Benny Baker

Minnesota went over 20 years without winning a national title, made the NCAA almost every year when it was much more difficult to do so, and didn't fall off the "radar." Same with Boston Univeristy. 1972 to 1995, I believe. UND hockey will be fine, it's just that their fans get spoiled with 7 national championships.

I thought the same thing; couldn't agree more.

The nickname law is not a penal statute, it's not supposed to have "consequences" or "teeth" prescribed within. Nonetheless, the lack thereof doesn't give President Kelley or the SBHE free reign to disregard the laws of North Dakota. Much like the rest of chapters 15-10 through 15-16 of North Dakota's Century Code, which again are not penal statutes, the SBHE must follow what the legislature says. As a member of the executive branch, the SBHE has, in fact, a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the state. Otherwise, President Kelley or the SBHE need to start a lawsuit, and we saw how that ended up (for now).

Are some of you actually suggesting that you would prefer the NCAA to sanction the state as a whole? I understand that it's a means to a possible end, but it's really disappointing to hear any North Dakotan, or anyone else for that matter, hope that the NCAA further interferes with North Dakota, its academic institutions, its public resources, and further divides our state. Seriously, any of you who actually wish for this state-wide ban should be ashamed of yourself. Quit traveling down this ever-narrowing tunnel and stop losing sight of the big picture. North Dakota doesn't need the NCAA to make any more of our state's decisions. I would think that we could all agree on this.

Wow, you've already won the award for the most disingenuous post of the day. So it's UND's fault that a NDSU-grad in Fargo drafted a law naming UND's athletic teams, which was passed by the state's legislature, and then a tribe of Native Americans near Devils Lake initiated a state-wide referendum process to restore the Bison graduate's law. But if this is what you consider to be an isolated problem for UND, then we agree.

What? The new, unique uniform that everyone was so found of? If we're going to harp on the effect of the NCAA sanctions, UND men's hockey team is always going to be the worst example you can throw out there. Football, women's hockey, etc. face much greater battles.

Not necessarily expected, but as a matter of jurisprudence; i.e., how court's generally choose to decide cases, this highly conforms with the position of all American courts. In other words, courts purposely avoid making constitutional rulings if they can dispose of the issue in another manner. Here, that is exactly what happened. It might not be the most pragmatic way of doing things, however, especially for those of us who are going to have to see this case get filed again if the june vote goes in favor of the nickname.

Kristo grew up a Sioux fan, committed to UND at a young age, has relatives in Grand Forks. You could tell he wanted it more than anybody last Sunday. Hoping he's back for one more try.

Not if Al Carlson makes a law that says that "the University of North Dakota fighting sioux football team must compete in the Football Championship Subdivision each calendar season. And there is nothing that anybody can do to stop it."

you're kidding, right?

UND reps, including players, can wear whatever they want to the games. However, if they're wearing the sioux logo or nickname, then UND forfeits. Therefore, the letter asks UND to minimize or eliminate the presence of the logo so that UND will not forfeit and the tournament will go on smoothly as it should. If the NCAA begins having an issue with fans or private citizens who wear the sioux logo at NCAA events, then the NCAA will enforce that policy at the doors of the venue on its own. The NCAA has never nor ever will place the onus on UND to police every single fan at an NCAA event. Sure, the NCAA could put "pressure on UND" to prevent fans from wearing the sioux logo, but given the recent state of public affairs in North Dakota, we all know that this will have absolutely zero effect and be entirely futile.

Respectfully disagree as your interpretation is not at all what the letter is stating. In fact, it's quite clear that the letter is referring to university representatives. For sake of brevity, the letter essentially states: If UND representatives wear the sioux nickname or imagery the team forfeits. "Therefore, we ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname . . . ." The word "therefore" necessarily references a preceding statement. In this case, the presence of the sioux nickname or logo with university representatives. It takes a bold leap in logic to somehow infer that this quoted sentence refers to individuals that are independent from the University---individuals that the letter doesn't even bother to mention by name, category, etc. How is UND supposed to control anyone other than UND representatives? How is UND going to prevent the wearing of sioux imagery by opposing teams' fans that are hopeful that the mere presence of a sioux logo will result in a UND forfeit?

Does anyone know if the Union "Dutchmen" can use their nickname this weekend?

Reconcile the Board's "full authority . . . to prescribe, limit, or modify the course offered" at public schools with the legislature's constitutionally mandated requirement that is "secure a reasonable degree of uniformity in course of study." Shame on the legislature's attorneys, and perhaps the Supreme Court, for failing to notice that "full authority" necessarily cannot amount to the exclusive degree of control for which the Board is arguing.

Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.

I think you make a lot of well reasoned arguments, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you on this point.

I wouldn't say that I disagree with much of your sentiment, but that's not really the point. For many years, there have been legislative statutes in the Century Code that do far, far more to infringe on the SBHE's efficient and economic administration of UND. The SBHE seemingly has had no issue with them, at least to the provisions I cited. Call Carlson what you want. Call the law unconstitutional. Say he is evil and has unconstitutional motives. But this nickname law (recall that several other legislators offered statutes of their own that had the same effect) is not as much of a "power grab" than what the legislature has already done to the SBHE . . . ten times over. There is an entire chapter of the Century Code devoted the the SBHE. There are entire chapters of the Century Code relating to higher education. In other words, what Carlson has done is not novel nor has it infringed on the SBHE's authority even to the extent of previous legislation. Had it not been Carlson's law, it would have been from one of the other legislators who offered similar bills. The SBHE has acquiesced over and over again to the legislature. It's rather telling that when the legislature changed the name of Bottineau's university in 2009 through statute, the SBHE acknowledged that the legislature had the power to do so. Apparently, the SBHE has made an about face and is challenging the nickname law, which is fine. But the SBHE's actions are not any less politically motivated than Al Carlson's, in my honest opinion.

Power grab? Maybe, but the fact remains that there are a number of statutes that, under the SBHE's legal theory, do much more to infringe on the SBHE's authority over the "efficient and economic administration" of state colleges and universities than this nickname law. Why the legislature chose to challenge the nickname law rather than statutory fee caps, infrastructure maintenance, etc. is a bit confusing to say the least. The SC won't be using its "original jurisdiction" because of a dispute between the two other branches of government, but because it has "original jurisdiction" to review the "petition process." Here, the petition process was fine. No errors; Jaeger has certified the petitions for vote. So no, it should not exercise its original jurisdiction, because the SBHE has failed to claim that the petition process was in error in the first place. Now, I do understand the argument that "well, it's already at the Supreme Court, so they might as well decide it." But it sets up a horrible precedent. There is a litigation process for a reason. No discovery was performed in this matter, and the SBHE has produced no facts for the court as to how the presence of the nickname infringes on its economic and efficient administration of UND other than its own conclusory statements. And while I'm sure we can all list numerous examples, the fact remains that the SBHE had to skip this process for a reason---because the law might not exist in 80 some days. I mean, for all the laws that one could challenge, the SBHE goes after the statute, which may no longer be on the books in less than three months? Again, its a bit confusing to say the least.

No thank you, Clueless Scott. You're completely incorrect as filing a lawsuit is not an abuse of power. Heck, the SBHE may even win. But it's pathetic to call Carlson's actions politically motivated while ignoring the fact that the SBHE has chosen to skip the normal litigation process (because the nickname law might not even be around come June) by filing this suit . . . and then to further ignore the laundry-list of statutes that most certainly, under the SBHE's interpretation of the law, infringe on the SBHE's constitutional rights.

When speaking about micromanaging the state's colleges and universities, I wonder why the Fargo Forum chose not to mention all those other "micromanaging" laws like NDCC 15-10.3-03, whereby the legislature prohibits the SBHE from increasing fees by more than 1 percent; NDCC 15-10-13.1, whereby the legislature requires a certain level of written and oral English proficiency for all instructors irrespective of the SBHE's opinions; or perhaps NDCC 15-10-12.1, whereby the legislature requires the SBHE to obtain legislative approval to perform infrastructure maintenance funded by private donations. So the SBHE chooses to challenge the static presence of a nickname and logo because it infringes on its "full authority" over the "efficient and economic administration" of UND, but chooses to ignore the presence of statutes limiting the SBHE's control over university fees? Let the the blind keep leading the blind.

Several factual errors and omissions need to be cleared up. 1. The legislature intervened and is now a party to this case, so there is not a misappropriation of funds, at least under Mr. Omdahl's theory. Check the Supreme Court website. 2. The North Dakota Constitution specifically establishes three branches of government, regardless of what Mr. Omdahl wants. (The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are coequal branches of government. Article XI, Section 26.) The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the SBHE is a member of the executive branch. 3. The legislature already has control over course of study ("The legislative assembly shall take such other steps as may be necessary to . . . secure a reasonable degree of uniformity in course of study." Art. VIII, Section 4.), the legislature already has a full chapter of laws relating to out-of-state enrollment in NDCC 15-10.1, and many other aspects of higher education. So Mr. Ohmdal, "some" operate under a "seventh-grade understanding of government" because they borrow the federal government's three branch model of democracy, even though the same is specifically provided for in North Dakota's constitution. Yet, you can cite to literature about the federal government to support your opinion that the state of North Dakota has four branches of government? Funny how that works. Wow, this isn't the same Lloyd Omdahl that I use to know.

http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/intervenor%20brief.pdf

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/137303883.html Let's not omit facts next time. It's well documented that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] hockey team was making every effort to schedules games with Minnesota. Even without the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, Minnesota couldn't commit to keeping the rivalry alive. Notice how Roman's article refers to Minnesota as the "Gophers" and North Dakota as "UND".

That must be why the settlement agreement is enforced under the laws of North Dakota and gives our state courts continuing jurisdiction to resolve any dispute as to whether UND has meet the NCAA's requirements. Don't confuse this fact with Mr. Soderstrom's mistaken belief that the 1969 ceremony complies with the NCAA's requirements under the settlement agreement.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231531/group/homepage/ Congrats UND Baseball! Big win over a Big D1 school.