) so entrentched in their long-long-long war against the name that they have totally lost their bearings. In place of logic and proof to support their debate, they and their converts have resorted to knee jerk nonsense, sky-is-falling rhetoric, and "boogey man" bed time stories meant to scare the little ignorant children who are unwilling or unable to understand these people are lost in the haze of their crusade so deeply they just can't see daylight. And these people have dominated the conversation for so long, without being legitimately questioned, that their hyperbolic responses stink of decayed ideas long discredited, stink of panic, and stink of fear. Deep, serious, fear. The children don't believe their bedtime stories anymore. The children are growing up. And they are having a hard time getting traction on their doom and gloom silliness. Where is the proof that any of the defenses raised by Mr. Faisson will happen? There is none. Only a performing clown acting out the pathetic last act of a death sequence to the great PC dream in North Dakota to strip the name from UND. Its been such a dedicated cause for them for so long they don't realize the kids aren't afraid -- they are laughing at them. These silly old men sputtering spittle from their senile chins, still ranting about Nixon and the Ford Pinto. And Mr. Faisson, nice man that he is, is sadly playing the part of the dutiful leftist public servant, spouting the party line and propping up these decaying old 1970 social class warriors for one more run. He is neither smart enough, nor brave enough, to anything else.

I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. The biggest problem I have with the doom and gloom apocolyptic view of consquences of keeping the UND Fighting Sioux name is that the doom and gloom apocolyptic view is not based in too much reality. Instead, the doom and gloom seems to flow like water from the minds of those who oppose the name -- supported by nothing but speculation, fear mongering, and hand-wringing. In fact, on this very message board, fellow posters have revealed that the Minnesota policy is a lose policy, not a dictate. And the committee that formed the policy against playing schools with native nicknames declared that ultimate scheduling authority rested with the Athletic Department. Perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to present some proof of all of the disasters they blithely announce (as Gospel truth) that will befall UND? Or perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to point to one school -- one -- which used native names and/or imagery, and which refused to change, and which the NCAA did not settle and back down? One school that got any measure of the "death" penalty from the NCAA? Any? What school right now is on sanctions from the NCAA for using a native American name? What school right now is officially having trouble scheduling athletic contests because of their native-based name? Name one. Please. Anyone? The doom and gloom is easy to spew -- literally impossible to back up. e..g . . . Mr. Faisson is full of manure when he speaks of scheduling problems caused by the name. He claimed that the pistols used by Pistol Pete would harm attendance at NMSU because the guns scare children. Also deeply-layered manure. He holds a PC leftist position on this issue -- and rather than having the courage to stand up and declare his non-majority moral views, he hides behind unsubstantiated blither, which is lapped up by too many who are too easily swayed and too easily willing to be easily sucked into his too-easy explaination. Mr. Faisson is not exhibiting courage or moral integrity in this name fight.

True . . .to a point. Faisson left the AD position for a position higher up at NMSU. And a simple review of the resources on the internet (I know . . . I know . . . not exactly scholar-level research) shows that Faisson, not Boston, was the driving force behind the administration's desire to drop Pistol Pete. I apologize if my time-line was not as air tight as I appear to have made it seem -- I didn't mean to mislead and make it appear as though Mr. Faisson left NMSU immediately for UND, with his mascot-killing CV tucked in his back pocket. The only point I sought to make was this: Mr. Faisson has actively changed (or worked with others to change) a beloved mascot at another school for fluffy and unsubstantiated PC reasons (Pistol Pete). And Pistol Pete reappeared very, very shortly after Mr. Faisson left NMSU. And now, here is Mr. Faisson engaging in similar actions. No, he didn't start this fight. In all likelihood, Mr. Faisson probably never heard of UND or the Sioux name issue until he applied for the job. And Mr. Faisson could be, and may continue to be, a very good AD for UND. The same internet research regarding Pistol Pete will also reveal that Faisson moved NMSU athletics light-years forward with massive fund raising, building and re-building of facilities, and managed to move NMSU into the WAC at a time when conference moves were rare, and the WAC was considered a (more) legitimate D-I conference. And all you have to do is scan through some of the NMSU releases and articles from the time Faisson was at NMSU to see the enormous impact he had on the athletics therein. But he spoiled his stay ay NMSU with his Pistol Pete nonsense. Similarly, he is spoiling his stay at UND with his Fighting Sioux anti-name nonsense. He could -- as I noted -- just as easily sat in Grand Forks and announced that the process will paly out, and he will take whatever marching orders he is given by the State and the President. The SBOHE literally HANDED him this cover, when they announced time and again that THEY, the SBOHE, and not Mr.s Faisson (or Mr. Kelley) have any final word on the name issue. I personally think its too bad. I personally think Mr. Faisson has the chops to help guide UND Athletics into a great new era. Do not forget, this is the same man who managed to leverage a Big Sky invite -- and was smart enough to accept. But he is in a position of being more than a bean counter, and more than a director. As the AD, alumni, students, and former athletes expect -- fair or not -- that the AD will not bad mouth our school. And when you preach doom and gloom and devisiveness, and you defacto agree with the NCAA that our name is hostile and abusive -- in the opinion of many you are badmouthing our school and our dedicated and loyal alumni and students (most of whom support the use of the name and disagree strongly with the hostile and abusive allegations). And when you are so willing, so earnestly and diligently willing, to toss the school under the bus in the name of Political Correctness, then many people are not going to give a good hoot in hell whether you are a Star Administrator.

Even a fool may be counted as wise when he holds his tongue. Perhaps the AD might have considered that. Same for President Kelley. There was no requirement that either of them testify in Bismarck. The name is, as they always declared, out of their hands. So if the name stays, its the name they deal with. If the name must go, its the marching orders they deal with. But they cannot have it both ways. Either they are merely following orders (Cool Hand Luke: Saying its your job don't make it right, boss); or they are actively against the name. I don't think there is much evidence left to support either men support the name in any way, shape, or form. I think its pretty clear both men have taken every chance and opportunity to bad mouth the name. So in my opinion, Mr. Faisson cannot hide behind the SBOHE on this issue. If he wanted that exit, it was easily provided to him: just sit in Grand Forks and tell reporters, "We are allowing the process to play out in Bismarck, and we will do what the SBOHE and any other leading organization in the government requests, within the law." He didn't. Now his job is, I truly believe, shaken. This was the same man who was a tremendous success at NMSU, but ran afoul of alumni and students when he took the pistols out of the mascot Pistol Pete's hands. He turned their mascot into Lasso Larry (rope instead of gun). Finally leaving campus under pressure, Faisson landed in North Dakota. Literally within a week of Faisson leaving NMSU, Pistol Pete returned, and Larry was dumped into the trash.

I suspect this will get the Royal and Imperial Under the Carpet Treatment. Don't expect any serious investigation by the Herald or its ilk.

If indeed any and all anti-Sioux name forces were only taking their orders directly from the SBOHE, I would accept that statement. Last I checked, there was no requirement, nor demand, nor request, from the SBOHE that Mr. Kelley present himself and others in Bismarck to testify against the name. If this was truly a position he adopted at the behest of his employer, or if this was truly a position he adopted to please his employer -- then why appear in Bismarck, via the University's plane, using the University's money, joined by a hand-picked collection of anti-name members of the administration and school? Why not take a "No Stance" position, or even better how about, "This matter is out of my hands. Its a legal and legislative issue. I have been ordered to retire the name by the SBHOE. Until that changes, I cannot and will not comment on this particular bill." Sure, a few of the pro-name supporters would howl at his waffling, at his refusal to support the name. But on the whole, he could sit in Grand Forks and do his day job of running the University -- for which he is paid quite well. No, Mr. Kelley is not a mere pawn in the game. He is an active player. He actively and passionately appealed to the SBHOE to retire the name EARLY . . . for the Summit League? He has never once mentioned supporting the name. He has testified before Congress in Bismarck --- TWICE -- spreading a colleciton of half-truths, misinformation, and outright scrare-tactic doomsday scenarios. And he made sure he brought a collection of like-minded University people with him, via the college plane, to support and back up his anti-name rhtoric. He has called the legislation a "Speed Bump to retiring the name." He is, has been, and will always be against the name. No reason to sugar coat the matter and give him cover. He has not sought cover from the issue, and he should not be granted cover. Now, what does this mean? If he is anti-name does that mean he should be fired as the President. I think not. But what if he has improperly used Foundation and school funds and materials, transporting students, professors, and administrators to Bismarck, to lobby along with him against a particular bill in Congress? Hasn't UND made the statement in the recent past how the school will not pay, or reimburse, anyone who chooses to testify in Bismarck? And why did the President not extend this free travel opporunity to a cross sectiont that supports the bill?

Truly said. Is anyone really surprised? I think the only people who could claim actual shock would be those who believed President Kelley was ever neutral on the Fighting Sioux name. For whatever his reasons, he has made every effort (or agreed with every effort) to remove the name. He has never spoken even half-heartedly in any positive manner about the name. He has never publically acknowledged that possibly he and his like-minded personnel were sharply in the minority. Furthermore, as was witnessed just a short while ago in Fargo, Unviversity Presidents seem to have this wierd bubble around them, allowing them to think their otherwise questionable financial actions and decisions will never come back to haunt them. I am not saying that Flight-Gate is as yet on par with President's House-Gate, but it solidifies a few simple truths the pro-name crowd has long believed: 1. The UND administration does not hear the majority. Does not care about the majority. The UND administration does not care about its alumni, its students', or its supporters' deep felt desires. Instead, the Administration has taken great pains to spread doomsday scenarios and misinformation as feeble excuses for their minority opinion status, and as a means to divide and conquer the otherwise-strident name support. The UND administration is a left-leaning PC bureaucratic beehive which is so insulated and isolated from reality that the name controversy legitimately confuses them. I believe they were, are, and will remain stunned at the legislation and the massive support. And was anyone shocked that pro-name UND people were NOT invited to speak via the University plane? 2. The "serious" media outlets of the Herald, Tribune, and Forum, have NOT asked the tough questions of the administration or the anti-name people. They have long ago taken sides, and their bias on this issue is so absurd that most people do not trust any of the stories these new agencies publish on this issue. These media outlets repeatedly give cover to whatever anti-name person might be spouting off. These media outlets do not ask the tough questions regarding these absurd doomsday scenarios. This is a simple little story. I am watching to see if any of the Big Three pick this matter up -- or has their bias on this issue blinded them so completely that they are being "scooped" by a small underfunded online daily? So -- UND's anti-name position careens all over the road, tossing threats, bombs, nonsequetors -- spending University money, Foundation money, tax money -- fighitng a bill that the majority of alumni, students, and natives want to pass. And the local media gives them 100% pass. Tom Dennis and Mr. Omdahl, where is thine rage? So I picked up the Herald and did I see anything about Plane-Gate? Hahaha --- nope -- just another letter from Erich Longie. That makes letter #143 of Mr. Longie published by the Herald. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sick.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. The first rule of boxing is to not get knocked out of the ring. If you stay in the ring, you can land punches. If you can land punches, you can win. Our name is for today saved. The anti-name forces will doubtlessly be regrouping. Today's vote was the first victory for pro-name supporters in many years, and it feels wonderful to be heard. But the battle is only now fully enjoined. Today, we gained equal footing in the boxing ring. Today, we saved our right to fight. In the weeks and months to come, we must remember that just a few short hours ago, this whole issue was in doubt. Just a few short hours ago, we who support the name came within a paper-thin margain of losing our last hope. Our UND President referred to the Fighting Sioux name legislation as a "Speed Bump" heading toward the August 15 retirement. Our AD testified twice before the Legislature preaching doom and disaster if the name was retained. Three Senators from Grand Forks voted against the name -- and these Senators represent a small but incredibly vocal minority who likely passionately oppose the name now more than ever. Our SBOHE leadership were spinning their own web of anti-name rhetoric. These people aren't going anywhere, and I can assure you that their opinions on this matter are unchanged. The Herald, Tribune, and the Forum are locked-armed against the name -- and at times each publication pulled out tricks and slights of journalistic slander and unethical journalistic abuse in an ad hoc and desperate effort to derail this legislation. The Herald is not suddenly going to replace Omdahl, Dennis, Jacobs, et al. In short: I give you another warrior's quote -- Caesar (allegedly): "Celebrate today, but sharpen your swords for tomorrow."

One last huge game at the Hyslop would be fine with me. I loved that place.

I watched parts of that game last night. ESPN2 in HD. I was telling my wife, "Won't it be so cool to see the Sioux in this game?" I don't want to start a flame-war or anything like that, but the Big Sky Finals were on ESPN2 in HD, in a packed stadium (which may have had mor to do with UNC playing at home, perhaps). I noticed the Summit Leauge Final was on Midco in grainy non-HD in a half-empty stadium. I only mention this because I have to say what I was thinking all night last night watching the UNC-Montana game: "I am so happy UND is in the Big Sky."

I wonder when, how, and if the NCAA decides sanctions would be applied in this particular instance? I feel that there is quite a bit of fear that the NCAA will wield an ax within seconds of the law being passed. Not likely. The NCAA is an organization which has the same deliberative processes as most major, multi-million-dollar nationwide organization. I am betting -- in fact I am confident -- the NCAA will take this approach: 1. If the law passes, the NCAA will announce, "We will have to review the situation, discuss it with our compliance committee, discuss this with our legal department, and discuss this matter with the University." 2. The NCAA committee will have to review the law and ramifications. What the NCAA would look at is this: with the settlement, is this partial compliance with the settlement (Spirit Lake approval) combined with North Dakota's inability to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement (because of the shift in the law) versus viewing this as total non-compliance. My guess is a likely face-saving (and, importantly money and PR saving directive) which will table the matter for study by the compliance committee, in which time the NCAA will negotiate a tactful withdrawal from the hard line stance. 3. Tacfull withdrawal would look something like the agreement reached in Illinois, CMU, and FSU. This is what I believe, and hope, would happen. I can't believe - and really can't -- how many name supporters are worried about the sky falling on UND. The NCAA is not waiting on every vote out of North Dakota, ready to pounce, ready to spend million of dollars on protracted legal battles. The NCAA mostly wants its organization to run smoothly and without much controversy -- because problems cost money. The NCAA is not rubbing its hands together ready to "shun" UND. The NCAA will do whatever is necessary to resolve the situation. This is not Miles Brand's NCAA, which was particularly activist and confrontational in many ways. What cannot happen is to fold up tent and run for mommy when the future is cloudy. Sorry -- I can't predict the future with 100% certainty. Nobody can. I've said before, and I'll say again -- if we're too afraid to fight for the name, for what is right, than we don't desrve to be called Fighting Sioux. Bickering over football versus hockey is a waste of time and effort. Is the name hostile and abusive? Is the name used in an innapropriate manner? If not -- then we are fighthing the correct fight.

I believe the majority is veto-proof -- if it passes in the sentate by the same margins. And since the legislature is in session, I do not believe that this law would require his signature. (the legislative gurus could probably spell that out better than I). I think the Gov is in a wierd position, because he comes from the political wing of his party that has been almost totally silent as to the name. Hoeven was almost 100% silent on the matter. The AG was always a reluctant warrior. Dalrymple, to the best of my knowledge, has been as silent as Hoeven. The Governor's silence at THIS point is a little irritating. LEAD, darn it. Stand up and say Yes or No. Take a stand. Don't sit in your office and wring your hands and make bland comments about "not being sure whether you will sign the bill -- if passed -- or not." Leadership would be as follows: "If this bill passes, I will sign it." This tells the sentate that the govenor's office will not embarass them, and it is OK to move ahead and vote for the law. OR, say, "I will not sign this bill, because . . . . " This tells the Sentate that perhaps their reservations, if any, are real. It gives those who oppose the bill an additional serious voice, and it would clear the minds of potential fence sitters. Taking a stand by the Gov would also let the people know where you stand. Ahhhhhhh . . . . there is the rub, eh? Sitting on his hands and pretending nothing was happening at UND worked for Hoeven, he marched into the Senate without barely breaking a sweat.

As long as you agree with his worldview. Otherwise, he is quick to label nonbelievers, quick to attack, quick to inflame, quick to demean. As one of the earliest agents against the name, back in the 1970's, Mr. Glassheim is dedicated to this particular crusade. He is a genuinely nice man. But his political worldview is quite polarizing. With Mr. Glassheim, he too often is consumed by his own political beliefs and this causes him to intensely dislike those who do not agree with his views. That makes him human, fair enough. But on this particular issue, he has been filling and expelling his wind-bag-lungs for decades. No doubt he will do so long after the matter is resolved. But please, don't suddenly take stock in his standard anti-name stump speech recycled most recently on Monday in Bismarck. Please, don't present him as some clear headed, enlightened, even-handed, unbiased paragon of reason. He is a veteran of bitter partisan politics, sometimes as a passenger -- but more often as the driving ofrce behind divisive, destructive, insulting, and unpleasant dialog. I suggest the anti-name crowd try to find a few new champions. And as a side note, your inclusion of Mr. Glassheim's religion is EXACTLY the sort of baseless accusations which are so very unecessary. Not a single soul on this board has ever raised that fact, nor hinted at that fact, nor mentioned that fact, insinuated that fact. Its highly likely that most people do not know Mr. Glassheim is jewish, since he himself - to his credit - has NEVER used his faith as an excuse, or as a defense, or as a weapon to attack. I suspect he would be deeply disappointed that somebody who calls himself a friend would resort to such churlish reparte.

Did you all know that Mr. Glassheim attended, and attained both his Masters and Ph.D. from Univeristy of New Mexico at the same time that Robert Kelley (Our Dear Leader) was a professor at that fine school, including Dean of Graduate Studies? Probably nothing, probably. . . .

Any remaining questions as to Mr. Kelley's position was cleared up, I think, in the Bismarck Tribune article, which was a bit more detailed and contained more significant quotes than the Herald (which I suspect is interested in providing some cover for the anti-name people).: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/2011_session/article_d1c045f2-3dfc-11e0-82ee-001cc4c002e0.html Some tid-bits from our President: If this continues to pass, we could see a constitutional challenge," Kelley said. Kelley said he'll be watching to see what the Senate does with the bill but called it a speed bump in meeting the Aug. 15 deadline for the transition away from the nickname this year."I think the campus and Grand Forks are waiting to move on. They're weary of the issue," Kelley said. A speed bump? Just a slight hiccup in the super-highway leading to August 15?

Dr. Kelley is exactly what you get when you do a nationwide search for a president -- a perfectly respected, but entirely bland left-leaning academic. Regarding the name, I wish he would either lead or get out or the way. He instead has presented himself throughout this whole drama as a man clearly uncomfortable with the name because most of his employees (e.g., the professors) are uncomfortable with the name. I think Kelley COULD be very good for the school, just like Faisson. Both are highly qualified men who have succeeded in previous posts. Both are able to bring in large sums of money. Both are able to operate well run, well respected offices. And Both will, I beleive, be a credit to the school, not the embarassment that our younger sister school in Fargo has endured over the past few years with a criminal president and a bumbling AD. However, the name is more than just an atheltics logo. Much more. Until these men, specifically Kelley, realize the depth and degree of passion, he will NEVER be able to fully and completely do his main job. Accordingly, I ask that he either lead the charge to keep the name in support of his alumni and students. Or he get out of the way and stop making random, unsupported allegations of doom and gloom if the name remains.

Leigh Jeanotte is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. e.g., he is not a Sioux. Not Santee, Lakota, nor Nakota. I believe this member of the UND faculty has every right to speak out, say what they want, and comment on events as they see fit. I, of course, have every right to consider the source. Jeanotte is too often a quote-source for the Herald and other media outlets, whose opinion is often taken to represent a Native's anti-name viewpoint, and whose opinions on these issues is granted some level of credibility. I am seeking to find the background of those who either profess to speak with authority or who are granted some level of authority by others. I have therefore noticed an interesting trend. With the exception of Dr. Erich Longie and the various leadership at Standing Rock -- most of the Native anti-nickname sources tabbed by the Herald, or employed by UND, are Chippewa. I am not an anthropologist, but as a resident of North Dakota and a person who has tried to educate myself as best as possible on this issue, the Chippewa and Sioux races are distinctly different. Different heritage, different language, different history. What I am wondering is this: Why are some members of the Chippewa race so openly hostile to the name "Fighting Sioux?" While at the same time give their blessing -- literally -- to the Central Michigan Chippewas? Heck, CMU fans and supporters actually butcher this great Native's nation's name by calling themselves, "the Chips." And this is all ok? I have a family member who lives in Northern Michigan and, knowing our agony over the Sioux name, provided me with a t-shirt that read, on the front: "CMU Chippewa Warriors," and on the back it said, "The Chippewa Nation and Central Michigan: One and Unified." I have to wonder if this hypocritical position by one of the louder anti-name persons has MUCH more to do with racial jealously? I am wondering if this position has more to do with a Chippewa v. Sioux prejudice than anything regarding the name, or Native enrollment, or Native issues on campus? I don' know. I don't pretend to know. And I tread lightly on these sorts of issues because often they become emotional and unproductive. But I just kind of scratch my noggin and wonder why so many Chippewa seem so blithely and serenely accepting of the CMU Chippewa, while at the same time, converely, are so bitter, outspoken, always-quoted, and (frankly) wholey dedicated to the discrediting and removing the Fighting Sioux name?