Spirit Lake vs NCAA

[82SiouxGuy]

So it was a no win sitiuation from the start.

It was a very little chance of winning from the start. Many people said that in 2005 when the NCAA policy was announced and again in 2007 when the settlement was announced. I don't know why anyone is surprised about this.

[The Sicatoka]

The Sioux moniker was having chest pains in 2005.

Either SL or SR could've driven it to the emergency room and staved off a heart attack.

Then along comes 2007 and the Sioux moniker was on the floor in cardiac arrest (when the settlement agreement was signed).

Ron His Horse is Thunder, chair of SR at the time, refused to have SR start CPR.

SL tried but it was a two-man resuscitation and SR refused.

The moniker died in 2010 (the timeframe of the settlement agreement).

Now SL CUR thinks CPR will still matter.

Patient's dead.

[jodcon]

So it was a no win sitiuation from the start.

This battle was essentially lost during the initial agreement with the NCAA, while schools like Florida State were represented by hard-line counsel and hammered out a decent proposal, our legal team rolled over like dogs and took the first bone thrown their way. Harsh but that's the way I see it.

[ScottM]

This battle was essentially lost during the initial agreement with the NCAA, while schools like Florida State were represented by hard-line counsel and hammered out a decent proposal, our legal team rolled over like dogs and took the first bone thrown their way. Harsh but that's the way I see it.

FSU never litigated their position, Florida and Utah's congressional delegations fired up almost immediately and got the NC$$ to go the tribal permission route. Meanwhile, NoDak's delegation went dress shopping at WalMart.

[jodcon]

FSU never litigated their position, Florida and Utah's congressional delegations fired up almost immediately and got the NC$$ to go the tribal permission route. Meanwhile, NoDak's delegation went dress shopping at WalMart.

My mistake, I thought they had to go a little further than that.

Now that I think about it, that makes it even worse.

[82SiouxGuy]

FSU never litigated their position, Florida and Utah's congressional delegations fired up almost immediately and got the NC$$ to go the tribal permission route. Meanwhile, NoDak's delegation went dress shopping at WalMart.

North Dakota was offered the same deal. Several small schools were able to get approval from local tribes and got the same deal as Florida State and Utah. None of the tribes would help UND. Spirit Lake had a resolution in place from 2000, they just had to confirm it in writing within the appeal window. They refused to write the letter or do anything else until the tribe members forced the vote and the Tribal Council had to follow the wishes of the tribe. That happened about 1 1/2 years after the settlement. You can blame the delegation for not getting involved, but UND had an opportunity for the same 1 tribe approval and couldn't get it done in time. I would spread blame across UND, the State Board of Higher Education and the Spirit Lake Tribal Council for that.

[Chewey]

Spirit Lake's position has been respected. Unfortunately, the agreement required approval from both tribes. That didn't happen by the deadline. You should know that many contracts and legal agreements have deadlines that have to be followed. The deadline is past. That takes precedence over the position of Spirit Lake. And respecting the position does not have to mean honoring and following the position. Eunice Davidson was quoted in the Grand Forks Herald saying that the Standing Rock decision should be respected even if she disagreed with it. You said that the CUR took the high road, I'm just suggesting that you might want to follow.

Is Spirit Lake's opinion the only one that is to be honored? What about every other Sioux tribe in the country? What about the other Native American tribes in the region? Spirit Lake is the only tribe that has given approval. If you have 2 diametrically opposed opinions, how do you honor both sides? You can't honor both. You can respect both sides. Then you have to decide which side to follow. In this case the decision on which side to follow was built into the settlement agreement.

Eunice was referencing a vote on Standing Rock. What about every other Chippewa tribe or Seminole tribe in the country? As to other Native American tribes in the region, they are not Sioux tribes. It is misleading to characterize SL vs. SR as diametrically opposed positions when SL has approved and SR would approve if allowed to vote (indeed, already did approve in 1969). That's hardly a situation where diametrically opposed perspectives are present.

[Chewey]

North Dakota was offered the same deal. Several small schools were able to get approval from local tribes and got the same deal as Florida State and Utah. None of the tribes would help UND. Spirit Lake had a resolution in place from 2000, they just had to confirm it in writing within the appeal window. They refused to write the letter or do anything else until the tribe members forced the vote and the Tribal Council had to follow the wishes of the tribe. That happened about 1 1/2 years after the settlement. You can blame the delegation for not getting involved, but UND had an opportunity for the same 1 tribe approval and couldn't get it done in time. I would spread blame across UND, the State Board of Higher Education and the Spirit Lake Tribal Council for that.

There's little basis for blame as to SL. The NCAA had no business of requiring anything. The resolution was passed in 2000. It had not been rescinded. Re-approving in writing an approval that's already been provided is nonsensical, insulting and a waste of time. Approval had not been rescinded so obviously the approval was still there. The 1969 ceremony was not just done for $#its, giggles and showmanship. To classify it as such serves to disrespect the ceremony and the sacred tradition behind it. A white guy was given a headdress and a formal Native American name as per a sacred ceremony and all that was for show and for some "class" or "project" that can only be established by inference and self-serving narratives of some remaining UND faculty members (who also conveniently oppose the nickname) and JTA and RHHIT? The NCAA did not bother to delve into what was meant by the ceremony, did not interview any of those present and did not even re-examine its position when presented with verifiable, contravening accounts by people who were actually there and actually participated.

The NCAA could care less about respecting anything, especially NA customs and traditions, unless they're forced to do so by a court or "persuaded" to do so by ND's shadowy Congressional invertebrates. That position is not worthy of being defended as having any justification, credence or any moral validity whatsoever.

[Chewey]

It was a press conference, not a pep rally.

And you're saying in Minot all there was were the speakers, the direct parties, media, and people paid to be there as part of their job responsibilities.

Sounds like the same folks who were in Judge Erickson's court room: the speakers (lawyers), the direct parties, media, and people paid to be there as part of their job responsibilities.

Oh, wait, there was one other person in the Fargo court room.

Was it Fetch? No.

Was it DaveK. No.

It was me.

Really? Philion and Stewart were being paid to be there as part of their positions with Brady Martz? Ok. So DaveK and Fetch were evidently not in Fargo but you were and that information is supposed to explain what? Federal Court vs. what was conducted in Minot can be classified the same? Attendance in a federal courtroom or at the ND SC is a completely different thing from attendance for showing support at a public gathering. There are reasons why attendance is limited as to the former.

[darell1976]

There's little basis for blame as to SL. The NCAA had no business of requiring anything. The resolution was passed in 2000. It had not been rescinded. Re-approving in writing an approval that's already been provided is nonsensical, insulting and a waste of time. Approval had not been rescinded so obviously the approval was still there. The 1969 ceremony was not just done for $#its, giggles and showmanship. To classify it as such serves to disrespect the ceremony and the sacred tradition behind it. A white guy was given a headdress and a formal Native American name as per a sacred ceremony and all that was for show and for some "class" or "project" that can only be established by inference and self-serving narratives of some remaining UND faculty members (who also conveniently oppose the nickname) and JTA and RHHIT? The NCAA did not bother to delve into what was meant by the ceremony, did not interview any of those present and did not even re-examine its position when presented with verifiable, contravening accounts by people who were actually there and actually participated.

The NCAA could care less about respecting anything, especially NA customs and traditions, unless they're forced to do so by a court or "persuaded" to do so by ND's shadowy Congressional invertebrates. That position is not worthy of being defended as having any justification, credence or any moral validity whatsoever.

What if the SL tribal council held another vote among tribal leaders and voted to retire the Sioux name....would you still fight to keep the name? Under the settlement the name has to be immediately retired if at ANY time the Tribal Council votes to get rid of UND's nickname.

[The Sicatoka]

Really? Philion and Stewart were being paid to be there as part of their positions with Brady Martz? Ok. So DaveK and Fetch were evidently not in Fargo but you were and that information is supposed to explain what? Federal Court vs. what was conducted in Minot can be classified the same? Attendance in a federal courtroom or at the ND SC is a completely different thing from attendance for showing support at a public gathering. There are reasons why attendance is limited as to the former.

What you just said is, "Who cares who was there?" to which I say, "You missed my exact same point."

[UNDBIZ]

Really? Philion and Stewart were being paid to be there as part of their positions with Brady Martz? Ok. So DaveK and Fetch were evidently not in Fargo but you were and that information is supposed to explain what? Federal Court vs. what was conducted in Minot can be classified the same? Attendance in a federal courtroom or at the ND SC is a completely different thing from attendance for showing support at a public gathering. There are reasons why attendance is limited as to the former.

There are reasons why the Alumni Foundation didn't announce the press conferences until the morning of the press conferences. Had they wanted people to show up and show support they would've announced the upcoming press conferences a week beforehand. But no, they're press conferences, not pep rallies.

[82SiouxGuy]

Eunice was referencing a vote on Standing Rock. What about every other Chippewa tribe or Seminole tribe in the country? As to other Native American tribes in the region, they are not Sioux tribes. It is misleading to characterize SL vs. SR as diametrically opposed positions when SL has approved and SR would approve if allowed to vote (indeed, already did approve in 1969). That's hardly a situation where diametrically opposed perspectives are present.

No, Eunice said that she respected the right of the tribe to run their government as they thought right, including letting the Tribal Council make the decision if that was the way they wanted to run their government.

I haven't polled every Chippewa tribe or Seminole tribe. I know that the Seminoles in Oklahoma have voted something like 18-3 that they don't have any problems with Florida State. I haven't seen any votes from any of the other Chippewa tribes about Central Michigan.

There are what, 15 or 16 Sioux reservations in the United States? Almost every one of them has issued some kind of statement or Tribal Council vote against UND using the nickname. Most of them participate in the Great Plains Tribal Chair Association. That group has had multiple votes against UND using the nickname with none of the tribes voting in approval. Spirit Lake missed one of those votes and abstained in another. So not all of the other tribes in the region are Sioux, but there are many other Sioux tribes besides Spirit Lake and Standing Rock, and the rest are pretty much all against UND using the Sioux nickname.

You keep going back to the tribal members voting. More than half of the states don't have any kind of referrendum or initiated measures available. Our government is based on electing representatives to make decisions for us. That is the way our Federal government is set up. You don't get to vote on any issues that are discussed by Congress or the President. That is also the way that many tribes are set up. In that case, the vote of the governmental body is how the decision is made. You don't have to like it, but you should respect it. It doesn't matter if the decision comes down to a single vote, that's how the decision is made. So the vote of the Standing Rock Tribal Council is final unless they decide to change it.

[82SiouxGuy]

There's little basis for blame as to SL. The NCAA had no business of requiring anything. The resolution was passed in 2000. It had not been rescinded. Re-approving in writing an approval that's already been provided is nonsensical, insulting and a waste of time. Approval had not been rescinded so obviously the approval was still there. The 1969 ceremony was not just done for $#its, giggles and showmanship. To classify it as such serves to disrespect the ceremony and the sacred tradition behind it. A white guy was given a headdress and a formal Native American name as per a sacred ceremony and all that was for show and for some "class" or "project" that can only be established by inference and self-serving narratives of some remaining UND faculty members (who also conveniently oppose the nickname) and JTA and RHHIT? The NCAA did not bother to delve into what was meant by the ceremony, did not interview any of those present and did not even re-examine its position when presented with verifiable, contravening accounts by people who were actually there and actually participated.

The NCAA could care less about respecting anything, especially NA customs and traditions, unless they're forced to do so by a court or "persuaded" to do so by ND's shadowy Congressional invertebrates. That position is not worthy of being defended as having any justification, credence or any moral validity whatsoever.

The NCAA asked for written confirmation from every tribe that had given approval so that they were sure the approval was still current. It isn't insulting, it was a way to cover themselves. You may not have been paying attention, but the approval was conditional and there were questions about whether the tribe thought the conditions were met. Approval from any of the tribes can be removed with a single vote at any time, so the NCAA wanted to make sure what the tribe's position was at that time.

You say it was a waste of time. Here is what was required. To Whom It May Concern, Spirit Lake passed a resolution in 2000 stating support for the University of North Dakota's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. That resolution is still in place. Sincerely yours. Print, sign and mail. Total time less than 5 minutes. The tribe refused to do that because the Tribal Chair was not in favor of the nickname usage and saw an opportunity. Therefore Spirit Lake gets some of the blame for not taking 5 minutes to be a good neighbor.

The pipe ceremony is not as cut and dried as you try to make it out. If it were then the Standing Rock tribe would recognize it. It was their delegation that went to UND. Not all Native Americans remember the ceremony as you describe it. It isn't just UND officials. It wasn't the only time a delegation went to UND to meet with officials. There are multiple pictures of Starcher wearing headdresses from different visits. They couldn't all be official ceremonies. Most reports say that the Tribal Chair from Standing Rock was part of the delegation. Yet, in 1992 he voted in favor of a resolution protesting UND using the nickname while he was serving on the Tribal Council. He obviously didn't consider it an official sacred ceremony. Since there is no official record of the ceremony, and there is a great deal of disagreement about what it meant, then the NCAA could in no way use that as an official approval. They needed to follow the wishes of the tribal governments, not a rumor from 1969. Standing Rock has been steadfast in opposing the nickname from at least 1992. Judge Erickson seemed to agree with the decision not to base a decision on the pipe ceremony. “While the court respects the sanctity and solemnity that tribal traditions richly deserve, the 1969 pipe ceremony has no legal significance on the facts as pled by the committee,” Erickson wrote.

“While it is rudimentary contract law that legal obligations can be created between parties in ways other than putting pen to paper, the 1969 pipe ceremony fails to meet the basic requirements of a contract.” So you expect the NCAA to use a standard different from the legal standard?

[Chewey]

What you just said is, "Who cares who was there?" to which I say, "You missed my exact same point."

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

[watchmaker49]

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

I am somewhat curious as to why you have not donated your time to their cause?

[The Sicatoka]

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

All they were doing was the "public declaration". They were there to talk to local media in Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks and let the media move the message for them.

They weren't there to host a pep rally. How do I know this? Was there coffee, punch, and cookies? Free pom-poms for the kids?

[MoSiouxFan]

Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc., repeat, repeat, repeat, and so on, and so on, and so on,...................

This topic has been rehashed a thousand times from every angle known to mankind, and nothing new is ever presented; I think everyone knows where everyone else stands, so maybe we could move on to another topic? Just a suggestion.

[UNDBIZ]

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

There are reasons why the Alumni Foundation didn't announce the press conferences until the morning of the press conferences. Had they wanted people to show up and show support they would've announced the upcoming press conferences a week beforehand. But no, they're press conferences, not pep rallies.

[82SiouxGuy]

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

There was never an invitation to the public to "Come and show your support". They were press conferences. Only the press and really curious people show up at press conferences. I thought about showing up at the one in Grand Forks, but I had already read the newspaper story about Fargo so I knew what they were going to say. Attendance at those events have absolutely nothing to do with support for the Alumni Foundation position or the University of North Dakota.

[Chewey]

I am somewhat curious as to why you have not donated your time to their cause?

I am somewhat curious as to why that's such a repeated concern for you. I guess am trying to think if such concern fits into some other transparently degenerate, manipulative, low-core aggressive proclivity but, then again, why should I care?

[Chewey]

All they were doing was the "public declaration". They were there to talk to local media in Fargo, Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks and let the media move the message for them.

They weren't there to host a pep rally. How do I know this? Was there coffee, punch, and cookies? Free pom-poms for the kids?

They must be saving those for their cocktail parties.

[watchmaker49]

I am somewhat curious as to why that's such a repeated concern for you. I guess am trying to think if such concern fits into some other transparently degenerate, manipulative, low-core aggressive proclivity but, then again, why should I care?

Because with your writing ability, which by the way I think is excellent, you could have drawn up a better suit and motions than that clown from Minot.

[Chewey]

Because with your writing ability, which by the way I think is excellent, you could have drawn up a better suit and motions than that clown from Minot.

Reed is no clown. He's forgotten more about Indian Law than anyone on this listerv or 95% of the attorneys in ND will ever know.

[UNDBIZ]

Reed is no clown. He's forgotten more about Indian Law than anyone on this listerv or 95% of the attorneys in ND will ever know.

Perhaps he should've devoted more time learning how to spell.... that way he could appear more professional.