Benny Baker
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Benny Baker
-
-
The religious argument is a red herring.
The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place.
This is the credited response. Beyond that, Soderstrom diminishes his own argument by claiming that any conflict between constitutional provisions should be decided in favor of the last enacted provision (paragraph 37). So then Mr. Soderstrom, wouldn't Art. VIII, Section 6(6) trump your religious argument under Art. I, Section 3? Moreover, if the Court follows any line of federal jurisprudence, then this is clearly not religious discrimination.
Nice try, but strike 1 for the nickname proponents.
-
2
-
-
In other words, the "current board" isn't doing what Clueless Al wants, so he wants to reset the clock to turn it into a political proxy.
What else has the board been doing that Carlson disagrees with, or is this just a nickname thing?
-
1
-
-
Sorry if this has been posted, but here is The Hockey News take: http://www.thehockey...e-ramps-up.html
This is way off the mark. The name and logo do not have to be on the jerseys. UND's men's hockey will be, in my opinion, the least affected program by the NCAA sanctions. "Literally no shot at a national title?" Give me a break.
-
Maybe someone out there can help me out on this one. It is my current understanding that current state law (which was repealed, but is now again active due to the petition) mandates use of the Fighting Sioux name by UND sports teams. It is also my understanding that the settlement with the NCAA and NCAA policy mandate forfeiture of NCAA playoff games if the Fighting Sioux name continues to be used by UND sports teams. Thus, either state law or the NCAA will have to be defied by UND if we qualify for NCAA playoff competition. There is no longer any middle ground on this issue. Legally, UND is now in the position of either having to defy the NCAA and forfeit playoff games, or defy state law. This is my current interpretation of the facts before us. If my understanding of the current legal situation is wrong, I look foward to being corrected.
UND can comply with both state law and the settlement agreement. The settlement simply provides that if UND continues using the nickname then the school will be sanctioned and cannot, among other things, host playoff games, rather than entirely forfeit the game, itself.
Even the NCAA has stated that "the Settlement Agreement did not compel the SBHE to retain or retire the nickname. Rather, the Agreement simply set forth possible scenarios in relation to UND’s nickname and outlined the impact of each scenario under the NCAA championships Policy."
-
Ummm going against the rights of native americans who want the name to stay as they feel its an honor. Ignoring them. And not obeying what the overall population wants. Is that enough?
Wait, this conversation needs to end before the Constitution is further tarnished. We have natural rights that the federal government and, for the most part, state governments cannot infringe. I don't agree with what the NCAA is doing, but they simply are not a state actor.
Even if we assumed that the NCAA was the government, what section of the Constitution protects anyone's "right" to feel honored by an athletic nickname? Honor is not a protected right under the constitution. Neither is what the overall population wants, otherwise Al Gore would have been our President.
Please stop abusing the meaning of our nation's Constitution.
-
1
-
-
There was a committee working on retiring the nickname, but I don't believe that they were looking at standards for a new nickname yet. There was supposed to be a separate committee formed when it was time to look at new nicknames. I also believe that there was a 3rd committee, but I don't remember what their role was. Possibly 1 committee to retire the name, 1 to work on maintaining the history of the name, and then a future committee to find a new name.
Correct, I know there were three committees and I am not sure what their specific names were. I believe it was Bruce Smith, Aerospace Dean, who said they couldn't even consider a nickname that is representative of a person. It's dissapointing, but quite frankly I agree. It'll only open the door to comments of "how come it's fine to use Teddy Roosevelt", for example, "as a mascot, but not a sioux warrior?"
I'm hoping it's just "University of North Dakota" . . . nothing else is necesary.
-
"North Dakota" is the Sioux State/flickertail/peace garden state/roughrider state.
For me it's simple...keep going down the line....Why wouldn't UND become the Roughriders? UND has already shown a history of picking their nicknames from this list.
Who cares if a local high school has the same nickname. There are already teams and high schools that share the name...Ames HS Little Cyclones. And others someone here already posted.
I think Roughriders or some derivative of Norsemen would be highly appropriate. It won't happen though. The standards that the nickname transition committee were following, I believe, stated that UND could not adopt a new personified nickname or logo. No Fighting Sioux. . . no people . . . so no Roughriders or Norsemen.
It'll be something real original like the Bobcats or Tigers!
-
So Carlson is accusing the ND SBoHE of a power grab? There's the pot calling the kettle ...
Of course! Just like the SBHE is accusing the legislature and the people (16,000 of them) of a power grab. Remember, it's the SBHE that filed the lawsuit over the "power grab"---not the legislature.
-
So the ND SBoHE suing to keep the Legislature's own last action in tact is somehow challenging the Legislature's power?
Is uproarious laughter allowed in the NDSC chamber if the justices are the ones laughing?
I think you've made the point that if this law is ruled unconstitutional then so is the repeal law. I think you've read the briefs, or at least know of the SBHE's argument, which is that control of the nickname belongs to the State Board rather than the legislature. Whether you like Al or not, he is absolutely correct in this position---a ruling in favor of the SBHE constricts the legislature's power over North Dakota's universities. It ain't just about the nickname legislation; it's about how the precedent of this case will affect the constitutionality of future legislature. That is why the legislature has an interest in this case, whether or not they voted to repeal the nickname law.
-
I've been told that I can be rather verbose at times. And that was by my mother.
So long as it's not filled with rhetoric, I say "the more the better."
-
My guess, and again it is only a guess, is that none of the Chippewa tribes had made any noise about being opposed. Or maybe they already had been involved in the discussion at some point and had stated they were not opposed.
Going back and reading the stories about the Oklahoma Seminole situation leads me to this supposition. The NCAA spent several years studying the situation and discussing it with different tribes. They felt there was enough opposition to the use of Native American nicknames to go ahead with the ban. They were depending on the opposition by the Oklahoma Seminoles to give them ammunition to fight the approval of the Florida Seminole Nation because they knew Florida State was going to be a problem. When they discovered that the Oklahoma tribes were not opposed, they moved quickly to find a fallback position. The approval of a namesake tribe was that position. It gave the NCAA an out that had some basis in logic, saying that it would be acceptable if a tribe actually gave approval. Several schools took advantage of the option including Central Michigan.
UND has had a vocal opposition for many years. It has probably been more vocal than most other schools using Native American nicknames. In spite of this, UND had the opportunity to take advantage of the single namesake tribe approval option. Lake Traverse might have been acceptable as an option, but I believe that they have been opposed to the nickname also. Reports have said that all Sioux tribes other than Spirit Lake have some kind of statement against UND's use of the nickname. Lake Traverse is also a member of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association, and that group has been vocally opposed to UND using the name. The last vote was 11-0 against with 5 tribes missing. A previous vote was 15-0 with only Spirit Lake not voting. I have always thought that the NCAA picked Spirit Lake and Standing Rock for the settlement because Spirit Lake is the closest tribe and because they knew Standing Rock was very vocally opposed, so the NCAA figured it would be very hard for UND to get approval from both.
You, my friend, should change your name to "82SiouxEncyclopedia"
-
1
-
-
Did they ask any Chippewa tribe in Minnesota, ND, Wisconsin and other states about Central Michigan's use of the name? The NCAA policy is a bunch of BS. Even if the Oklahoma tribe was against the name the NCAA would have backed away from FSU some other way.
Or at the least the three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. I've also wondered why UND didn't need approval of the Lake Traverse Sioux Reservation, which like Standing Rock, is mostly within the state of South Dakota.
-
You say that like playing in Fargo would be a bad thing.
I would love to see the men's team play a game in Fargo. I live in Fargo, as do a lot of other Sioux fans. . . . why not play home games in two different cities?
Because one of, if not, the best hockey facility in world is 80 miles north of Fargo.
-
You would think so, but the circumstances changed during the time of the lawsuit. I will try to give a Readers Digest version by memory. Someone can correct any mistakes I may have, and remember that I am not an attorney.
The UND lawsuit had several points. But the main point was that the NCAA did not follow their own policies and procedures or their bylaws in the way the Native American mascot policy was approved. The policy was put in place by an Executive Committee. The NCAA policy in place at that time said that issues such as this had to go to a vote of the general membership. One theory at the time was that the policy would not have been approved by the general membership so they tried to shortcircuit the process.
I also believe that there was an anti-trust element to the lawsuit. However, the judge himself stated that it was a very weak argument. He basically let it go to discovery only because the other point or points were relevant. But he said they would need to find a lot more before he would let them take the anti-trust portion to trial.
During the discovery process the NCAA corrected their problem. They sent a new policy to a vote of the general membership that would allow the Executive Committee to pass this type of policy. Everyone knew that this was happening because of the lawsuit and the NA policy. The new policy passed by a large margin, which really showed that the general membership would probably also support the NA mascot policy. Then, the Executive Committee passed the same NA mascot policy a second time. I believe that it passed the January after the settlement (that would be January 2008), but it may have been before. They had already processed all of the school appeals, so they could easily have stated they wouldn't take any more appeals and that sanctions would immediately be in effect for any school that wasn't in compliance.
This is why UND could have won the lawsuit on their main point and still been on sanctions within days or months at the latest. UND could have been on sanctions some time in 2008 with no hope of getting tribal approval of any kind since Spirit Lake didn't give approval until 2009 (I believe that the trial was scheduled to start right around Christmas 2007). The settlement gave UND 3 years to get approvals and guaranteed almost 4 more years using the nickname with at least a little hope of keeping it long term.
Good to know, thanks.
-
No, the NC$$ would have, and later did, change their rules in a way that would made any victory very short-lived. And we'd stil be having this conversation. IIRC the rules involved internal approvals by some committee or whatever.
But the State's prayer for relief, among other things, was that the NCAA could do nothing to punish UND or prevent the nickname use, hosting playoff games, etc. The litigation wasn't exclusive to the policy at the time, it was clearly regarding whether the NCAA could actually take steps to sanction and/or punish UND. Thus, if UND won, any action taken by the NCAA to sanction UND would have been in violation of the court order and judgment. . . . Similar to how many people believe the State's actions have violated the settlement agreement. If the State sued the case out and won (not saying that they would have), then the athletic teams play as the "Fighting Sioux" without facing any sanctions.
But I guess it's all academic at this point.
-
But the other choice was that UND would go on the sanctions list almost as soon as the trial ended, win or lose.
Doesn't winning a lawsuit necessarily imply that the Court afforded the requested relief to the Plaintiff? If the State won then UND wouldn't have been placed on sanctions. That's why litigation was commenced in the first place.
-
Good god.
The NCAA is full of !@$!. Full of cowards and frauds. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE DEBATE HERE.
The above fact opinion, doesn't change anything about UND's situation. It sounds like the Sons of the Confederacy still bitching about Lincoln's illegal war.
No, you were right the first time. It is a fact that the NCAA is full of !@$!.
-
The NCAA originally intended to force its policy on Florida State, even though it knew the school had the approval of the Seminole tribe in Florida. The NCAA merely assumed that the Oklahoma Seminole tribe was against Florida State's use of the Seminole name. But the tribal council of the Oklahoma Seminoles quickly passed a resolution nearly unanimously giving Florida State permission to use the nickname. It was only after that happened that the NCAA created the namesake approval exemption.
We can make distinctions all we went and frame the issue is different ways. But, Florida State only needed approval of the nearest Seminole tribe. Central Michigan only needed the approval of one Chippewa tribe, the closest to the school, despite the presence of three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. UND is also received approval from the tribe closest to the school, but it is the only institution that the NCAA had required approval from multiple tribes.
Everyone is aware that this result is, in part, due to UND commencing litigation and that the others schools did not. Everyone is aware that the NCAA is arbitrary, capricious, and that the organization can do what it wants.
-
1
-
-
The difference now, especially with Wisconsin and Minnesota, is that they have changed their policy to fit the NCAA policy.
Even though UND gave ups some of the recruiting advantage in Minnesota and Wisconsin with the move up to Division I, some of that would be gained back by getting those games with Big 10 schools. Everyone knew that the transition years would be difficult and that opponents would be constantly changing. Using that period as a basis for discussion is not genuine.
I understand the change in policy but it truly is a distinction without a difference. They wouldn't compete against UND in 2005; they won't compete against UND now. Nothing has changed . . . other than the schools' choice to weaken their respective policies.
I don't think im being disingenuous about recruiting, especially now that UND will be in the Big Sky. Whether it be during the transition period or in the Big Sky, UND gave up numerous regional games for ones out in California, Texas, Montana, etc.
You have a sound argument in that schools simply won't be arsed to consider scheduling UND. I'll leave it at that.
As for Duluth, it seems like it's more of an issue with the student body rather than with the nickname. I'm sure you read about the Mankota incident.
-
If three significant NCAA members, not only by their size and conference membership but also by their geographic shadow over North Dakota, following "best practices" scheduling isn't enough proof, what is? Ten? Twenty? One hundred? All of Division I? All of the NCAA?
Three majors of regional significance is enough for me to get the message.
I point this out because if the three were Massachusetts, Washington, and UCLA with overt "best practices" policies I'm pretty sure they'd get poo-poo'd as "we'd never play them because that's too far away".
We recruit in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Not having a means to have a presence there in competition is real damage.
If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." Since 2005, and even before that, we have known where these three schools stand regarding Native American mascots. Iowa wouldn't even have played UND before the NCAA started its sanctions, because Iowa's policy, like Wisconsin's, pre-dates the NCAA's actions. Simply put, Iowa not playing UND because of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is something I could have told you back in 2005, or 2000 for that matter. There is nothing new with this, move along already. But don't try to cloak Iowa's decision not to compete against UND as something new. it's disingenuous and you know it. All I have ever wanted to know is what new schools have said that they wouldn't participate against UND? If Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado take similar positions then I will definitely change my stance regarding this particular issue. If there have been schools that declined participating against UND, why hasn't UND sent out a press release like they did yesterday with Iowa?
As for recruiting, I get where you are going. But remember, when UND transitioned to D-1 it said goodbye to games against St. Cloud St., Mankato, Winona St., Duluth, etc. So again, it's quite disingenuous to now say that not competing against UofM or Wisco puts us at a recruiting disadvantage when UND has already picked up and left Minnesota for New Jersey Tech, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Texas Pan-American, etc. Did you have these same recruiting concerns when UND, itself, chose to leave its Minnesota recruiting base for the Great West . . . and Big Sky?
-
It's come to be expected.
Haha, well at least we can find common ground somewhere.
-
harrangue - a speech addressed to a public assembly
... (my poor typing / spelling admitted)Sorry for sounding like a complete tool. But you just linked to the noun definition of harangue after using it as a verb. Nonethless, saying that something is "kind of funny" does not amount to a lengthy, aggresive, or critical speech. But keep on stretching the truth if you feel that it's necessary.
-
No, you haranged Iowa for allegedly deriving a moniker from a chief's name.
I pointed out why the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it (using the NCAA/Chief Pontiac example).
You moved beyond to Kraft Foods. (Were you hungry?)
No,Ipointed out that the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it when I said that "I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned." You chose, for one reason or another, to bring up corporate sponsorships. I also said that "the school's policy is kind of funny" . . . so you need to look up the definition of "harrangue."
I think that most of the things that you say are logical and valid, but you're really starting to stretch the truth with some of these statements.
-
You shouldn't be surprised. The Pontiac logo during the NCAA sponsorship was an arrowhead. Before that ...
The NCAA is a private organization. They can be as arbitrary and capricious in their rules making as they choose. Don't like it? Then don't waste your time here and instead find a way to win a suit against them proving them to be a state actor. (I've said that here about (hyperbole alert) a billion times.)
I only wasted my time responding to you. Dude, you're the one who brought up corporate sponsorship not me. I was talking about the University of Iowa policy against UND, which is the topic of this thread. You started this NCAA sponsorship tangent. Follow your own rules and stay on point, Sicatoka.
June referral vote
in UND Nickname
Posted
It'll be a few weeks before the decision, but before the ballot printing date, i'm sure. Parties can petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing for 14 days after any decision. But for all practical purposes, it is a process that never comes into play.