Alumni Association begins campaign against nickname

[Blackheart]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229331/

Todays meeting will most likely be completely open.

Who's getting the highlights from this meeting and reporting them here?

[82SiouxGuy]

“I’m glad they did that,” Shaft said. “But had a lot of that happened earlier, we might not be in the position we’re in today.”

I find this statement to be somewhat ironic. If the SBOHE had not done what they did earlier (spring of 2009), I doubt we are knee deep in this steaming pile of poo today.

I don't think it would have changed much. The people that want to keep the nickname-at-all-costs would still have been upset. Standing Rock wasn't going to do anything whether the SBoHE waited any longer or not. Carlson still would have introduced his legislation, because his cause is to get rid of the SBoHE and he doesn't really care about the nickname.

[The Sicatoka]

Who's getting the highlights from this meeting and reporting them here?

I'm surprised one of the media jackals ( © Jesse Ventura ) isn't live blogging on it.

[The Sicatoka]

For those of you who haven't read Tim O'Keefe's letter:

To the editor,

The retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname must continue.

For me, the name has always been a source of pride, tradition, honor and excellence, and always will be. As a letter winner and part of a family of four generations of UND athletes, the Fighting Sioux will always be a part of who I am and those close to me. But those feelings and pride are not the focus of this matter any longer.

In 2012, the issues have extended themselves far beyond the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on teams that use American Indian imagery. Institutions in desirable conferences, in addition to other universities we, by tradition and aspiration, want to compete with, have clearly made known their absolute unwillingness to compete with UND as the Fighting Sioux. It is beyond naïve and inaccurate to suggest these facts are wrong.

Given this evolving reality, during the special session last November, state lawmakers reversed an earlier vote requiring UND to remain the Fighting Sioux. The State Board of Higher Education followed by voting to end UND’s use of the nickname and logo, starting January 1.

Two recent petition drives seek to reinstate the name through statewide votes. The petition turned in on Feb. 7 would repeal the Legislature’s November vote, reinstating the law requiring the name. The second would put the Fighting Sioux nickname in the state constitution. While I respect those who choose to fight for the name, there are very real, dire consequences if the petitions are successful. The future of UND, athletically, academically, in stature and in reputation is at stake.

The following facts guide my opinion:

1. Without a quality Division I conference, UND will be isolated. It is absolutely clear the Big Sky Conference will not accept us as the Fighting Sioux. This clear message was repeated again this week by Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton. The presidents of Big Sky member institutions do not want a university on NCAA sanctions. They don’t want to alienate nearby American Indian tribes. The message is clear: "We don’t want your problems on our campuses!" The Summit League also took a similar stance during earlier conference discussions. It is not a stretch to suggest we could find ourselves homeless athletically.

2. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa all have institutional policies that won’t allow their athletic teams to compete with schools under NCAA sanctions due to American Indian imagery. They each reiterated this in formal terms this week, and this trend appears to be gaining ground. Many have commented on the magical atmosphere at Ralph Engelstad Arena during the January men’s hockey series with Minnesota. With Minnesota moving to a different conference, this legendary rivalry will likely never return to Grand Forks if UND is still the Fighting Sioux.

3. Top student-athletes come to compete against the best. As the Division I transition concludes with our entry into the Big Sky next fall, and the National Collegiate Hockey Conference begins play in 2013, UND reflects its academic reputation, traditions, and accomplishments through athletics. If we lose the Big Sky and the great competitive history of the Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey series, recruiting will

be a nightmare for our coaches. UND’s coaches, administrators, and fan base have combined to put us into an attractive competitive situation. It would be tragic to throw that away, and would effectively reduce UND’s stature.

4. There is no doubt in my mind this great University will be harmed academically. Recruitment and retention of top faculty, administrators and students is difficult when our academic excellence is overshadowed by controversy.

These facts were not created by someone in North Dakota. They are simply a reflection of our competitive environment if we want to compete for championships in Division I.

We are past the point where we must put this issue behind us. The traditions of the Fighting Sioux will always be celebrated, and will always be an important piece of our history. We have spent too much time focused inward, dividing teammates, friends and families while depleting UND’s tremendous potential.

I am completely opposed to the petition drives. Their potential outcomes are not in the best interests of UND, and they especially ignore the student-athletes of today and those we will be proud of in the future!

At times in life, personally and professionally, we have to cut our losses and move on. That time has arrived for the name and logo.

Together, we can continue to accomplish great things. Divided, we diminish our potential and significantly damage our future.

Sincerely,

Tim O’Keefe, ’71

Executive Vice President & CEO

UND Alumni Association & UND Foundation

[Matt]

“I’m glad they did that,” Shaft said. “But had a lot of that happened earlier, we might not be in the position we’re in today.” Understatement of the decade.

If there are any feet to be held to fire, it's those feet/that fire.

[UND92,96]

I'm surprised one of the media jackals ( © Jesse Ventura ) isn't live blogging on it.

I just found this: https://www.facebook...Faculty.Advisor

[darell1976]

I just found this: https://www.facebook...Faculty.Advisor

SBHE voted to direct UND to follow NDCC 15-10-46, and in post-season play wear uniforms allowable under the law

The hell does this mean??

[UND92,96]

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229348/

Early in the two-hour teleconference meeting, Stenehjem told the board that, in his opinion, “if this matter were to be brought to the Supreme Court justices, I have no doubt they would rule the law (requiring UND to keep the nickname) is in violation of the Constitution.”

[82SiouxGuy]

The hell does this mean??

It looks like they voted to have UND follow the nickname law and use uniforms allowable under the law. Then they voted to seek clarification of the constitutionality of the law. As a non-lawyer it looks like they want UND to follow the law for now, but that they are going to challenge the constitutionality.

[darell1976]

It looks like they voted to have UND follow the nickname law and use uniforms allowable under the law. Then they voted to seek clarification of the constitutionality of the law. As a non-lawyer it looks like they want UND to follow the law for now, but that they are going to challenge the constitutionality.

So the women's hockey team are screwed?

[engelbunny]

I don't think it would have changed much. The people that want to keep the nickname-at-all-costs would still have been upset. Standing Rock wasn't going to do anything whether the SBoHE waited any longer or not. Carlson still would have introduced his legislation, because his cause is to get rid of the SBoHE and he doesn't really care about the nickname.

I have to disagree. I believe that this was the turning point in the whole ordeal. The lawsuit settlement of October 2007 had a drop dead date of 11-30-10 for compliance. From October 2007 through all of 2008, very little was done. In fact, at the January 2009 SBOHE meeting, they talked about how the "formation of the [nickname] committee has begun". They hadn't even formalized their committee yet! However outside the purview of the State Board, people were working to get a vote held at Spirit Lake. That vote, an overwhelming one, was held on April 20, 2009. One would think this would have been met with great joy by both UND and the SBOHE. A full year and half before the deadline, one tribe has voted in favor- by a landslide. The board doesn't even have a committee yet, and one half of the hurdle has been accomplished. This was fantastic.

So what does the Board do? A mere 24 days after the vote, the SBOHE, on May 14, 2009, makes a motion to 1. Move the deadline from 11-30-10 up to 10-1-09; and 2. Require a 30 year binding agreement. Talk about taking a crap on the very people you claim to be honoring. Unbelievable. You don't think the people at Standing Rock noticed that one? You don't think the people of Spirit Lake have dug in their heals over this offense? Everything that has happened since, including Carlson's legislation, stems from Board's 5-14-09 action and their subsequent screw-ups on this issue.

Had the SBOHE left well enough alone, the original 11-30-10 deadline with have come with either approval from both sides, or the grudging retirement of the name for failure to gain Standing Rock approval. Everyone was resigned to this reality. There would have been no legislative interference because the board would not have given the legislature any ammo. The SBOHE, and the UND officials who lobbied them, screwed this up royally for no reason - except a shot at the Summit League, which is specifically mentioned in those very 5-14-09 minutes.

So UND is in a very tough spot, no doubt. This is a watershed moment. I did not sign the petition, nor will I vote for the measure, because I understand the stakes are high. However, I don't feel one bit sorry for the UND administration, or the members of the SBOHE, or the Alumni Association. Because, this was all avoidable. All one had to do was have a simple understanding of the heartfelt emotions surrounding the name and logo, and then just let it play out without interference.

[Fetch]

& now a shot at something about Big Sky must be a Montana Logo or something

[82SiouxGuy]

I have to disagree. I believe that this was the turning point in the whole ordeal. The lawsuit settlement of October 2007 had a drop dead date of 11-30-10 for compliance. From October 2007 through all of 2008, very little was done. In fact, at the January 2009 SBOHE meeting, they talked about how the "formation of the [nickname] committee has begun". They hadn't even formalized their committee yet! However outside the purview of the State Board, people were working to get a vote held at Spirit Lake. That vote, an overwhelming one, was held on April 20, 2009. One would think this would have been met with great joy by both UND and the SBOHE. A full year and half before the deadline, one tribe has voted in favor- by a landslide. The board doesn't even have a committee yet, and one half of the hurdle has been accomplished. This was fantastic.

So what does the Board do? A mere 24 days after the vote, the SBOHE, on May 14, 2009, makes a motion to 1. Move the deadline from 11-30-10 up to 10-1-09; and 2. Require a 30 year binding agreement. Talk about taking a crap on the very people you claim to be honoring. Unbelievable. You don't think the people at Standing Rock noticed that one? You don't think the people of Spirit Lake have dug in their heals over this offense? Everything that has happened since, including Carlson's legislation, stems from Board's 5-14-09 action and their subsequent screw-ups on this issue.

Had the SBOHE left well enough alone, the original 11-30-10 deadline with have come with either approval from both sides, or the grudging retirement of the name for failure to gain Standing Rock approval. Everyone was resigned to this reality. There would have been no legislative interference because the board would not have given the legislature any ammo. The SBOHE, and the UND officials who lobbied them, screwed this up royally for no reason - except a shot at the Summit League, which is specifically mentioned in those very 5-14-09 minutes.

So UND is in a very tough spot, no doubt. This is a watershed moment. I did not sign the petition, nor will I vote for the measure, because I understand the stakes are high. However, I don't feel one bit sorry for the UND administration, or the members of the SBOHE, or the Alumni Association. Because, this was all avoidable. All one had to do was have a simple understanding of the heartfelt emotions surrounding the name and logo, and then just let it play out without interference.

I don't think that there was ever a chance at Standing Rock. After the settlement people thought there was a chance at Spirit Lake, but realized that Standing Rock was going to be almost impossible. There had been plenty of communication, or efforts behind the scenes at communication with Standing Rock after the settlement. Espegard, Shaft and others have talked about telephone calls and e-mails going unreturned. Attempts to set up meetings that were ignored. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Standing Rock didn't want to communicate with them then, and still isn't communicating with them. And the effort at a time period for the approval was necessary. The settlement said that with 1 vote either tribe could remove their approval. Then the whole damn mess would have started again. That could have happened after the next tribal election. They weren't locked in at 30 years, they just wanted some period of certainty. Moving on it that early may have upset some people at Spirit Lake, but it didn't affect Standing Rock.

And I believe that Al Carlson would have made his move anyway. Carlson is trying to take down the SBoHE. He has enough of the legislature following him that the issue would have passed. And there would have been plenty of people that would have made noise about keeping the name.

The Summit League was definitely a factor. As we see in the discussion now, a conference is huge for the non-hockey sports. At that point, the Big Sky had resisted all efforts at adding teams in the Central Time Zone. So the Summit seemed like the only possibility. If the chances of getting Standing Rock to move are so small, and getting into a league is very important, there is a lot of incentive to make that move. The SBoHE knew it wasn't going to be popular, but it was a sound business decision.

There were plenty of mistakes made by a lot of people throughout this, and going back decades. But there is too much emotion involved right now and not enough rational thought. I get that people are mad or hurt. It just isn't good to make major decisions based on those emotions.

[Fetch]

I hope no Fighting Sioux Fan ever steps in Standing Rocks Casino

[Cratter]

Is the alumni association going to have a stern talk with the uninformed fraternity members on U avenue and Columbia road with the banner hanging outside claiming "save the fighting sioux"?

[Blackheart]

Is the alumni association going to have a stern talk with the uniformed fraternity members on U avenue and Columbia road with the banner hanging outside claiming "save the fighting sioux"?

What kind of uniforms are they wearing?

[Cratter]

What kind of uniforms are they wearing?

New study shows old age beings at 27. I am past the point of no return!! ha

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1162052/Old-age-begins-27--scientists-claim-new-research.html

[bincitysioux]

Is the alumni association going to have a stern talk with the uninformed fraternity members on U avenue and Columbia road with the banner hanging outside claiming "save the fighting sioux"?

The UND Student Senate has long been in favor of dropping the name.

The head of the UND Alumni Foundation is in favor of dropping the name.

The President and Athletic Director of the University are in favor of dropping the name.

The State Board of Higher Education is in favor of dropping the name.

It seems to me that all four of these entities would have a better grasp of what the ramifications of keeping the name would mean to the University than would some Frat boys on University Avenue, a legislator from Fargo, a tribal member from Devils Lake or Standing Rock, or an attorney from Minot...............................

[bincitysioux]

Forgive me if this has been posted elseware, but here is a link to a podcast from today's Scott Hennen show where he interviewed Tim O'Keefe. It is the 2nd podcast from the top, (13-02-2012 (7.18 MB)), 15:40 in length.

O'Keefe makes some awfully valid points, coming from a guy who has great "Fighting Sioux Cred"................

[yababy8]

Those that are in a position to lay it out and discredit the half-truths others have been spreading are finally doing so.

Half truths?

Here is a Half truth for you:

The statement, "name at all costs"- wow! This could be an exercise in propaganda in class rooms all across the world. Even Dahl is using this one now. "risking" our conference affiliation, home NCAA tourney games or having a few schools act like false gods and not schedule us (for a period of time??) is paramount to "at all costs". NICE!! and very respectful of people who have lost loved-ones for causes like wars too!! Unbelievable. I cannot believe how ignorant and manipulative a statement like "name at all costs" is. Anyone who has used this should stare at a wall until they realize either how full of sh*T they are or how gullible they are to others rhetoric.

[RD17]

Half truths?

Here is a Half truth for you:

The statement, "name at all costs"- wow! This could be an exercise in propaganda in class rooms all across the world. Even Dahl is using this one now. "risking" our conference affiliation, home NCAA tourney games or having a few schools act like false gods and not schedule us (for a period of time??) is paramount to "at all costs". NICE!! and very respectful of people who have lost loved-ones for causes like wars too!! Unbelievable. I cannot believe how ignorant and manipulative a statement like "name at all costs" is. Anyone who has used this should stare at a wall until they realize either how full of sh*T they are or how gullible they are to others rhetoric.

You're criticizing others for using the phrase "name at all costs" while on the other hand suggesting in another thread that "athletic martyrdom" is an acceptable outcome? You are exhibit A of the name at all costs mentality.

Please think before you post or continue to get exposed as a hypocrite.

[Chewey]

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.

That's a lot of garbage. He has nothing to be "accountable" for. He supports the nickname and logo and he has every right to state so and to do what he did. If you want to hold people "accountable" start with Leigh Jeanotte, Sharon Carson and the rest of the yahoos who have tried to creat "racism" out of whole cloth. Hakstol has no need to say anything.

[Chewey]

I have to disagree. I believe that this was the turning point in the whole ordeal. The lawsuit settlement of October 2007 had a drop dead date of 11-30-10 for compliance. From October 2007 through all of 2008, very little was done. In fact, at the January 2009 SBOHE meeting, they talked about how the "formation of the [nickname] committee has begun". They hadn't even formalized their committee yet! However outside the purview of the State Board, people were working to get a vote held at Spirit Lake. That vote, an overwhelming one, was held on April 20, 2009. One would think this would have been met with great joy by both UND and the SBOHE. A full year and half before the deadline, one tribe has voted in favor- by a landslide. The board doesn't even have a committee yet, and one half of the hurdle has been accomplished. This was fantastic.

So what does the Board do? A mere 24 days after the vote, the SBOHE, on May 14, 2009, makes a motion to 1. Move the deadline from 11-30-10 up to 10-1-09; and 2. Require a 30 year binding agreement. Talk about taking a crap on the very people you claim to be honoring. Unbelievable. You don't think the people at Standing Rock noticed that one? You don't think the people of Spirit Lake have dug in their heals over this offense? Everything that has happened since, including Carlson's legislation, stems from Board's 5-14-09 action and their subsequent screw-ups on this issue.

Had the SBOHE left well enough alone, the original 11-30-10 deadline with have come with either approval from both sides, or the grudging retirement of the name for failure to gain Standing Rock approval. Everyone was resigned to this reality. There would have been no legislative interference because the board would not have given the legislature any ammo. The SBOHE, and the UND officials who lobbied them, screwed this up royally for no reason - except a shot at the Summit League, which is specifically mentioned in those very 5-14-09 minutes.

So UND is in a very tough spot, no doubt. This is a watershed moment. I did not sign the petition, nor will I vote for the measure, because I understand the stakes are high. However, I don't feel one bit sorry for the UND administration, or the members of the SBOHE, or the Alumni Association. Because, this was all avoidable. All one had to do was have a simple understanding of the heartfelt emotions surrounding the name and logo, and then just let it play out without interference.

Very astute points and couldn't agree more. All that the bungling by the SBoHE did was create a very credible basis for concluding that the "stakeholders" never had any intention to participate in and effectuate the terms of the surrender agreement in good faith. There was some solid support at SR and there were a few Tribal Council members sitting on the fence who could have been persuaded in favor of the nickname and logo. Archie and Steve Fool Bear and Antoine American Horse could tell you that. If you remember, (I can't locate it online and I am, therefore, paraphrasing here) SR basically asked the SBoHE and UND what their intentions were concerning the nickname and I believe that this was even after the May, 2009 fiasco following the SL vote. The UND Admininstration has wanted the name gone from day one of the surrender agreement and the surrender agreement itself was nothing more than a festooned 3 year "cooling off period" or buffer where half-assed attempts would be made and then everyone would just throw up their hands and would assume, by that time, that people would have just gotten used to the idea that the name would be gone. I can't believe that educated people could not make all of this less transparent, at least, and it's pretty difficult to believe that they really even tried to get approval or even that it was all just good faith bungling.

[Matt]

I don't think that there was ever a chance at Standing Rock. After the settlement people thought there was a chance at Spirit Lake, but realized that Standing Rock was going to be almost impossible. There had been plenty of communication, or efforts behind the scenes at communication with Standing Rock after the settlement. Espegard, Shaft and others have talked about telephone calls and e-mails going unreturned. Attempts to set up meetings that were ignored. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Standing Rock didn't want to communicate with them then, and still isn't communicating with them. And the effort at a time period for the approval was necessary. The settlement said that with 1 vote either tribe could remove their approval. Then the whole damn mess would have started again. That could have happened after the next tribal election. They weren't locked in at 30 years, they just wanted some period of certainty. Moving on it that early may have upset some people at Spirit Lake, but it didn't affect Standing Rock.

And I believe that Al Carlson would have made his move anyway. Carlson is trying to take down the SBoHE. He has enough of the legislature following him that the issue would have passed. And there would have been plenty of people that would have made noise about keeping the name.

The Summit League was definitely a factor. As we see in the discussion now, a conference is huge for the non-hockey sports. At that point, the Big Sky had resisted all efforts at adding teams in the Central Time Zone. So the Summit seemed like the only possibility. If the chances of getting Standing Rock to move are so small, and getting into a league is very important, there is a lot of incentive to make that move. The SBoHE knew it wasn't going to be popular, but it was a sound business decision.

There were plenty of mistakes made by a lot of people throughout this, and going back decades. But there is too much emotion involved right now and not enough rational thought. I get that people are mad or hurt. It just isn't good to make major decisions based on those emotions.

I tend to agree with you, but I can't help noticing on the one hand you rightfully point out the Big Sky appeared to have no interest in expanding in the central time zone (even refusing to accept the xdsus) and then they totally reversed course and offered both UxDs. On the other hand you rightfully point out that Standing Rock appeared totally opposed to approving use of the nickname. Might SR have reversed course a la the BSC and allowed a vote had there not been interference from the SBoHE after the SL approval? We will never know. They should have let things play out because, as we saw with the BSC, we may think we know things with something close to certainty at a given point in time, but often we are wrong.

[yababy8]

You're criticizing others for using the phrase "name at all costs" while on the other hand suggesting in another thread that "athletic martyrdom" is an acceptable outcome? You are exhibit A of the name at all costs mentality.

Please think before you post or continue to get exposed as a hypocrite.

Sorry Friend, athletic martyrdom is NOT paramount to "all costs".

To gets past the rhetoric of comparing the two one must first define "athletic martyrdom"

and I'm guessing you and I would have a hard time agreeing there.

Second, even your Big-Sky-is-falling extremist take on the result of athletic martyrdom does not justify "at ALL costs" claims.

It is simply a Divisive hyperbolic suggestion used to manipulate emotions and to give a pejorative impression of those whole you oppose.

It is really quite pathetic watching people succumb to fear and reduce themselves to this mentality.

It reminds me of the way people were 10 years ago when we invaded Iraq. To suggest that we should not be doing that was paramount to not being a patriot and/or not supporting the troops. It is truly an insanity that arises from a state of fear. A mental state where one suspends reasonabilty due to the anxiety associated with a challenging situation and further perpetuated when our leadership exhibit the same behavior, see Fiason, Okeef, Kelly, Dahl speak of weapons of Mass Destruction.