Siouxbooster#33

Well said. Has there been any other issue, in the history of our Great State, where white and native peoples have stood side by side? Has there ever been a greater tool for learning about the Native culture than this nickname issue?

I don't have an answer. Except to say that our elected officials are finally listening to their people. They should have done this 15 years ago in the face of Terry Wanless' nonsense. They should ahev done this 10 years ago to coincide with the opening of the new Ralph. They should have done this in 1969 when the Spirit Lake elders blessed the use of the name. An important part of the way of life in North Dakota was (is) under direct, hostile, and utterly baseless assault, and somebody in Bismarck decided enough was enough.

I agree that this issue should be put to rest. Accordingly, the anti-name crowd should cease its anti-name rhetoric and allow the process to play out in Bismarck. The anit-name crowd should accept that they are in the strict minority, and as such their positions are causing pain and suffering to the majority, including the Native population which has either voted strongly in support of the name, or wishes they could. The anti-name crowd should accept the fact that the democratically elected representative body in Bismarck is debating the matter, and the democratically elected representative body in Bismarck will legislate the matter -- and the anti-nickname crowd should allow that process to move along without the hand wrining, threats of doom, threats of dire disaster, and otherwise doing everything within their power, both on the record and off, to discredit the legislative process. The anti-name crowd should stop holding public meetings declaring their dislike, disagreement, and disapproval of the bills moving through the legislative process. And most importantly, the anti-name crowd needs to stop making this issue a moral war. The anti-name crowd needs to stop declaring the issue devisive, and accordingly then place all the blame for the divisivenes on the supporters of the name. The anti-name crowd needs to stop belittling the name, and the deep feelings of the supporters for that name, with insulting comments about "its just a name," and "sports should unify." First, its not just a name to many, many people -- natives particularly included. If its just a name, then why change it? Secondly, sports should unify? This is a platitude whose time has come to die. The anti-name crowd are actually saying, "Sports should unify as long as that unity is by our terms, on our terms, and with our conditions." Since the majority overwhelmingly supports the continued use of the name (once again, native namesake tribal members included), we as a UND/college comminuty are about as unified as any community can get. The only fly in the ointment for the anti-name crowd is that they don't approve of the type of unity we've attained. The anti-name crowd should stop their hateful, hurtful, unpleasant, and unwanted assault on the Sioux name and its respectful supporters. The anti-name crowd should own up, and take full responsiblity for creating tension and agrument in the college community. Since that is unlikely to happen, and since the anti-name crowd refuses to surrender -- we who support the name will not surrender, either.

I really do hate the football versus hockey discussion. What a petty waste of energy. The issue is the Sioux name. The ramifications for UND would not be wholesale banning of any and all NCAA post-season games at UND's home fields, but rather (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) the ban on post-season games would be placed on facilities that display the allegedly insulting logo and name. Alerus Center has no logo issues. Furthermore, even if -- IF -- the NCAA sanction is more broad, then how cheaply are we selling our name and traditions? NCAA hockey has moved away from on-campus sites for its NCAA Regionals. And even when the regionals were allowed to be hosted on campus, UND only hosted once, so that even if NCAA Hockey returned to on-campus hosting sites, UND would be foregoing a once-in-ten-years opportunity. Baseball has super-regionals, and UND's facilitiy would never host. Basketball has the NCAA tourney, and there are no on-campus sites. Swimming and diving have more centralized regionals. So if -- IF -- the NCAA sanctions played out in the worst possible manner, the only varsity program potentially hurt would be football. Accordingly, our entire university population, alumni, fans, friends, and supporters would sell off our beloved name (and sell out the huge number of Native supporters) for the possiblity -- POSSIBILITY -- of missing a potential home football game. I love the football program. I have season seats. I want to win the Big Sky every year and play meaningful D-I playoff games before a packed Alerus house. I am a realist, and I cannot see the Sioux hosting a home playoff game in the next 3-4 years. I would hope that the Univeristy and AD might negotiate a softening of the restrictions during that time. Or get a football waiver. Or sign an ancillary agreement. I am disgusted, frankly, with my fellow Sioux fans and nickname supporters who want to throw up their hands in surrender. I am sadened, actually, by the lack of fight. Have they worn us down? Have the bland political hacks like Kelly, Faisson, the professors, the brown-nosing student sentate, the NCAA, His Horse is Thunder, the Bison dancing on our grave ---- have they worn us all down? Are we too tired to fight, too tired to press for better outcomes, too tired to push for better resolutions, too tired to push our leaders? Perhaps we are. And frankly, if we are so easily exhausted, and so cheaply sold, and so unwilling to fight -- then we don't deserve the name anyhow. We don't deserve to be Fighting Sioux. Might just as well call us the Eagles, or the Wind, or the Force of the North. Something bland. Boring. Something without a soul, without a spirit. "The soul fights on. Even when the body weakens, and the enemy surrounds, and the trumpets call out from the heavens declaring our demise. Still the soul fights on. And in fighting such battles, victory is gained though only defeat seemed possible." Gen. Bernard Montgomery, address to his troops upon taking over the desert forces in Egypt at El Alamein. Kelly is a typical left-leaning hack. Did you EXPECT him to fight your battle for you? Did you expect the limp-spined political class to fight your battle for you? Did you expect the anti-athletic, leftist professors to fight your battle for you?

Correct in part: There WAS nothing illegal about the settlement agreeent, per se. But one of the actions required of a party in this settlement agreement would be illegal, if the law passes. This is a fine example of our checks and balances -- something happens in a Court case, and the legislature responds.

FYI N.D.C.C., 9-08-01 provides: Any provision of a contract is unlawful if it is: 1. Contrary to an express provision of law; 2. Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or 3. Otherwise contrary to good morals.

And the breach is? You appear to be operating under the assumption that an improper breach would automatically be found, and that the end result of that determination would be sanctions against the breaching party. Not completing the terms of a contract because the final term is now illegal is a valid reason to breach the contract. A valid breach -- excused by law, not an invalid breach -- punishable by the Court. If a party cannot complete the terms of the agreement because to do so would be illegal, no Court would ever find material invalid breach. Contracts I. "You cannot contract to accomplish an illegal activity." Also know this: Litigation is not over until a final ruling. Settlements are nice, but they are only as binding as the law upon which they are drafted. They are only as binding as the courts in litigation give them the authority to be binding. If the terms of the contract are suddenly illegal, please indicate what court will find against the validly breaching party? And dismissal with prejudice, in a civil matter wherein there is a settlement agreement, is only triggered with finality when the full terms and conditions of the settlement are resolved. If the settlement is terminated or unable to be completed (because . . .. follow me here . . . a material change in the law), then the entire litigation is back, alive and well. Rookies and non-litigation types are too often easily tripped up by "dismissal with prejudice." It carries teeth -- but only when the triggering mechanism give it those teeth. In this case, the settlement is not closed. There has not been filed any satisfaction of the settlement with the Court. So answer me this: if the settlement can't be completed -- because of the change in the law -- then how can random parts of other litigation which were tied to the settlement be forever barred? They can't. If the settlement is called into question, and invalidated by either party, then all items in litigation came back into Court. Settlements are indeed like contracts. If that is the case, then perhaps history is instructive. Here is an example: when prohibition was enacted in 1919, there were thousands of saloon owers, liquor distributors, etc . . . who had contracts with distilleries and breweries. The change in the law in 1919 prevented most of these people from completing the terms and conditions of their contract, because the law had changed. All of those contracts were invalidated. Canadian whiskey operations could not sue saloon owners for deliveries which were now deemed illegal. A contract cannot force a party to engage in illegal acts. That is the fundenmental change in this matter. The new law suddenly takes away the NCAA's position as aggressor in the case. Now the lawsuit would not be about what the NCAA says (e.g., what is hostile and abusive) but instead is now about the NCAA forcing a party to a contract (e.g., member of the NCAA) into acting in a manner which is totally illegal. The NCAA no longer would no longer dictate the terms and conditions, but would instead be arguing from a position of legal and ethical weakness -- e.g., forcing somebody to commit an illegal act.

The SBOHE has control over the Universities, to a degree. The SBOHE has, in this instance, taken no stance on the legislation and is not attempting to set up a turf war with the House. Regarding the "Settlement," its a document with no teeth. Its a contract between parties. As I said earlier, the question of sanctions must be litigated in Court. Follow the scenario: 1. North Dakota passes a law which says the Sioux name must remain, and can't be changed. 2. The Unviversity and the SBOHE follow the law, and the name stays. 3. The NCAA lawyers come back to North Dakota and argue that the settlement has been breached. 4. North Dakota answers that the settlement was NOT breached, because they followed all of the terms and conditions of the settlement, exactly, up until they were prevented by the Law. There has to be a showing of deliberate and baseless breach in order for the Court to assign sanctions for violation. The Univeristy system is unable to complete the terms of the agreement (the Settlement) because of a change in the law. 5. Following the exact terms of the Settlement will cause the University to break the law. Please try to understand, the Settlement is NOT law, and no Settlement can be enforced if the enforcement of the terms of that agreement would cause one party to violate the law. SOOOO, there can be no voluntary breach of the settlement for which damages (sanctions, attorney fees) can be attached. 6. The NCAA and North Dakota are now back in Court. How do the parties deal with this situation? The NCAA cannot simply apply sanctions on its own, not anymore, because the entire matter is under the umbrella of the Court system. Until the case is CLOSED, the NCAA must have all of their actions on this topic, against UND, approved by the Court as proper temporary sanctions and solutions pending a final resolution. 7. The Case is not closed. The terms and conditions of the Settlement have not been fully complied. There has been no filing with the Court that full compliance is met (because it hasn't). 8. The parties are now back in Court, but this time with an entirely different paradigm: The NCAA is attempting to force the University to break the law, e.g., change the name. The NCAA has two choices: take the matter to trial, or enter another settlement agreement. 9. The new anti-trust litigation would be based upon the new law. This is very common, when new laws are enacted -- parties will take the matters into court and test the terms and conditions of the new law, or use the new law in court to redress issues. "Dimissed with prejudice" is a dismissal based on several factors: the matters dismissed are restricted to those litigated; and the dismissal is based, usually, upon the full and complete termination of the terms and conditions of any settlement. As noted, without the closed settlement, the dismissal is not fully triggered. Furthermore, as noted, the new law created a new avenue of litigation not previously argued in Court -- and therefore is outside of the dismissal's fact pattern basis. So for all those who want o give up, or want to run around screaming like chicken little that the sky is falling and home playoff games will be lost and terrible NCAA judgment will befall our teams -- relax. Don't give up the fight. There is a LOT of fight left. There is a lot more going for UND and our beloved Sioux name.

The settlement is trumped by the change in the law. The settlement is an agreement between parties based on the status of the law at that time. The settlement is not a Supreme Court ruling, it has not binding precedential value. This is first year law school procedure stuff: The legislature makes the laws, the courts interpret the laws. A settlement is merely a contract between parties approved by a judge. The remedy for failure to follow the settlement is not, instantly, the imposition of previously threatened sanctions. The remedy for failure to abide by a settlement resides with the court, and is a matter to be argued and discussed by the parties. Furthermore, the NCAA is not granted immediate carte blanche to install draconian sanctions until the Court rules, as a matter of law, that the settlement is violated -- and then the court must rule, as a matter of law, that the parties are somehow back "to square one." If the court rules as a matter of law that the settlement was violated by North Dakota, there are many options available -- including payment of a fine (including a nominal fine), or reinstatement of the litigation at the place it was at before the settlement was reached. Also, North Dakota can argue that its legislature has spoken, and the NCAA does not have the authority to punish schools for following the dictates of the legislature. This new law would create a new issue of anti-trust litigation that did not exist during the previous round of litigation -- and even one argument of anti-trust abuses is dead because it was dismissed with prejudice, this new law would allow the matter to be litigated anew. Furthermore, throughout the entire litigation process, the court has the authority to bar either side from enacting sanctions until the matter is resolved (as was the case in the first round of litigation). So in short -- this new law, if passed, would not instantly bless imposition of NCAA sanctions. The judicial process controls. The will of the legislature controls.

Hmmmm, perhaps start with the President's pay. Move on to cutting 25% of all salaried administration officials. Reduce the pay of all remaining administrators, who earn over $100K, by 10%. Reduce the cost of room and board by 50%. How is it poosible that the same dorm room, with the same food, costs significantly more today than it did 15 years ago? This move would be a tremendous advantage to students, because it would allow / encourage on-campus living, at greatly reduced rates compared to off-campus living. This equals lower loan amounts and reduces the risk of loan abuse and/or the serious problem of undergraduate credit card abuse. I understand, and can anticipate the response: this will hamstring UND's ability to attract high-end talent at the upper leadership levels. I disagree. I also believe this is a nationwide problem, wherein the cost of education is rising, and those who are not independantly wealthy are greatly hamstrung with enormous debt. Meaning, of course, that those who come from independantly wealthy families have the continuing advantage of financial freedom -- while those who are saddled with huge loans and other debt must live and work in particular areas, making sure that they are paid enough to cover the debt payments. The tuition, room and board, and other fees -- in my opinion -- act as a dirty little silent force working against the success of middle-class graduates. Those who attend college are told early and often that education is important, and that education is mandatory in today's modern workplace. Our families and ourselves are shuttled into college. We graduate (or worse go only a few years) with large debt loads which significantly restrict our freedom. I am not a socialist, and I am not an advocate for class warfare -- but the Tuition is Too Damned High. It creates an unfair disadvantage to the non-independantly wealthy middle class. And the leadership in our dear country could not care less -- which should come as no suprise because they, themselves, mostly come from independantly wealthy families and too often have little personal contact with the unpleasant concept of this common problem: "taking a job I don't want, living a place I don't want to live, because I HAVE To make "X" salary to pay off these stinking student loans."

My humble opinion: The problem is not resident vs. non-resident tuition. The problem is the rising cost of a college education. I am personally tired of the same tripe: make college more accessible and afordable by offering more loans, or access to loans. The Tuition is Too Damned High. The problem is that in-state tuition is still too high, let alone non-resident tuition. Its a shell-game. Don't look at our outrageous costs, our outrageous budget, or our outrageous employment-tenure system. Its a sham. And its a nationwide sham. They have a $200-million Spirit Campaign, along with always-incraesing-beyond-the-rate-of-inflation tuition, along with tax subsidies, along with all the money from research grants, along with the endowment, along with all the in-place scholarships and chairs, along with all the random fees, along with making a killing on room and board. And yet they still come crawling looking for cigarette money (for instance). They never make cuts, and the students take in on the chin in the form of huge piles of debt. Or their families go into debt. The few who are able to pay for college directly from the checking account are obscenely rare. As I said, this is not a UND problem, or a North Dakota problem, it is nationwide. So now some yahoos want to spout off about non-resident tuition breaks. Big deal. Its a sham. The Tuition is Too Damned High.

Millstone indeed: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/192842/ UND is reporting its largest-ever spring semester enrollment today, with 13,458 students. That's a snapshop of the fourth week, which beat last spring's record enrollment of 12,733. UND's third highest spring enrollment number was 12,376 in 2005. Last fall, UND had its largest enrollment of 14,194. Enrollment typically goes down in the spring semester. One reason: Some students graduate the winter. That pesky nickname, and the ongoing debate and controversy, is obviously having a negative impact on enrollment . . . ?

The faculty have a funny double-standard they are employing in the nickname debate: They curse the nickname as divisive and a "millstone" around the University's neck (nice Biblical reference from the usually non-Biblical scholars). At the same time, they would declare that athletics have nothing to do with the academics of the University. They appear to be able to easily swing their argument back and forth, depending on the circumstance. When it comes to funding, for instance, the academic side of the University are often quite vocal -- when gifts, funds, or capital expenditures are directed to athletic programs. The common rallying cry from the academic sector is: "The University is NOT about athletics. Funding should be directed to academic needs." But when the academics have a chance to pontificate from the top of the dias about the nickname issue (for instance), we are told that this "athletics issue" is damaging the University (we may infer that the damage is being caused to the academic wing of the University). Are there hard facts to back up the professor's claims? Are there any hard facts that show because our sports teams use the name Fighting Sioux, and that as a result of this name, the college is so tainted that grants are being denied, raises being refused, speaking engagements are being declined, publication opportunities are lost, and research is being rejected? I have wondered, and I am still grappling with the question: Who is UND? Who are we? Who has the right to speak for UND? I safely include all present students and alumni in that list. I tend to view alumni status as a lifelong mark. Those who attend (attended) UND all paid a hefty price for admission to this private club -- we paid with our time, a period of our life, our money, our seemingly-never-ending loans. Many of us wear the school colors with some varying levels of pride. We take pride and ownership in our school. Its ours. We can't change jobs and suddenly NOT be from UND. We are all UND, forever. Even if some take limited pride in this status -- the status nonetheless remains. I am not sure who else IS UND. Professors are important, for without them there is no school. But thier relationship is more employer-employee, isn't it? I mean, professors will come and go, as the job market dictates. Do professors have the same emotional attachment to the school wherein they instruct? I don't beleive they do. I think their attachment is something less than the students and alumni. I am not sure where the local residents, non-alumni, non-student UND supporters fits on this list. Their connection is realistically less than the professors, since these people have nothing except geographic location to attach them to UND. Of course, not everyone goes to college, or goes to UND. These people often have just as deep an emotional stake in UND's health and wellness as the students. So in some ways, their relationship with the school is more deep, more profound, and lasts much longer than msot of the professors (and possibly many of the alumni). Which of these groups is fit, best, to speak to what is good and not good for the school? Unless the President of the Unviversity, along with his faculty, can clearly articulate a significant amount of damage caused to the University by continued use of the Fighting Sioux name, then these people MUST bend to the will of the people who have the greater stake in the college. These academics must, in my opinion, accept the will of the students and alumni unless, and until, SOLID proof is shown otherwise. Not vague arguments about "you just need to educate yourself." I am pretty certain I have followed this issue with more passion and dedication than virtually every professor or faculty member. And I can guess I have been following it for longer than most ofthe professors and leadership have been at UND. I want hard proof that this name is damaging the academic side of the college. Absent that proof, I respectfully request that the faculty keep their noses out of MY business, shut up, and do their stinking jobs. This fight does not concern them, it never has, it never will.