Nickname on Ballot at Spirit Lake

[Sioux-cia]

On one hand, I don't support printing information without authentication. But, this is news and I believe it is important for us to know what is going on even though it's a bunch of bull shat. How else can we defend ourselve from these lies?

I have faith in the Spirit Lake people. They too see this as a deperate ploy by the pro-name changers to get their way.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Actually I believe that you can libel someone who is dead.

Well, you may be more on the "cutting edge" of legal theory than me. My limited legal knowledge is quite old.

From a 2004 article:

For centuries, American common law has precluded family, friends, business partners and others associated with the dead from filing a cause of action based on damage to that person's reputation. Why? Because defamation is viewed as a personal injury to reputation, and the law has pretended that reputation dies with the individual.

http://writ.findlaw.com/dean/20040312.html

The article does talk about how some legal scholars wanted to change the applicable law; maybe that has happened in the 4 or 5 years.

...but no one should be surprised after the last few years in which a small group of nickname opponents have demonstrated a repeated willingness to fabricate "evidence" of racism because the issue is so important that the truth doesn't matter.

I agree-some of the messages I have seen on this forum have been so obviously false it makes you wonder how far people actually will go.

Remember the hockey scout who was chased (the wrong way) on an Interstate by gun-totin' nickname supporters? Or the band member who saw pictures of skinned Indians (of course, on another campus)?

[MplsBison]

That is an incredibly weak argument - the people that might care about the nickname issue have been shown time and again to be a ridiculously small minority and are very unlikely to be sports fans. He quite simply has no dog in this fight and ought to stay the hell out of it.

If there was a realistic chance that UND could join a different conference, then the Summit would be forced to consider locking UND up right now.

But since there is no other conference for UND to join, the Summit can sit on the sideline, wait for the nickname to be dropped and it won't change anything. UND will still be added in time to play league games in 2011-12.

[SiouxMeNow]

It would be a big mistake to paint with a broad brush, because I know good people who oppose the nickname for good reasons, but no one should be surprised after the last few years in which a small group of nickname opponents have demonstrated a repeated willingness to fabricate "evidence" of racism because the issue is so important that the truth doesn't matter In the last few years I recall highly suspect racist blogs, racist signs on campus and merchandise on ebay that use lingo I've only heard used by nickname opponents, to hacking into accounts on this very forum to plant racist messages.

I miss GrahamKracker NOT! Remember the "website" that popped up a few years ago FULL of anti-indian racist messages that turned out to be TOTALLY FABRICATED? (BUSTED by the 'photo properties' of the images of supposed "members" that turned out to be Google images or other public photos of various Native American authors/professors/etc...)

So what's next? If the pro-nickname vote prevails I think the only thing they can do is another "Tawanna Brawley" incident - ie faking a real physical racist assault. For you under 30 - google it - it's a fascinating read and PROBABLY what the anti-nickname extremists are ready to turn too since they had no problem throwing the "P.N." handgrenade now when this had NEVER come up in the entire history of the nickname controversey...and it is a HUGE insult to the Engelstad family because they've done SO MUCH MORE philanthropic work than just build a huge hockey arena for UND. I'm just going to bring up the latest example that I had the privelege to be a part of and then I'm out but THIS really needs to be noted...

The Engelstad Family Foundation donated $30,000 to Northern Valley Honor Flight - an effort to fly World War II veterans to Washington, DC to visit the WW II Memorial built in their honor ...yes, $30,000!!

I can tell you - no other single donor even came CLOSE to this level and the Engelstad Foundation never got OR asked for any public thanks for this but it did enable us to pull off a fantastic trip for these guys who really deserved it so I'm taking this small opportunity to thank them here because I know for a fact these old guys had a WONDERFUL time on this trip thanks in large part to the Engelstad' families generosity.

THANK YOU!

[The Sicatoka]

My desire at this point is for thee to be overwhelming support for the Fighting Sioux name at the upcoming Spirit Lake vote and then UND change the name.

Then the change would be on UND's terms.

The anti-nickname people at Spirit Lake, who would at that point be in the minority, would be left holding the bag after the vote.

Win the Spirit Lake vote.... Change the name.

Now that would be great comedy and theatre on the reservations.

Control what's yours to control.

[Hammersmith]

Now that would be great comedy and theatre on the reservations.

Control what's yours to control.

I posted the same thing(strangely enough at the same time) on a couple Bison boards. I don't have an inherent problem with NA nicknames or imagery, but I just don't see a way for UND to keep the Sioux nickname in the long run. I can see you winning tomorrow's vote and a vote at Standing Rock, but the last couple days have shown just how ugly it's going to get. There was a chance to save the name at one point, but I feel that ship sailed a decade or two ago. I think your best case scenario is to win the votes and then drop the name, just as GeauxSioux suggested. UND comes out with the clear moral high ground while the anti-nickname groups come out looking as ugly as possible(through their own doing). In this way, you end the debate while you're at your highest point. If you win the vote but wait a year or more before dropping the name, it won't work; it has to be done quickly.

Now, I don't expect any of this will happen. The hope that will be generated by a pro-nickname result tomorrow will make it impossible to drop the name without months of talk and negotiations. There's a group of you fans and boosters that would crucify Goetz/Kelley/Faison if the nickname were dropped quickly after a success tomorrow.

While I don't think this is a fight you can win in the long term, I wish you the best in whatever happens. If your admins find a way to keep it, I hope they can find a solution that doesn't just delay a worse fight to come. If they decide to change it, I hope you have as painless a transition as possible.

[Chewey]

I posted the same thing(strangely enough at the same time) on a couple Bison boards. I don't have an inherent problem with NA nicknames or imagery, but I just don't see a way for UND to keep the Sioux nickname in the long run. I can see you winning tomorrow's vote and a vote at Standing Rock, but the last couple days have shown just how ugly it's going to get. There was a chance to save the name at one point, but I feel that ship sailed a decade or two ago. I think your best case scenario is to win the votes and then drop the name, just as GeauxSioux suggested. UND comes out with the clear moral high ground while the anti-nickname groups come out looking as ugly as possible(through their own doing). In this way, you end the debate while you're at your highest point. If you win the vote but wait a year or more before dropping the name, it won't work; it has to be done quickly.

Now, I don't expect any of this will happen. The hope that will be generated by a pro-nickname result tomorrow will make it impossible to drop the name without months of talk and negotiations. There's a group of you fans and boosters that would crucify Goetz/Kelley/Faison if the nickname were dropped quickly after a success tomorrow.

While I don't think this is a fight you can win in the long term, I wish you the best in whatever happens. If your admins find a way to keep it, I hope they can find a solution that doesn't just delay a worse fight to come. If they decide to change it, I hope you have as painless a transition as possible.

Those are valid points, for sure. However, just simply waiving the white flag to the anti-nickname racists because they have ugly and debasing tactics is not the way to go. Why give in to those tactics and validate them by walking away? Those tactics need to be fought against continually and the petulant PCers will continue to be shown for the racists that they are. A pro-nickname tribal vote (hopefully) in the face of the cynical and shamefully racist tactics that have been employed lately will only be the first public repudiation of the racist negative energy continually expended by the pro-nickname chage nut jobs. You battle ugliness with reason and positivity. The ugliness will reflect on those who employ it and live by its continuous re-invocation. Reasonable people will always see it for what it is and they will judge those employing it accordingly. That's why I say that the pro-nickname changers did the nickname allies a huge favor. The racist venom that is their life's blood prevents them from realizing this. The tactics they employ are unacceptable and reflect an absolute lack of emotional integrity on the part of those using them. They must be opposed and confronted wherever and whenever they employ their overt race-baiting.

[tnt]

Why is it that anti-nickname supporters feel the need to incense the people on the reservations? They say they need to counter the advertisements by the pro-supporters. Why? If people are truly offended by the nickname as they suggest, no amount of advertising is going to change their minds. They are either offended, or they are not. Makes you wonder to what lengths they will go the day of the vote, and beyond. These people will never quit, and as long as they have the media to keep it going, it will.

[DamStrait]

It would be a big mistake to paint with a broad brush, because I know good people who oppose the nickname for good reasons, but no one should be surprised after the last few years in which a small group of nickname opponents have demonstrated a repeated willingness to fabricate "evidence" of racism because the issue is so important that the truth doesn't matter http://forum.siouxsports.com/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png' alt=':)'> In the last few years I recall highly suspect racist blogs, racist signs on campus and merchandise on ebay that use lingo I've only heard used by nickname opponents, to hacking into accounts on this very forum to plant racist messages.

Bolding above is mine. Jim, I'm really curious to hear a good reason for opposing the nickname - that's one of the biggest beefs I have with the anti-nicknamers - none of their arguments hold water. It all seems to boil down to "because I say so".

[Let'sGoHawks!]

Forgive me if this has been discussed.

The precedent has been set, Florida State, Utah, and Illinois keep their names. Tribal support is there. Do they worry about the tribes rescinding their support down the road? Not to my knowledge. To me, these schools' former issues with the NCAA seem to be resolved. If the ND tribes vote and support the name, UND keeps it, we move on and don't worry about it anymore.

This is the precedent.

[mksioux]

Forgive me if this has been discussed.

The precedent has been set, Florida State, Utah, and Illinois keep their names. Tribal support is there. Do they worry about the tribes rescinding their support down the road? Not to my knowledge. To me, these schools' former issues with the NCAA seem to be resolved. If the ND tribes vote and support the name, UND keeps it, we move on and don't worry about it anymore.

This is the precedent.

With regard to Illinois, the NCAA did not have an issue with their nickname, just their mascot, which Illinois recently dropped.

With regard to Florida State, there are very few Florida Seminoles around (around 500-600 total I heard). Obviously that it is a completely different dynamic.

With Utah and Central Michigan, for reasons that are not clear to me, there isn't even close to the level of hostility in those tribes that there is in the leadership in North Dakota's Sioux tribes.

In sum, the situations are different. I don't think Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan have much to worry about in rescinding their approval. If UND does somehow get tribal approval, I think rescission will be a constant threat. There are just too many people that are too invested in seeing the nickname gone that they will stop at nothing to make sure that happens.

[Hammersmith]

Forgive me if this has been discussed.

The precedent has been set, Florida State, Utah, and Illinois keep their names. Tribal support is there. Do they worry about the tribes rescinding their support down the road? Not to my knowledge. To me, these schools' former issues with the NCAA seem to be resolved. If the ND tribes vote and support the name, UND keeps it, we move on and don't worry about it anymore.

This is the precedent.

I'm choosing the weirdest positions to defend/debate today, but here goes.

Utah and Illinois don't do anything for you because the first is a dead tribe(so they can't give or rescind permission) and the second isn't actually a tribe. Florida State is closest to your situation, but there's no precedent for you to draw upon yet. The only way that would work would be for the Florida Seminole tribe to try to withdraw support and the NCAA refusing to apply sanctions. In fact, the reverse is more likely; your settlement would be used as precedent against Florida State if the Seminoles were to change their position.

edit: whoops, thought the Utes were extinct as a people; ignore that part.

[MplsBison]

This may be total BS and sorry if I offend any Sioux people on here, but from what I've heard the Sioux people are one of the most anti-government tribes in the nation.

If that's true, then it may partly explain why it was so much easier for Utah and C Michigan to gain acceptance of their namesake tribes.

[MplsBison]

I'm choosing the weirdest positions to defend/debate today, but here goes.

Utah and Illinois don't do anything for you because the first is a dead tribe(so they can't give or rescind permission) and the second isn't actually a tribe. Florida State is closest to your situation, but there's no precedent for you to draw upon yet. The only way that would work would be for the Florida Seminole tribe to try to withdraw support and the NCAA refusing to apply sanctions. In fact, the reverse is more likely; your settlement would be used as precedent against Florida State if the Seminoles were to change their position.

What about C Michigan and the Chippewa people? Obviously they're alive and well, there's even Chippewa in North Dakota.

[Hammersmith]

What about C Michigan and the Chippewa people? Obviously they're alive and well, there's even Chippewa in North Dakota.

He didn't mention CMU so I didn't address it. Falls in the same category as FSU. There's no precedent until one of the tribes that supported their namesake versus the NCAA withdraws that support. Until that happens, we can't know for certain how the NCAA will react(we can guess, but not be certain). My guess is that the NCAA would use the UND settlement as a guideline and give the affected school one year to win back approval or change the name.

[The Sicatoka]

There are five, yes, five, Chippewa tribes in Michigan, but CMU only had to get approval of the nearest one to them.

The other four are on the record against CMU's moniker.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I haven't followed all of this discussion: but the Ute Tribe is certainly alive AFAIK. And I believe they are cooperating with the University of Utah in the matter of the nickname-I don't know how formalized the relationship is, but I don't think the University is planning to (or has to) change its nickname, or any part of the football helmet design.

http://www.utetribe.com/

With regard to Illinois, the NCAA did not have an issue with their nickname, just their mascot, which Illinois recently dropped.

The NCAA started off with "having an issue" with the nickname "Illini". One of the key arguments that got them to back off was showing how long we had been using "Illini" and for how many years before say, the 1920's or so we had used "Illini" with no connection to Native Americans.

That, and the idea that its not a name of a tribe but rather a form of a word that has been translated from a Native American language to French (with the resultant changes in pronunciation, etc.) helped get the NCAA off our back on the name issue.

And strictly as an aside: I

believe

there are more than 500-600 Sioux in Florida: but I also

believe

that their membership requirements are quite strict. Take this paragraph with a grain of salt because I haven't looked that up in a while.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Jim, I'm really curious to hear a good reason for opposing the nickname - that's one of the biggest beefs I have with the anti-nicknamers - none of their arguments hold water. It all seems to boil down to "because I say so".

Everyone has to judge for themselves exactly what is a

good enough

reason. But the reality is, the NCAA doesn't ask for a "good enough" reason. They have handed the various tribes (the Sioux as well as the Seminoles, Utes, Chipewas, etc.) this power, and the reasons they need to accept or reject the nicknames are moot.

Not that much different than any other election, is it?

Think of the long, lengthy debates during the last election for U.S. President; and then think of how many people you know who said it comes down to "I just don't trust that guy" or "he sounds like a liar".

[ScottM]

In sum, the situations are different. I don't think Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan have much to worry about in rescinding their approval. If UND does somehow get tribal approval, I think rescission will be a constant threat. There are just too many people that are too invested in seeing the nickname gone that they will stop at nothing to make sure that happens.

The threat of rescission is the biggest problem I have with the NC$$ settlement. That should have been addressed in the agreement. SL and SR may be in favor of the Sioux name/logo now, but who's to say they won't yank that support in a year or two? The only thing I would hate more than having that sword hanging over us, is the fact that the school/state could effectively be extorted to meet someone's agenda with regard to monies paid, academic standards lowered, etc. I would rather just retire the name/logo now on our own terms, and let the opponents have their "victory" and let them fade from view.

[MplsBison]

The threat of rescission is the biggest problem I have with the NC$$ settlement. That should have been addressed in the agreement. SL and SR may be in favor of the Sioux name/logo now, but who's to say they won't yank that support in a year or two? The only thing I would hate more than having that sword hanging over us, is the fact that the school/state could effectively be extorted to meet someone's agenda with regard to monies paid, academic standards lowered, etc. I would rather just retire the name/logo now on our own terms, and let the opponents have their "victory" and let them fade from view.

I think this is the most reasonable course of action, even (and perhaps especially?) if the tribes vote to support the nickname.

Go out on your own terms, get into the Summit, etc.

[petey23]

Why is it that anti-nickname supporters feel the need to incense the people on the reservations? They say they need to counter the advertisements by the pro-supporters. Why? If people are truly offended by the nickname as they suggest, no amount of advertising is going to change their minds. They are either offended, or they are not. Makes you wonder to what lengths they will go the day of the vote, and beyond. These people will never quit, and as long as they have the media to keep it going, it will.

Correct! If 40 years of whining hasn't been enough to change people's minds, whats another couple months going to do?

[Bigdog42]

This may have been discussed before and I am not aware of it but if we do change our nickname/logo would the university discontinue some of the Native American Programs. Also, how about the scholarships given to those Native Americans? Isn't it discrimation by ethnic group if 80% of the Native Americans get a scholarship and only 15% of Asians get a scholarship when they meet the same criteria except for their ethnic background. Just some thoughts!

I was all for the nickname and believed we should fight it until the end but the PC has gotten out of hand and we may never conquire this battle.

[Chewey]

The threat of rescission is the biggest problem I have with the NC$$ settlement. That should have been addressed in the agreement. SL and SR may be in favor of the Sioux name/logo now, but who's to say they won't yank that support in a year or two? The only thing I would hate more than having that sword hanging over us, is the fact that the school/state could effectively be extorted to meet someone's agenda with regard to monies paid, academic standards lowered, etc. I would rather just retire the name/logo now on our own terms, and let the opponents have their "victory" and let them fade from view.

To be sure, this is a concern. However, wouldn't it be likely that, once approved by the tribes, some written agreement would be entered specifying a time frame like "we're approving it for 5 years or 10 years"? I guess I don't see the rescission as a big spectre if something like that could be agreed to. I am not convinced that the NA's get a whole ton of stuff. This is a common misperception. As far as I know, they pay their way just like anyone else. To the extent that they do get anything additional, why take that stuff away? I certainly would not advocate for that. Even though some such programs, if they exist at all, benefit some of the anti-nicknamers, they would be of significant benefit to all NA's and would help to improve life for NA's. Regardless of one's stance on the nickname, I think everyone agrees that helping NA's through such programs is beneficial. Revoking such programs would cause the university to drop down to the grimy realm of the PC troglodytes.

I vehemently disagree with those who say we should just change to be rid of the PC nags. Such people have been used to getting their way by throwing out racist invective, fabricating evidence, being "plants" on message boards and spewing garbage on such sites and foisting their views upon everyone else and conditioning grades on the acceptance/rejection of such viewpoints. Their tactics need to be exposed and fought and they need to be called on the carpet for the racists that they are. Once you acquiesce by being silent in the face of their nefarious, baseless accusations, their idiotic labels stick - at least for some people - and they go one continuing to bully people with that business. If you confront them and call them for the racists that they are you are indicating that you do not accept their idiotic judgments.

[ScottM]

To be sure, this is a concern. However, wouldn't it be likely that, once approved by the tribes, some written agreement would be entered specifying a time frame like "we're approving it for 5 years or 10 years"? I guess I don't see the rescission as a big spectre if something like that could be agreed to.

You don't know much about tribal politics, I take it. Do you think Ronny of Standing Rock wouldn't go out of his way to renege on, or undercut, any agreement allowing the use of the Sioux name/logo? What do we do, sue him in tribal courts packed with his allies and relatives? Remember the tribes are largely "sovereign" nations, inherent contradictions notwithstanding. You could get every tribal governing body to support the name/logo forever tomorrow, only to have the next elections undo that support based on whatever whim or agenda was being pressed.

The NC$$ effectively made UND and the state beholden to the tribes. This made the name/logo like a bad hand in poker, and it's time to fold and move on.

[Shawn-O]

I vehemently disagree with those who say we should just change to be rid of the PC nags. Such people have been used to getting their way by throwing out racist invective, fabricating evidence, being "plants" on message boards and spewing garbage on such sites and foisting their views upon everyone else and conditioning grades on the acceptance/rejection of such viewpoints. Their tactics need to be exposed and fought and they need to be called on the carpet for the racists that they are. Once you acquiesce by being silent in the face of their nefarious, baseless accusations, their idiotic labels stick - at least for some people - and they go one continuing to bully people with that business. If you confront them and call them for the racists that they are you are indicating that you do not accept their idiotic judgments.

I agree with your ideology, but in UND's case I'm afraid this ship sailed with the signature of the settlement agreement with the NCAA. It's less about appeasing PC lunatics at this point, and more about removing roadblocks to the progress of the athletic department and the university as a whole.