GeauxSioux Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Standing Rock nickname supporters to urge referendumSupporters of the Fighting Sioux nickname on the Standing Rock Indian reservation are seeking a referendum on the issue, similar to the one being held in a few weeks on the Spirit Lake reservation. Antoine American Horse Jr. said he and some other veterans from the reservation will be asking the Tribal Council to let tribal members decide whether they support the nickname or not. A longtime supporter of the nickname, he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeypat15 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Good to hear, something that should have been done a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Standing Rock nickname supporters to urge referendumSounds as if the tribal supporters have gotten a lot accomplished-and that's just about everything the non-NA supporters could ask for right now. If both tribes support the nickname via popular referendum, IMHO the NCAA is going to have a hard time trying to deny the use of the nickname by UND. I know the agreement refers to the tribal constitutions, but even at that-the will of the people should prevail. There's still a long way to go even if the voting shows tribal support for the nickname/logo: but it's a great step forward IMHO. I'd say bring the pro-nickname people from both tribes together ASAP to try and present a united front: IOW, let the people of both tribes know exactly what they can expect from University leadership, and that both tribes are going to be treated fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxFanatic Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 This is encouraging news to hear. Still a long road ahead but definitely encouraging news regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Good to hear, something that should have been done a long time ago. It would have been nice, but IMO at least, this isn't their fight. They have no obligations to support UND in this. When I say "they" I mean the tribal membership. It's just great to see the apparent groundswell of support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 It would have been nice, but IMO at least, this isn't their fight. They have no obligations to support UND in this. When I say "they" I mean the tribal membership.Well, another way of interpreting the "something that should have happened long ago" statement is that the general public should have made sure that leadership carried out their wishes, and did that long ago. AFAIK the NA leadership has not only been adament in their opposition to the nickname, they've also tried to block a referendum. Apparently more than a few people from both tribes are unhappy with their representatives. And in a more general sense, this is seemingly one of the few instances in American history when someone has given out "control" over a word to a group. It will be interesting to see if they continue to make it their fight. It's just great to see the apparent groundswell of support.That's undeniably true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 This is such good news, i bet Ron His Horse Is Thunder will do what he can to deny his people the right to vote. But on another issue: Say the votes go through and the Sioux are allowed to keep the name how are the Sioux (UND) going to make sure this stays permanent. Per the lawsuit the tribes can change their mind at anytime. Can you imagine the Sioux about to play in the West Regional at the Ralph and then one of the tribes change their mind. That would be devastating. Also if we keep the name are we still banned from playing Minnesota? Or would they lift their ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 This is such good news, i bet Ron His Horse Is Thunder will do what he can to deny his people the right to vote. But on another issue: Say the votes go through and the Sioux are allowed to keep the name how are the Sioux (UND) going to make sure this stays permanent. Per the lawsuit the tribes can change their mind at anytime. Can you imagine the Sioux about to play in the West Regional at the Ralph and then one of the tribes change their mind. That would be devastating. Also if we keep the name are we still banned from playing Minnesota? Or would they lift their ban. Well there is a long way to go, but accepting your conditions for a moment, I'll give an opinion. I'd say that your university needs to get together with some of who are the people leading the fight to get a referendum on the ballot (and I'd say do it before the vote, if possible) and lay out the proposals and try to come to an agreement. That way the people would know what they're voting for. Hopefully there could be an agreement that since the tribal permission came via a popular vote, the only way it could be rescinded would be via popular vote. As far as keeping it permanent-you'd be in the same shape as FSU and Utah, correct? And this is where making the tribes a fair proposal that they would see as beneficial to all parties comes into play. Quick denial of permission? I'd say that you need to make sure the NCAA agrees that any change could only take place at the begining of an academic year at the best: or after the ending of a particular sport's season at the worst. So if a sport begins it's season with the nickname/logo, they should be entitled to end it without changing uniforms, nicknames, etc. I'd say that once the tribes give you the okay (and the NCAA recognizes it in the same way they recognize FSU et al), Minnesota should treat you the same way they treat the other schools with that same permission. (IOW, they should bend over backwards to create exceptions, special rules, etc. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 This is such good news, i bet Ron His Horse Is Thunder will do what he can to deny his people the right to vote. But on another issue: Say the votes go through and the Sioux are allowed to keep the name how are the Sioux (UND) going to make sure this stays permanent. Per the lawsuit the tribes can change their mind at anytime. Can you imagine the Sioux about to play in the West Regional at the Ralph and then one of the tribes change their mind. That would be devastating. Also if we keep the name are we still banned from playing Minnesota? Or would they lift their ban. The settlement agreement provides that if UND is able to obtain namesake approval, and that approval is subsequently withdrawn after November 30, 2010, then UND will have one year to transition to a new nickname and logo, unless the parties mutually agree to a period of time longer than one year. So under your hypothetical, UND would have at least one year to transition to a new name. What Minnesota does with its ban is independent from the settlement with the NCAA. However, I strongly suspect that if UND is able to obtain namesake approval, Minnesota will drop its scheduling ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The referendum news is a positive development, but I still don't think this arrangement is workable without an agreement between UND and the respective Tribal Councils. First, it is questionable whether the NCAA will even accept a referendum as namesake approval under the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement defines namesake approval a little differently for each tribe. With respect to Spirit Lake, approval must come "by an individual duly authorized to bind or speak on behalf of the Tribe" (emphasis added) which either confirms the December 13, 2000 resolution or is an approval unrelated to the 2000 resolution. It is not clear whether the NCAA would accept a writing from, for example, the chairman of the judicial council certifying the results of a referendum. With respect to Standing Rock, approval shall be adopted by "any means allowed in the Tribe's constitution and shall be in writing." I don't know whether a referendum is allowed in Standing Rock's constitution for situations like this. I presume it does, but I haven't seen that issue addressed anywhere. Second, a referendum could be overturned at any time. It is not a multiple-year guarantee of use. I'm sure the University would strongly prefer long-term assurances to keep using the Sioux nickname. I know that a tribal resolution could be overtturned at any time as well, but the chances of that are much less if the parties were to reach a long-term agreement that would bring in the Tribes financially in some sort of partnership that provides for ongoing financial incentives. Such an arrangement would obviously be a political lightning rod as it could be construed as "us" buying off the tribes. Nevertheless, I believe it's the only way to ensure a viable and substainable long term solution to keep the nickname under the namesake approval exception as set forth by the NCAA. The positive thing about the referendum is that if it passes with a healthy majority, it may bring the tribal council to the table to reach a long-term agreement. That is a pretty big question mark because it appears that there are more ideologues than pragmatists controlling these councils, particularly Standing Rock. Nevertheless, I think that is UND's best hope to keep the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 It'll be a hoot if it comes to this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsensa Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Sounds as if the tribal supporters have gotten a lot accomplished-and that's just about everything the non-NA supporters could ask for right now. If both tribes support the nickname via popular referendum, IMHO the NCAA is going to have a hard time trying to deny the use of the nickname by UND. I know the agreement refers to the tribal constitutions, but even at that-the will of the people should prevail. There's still a long way to go even if the voting shows tribal support for the nickname/logo: but it's a great step forward IMHO. I'd say bring the pro-nickname people from both tribes together ASAP to try and present a united front: IOW, let the people of both tribes know exactly what they can expect from University leadership, and that both tribes are going to be treated fairly. I am not getting excited. The liberal NCAA social justice wackos will do what liberals always do. They will "judge" what they think is best for society and change the will of the people. Much like liberal activist judges are all doing around the country when they lift bans on gay marriage after they lose the vote. States vote to ban it and then it goes before liberal judges and they think they know better than the people and declare the laws unconstitutional. Stupid liberals! Stupid NCAA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I am not getting excited. The liberal NCAA social justice wackos will do what liberals always do. They will "judge" what they think is best for society and change the will of the people. Much like liberal activist judges are all doing around the country when they lift bans on gay marriage after they lose the vote. States vote to ban it and then it goes before liberal judges and they think they know better than the people and declare the laws unconstitutional. Stupid liberals! Stupid NCAA! I agree because I think the NCAA will move the goal post back if UND gets approval. Daring the University to take it to court again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I agree because I think the NCAA will move the goal post back if UND gets approval. Daring the University to take it to court again. If the NCAA tried to pull the rug out from under the naming issue wouldn't they be considered incontempt of the settlement? Also what will the aerospace dept due it's not that easy to change a call sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 If the NCAA tried to pull the rug out from under the naming issue wouldn't they be considered incontempt of the settlement?AFAIK, the NCAA settlement says that both of the tribes must give permission to the University and that the permission must come in a way that's supported by their tribal constitutions. IMHO, these votes can be compared to an advisory referendum: they're something that shows of the will of the people, but not an action that creates a binding law. I'd say that a TRO or summary judgement could be obtained rather easily if the tribes support the nickname/logo and then the NCAA tries to change the rules. Besides, if that were to happen it would look as if the NCAA was not only fighting UND but the tribes as well. It's one thing to fight evil European-American oppressors, but quite another to oppose the people that they themselves have declared "victims". (See FSU and the Seminoles for further details on how fast they had to backtrack when the NA's got mad.) Personally, I think the NCAA will be hard-pressed to stick to the settlement if the vote shows support but the tribal councils, etc. fail to act. Others here think differently. Also what will the aerospace dept due it's not that easy to change a call sign.A) The NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction over FAA call signs (yet), and... B) Don't give them any ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 If the NCAA tried to pull the rug out from under the naming issue wouldn't they be considered incontempt of the settlement? Also what will the aerospace dept due it's not that easy to change a call sign. I don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.