The Latest

[Chewey]

How typical of the intellectual heavyweights at Moo U.

[Herd]

You don't seem to get the politics of this...Glasheim is a stooge and was always against the nickname...the majority of GF legislators, who happen to be Democrat, voted agains the nickname bill because they apparently know whats better for UND and the people of GF and ND. To take this to court and have it ruled unconstitional would be a political death wish in my mind as you would be placing your self front and center against the majority of North Dakotan's...Anyone who is for the continued use of the nickname is against the people who constantly try to deny the outcomes of elections and votes because it goes against their supposedly better judgement.

BobIwabuchiFan

PS...How's the tuition increase going for ya? I thought you had so many more students than UND and that you were ready to be a flagship university? Just wait to you feel the pain of the legislature when the SBOHE rejects your 3 times the alloted increase...then you'll be more willing to understand the BS of the SBOHE....

[Herd]

You dont seem to be answering my question, which tells me that you are not sure if its better for the law to be in place or not. It seems like you are riding the fence,while bashing people on both sides? Only on a fan board.

I think i understand the politics, but i would think that people would pick a side vs just being negative toward both sides of the political arguement.

[Chewey]

You dont seem to be answering my question, which tells me that you are not sure if its better for the law to be in place or not. It seems like you are riding the fence,while bashing people on both sides? Only on a fan board.

I think i understand the politics, but i would think that people would pick a side vs just being negative toward both sides of the political arguement.

I didn't see anyone here calling for the heads of those who voted for the law. There were those who may have had different opinions about the legality of it and there were those who were, in my opinion, overly concerned about the football program and what they felt the law meant for its future. They had and still do have valid points but the opinion that I and, I think, many others had and still do have is that those fears are exaggerated. I wouldn't classify that difference of viewpoint expression as calling for the heads of people who voted for the law. Bob is pointing out that the collective pro-nickname viewpoint of the vast super-majority of people was not seeing the light of day and the legislature and Governor did what they were supposed to do and what they were elected to do which is to provide a voice for and listen to their constituency. I commend them for doing this. I commend them for listening to what I believe is the vast majority of NA's who support the law and who wanted it enacted.

The cynical, perfunctory and previously unyielding machinery of the SBoHE and the consummate duplicity exhibited by that body and by Kelley, Faison and others in the UND administration and faculty was short-circuited - finally. All that was needed was a collection of people with a collective backbone willing to listen to their constituents. Bob is pointing out clearly that Glassheim and his ilk really think they know what's better for people than the people themselves. Bob is correctly pointing out that this sort of thing is not emblematic of representative government. Bob is correctly pointing out that it would be political suicide for the democrats to go along with Glassheim. Representative government, the natural consequences of which were exemplified by the ND Legislature's and Governor's actions concerning the nickname bill, is foreign to Glassheim and others of his ilk - some UND administrators and professors in particular, in fact -- because they subscribe to the philosophy that 80% of the people are stupid and that they are so much more well connected and smarter than everyone else. They believe that only a certain collection of people -- the people whom they view to be truly smart - should be deciding things for everyone else.

Even my own brother who is 12 years younger than I am and who is himself an English professor (gee, there's a surprise) of writing and rhetoric at a private, liberal arts college believes this. He proudly wears his green Fighting Sioux jersey at his school and around his "colleagues" and says that if some white, holier-than-thou ex-hippie is offended by it that's all the more reason why he should wear it. The point is that he's balanced on a lot of things but he's spends a lot of time around so-called fellow educators and shares this Star Chamber legislative mentality. Glassheim was an educator, right, as was Lonny Winrich? The point is that they can say and believe whatever they want at their wine socials where they talk about "white privilege", how the majority of Americans are stupid and how only a select few should decide things and other perceived and imputed societal "ailments" but that is not representative democracy. Bob is simply pointing out that if one throws in with that sort of crowd one should be held politically accountable. I have had the blessing of a very good education. One should not allow one's own arrogance and one's own emotional shortcomings to twist the blessings of education into the collective, democracy-averse monstrosity that we see expressed by the Elliot Glassheims and Lonny Winrichs of the world or my brother, for that matter. The belief in this philosophy combined with the pseudo-egalitarianism expressed by such types is truly sickening. My brother's coming around but I think there's no hope for Glassheim and Winrich, etc.

[Blackheart]

Well it looks like you can call this guy's cell or write him a letter if you wish to discuss further.. ..lotta info on that police report...

[Herd]

I didn't see anyone here calling for the heads of those who voted for the law. There were those who may have had different opinions about the legality of it and there were those who were, in my opinion, overly concerned about the football program and what they felt the law meant for its future. They had and still do have valid points but the opinion that I and, I think, many others had and still do have is that those fears are exaggerated. I wouldn't classify that difference of viewpoint expression as calling for the heads of people who voted for the law. Bob is pointing out that the collective pro-nickname viewpoint of the vast super-majority of people was not seeing the light of day and the legislature and Governor did what they were supposed to do and what they were elected to do which is to provide a voice for and listen to their constituency. I commend them for doing this. I commend them for listening to what I believe is the vast majority of NA's who support the law and who wanted it enacted.

The cynical, perfunctory and previously unyielding machinery of the SBoHE and the consummate duplicity exhibited by that body and by Kelley, Faison and others in the UND administration and faculty was short-circuited - finally. All that was needed was a collection of people with a collective backbone willing to listen to their constituents. Bob is pointing out clearly that Glassheim and his ilk really think they know what's better for people than the people themselves. Bob is correctly pointing out that this sort of thing is not emblematic of representative government. Bob is correctly pointing out that it would be political suicide for the democrats to go along with Glassheim. Representative government, the natural consequences of which were exemplified by the ND Legislature's and Governor's actions concerning the nickname bill, is foreign to Glassheim and others of his ilk - some UND administrators and professors in particular, in fact -- because they subscribe to the philosophy that 80% of the people are stupid and that they are so much more well connected and smarter than everyone else. They believe that only a certain collection of people -- the people whom they view to be truly smart - should be deciding things for everyone else.

Even my own brother who is 12 years younger than I am and who is himself an English professor (gee, there's a surprise) of writing and rhetoric at a private, liberal arts college believes this. He proudly wears his green Fighting Sioux jersey at his school and around his "colleagues" and says that if some white, holier-than-thou ex-hippie is offended by it that's all the more reason why he should wear it. The point is that he's balanced on a lot of things but he's spends a lot of time around so-called fellow educators and shares this Star Chamber legislative mentality. Glassheim was an educator, right, as was Lonny Winrich? The point is that they can say and believe whatever they want at their wine socials where they talk about "white privilege", how the majority of Americans are stupid and how only a select few should decide things and other perceived and imputed societal "ailments" but that is not representative democracy. Bob is simply pointing out that if one throws in with that sort of crowd one should be held politically accountable. I have had the blessing of a very good education. One should not allow one's own arrogance and one's own emotional shortcomings to twist the blessings of education into the collective, democracy-averse monstrosity that we see expressed by the Elliot Glassheims and Lonny Winrichs of the world or my brother, for that matter. The belief in this philosophy combined with the pseudo-egalitarianism expressed by such types is truly sickening. My brother's coming around but I think there's no hope for Glassheim and Winrich, etc.

I'm sorry, but the situation is not this complicated. Im not sure that super-majorities and opinionsn really matter this late in the game. The facts are:

1) The Indian tribe will not lend it support.

2) Therefore the ncaa will likely impose sanctions.

3) Do you want a law in place or not is my question? (A law prevent negotiation with the ncaa and repealing the law might lead a name change but could prevent sactions)

The only way the Legislature is able to impact the situation is by having the law or not have the law. They cannot impact the tribe position, that's not how it works. I'm trying to understand if the majority want the law in place or not, because it seem like people are angry with both having the law and the thought of repealing the law.

[gjw007]

I'm sorry, but the situation is not this complicated. Im not sure that super-majorities and opinionsn really matter this late in the game. The facts are:

1) The Indian tribe will not lend it support.

2) Therefore the ncaa will likely impose sanctions.

3) Do you want a law in place or not is my question? (A law prevent negotiation with the ncaa and repealing the law might lead a name change but could prevent sactions)

The only way the Legislature is able to impact the situation is by having the law or not have the law. They cannot impact the tribe position, that's not how it works. I'm trying to understand if the majority want the law in place or not, because it seem like people are angry with both having the law and the thought of repealing the law.

(1) This is not quite correct. You are correct that a certain tribal leadership group will not give support but that is not the same as saying the tribe has not lent its support. What the tribe supports or doesn't support is unknown as they have been denied an opportunity by said leadership group from the tribe from expressing its opinion. Until that is done, it can only be said that the tribal leadership will not give its support and that for the NCAA represents a failure to get tribal approval.

(2) Probably but whether the NCAA will be able to legally uphold those sanctions is unknown until a court decision is made is on the legality of the new law.

(3) A law that stipulates that the University of North Dakota is to be known as the Fighting Sioux doesn't present a problem. The question is whether it is enforceable and whether it overrules the previous agreement with the NCAA. That is something again that will be determined in court. Your comments in question make it suggest that it is the state of North Dakota that refuses to negotiate yet wasn't it the NCAA that refused to discuss its opinion when it became known that it was subject to North Dakota open meeting law? This question is premised on the name needs to be changed and is flawed. It is a biased question and presumes to provide the correct answer from your perspective (provide negotiation, name change, and no sanctions).

[Fetch]

Referendum will show what Sioux County / Standing Rock thinks.

"The racial makeup of the county was 84.59% Native American, "

[Herd]

(1) This is not quite correct. You are correct that a certain tribal leadership group will not give support but that is not the same as saying the tribe has not lent its support. What the tribe supports or doesn't support is unknown as they have been denied an opportunity by said leadership group from the tribe from expressing its opinion. Until that is done, it can only be said that the tribal leadership will not give its support and that for the NCAA represents a failure to get tribal approval.

(2) Probably but whether the NCAA will be able to legally uphold those sanctions is unknown until a court decision is made is on the legality of the new law.

(3) A law that stipulates that the University of North Dakota is to be known as the Fighting Sioux doesn't present a problem. The question is whether it is enforceable and whether it overrules the previous agreement with the NCAA. That is something again that will be determined in court. Your comments in question make it suggest that it is the state of North Dakota that refuses to negotiate yet wasn't it the NCAA that refused to discuss its opinion when it became known that it was subject to North Dakota open meeting law? This question is premised on the name needs to be changed and is flawed. It is a biased question and presumes to provide the correct answer from your perspective (provide negotiation, name change, and no sanctions).

(1) The official position of the Tribe is all the matters to the ncaa. That position seems to be No, No, No, No, and No. All this talk of referrendums, votes, majorities doesn't seem to be impacting that. This situation for the NA's is more like an office harassment situation. You don't put it to a vote, I'm not sure what that would accomplish in this case. if some want the moniker gone, especially at the leadership level, what difference does a majority make. Referrendums and votes is not how the NA operate.

(2) The ncaa is a private org that is not bound by anything the ND legislature want to throw at it. The ND law will impact and potentially handcuff und, not the ncaa.

(3) Whehter or not the law is enforceable will only unpact the way und reacts. The ncaa will simply say, here are the penalties if you don't comply. UND has a legal agreement with the ncaa that is threatened by this law, but the ncaa is outside of this equation simply imposing sanctins if und does not comply.

As I read the situation, the ball is in und/ND legislatures court, the ncaa will either impose sanctions or not based on whether und meets it legal agreement with the ncaa.

[gjw007]

(1) The official position of the Tribe is all the matters to the ncaa. That position seems to be No, No, No, No, and No. All this talk of referrendums, votes, majorities doesn't seem to be impacting that. This situation for the NA's is more like an office harassment situation. You don't put it to a vote, I'm not sure what that would accomplish in this case. if some want the moniker gone, especially at the leadership level, what difference does a majority make. Referrendums and votes is not how the NA operate.

(2) The ncaa is a private org that is not bound by anything the ND legislature want to throw at it. The ND law will impact and potentially handcuff und, not the ncaa.

(3) Whehter or not the law is enforceable will only unpact the way und reacts. The ncaa will simply say, here are the penalties if you don't comply. UND has a legal agreement with the ncaa that is threatened by this law, but the ncaa is outside of this equation simply imposing sanctins if und does not comply.

As I read the situation, the ball is in und/ND legislatures court, the ncaa will either impose sanctions or not based on whether und meets it legal agreement with the ncaa.

(1) That wasn't your initial statement about leadership position but tribal support. Tribal support is an actual unknown until a vote is taken. IF the leadership felt that a referendum supported its view, then a vote would have been taken. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes. I had stated that from the NCAA's view, they would take the tribal leadership position.

(2) Private entities are subject to the laws and are not above them. The question is whether the law applies given the previous agreement. The fact that the NCAA is private is irrelevant; the real issue is whether an entity is subject to the laws of North Dakota as it doesn't not reside in North Dakota. This is actually trickier than it initial looks as the state has been collecting taxes from companies that don't reside in North Dakota but do business inside the state. Since the NCAA does business in the state (through the member schools), it may very well be subject to the law.

(3) The law will also impact how the NCAA reacts. Your position is that the NCAA will ignore it. That is not the same as saying that it doesn't affect them.. The simple question is whether this law is enforceable and preempts the previous legal agreement. The NCAA has choices as well. The NCAA would also have an ugly public relations problem if it comes off so arrogantly that it can simply choose to ignore state laws whenever it chooses it to. Personally I question the law but think that only a legal challenge will determine whether it is enforceable or not.

[Herd]

(1) That wasn't your initial statement about leadership position but tribal support. Tribal support is an actual unknown until a vote is taken. IF the leadership felt that a referendum supported its view, then a vote would have been taken. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes. I had stated that from the NCAA's view, they would take the tribal leadership position.

(2) Private entities are subject to the laws and are not above them. The question is whether the law applies given the previous agreement. The fact that the NCAA is private is irrelevant; the real issue is whether an entity is subject to the laws of North Dakota as it doesn't not reside in North Dakota. This is actually trickier than it initial looks as the state has been collecting taxes from companies that don't reside in North Dakota but do business inside the state. Since the NCAA does business in the state (through the member schools), it may very well be subject to the law.

(3) The law will also impact how the NCAA reacts. Your position is that the NCAA will ignore it. That is not the same as saying that it doesn't affect them.. The simple question is whether this law is enforceable and preempts the previous legal agreement. The NCAA has choices as well. The NCAA would also have an ugly public relations problem if it comes off so arrogantly that it can simply choose to ignore state laws whenever it chooses it to. Personally I question the law but think that only a legal challenge will determine whether it is enforceable or not.

(1) Official Tribal support = their postion to ncaa. . . a No, and that hasn't changed. Does the supreme court make decision via a referrendum and popular vote? Neither do the NA tribes in situaiton like this. Official tribal support may not equal a popular vote. I think we both agree on that, but I'm not sure it matters.

(2) You seem to be talking a lot about the ncaa being subject to law, what about the legal agreement that und signed. When this whole thiing is scrutinized, what has more merit, the legal agreement that und signed with the ncaa, or this 11th hour/after the fact legislative ploy. In an independent review, this seems like an easy question to answer. Im not sure that the ncaa is scared of this.

(3) The ND legislative law dictates what und has to do, not the ncaa. Does the law say "UND must keep the nickname and the ncaa can't touch it" or does it say "Und must keep the nickname"? I think your position is wishful thinking, but not based on reality.

Other than that, I agree with your ideas and positions. I'm still wondering if Und is better off with this law in place or not. The way I see it, this ND legislative law does not help und. UND can decide to go back on their legal agreement and face sanctions with or without this law. The law just prevents any negotiation.

[Fetch]

Without the Law it was over - it gave us hope that a better settlement could be reached

because Spirit Lake said yes & SR was not allowed to vote & SR had already gave approval - all things that were not known & part of, or brought up the 1st time.

Plus it is just the right thing to do - the ncaa was wrong from the get-go - too many had just given up & they were wrong to do so - Thank God the Legislature had the courage to save the name & no matter what happens next - in the end the people of ND will get to vote on the final outcome

[gjw007]

(1) Official Tribal support = their postion to ncaa. . . a No, and that hasn't changed. Does the supreme court make decision via a referrendum and popular vote? Neither do the NA tribes in situaiton like this. Official tribal support may not equal a popular vote. I think we both agree on that, but I'm not sure it matters.

(2) You seem to be talking a lot about the ncaa being subject to law, what about the legal agreement that und signed. When this whole thiing is scrutinized, what has more merit, the legal agreement that und signed with the ncaa, or this 11th hour/after the fact legislative ploy. In an independent review, this seems like an easy question to answer. Im not sure that the ncaa is scared of this.

(3) The ND legislative law dictates what und has to do, not the ncaa. Does the law say "UND must keep the nickname and the ncaa can't touch it" or does it say "Und must keep the nickname"? I think your position is wishful thinking, but not based on reality.

Other than that, I agree with your ideas and positions. I'm still wondering if Und is better off with this law in place or not. The way I see it, this ND legislative law does not help und. UND can decide to go back on their legal agreement and face sanctions with or without this law. The law just prevents any negotiation.

(1) By your logic, only one tribe then made the right decision which was to go with the leadership position; the other, having a vote, is wrong. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has reversed itself several times. One that comes to mind is a late 1800's ruling that justified separate but equal treatment with regards to minorities only to state 50 years or so later that this is inherently unequal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't give the instructions for remedies, it instructs lower courts to review the case and come up with remedies that are constitutional. From my understanding, the Supreme Court doesn't overthrow lower court rulings often but when they do, it makes news.

(2)/(3) The law pertains to UND but since the NCAA has business in the state, it is affected by the law. That is reality, anything else is ignoring the law. The question still remains whether the law is enforceable and whether it preempts the previous agreement between the board of higher education and the NCAA. My guess would be that the previous agreement between the Board of education and the NCAA will be upheld putting UND is a tough spot as it has to obey the state law but also has to honor the agreement between the board of education and the NCAA.

As there is no negotiation without the law (the NCAA simply applies its rules and the agreement applies), the law opens up the possibility of re-opening negotiations. Personally, I think UND should go without a kickname. While the nickname is important and is used to reflect certain values and traits, it is only a representative and is not what UND is. Who knows what the next zealot at the NCAA will choose. They extend their rampage against Indian names to include names such as the Bison which has significant imagery to the Indians and the US government in the late 1800 after the Civil War tried to exterminate the Bison to starve the Indians. Or they could take a stand against the unethical treatment of animals or who knows what. There is always something about any knickname that somebody will consider harmful or degrading and demand the removal of its use. It doesn't make it right but there will always be something.

Quite frankly, the NCAA position of trying to have the Native Americans ignored and forgotten is worse than any reported treatment given by the worse user of the name as the NCAA would have these tribes lost to history and forgotten as a living people. Very sad.

[The Sicatoka]

I keep asking: Is the NCAA a state actor?

I know past rulings have said "no" (in favor of the NCAA); however, those were before

There are a number of situations where the United States Supreme Court has recognized the conduct of individuals or private organizations to be

[PhillySioux]

A.G. Punts

[jodcon]

A.G. Punts

No surprise there, there was no reason for him to respond to the 10 lawmakers request with the SBHE contemplating legal action which would require his opinion at that time, he will probably be called upon by the SBHE in the next couple months for the same thing anyway.

Then it's going to get interesting.

[Fetch]

I hope he heads to the locker room & the state board sticks to how well they manage our university's other than Athletics maybe where the University Jets should take them next, or maybe weather they should have jets at all Or how to hire Presidents - who understand ND & proper use of funds

[IrishSiouxFan]

No surprise there, there was no reason for him to respond to the 10 lawmakers request with the SBHE contemplating legal action which would require his opinion at that time, he will probably be called upon by the SBHE in the next couple months for the same thing anyway.

Then it's going to get interesting.

Surely at least one of the ten lawmakers has a law degree and could do the legal research and make a determination. The State Board of Higher Ed needs to hurry up and decide what actions it's going to take so something can be resolved with the NCAA this summer.

[jodcon]

I hope he heads to the locker room & the state board sticks to how well they manage our university's other than Athletics maybe where the University Jets should take them next, or maybe weather they should have jets at all Or how to hire Presidents - who understand ND & proper use of funds

4 emoticons in one post...is that a record?

Seriously though Stenehjem is in a tough position, he might be forced into making a call that will have half the state pissed off regardless of which way it goes. Of course it wouldn't be his fault...it would be how the law is written...but some would put his face on it. Glad it's not me.

[Fetch]

Yes he is & I wish he could get back in my positive column - but he is responsible for a lot of the 1st settlement = Two tribes = Spirit Lake should have been enough - I still wonder if he mentioned that SR had given prior approval ? He is lucky the Dems are so out of touch with voters & have such lousy candidates (that he got re-elected last time)

[Fetch]

Boy ! I sure got the last word on this one

[krangodance]

Seems the Patrol just wanted to be done with this. Why didn't they investigate further how someone has valid licenses in two states? I'm pretty sure that's a no-no. Also, the statement about wrath meaning not voting for Carlson, not sure how that's even possible with this joker living in Minnesota. Finally, wonder what the "Arizona incident" is. Seems to indicate some sort of history of this behavior. A little perplexing.

I assume the "Arizona incident" they're referring to is the shooting in January that killed six people and sent a U.S. rep, Gabrielle Giffords, to the hospital with a life threatening gunshot wound to the head. I believe she is still in the hospital in fact.

Remember Obama almost started crying during the speech where he talked about the incident while her husband, who is an astronaut and is currently on the space shuttle, was sitting in the front row?

I feel like this was actually all pretty big news. Am I wrong?

[nodakvindy]

I assume the "Arizona incident" they're referring to is the shooting in January that killed six people and sent a U.S. rep, Gabrielle Giffords, to the hospital with a life threatening gunshot wound to the head. I believe she is still in the hospital in fact.

Remember Obama almost started crying during the speech where he talked about the incident while her husband, who is an astronaut and is currently on the space shuttle, was sitting in the front row?

I feel like this was actually all pretty big news. Am I wrong?

Yes, I'm aware of the Arizona shooting. I didn't even make that connection to this "threat", but that makes sense in the timeline when the email was sent to Carlson.

As I read the police report , I thought this individual had done something in Arizona as well, since it referred to driving records in both North Dakota and Minnesota.

[Sioux-cia]

No surprise there, there was no reason for him to respond to the 10 lawmakers request with the SBHE contemplating legal action which would require his opinion at that time, he will probably be called upon by the SBHE in the next couple months for the same thing anyway.

Then it's going to get interesting.

He is the State's Attorney General, so is it not appropriate for the lawmakers to turn to him for an opinion on the constitutionality of the Sioux nickname law? The way he blindsided us agreeing to the NC$$'s 'settlement', I certainly want to know where he stands.

[jodcon]

He is the State's Attorney General, so is it not appropriate for the lawmakers to turn to him for an opinion on the constitutionality of the Sioux nickname law? The way he blindsided us agreeing to the NC$$'s 'settlement', I certainly want to know where he stands.

He is the correct channel for the lawmakers to turn to, what I meant was when the SBHE later made public that they would be looking for a legal opinion from him on the constitutionality of the law there was no reason for him to do it any earlier, he will wait for their request. It's not a slight towards the lawmakers on his part, if the SBHE wouldn't have made that statement last week he would have worked on it at the lawmakers request, it has to be done either way. I'm sure he's looking at it now even though he hasn't got the 'official' request yet from the SBHE.