Kupchella interviewing at Penn. school

[jimdahl]

Kupchella's alma mater contacted him and he's interested in interviewing, according to the Grand Forks Herald. Why is this significant in the Sioux Name forum? Upon the arrival of each of the last two new Presidents, the name-change crowd has raised a furor, recognizing that they have a new, possibly more sympathetic, audience.

Baker soundly supported the name, though I believe that's when the Blackhawk logo was dropped and the "be racially sensitive" announcement began at sporting events.

Kupchella had not completely made up his mind, but was apparently not leaning "pro-name" enough, when the State Board of Higher Ed intervened and demanded that UND keep the name.

It will be interesting to see what evolves IF Kupchella leaves and a UND gets a new President (still a very speculative situation, at this point).

[PCM]

Upon the arrival of each of the last two new Presidents, the name-change crowd has raised a furor, recognizing that they have a new, possibly more sympathetic, audience.

That's not quite accurate. The Sioux name controversy came up during Baker's administration because of a racial harassment incident at a homecoming parade. Baker had the issue fairly well contained when Kupchella took over. The controversy flared again when Kupchella publicly introduced the new Sioux logo.

In other words, the issue wasn't triggered by the fact that UND had new presidents. There were specific incidents that brought the issue to the fore early in each president's tenure.

[jimdahl]

I agree that there has to be some sort of external stimulus or catalyst, but I think having a new President who hasn't yet confronted the issue is what allows it to get traction. I would argue that there are frequent catalysts, but that they now don't elicit as big a reaction because the current administration has already studied the issue and made its conclusions. Drop in a new administration, and the first name issue to arise becomes a big concern.

As was pointed out when the homecoming incident took place, that sort of incident was not quite as isolated or unique as a lot of people liked to claim. I suspect under Clifford it would've led to some stern warnings and maybe some new policies on punishments for future such incidents; I think only because it was a new President, Baker, in office that it led to another study of whether the nickname was still suitable.

Similarly, I don't think Strinden's release of the new logo (without having first run it by the President) coincidentally took place under a new President. In hindsight, the timing of that release had a lot do with REA, but I would argue there were definite back-room political considerations and close watching of Presidential opinion and power.

Unrelated to the name, I hope Kupchella stays. From far away he seems to have done a great job of managing and smartly growing the school. If he leaves, I honestly hope you're right and I'm wrong, PCM, but I'm not completely convinced

[PCM]

I'm not saying that you're wrong about the possiblity of Kupchella's departure triggering a new round of name change controversy. I could see it happening. But in the past, it has taken other incidents to "jump start" the issue.

[tony]

Wouldn't a new president have more bearing on UND's future in DII than on the nickname? If Strinden et al have anything to do with it, there is no way that UND is going to hire a guy who would even consider a nickname change. I think that UND's nickname, and all the goodness that flows forth from it, is safe at least until the 2030's

In fact, if Kupchella's departure has any effect on a nickname, it would be at IUP rather than UND.

Not to needle you too much, Jim, but when you said "the current administration has already studied the issue and made its conclusions", what exactly were the conclusions? I never heard that they were even allowed to release them to the public. A week or so before they were going to present their findings, Ralph wrote THE LETTER to the State Board of Higher Education and *presto* the board has a special meeting to say that the nickname had to stay. At that point, the administration's conclusions, whatever they were, became moot. I heard that that they were sealed and placed into a cornerstone of the REA in a small, tasteful ceremony.

[PCM]

Wouldn't a new president have more bearing on UND's future in DII than on the nickname?

Probably. But Jim didn't say a new president might change the name. He said name-change proponents might decide to raise the issue again if a new president is hired.

If Strinden et al have anything to do with it, there is no way that UND is going to hire a guy who would even consider a nickname change.

Strinden's favored choice for the UND president's job didn't even make the top three the last time a new president was hired.

I think that UND's nickname, and all the goodness that flows forth from it, is safe at least until the 2030's

Until the State Board of Higher Education changes its position on UND's use of the Sioux name, it doesn't much matter what any incoming president thinks about the issue.

A week or so before they were going to present their findings, Ralph wrote THE LETTER to the State Board of Higher Education and *presto* the board has a special meeting to say that the nickname had to stay.

It wasn't a "special meeting." The item was added to the agenda of a previously scheduled meeting.

[tony]

I didn't realize the Mr. Strinden was backing anybody last time. Who was it? Regardless, even if he didn't get his choice lsat time, it doesn't mean that he can't influence the decision this time.

Regardless, we agree on one thing. Neither the nickname nor the logo is in danger because whatever authority UND's President had in the matter has been taken away.

You are right about the board meeting too, it was scheduled. Bad phrasing on my part - I should have used the word "illegal" instead of "special"

As for the logo foes protesting because there's a new president, I hadn't realized they had ever stopped. For the forseeable future, they are powerless to do anything about the logo except state their case. However annoying this is, if you don't want to look bad, you should ignore them as best you can. Just my opinion.

[PCM]

I didn't realize the Mr. Strinden was backing anybody last time.

Why shouldn't Strinden favor a particular candidate? At the time, he was head of the UND Alumni Association. Are you going to tell me that NDSU's alumni organization has no influence on such decisions?

Who was it?

I don't recall the person's name. I know that unlike the three finalists, he was a UND alumnus.

Regardless, even if he didn't get his choice lsat time, it doesn't mean that he can't influence the decision this time.

If Kupchella leaves UND and another president is hired, of course Strinden will attempt to influence the decision. Why shouldn't he? Many other people will attempt to do the same thing for their own reasons. The point is, the last time UND hired a new president, Strinden's favorite candidate wasn't hired. I know that probably shocks you, but it's true.

Regardless, we agree on one thing. Neither the nickname nor the logo is in danger because whatever authority UND's President had in the matter has been taken away.

Life is funnly like that. I've never had a boss that approved every decision I made or each change I desired.

As for the logo foes protesting because there's a new president, I hadn't realized they had ever stopped.

Believe it or not, here at UND, we sometimes go months at a time or longer without hearing a word about the Sioux name issue. While it is a constant, burning issue for a few people, contrary to popular belief, the campus is hardly consumed by the controversy.

[tony]

Hey, slow down, PCM.

1. Nothing I've written in this thread should be considered as a criticism of UND. If you re-read my posts, you'll see what I mean.

2. Nowhere did I imply that Strinden should not be involved in selecting UND's next president, only that if he had his way, UND would not hire a person in favor of revisiting the mascot issue.

3. I thought we agreed for a moment that no matter who UND hires if Kupchella leaves, the new president will not have a say in the mascot issue. You disagree because you've never had a boss that approved every decision you made or each change you desired? Not following you on this.

4. I'm not aware of any ongoing showy protests either, but we'd have heard if the tribal councils had withdrawn their objections so presumably they are still in a state of opposition. More importantly, the people who have been staging protests can knock themselves out - it is not going to be anything more than an annoyance to the pro-nickname majority.

I misunderstood things too. Jim was worried that hiring a new President would result in more protests, not that the mascot could change. My apologies.

[ScottM]

I tend to agree that everytime the Presidency of UND is up for grabs the name/logo issue becomes the prominent issue for the name change crowd. They prance, dance and write to the Hurled and the Stupid arguing the same tired points about "sensitivity" and "human rights". Of course, they ignore the need for maintaining academic quality, reasonable tuition and recruiting, and retaining, the best faculty.

Where can I get those rose-colored glasses? Ebay?

[flatspin7]

What people tend to forget is the fact that the name issue has been decided by the state board of Higher Ed. That means the Kupchella or is possible predecessor has no say on the matter. The State board has already spoken when it came to them last year.

So really its a moot point.

[PCM]

1. Nothing I've written in this thread should be considered as a criticism of UND. If you re-read my posts, you'll see what I mean.

You made some factually incorrect statements about UND and events in which it was involved. I corrected you. You have continued to argue the points.

2. Nowhere did I imply that Strinden should not be involved in selecting UND's next president, only that if he had his way, UND would not hire a person in favor of revisiting the mascot issue.

Obviously. But he didn't get his way last time and, unless UND adopts are far different method of selecting presidents, there's no reason to believe that he'll get his way the next time.

3. I thought we agreed for a moment that no matter who UND hires if Kupchella leaves, the new president will not have a say in the mascot issue.

Maybe. Maybe not. For now, the State Board of Higher Education has taken the decision out of the UND president's hands. However, the composition of the board has changed and will continue change. That's a given. Board members can change their minds or have a change of heart. Public opinion can change. There are many factors that could cause the issue to be revisited by the board.

For all I know, even if Kupchella stays on as president, the power to make a decision about the Sioux name could eventually come back to him. My crystal ball doesn't see far enough into the future to state categorically that no UND president will ever have a say in the mascot issue.

You disagree because you've never had a boss that approved every decision you made or each change you desired? Not following you on this.

UND and Kupchella are not entities unto themselves. He works for the people of North Dakota and answers to the State Board of Higher Education. The board has every right to make decisions that it thinks are in the best interest of UND and higher education in North Dakota. Therefore, regardless of what Kupchella might have decided, the board has the authority and the responsibility to overrule him as it sees fit.

It can be argued that the board did Kupchella an enormous favor by taking the decision away from him. No matter what decision he made, somebody wasn't going to be happy. The fallout certainly would have disrupted his ability to deal with far more pressing matters. The board, in effect, said, "We'll take that lightning rod out of your hand and hold on to it for now."

Whether or not Kupchella sees it this way, I have no idea.

[tony]

For future reference, what did I write that was factually incorrect?

The only thing that I can think of is when I wrote that the State Board of Higher Education's meeting was "special", implying that it was unscheduled. "Highly unusual" would have been better phrasing. While the meeting was scheduled, the Board changed their agenda for a public meeting without prior notice (questionable legality at best), they discussed Engelstad's letter as individuals the night before the meeting (illegal), and they didn't disclose that they had gotten the letter during the meeting (violating the public trust). The meeting certainly wasn't ordinary. Or at least I hope it wasn't.

However, you wrote that I made more than one factual error. Cough 'em up, PCM.

While we're at it, you seem to have trouble understanding my admittedly poor writing so let me clarify some things:

- I wrote that if Strinden had his way, he wouldn't hire a guy who was in favor of revisiting the mascot issue. You took this to mean that I don't think Strinden should have anything to do with picking UND's president. Wrong.

- I wrote that UND's president no longer has the power to do anything about the mascot. You interpreted that statement this as me saying that the Board was wrong to do so. Wrong again.

As you are not my wife, you cannot possibly be reading my mind on this or any other issue The Board IS Kupchella's boss and there was nothing stopping them from telling UND to keep that mascot. No disagreement there.

What we might disagree are the following points. First, if the Board had really wanted to "take the lightning rod" out of Kupchella's hand, they probably should have acted before the commission he appointed to study the nickname issue wasted the better part of a year. Second, the board should definitely brush up on open meeting laws. Finally, the Board DID NOT act just to spare Kupchella. That is pure spin. The Board acted because they had heard that the commission was going to recommend that UND get a new mascot and they decided that it was in UND's best interest to intervene before the nickname commission announced their findings. Ralph's letter was at least the catalyst causing their reaction, if not the sole reason.

[PCM]

Tony,

You already admitted to one factual error, so I won't repeat it.

In your original post, you wrote:

If Strinden et al have anything to do with it, there is no way that UND is going to hire a guy who would even consider a nickname change.

This statement is factually incorrect. Why? Because "Strinden et al" had something to do with hiring the current UND president and his candidate of choice wasn't hired. Therefore, you are wrong in saying that Strinden's influence or participation in the hiring process would automatically rule out any candidate who didn't support keeping the Sioux name.

After I pointed that out, you changed your position to saying the Strinden could influence the selection of a new president. I don't disagree. What bothers me is your apparent infatuation with the idea that Strinden and some others at UND are so small-minded that keeping the Sioux name is the issue of greatest concern when it comes selecting a new president. I can guarantee you that it's not.

I also don't disagree with you that the manner in which the State Board of Higher Education handled the issue was far from ideal. Was it illegal? I'll leave it up to the lawyers to decide because I honestly don't know.

First, if the Board had really wanted to "take the lightning rod" out of Kupchella's hand, they probably should have acted before the commission he appointed to study the nickname issue wasted the better part of a year.

But that was a major part of the issue. Nobody knew how long it would take Kupchella to make a decision, which is what frustrated Ralph Engelstad and prompted him to write the letter.

Just imagine Ralph's predicament. On one hand, the North Dakota legislature said that new arena must be self-supporting before UND could accept ownership. On the other, Kupchella's indecision and dragging out the process was preventing Engelstad from making business decisions that would assure that the arena was profitable enough to support itself. The arena also had to be completed before the start of the next hockey season in fall 2001.

The Board acted because they had heard that the commission was going to recommend that UND get a new mascot and they decided that it was in UND's best interest to intervene before the nickname commission announced their findings. Ralph's letter was at least the catalyst causing their reaction, if not the sole reason.

I believe that you're making another factual error when you say "the commission was going to recommend that UND get a new mascot." Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the commission was only an advisory body set up to gather information on both sides of the name issue. Ultimately, it was up to Kupchella to make a decision based on the commission

[Bad Eagle]

I understand there is an Indian basketball coach at UND. If this is so, what do students think of him? How does he relate to the Fighting Sioux? I'd be curious to know.

How do other Indians relate to him? How does he fit into this picture?

What about Indian student athletes there at UND? What is their opinion about the mascot issue, and about the Indian coach?

[UND92,96]

I understand there is an Indian basketball coach at UND.

[mksioux]

The Board acted because they had heard that the commission was going to recommend that UND get a new mascot and they decided that it was in UND's best interest to intervene before the nickname commission announced their findings.

When did UND get a mascot?

In any event, all this speculation is a moot point, because Kupchella isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[PCM]

What about Indian student athletes there at UND?

[Bad Eagle]

Thanks for the responses. I've decided to prepare an article on Erik Enno. I will of course post it on BadEagle.com, but I will try to get it posted at FrontPageMagazine, where I still post, and American Enterprize, and elsewhere. I just think it's outstanding that an Indian would be a coach there at UND.

[Bad Eagle]

Here's the article on Erik Enno:

http://www.badeagle.com/cgi-bin/ib3/cgi-bi...t=ST;f=15;t=453

Feel free to comment.

[UND92,96]

Thank you for the article. I am very proud of all the work Erik has done the past several years. Best of all, he's actually doing something to help current and future Indian students with his program to encourage entering the coaching/teaching profession. Regardless of one's position on the Fighting Sioux name issue, it seems quite clear that Erik is not all talk. He's doing something beneficial for Indian people, in stark contrast to all the hot air coming from some of those on the other side of the issue who seem to enjoy publicity just a little too much, i.e. Lucy Ganje, and yet never seem to accomplish much of anything.

[Bad Eagle]

I don't have tenure, as a professor, and I might feel differently if I did, but, it seems to me that tenure is the curse of the university. Nothing is more detrimental, stiffling, and crippling to everyone's thought, development, and freedom than is tenure. No other profession really has it. Only the university. People there on UND's faculty have permanent opportunity to protest, and security to boot. They can't be fired. This is a tyranny in university systems everywhere. UND is, however, a good example of a pestilential infection, which perpetuates itself. A professorship is a power position, no matter how small or how lowly the university. It is a legal matter, and hence its importance.

The issues are national, and the professor quickly rises to notoriety because the professor is regarded as an intellectual authority. I think this sums it up. The professor's opinion is generally regarded as more accurate, more important, more right, than anyone else's. "Professor so-and-so says..."

and that's the end of it, intellectually.

This is a great error in American (and European) education. It is a scholastic left-over from the Dark Ages (Medieval period), actually, like the robes everyone wears upon graduation. It's a mind set. We all suffer from it.

[jimdahl]

The pro-tenure crowd (80% of whom seem to be either tenured or tenure-track professors) actually argues that tenure improves scholastic honesty. Their assertion is that without tenure, proven professors may be cautious in their research for fear of sanctions or reprisal.

Personally, I don't find that argument compelling and agree with Bad Eagle. Why shouldn't a university be able to censure a professor for poor performance or even say that a certain professor no longer represents the interests of the school? The free market would provide an incentive for schools to exercise that control judiciously, just as it does for private/public corporations. Just as companies' reputations dictate the quality of employees they can hire, a school that developed a reputation for excessive censorship/control of research would not be able to continue to attract good faculty. Of course, I'm the first to admit that I'm decidely more laissez-faire than most professional academics.

The whole tenure issue got a lot of press at the University of Minnesota while I was pursuing a graduate degree there. They tried to tinker with it quite a bit in '97, and then made another attempt at gutting the system in 2000. So far I don't think they've made any substantial changes, but Minnesota is definitely just the kind of institution that would do such a thing and could get away with it.

[ScottM]

I tend to agree with the comments on tenure. Tenure is often justified on the basis of "academic freedom" etc. However, I believe it protects ineffective, incompetent academics who use tenure as a form of lifetime employment which often breeds intellectual complacency.

It's ironic that given the overabundance of PhDs in "soft disciplines", the academics would continue to support a system that "keeps them down" and doesn't allow them to advance on their own merits. Universities have a vested interest in keeping the best and brightest around. I don't believe that removing tenure would create any dogmatic hiring/firing atmosphere on most quality campuses. Not to say that one doesn't exist already in a number of disciplines.

[Bad Eagle]

While there's something to said for maturity in getting along with other people, try being a conservative activist on any college campus, and see how long you last! I've done studies for Horowitz in Oklahoma. Most faculty are avid Democrats to start with. I mean 80% and upwards. Tenure gives these people the floor. Any opposed and untenured, are lost before they start.

I plan to use the Enno example more in the future. His positive approach has clearly beaten the image of those petty professorial protesters, and all their professional hype. Enno's quiet, positive approach is light years ahead of them.

Experience has shown me, however, that they will not rest. They will study ways to counter act Enno, and perhaps even work through subterfuge or sabotage. It happened to me at OSU-OKC. False fronts, false issues, false excuses. I didn't have tenure. I was dismissed after the very semester I started writing for David Horowitz.