jimdahl Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Hat tip to PhillySioux for first linking this in another thread, but it's a notable enough piece of news that I'll repost... Alumni leader says UND's future at stake if nickname is sustained The University of North Dakota’s future, “athletically, academically, in stature and in reputation,” is at stake if Fighting Sioux nickname supporters prevail and force the university to keep the name and corresponding logo, UND alumni head Tim O’Keefe writes in a strongly worded letter posted today to the state’s newspapers. “The retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname must continue,” he writes, as the issues and dangers “have extended themselves way beyond the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on teams that used American Indian imagery.” In an interview today, O’Keefe acknowledged he had resisted engaging in the nickname debate out of respect for the range of differing opinions held by members of the Alumni Association – some of whom have taken active roles in the petition drives and other activities promoting retention of the nickname. “If I have any regret, it’s probably that we hadn’t done so earlier,” he said. “Over the past 10 years, we attempted to keep the tent full, from an Alumni Association perspective. We were respecting that there were differing opinions out there, so we just provided information. “But personally and professionally, I couldn’t keep silent any longer. The risk factors for my university are way too high.” Also, “What I’m hearing now from people I highly respect is a high degree of concern that we aren’t out there on the offensive and addressing the seriousness of this matter.” He said his letter “will go to every daily, every weekly, every biweekly newspaper in the state,” as well as TV and radio stations. That “will be followed by an email from me on Monday to many people across the state who are leaders in their communities, asking them to take the substance of this statement and speak out themselves – in letters to the editor, at their morning coffee clubs, at their churches, wherever it may be. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 University of Surrender before the fight is over - More Bungling by those who think they are smarter than the real Sioux Fans 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As I earlier stated, this is exactly what needs to happen. Those that are in a position to lay it out and discredit the half-truths others have been spreading are finally doing so. This is a serious matter and I'm not sure how many more people need to make that clear. So far Faison, Fullerton and now O'Keefe have laid it out. That clearly won't be enough for some, but I'm behind this move. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As I earlier stated, this is exactly what needs to happen. Those that are in a position to lay it out and discredit the half-truths others have been spreading are finally doing so. This is a serious matter and I'm not sure how many more people need to make that clear. So far Faison, Fullerton and now O'Keefe have laid it out. That clearly won't be enough for some, but I'm behind this move. Yep, and the Association has the money, credibility and contacts to get the message out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 University of Surrender before the fight is over - More Bungling by those who think they are smarter than the real Sioux Fans You really think you have more UND or "Fighting Sioux" credibility than Tim (hockey letterwinner) O'Keefe. If so, seek help. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 University of Surrender before the fight is over - More Bungling by those who think they are smarter than the real Sioux Fans The depth of your irrationality on this subject is truly mind-boggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He is obviously listening to his members (Alumni) who are really a minority of potential voters = politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He is obviously listening to his members (Alumni) who are really a minority of potential voters = politics We get it, you don't give a damn about the university or its athletic programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He is obviously listening to his members (Alumni) who are really a minority of potential voters = politics You mean he's listening to those who have the most to lose? Or maybe he actually understands the ramifications and is trying to protect the University? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yep, and the Association has the money, credibility and contacts to get the message out. I would gladly donate to help get the message out, and I hope other University supporters would, too. Hope for an expedited review of the state law before the state supreme court. Then a month or so before the election -- June or November -- launch a PR campaign on multiple levels. This issue needs recognizable faces associated with the university -- Faison, Jim Kleinsasser, maybe Dale Lennon, somebody from hockey -- on TV and on radio explaining their respect for the Fighting Sioux name and the consequences of keeping it. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux2007 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I like how Fetch was the first to comment on this thread. Hahaha! Go Sioux! But lets do what's best for UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He is obviously listening to his members (Alumni) who are really a minority of potential voters = politics This isn't about what people "want". It is about what is best for the University of North Dakota. The average person on the prairie doesn't have enough information about what is best, they are just reacting. Those people need to learn all of the facts to be able to make an informed decision. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This isn't about what people "want". It is about what is best for the University of North Dakota. The average person on the prairie doesn't have enough information about what is best, they are just reacting. Those people need to learn all of the facts to be able to make an informed decision. Have you ever gone to the voting booth without previously looking at the initiatives and try to cast an intelligent vote? It's almost impossible not only because the wording is always something to the effect of 'against not allowing negative....' which screws people up, but mostly because you can't really understand what the repercussions of the vote going one way or the other will be because you haven't done your homework. And that is what is probably going to happen if this comes to a vote, the average person on the street is going to have a 'Screw the NCAA they can't tell us what to do in our own state' type of attitude and the issue will probably pass. I honestly don't know if the Alumni Association and others will be able to educate enough people to keep this thing from getting railroaded through, and the sad thing is it will be done by people with good intentions who don't see the iceberg about to hit the Titanic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Under state law, even if a constitutional amendment passes it can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature. ND Constitution, Article III, Section 8: If a majority of votes cast upon an initiated or a referred measure are affirmative, it shall be deemed enacted. An initiated or referred measure which is approved shall become law thirty days after the election, and a referred measure which is rejected shall be void immediately. If conflicting measures are approved, the one receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be law. A measure approved by the electors may not be repealed or amended by the legislative assembly for seven years from its effective date, except by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Under state law, even if a constitutional amendment passes it can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature. Feel comfortable about that as a last option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why does the nickname issue (referral, big sky, et al) feel like a torpedo coming at us. "The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch" The players Frank Burgraff as: the saboteur cook Tim O Keefe as: the captain (Scott Glenn) Al Carlson as: the arrogant russian captain that launched the torpedo (Stellan Skarsgaard) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxO8_lOOra8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This is what I was mentioning in earlier posts. The university has remained pretty quiet during most of this. Not after yesterday. Its time to get the word out and if this even makes until June, we have 4 months to get the story of the entire athletic department out. This is why it is not a certainty this thing passes if it makes it to ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Feel comfortable about that as a last option? I don't feel comfortable about it. But that was approximately the margin the repeal passed with in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Have you ever gone to the voting booth without previously looking at the initiatives and try to cast an intelligent vote? It's almost impossible not only because the wording is always something to the effect of 'against not allowing negative....' which screws people up, but mostly because you can't really understand what the repercussions of the vote going one way or the other will be because you haven't done your homework. And that is what is probably going to happen if this comes to a vote, the average person on the street is going to have a 'Screw the NCAA they can't tell us what to do in our own state' type of attitude and the issue will probably pass. I honestly don't know if the Alumni Association and others will be able to educate enough people to keep this thing from getting railroaded through, and the sad thing is it will be done by people with good intentions who don't see the iceberg about to hit the Titanic. Personally, I take voting very seriously and I make sure I know what the measures mean before I step in the booth. I have had a few times where I hadn't made a decision either way on a measure or an office until I was in the booth. But I always make sure to read through the measures ahead of time so I don't have to figure it out as I go. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't prepare ahead of time. No matter what anyone does, some people won't know all of the details and will vote from their gut based on very few facts. I just hope that enough people will get the message and do the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Personally, I take voting very seriously and I make sure I know what the measures mean before I step in the booth. I have had a few times where I hadn't made a decision either way on a measure or an office until I was in the booth. But I always make sure to read through the measures ahead of time so I don't have to figure it out as I go. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't prepare ahead of time. No matter what anyone does, some people won't know all of the details and will vote from their gut based on very few facts. I just hope that enough people will get the message and do the right thing. Hopefully enough of the people who could educate and influence this vote will get off their rears and start making headlines to try to salvage this situation, the Alumni Association has stepped up...who's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvinbe Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It is now time for UND's coaches to begin speaking out on this issue. It is still very disturbing to me that our very own hockey coach was a driving force behind getting the legislation passed in the first place. How could he have not considered what it would do to the other sports teams on campus and UND as a whole? It's time for people like him to now eat some humble pie, man-up, and do the right thing. He needs to speak publicly about the importance of retiring the name and logo. The effort needs to be unified at this point, and the hockey program needs to get out there and publicly support the retiring of the name and logo. It is shocking to me that our hockey coach can lobby for Minnesota and Wisconsin to continue to schedule UND when just a short time ago he was sending out emails in a last-minute effort to save the name and logo. It was shockingly self-serving and shockingly short-sighted. And now it's as though this is all coming as a surprise to him. Unbelievabe!! Hakstol is always talking about the importance of character in his players. It's now time that he showed some character on this issue in a very public way!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It is now time for UND's coaches to begin speaking out on this issue. It is still very disturbing to me that our very own hockey coach was a driving force behind getting the legislation passed in the first place. How could he have not considered what it would do to the other sports teams on campus and UND as a whole? It's time for people like him to now eat some humble pie, man-up, and do the right thing. He needs to speak publicly about the importance of retiring the name and logo. The effort needs to be unified at this point, and the hockey program needs to get out there and publicly support the retiring of the name and logo. It is shocking to me that our hockey coach can lobby for Minnesota and Wisconsin to continue to schedule UND when just a short time ago he was sending out emails in a last-minute effort to save the name and logo. It was shockingly self-serving and shockingly short-sighted. And now it's as though this is all coming as a surprise to him. Unbelievabe!! Hakstol is always talking about the importance of character in his players. It's now time that he showed some character on this issue in a very public way!! We get it, you hate Hakstol, you've posted this twice now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Feel comfortable about that as a last option? No, I don't feel comfortable about leaving it in the Legislature's hands. But it is something to think about and prepare for. This could end up being the biggest issue of the 2013 Legislative Session. We'll have to put major pressure on our representatives in Bismarck to save UND athletics. Hopefully, it doesn't come down to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 We get it, you hate Hakstol, you've posted this twice now. I agree with him and not cause I hate Hakstol, it's cause he is the most well respected coach on campus. Take a look at what his e-mail campaign did and how his behavior at the press conference shaped the thoughts of a certain group of fans when the very first original name change was announced. Words from him carry a lot of weight with the one team on campus that is still using the logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvinbe Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Actually, I respect Hakstol a great deal...as a hockey coach. But, his divisive behavior on this issue has been unacceptable, and he hasn't been held accountable. Last time I checked, he doesn't let his players get away with a lack of accoutability, and neither should he. I'm just telling it like it is. When it comes to this issue, he's the pink elephant in the living room that nobody has the guts to talk about. Hakstol has said nothing at this point publicly to make anyone think he has changed his position in the slightest way. If anything, his silence is evidence of his still not backing the overall interests of UND and all of UND athletics as a whole. 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.