SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement

[ScottM]

At least one could accept that and know that it's authentic. Weren't you the one complaining previously about being disingenuous about the claims of honor and respect? Well, we're all seeing that displayed by Jody Hodgson and Tim O'Keefe and Grant Shaft among others.

Nobody really gives a damn about NA "honor and respect". The NAs were expedient "tools of policy" for the NC$$, and everybody else on any side of the issue. Later they became an enemy of UND when their litigation threatened to turn the Sioux moniker into an albatross. As a practical matter, hard ball tactics are required to achieve a necessary end. Not pretty, but, like war, occasionally needed.

[dlsiouxfan]

What I really object to is that the Alumni Association and Jody Hodgson and members of the alumni/ae did not vocalize publicly and forcefully their concerns with Hoeven, Conrad, etc. They should have made it known that the NCAA meddling was unacceptable and should have demanded that they intercede, especially after the 17,000 strong referral vote. Would Hoeven and Conrad say "no" to a formal public demand by such a contingent? No. They did, however, have no problem ignoring letters from the CUR and from the Tribal Council of SL and from the Tribal Chairman of SL himself.

To Chewey, Watchmaker, DaveK and all the other losers on both sides of this issue who fought night and day to try and destroy this university and it's athletic programs, I want you to know that by every measure you've failed.

For Watchmaker and the rest of the anti-nickname cabal, please remember that UND is now in compliance with NCAA policy and there are few, if any, North Dakotan's who actually feel that the Fighting Sioux nickname is racist. As a result of UND's lawsuit, some of the logos at REA will be in place for the rest of your lifetime and UND will face no ill repercussions as a result of it. You have failed at winning the hearts and minds of ND's populace and ultimately the state's appreciation for it's flagship university overshadowed your cause.

For Chewey and DaveK and the rest of the nickname at all costs crowd, UND is now able to host playoff games,host regional Division I opponents, and will win championships. The university and it's athletic programs will succeed without the Sioux nickname and I want to let you know that for every success that you would have compromised, there will be those, like me, waiting to rub your noses in it. You tried to destroy this university and it's athletic programs and failed miserably.

Feel free to throw yourselves a pity party where you applaud each other for your steadfast committment to your beliefs but never forget that ultimately you're all failures and, unless you change your ways, will always be so.

[watchmaker49]

To Chewey, Watchmaker, DaveK and all the other losers on both sides of this issue who fought night and day to try and destroy this university and it's athletic programs, I want you to know that by every measure you've failed.

For Watchmaker and the rest of the anti-nickname cabal, please remember that UND is now in compliance with NCAA policy and there are few, if any, North Dakotan's who actually feel that the Fighting Sioux nickname is racist. As a result of UND's lawsuit, some of the logos at REA will be in place for the rest of your lifetime and UND will face no ill repercussions as a result of it. You have failed at winning the hearts and minds of ND's populace and ultimately the state's appreciation for it's flagship university overshadowed your cause.

For Chewey and DaveK and the rest of the nickname at all costs crowd, UND is now able to host playoff games,host regional Division I opponents, and will win championships. The university and it's athletic programs will succeed without the Sioux nickname and I want to let you know that for every success that you would have compromised, there will be those, like me, waiting to rub your noses in it. You tried to destroy this university and it's athletic programs and failed miserably.

Feel free to throw yourselves a pity party where you applaud each other for your steadfast committment to your beliefs but never forget that ultimately you're all failures and, unless you change your ways, will always be so.

Are you going to admit that you and your ilk were a major cause of what almost brought the athletic department to it's demise? Quite trying to switch the arguement around. The Klan did not, or still does not, think they were/are racist. Why would I throw a pity party for? Exactly what would I need to do to change my ways or I will fail? Define failure? Like having the ability to lounge by the pool all day and get a nice tan? Or being able to write a check and not ever worrying about it bouncing? The ability to have pretty much taken the last three years off and vactioned? One BS, one BA (with a double major), and a MA from UND in 8 years of study. I guess that makes me a failure. Now tell me what do I need to do to be a success like you? OK, how about this for a start. I can make up a story about how I am honoring you by pretending I am a Sioux. I can draw cartoon images of you. I can say thanks for not helping me and my like minded people continue to use you. I can totally change my mind after six years and tuck my tail over my cajones once I found out my little yapping pissed off the big dog that I was trying to run with. Once the big dog chomped a chunk out of my ass I went running and found someone that I had as an allie just a short time ago. Then I lifted my leg at my former allie and became the crusader to save the school. This was after I had participated in almost bringing it to it's knees. Can I be a success if I do this? Since it still is almost 100 above I think I will take a dip in the pool.

[bincitysioux]

The NA's who supported the nickname and logo (the vast, vast majority) ...........................

52 of 53 counties in the state voted to retire the name. Neither of the counties where either of the tribes vote was the dissenting county. On what basis could you still possibly offer that the Native Americans of North Dakota support the University continuing to use the name and logo?

[pivetz]

As of the YES vote on Measure 4 and the ND SBoHE's actions at their June 14 meeting, no, the sanctions are no longer in place against UND because it no longer has a moniker that is in non-compliance with the NCAA policy.

Hey Mr. Facts post the any official letter from the NCAA that declares there are no sanctions against UND that is dated after the 12th of June?

[pivetz]

So you are calling fish drug addicts and look down at them as prawns. WOW!

Shhhhhh. The adults are talking!

[pivetz]

There are Native Americans with extremist views on certain subjects out there, just as there are caucasian, african, hispanic, asian, arabic, persian, etc. extremists. Certain Native American people were used as pawns both by the pro and anti-nickname groups. That's not even debatable, just as certain caucasian, african, hispanic, asian, arabic, etc. people are used as pawns in certain situations.

Did you just accuse Sic of throwing facts around like it was a bad thing??

You should learn to read instead of repeating others.

[pivetz]

Yeah Sic, stop throwing facts around. They really mess up the arguement.

Another bandwagon fan that can't read, did you really need validation, awww ok pumpkin

[Chewey]

52 of 53 counties in the state voted to retire the name. Neither of the counties where either of the tribes vote was the dissenting county. On what basis could you still possibly offer that the Native Americans of North Dakota support the University continuing to use the name and logo?

52 of 53 counties in the state voted to retire the name. Neither of the counties where either of the tribes vote was the dissenting county. On what basis could you still possibly offer that the Native Americans of North Dakota support the University continuing to use the name and logo?

SL vote. And, the fact that many on SR just probably stayed home and have said "Fork 'em" - essentially what Antoine American Horse said. A 250K propaganda effort is an effective tool.

[ScottM]

52 of 53 counties in the state voted to retire the name. Neither of the counties where either of the tribes vote was the dissenting county. On what basis could you still possibly offer that the Native Americans of North Dakota support the University continuing to use the name and logo?

You continue to ignore the facts that the "majority" was held back by a vast "conspiracy" involving the NC$$, the alumni assocation, many posters on this board, 68% +/- of voters in the June initiative, the Pope, the Federal Reserve and Justine Bieber.

There will be a great uprising by these unheard voices, unchained from their shackles by Reed Soderstrom, Al Carlson and Malcom XI, and everybody will live in peace and harmony, until North Dakota allows gays to marry and 'SU finally reveals the "truth" about its Animal Husbandry programs.

[The Sicatoka]

You continue to ignore the facts that the "majority" was held back by a vast "conspiracy" involving the NC$$, the alumni assocation, many posters on this board, 68% +/- of voters in the June initiative, the Pope, the Federal Reserve and Justine Bieber.

You forgot the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

There will be a great uprising by these unheard voices, unchained from their shackles by Reed Soderstrom, Al Carlson and Malcom XI, and everybody will live in peace and harmony, until North Dakota allows gays to marry and 'SU finally reveals the "truth" about its Animal Husbandry programs.

I expect three hours on Coast-To-Coast AM with George Noory covering all of this very soon.

[jdub27]

Way to be a poor winner. Try to show a little class for a change.

Take your own advice:

Because of the fact that you have behaved like such a jerk regarding this issue, I am going to gloat like I have never gloated before if the NO vote wins on Tuesday. So, if that happens (and I'm not overly confident that I will because that weasel O'Keefe is doing his best to brainwash people and buy their vote)... but IF my side wins and I rub your nose in it,don't start crying because you are asking for it with your unacceptable behavior here.

[Siouxperfan7]

Take your own advice:

Ouch Dave.....he kind of put you in a box there!!!

[ScottM]

Ouch Dave.....he kind of put you in a box there!!!

Perhaps, but the entertaining part will be if Dave tries to dance and juggle his way out of it. It'll be like watching a third grade rendition of "Dancing with the Stars" ...

[PCM]

Are you going to admit that you and your ilk were a major cause of what almost brought the athletic department to it's demise? Quite trying to switch the arguement around.

This is getting ridiculous. People have the ability to change their minds based on changing circumstances, and they seldom change positions en masse or simultaneously. As we’ve seen, some refuse to ever change their minds, even when their position threatens to undermine the well-being of the very institution which supports the athletic programs they allegedly care about deeply.

For me, there were two events that signaled that the battle to retain the nickname was probably a lost cause. The first came after the settlement with the NCAA when representatives from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock said they were unwilling to negotiate on the issue. You can only have negotiations if both sides are willing to talk.

The second was when I realized that many strong UND athletics boosters were willing to jettison the nickname if it meant a smoother transition to Division I and improving the university’s ability to get into a conference. There was no longer a united front and the issue was beginning to divide UND fans, alums and supporters. The cracks in the wall were rapidly turning into fissures.

You can sit there in all your success soaking in rays and gloating about your how nickname prediction came true, but the fact is that there were some strong nickname backers on these very forums who predicted that the issue would come down to UND either playing by the NCAA’s rules or getting out of the organization. As it turned out, they were right. You didn’t have to be an anti-nickname zealot, Nostradamus or own a crystal ball to understand that the NCAA was in a very strong position and might ultimately triumph.

That being said, I also talked to some pretty smart people with law degrees who thought North Dakota might have a strong case against the NCAA on a number of legal fronts. That gave me hope that the state might prevail in court, but the case never made it through the courts. Therefore, we never found out whether legal action might have ultimately allowed UND to retain the nickname.

The day the settlement was announced Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said the NCAA’s lawyers told him that even if they lost the case because the organization didn’t follow its own rules, they would simply change their rules. He allowed for the possibility that the attorneys were bluffing (he didn’t think they were). But in the end, his assessment of the situation proved correct. The NCAA simply changed its rules to make valid the manner in which the Executive Committee implemented that anti-nickname policy.

During the three year period in which UND had to gain approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock, voters at Spirit Lake and the tribal council granted the university perpetual use of the nickname. Suddenly, nickname supporters were half way to a goal that once appeared totally unreachable. There were predictions from Standing Rock that if the tribal council there allowed people to vote, the outcome would be similar. I don’t think it’s difficult to understand why these developments provided encouragement to those who wanted to keep the nickname.

Shortly after the State Board of Higher Education voted to drop the nickname, the Big Sky Conference announced that it was granting UND membership. Although the conference had never publicly made an issue of UND’s nickname, it wasn’t difficult to understand that there was linkage between the two occurrences. Since then, the conference has let it be known that the nickname is an issue. That helped persuade many more that jeopardizing membership in the Big Sky was not a good exchange for maintaining the nickname.

By the time Al Carlson got involved with legislation mandating that UND continue to use the Fighting Sioux nickname, those of us who’d been closely following the issue not only knew it was a bad idea because the NCAA had absolutely no reason to change its stance, but also saw it for what it really was: a cynical political ploy designed to enlist nickname supporters in an effort to get rid of the State Board of Higher Education.

So, let’s see: In exchange for keeping the nickname, UND would likely be kicked out of the Big Sky Conference, be under NCAA sanctions, become a pariah with the world of college athletics and see its efforts to become a successful Division I school blown out of the water. But wait! There’s more under Al’s Grand Plan, North Dakota’s university system would once again become a political football for the legislature to kick around every two years. You can’t beat a deal like that!

As with many controversial issues, it took longer for some to see the light than it did for others. When it really counted, those who mattered most came on board and did what was best for the long-term interests and future of UND, recognizing that the welfare of the university was more important than the nickname, no matter how much it meant to them personally.

However, for some reason, you seem to believe that lemmings headed over the cliff and ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are worthy of praise because of their willingness to self-immolate for blind loyalty and for their absolute refusal to deal with reality. I’m guessing that you’re also a great admirer of General George Armstrong Custer, who divided his force and led his troops to slaughter, despite warnings from his scouts about the imminent danger ahead. But, hey, it was all good because Custer stuck to his convictions to the bitter end, right?

[jdub27]

No, actually, he didn't. If my side had won I would have been right to gloat BECAUSE the other side was over the top with their rude and obnoxious inconsiderate behavior in the weeks and months leading up to the vote. Had my side won I would have rubbed their noses in it because they would have deserved it based on the way they conducted themselves. My side did not act that way and therefore did not deserve that garbage. The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winnner, and you guys are showing us exactly what a poor winner is.

Aside from that (which I admit is debatable based on perception), you simply can't base things on "would have's". I said what I would have done, but he actually did it. BIG difference, unless you think that saying "I'll kill you" is just as bad as actually carrying out a murder.

So you proclaim you would have been a sore winner, have proven to be a sore loser and admitted that you say things that you don't mean or won't follow through on. Sounds about par for the course.

And if you don't think you were rude, over the top or obnoxious, you need to go back and look at your posts from a neutral perspective.

[ScottM]

So you proclaim you would have been a sore winner, have proven to be a sore loser and admitted that you say things that you don't mean or won't follow through on. Sounds about par for the course.

And if you don't think you were rude, over the top or obnoxious, you need to go back and look at your posts from a neutral perspective.

Dave's Dance Party is underway ...

[krangodance]

No, actually, he didn't. If my side had won I would have been right to gloat BECAUSE the other side was over the top with their rude and obnoxious inconsiderate behavior in the weeks and months leading up to the vote. Had my side won I would have rubbed their noses in it because they would have deserved it based on the way they conducted themselves. My side did not act that way and therefore did not deserve that garbage. The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winnner, and you guys are showing us exactly what a poor winner is.

Aside from that (which I admit is debatable based on perception), you simply can't base things on "would have's". I said what I would have done, but he actually did it. BIG difference, unless you think that saying "I'll kill you" is just as bad as actually carrying out a murder.

This has now moved beyond a comedy of what will be said next and into an eye roll inducing mincing of words and double talking.

I'd recommend you let it go but I know that will never happen and, besides, anybody who is still arguing with you at this point is likely as clueless to how ridiculous your conversation sounds at this point as you are so you might as well just have at it.

Who knows, maybe it's one of those things where it starts out funny, gets annoying then, if continued well into the annoying phase, somehow gets hilarious.

[bincitysioux]

No, actually, he didn't. If my side had won I would have been right to gloat BECAUSE the other side was over the top with their rude and obnoxious inconsiderate behavior in the weeks and months leading up to the vote. Had my side won I would have rubbed their noses in it because they would have deserved it based on the way they conducted themselves. My side did not act that way and therefore did not deserve that garbage. The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winnner, and you guys are showing us exactly what a poor winner is.

Aside from that (which I admit is debatable based on perception), you simply can't base things on "would have's". I said what I would have done, but he actually did it. BIG difference, unless you think that saying "I'll kill you" is just as bad as actually carrying out a murder.

If your "side" would have "won", you would have gloated because YOU have proven to be rude, obnoxious, and inconsiderate. The way that YOU have conducted yourself proves it.

Your "side" did nothing but spread lies and misinformation throughout the entire process, and they continue to do so today.

[jodcon]

Dave's Dance Party is underway ...

Was there ever a doubt?

[watchmaker49]

Dave's Dance Party is underway ...

Is it on right after yours?

[watchmaker49]

This is getting ridiculous. People have the ability to change their minds based on changing circumstances, and they seldom change positions en masse or simultaneously. As we’ve seen, some refuse to ever change their minds, even when their position threatens to undermine the well-being of the very institution which supports the athletic programs they allegedly care about deeply.

For me, there were two events that signaled that the battle to retain the nickname was probably a lost cause. The first came after the settlement with the NCAA when representatives from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock said they were unwilling to negotiate on the issue. You can only have negotiations if both sides are willing to talk.

The second was when I realized that many strong UND athletics boosters were willing to jettison the nickname if it meant a smoother transition to Division I and improving the university’s ability to get into a conference. There was no longer a united front and the issue was beginning to divide UND fans, alums and supporters. The cracks in the wall were rapidly turning into fissures.

You can sit there in all your success soaking in rays and gloating about your how nickname prediction came true, but the fact is that there were some strong nickname backers on these very forums who predicted that the issue would come down to UND either playing by the NCAA’s rules or getting out of the organization. As it turned out, they were right. You didn’t have to be an anti-nickname zealot, Nostradamus or own a crystal ball to understand that the NCAA was in a very strong position and might ultimately triumph.

That being said, I also talked to some pretty smart people with law degrees who thought North Dakota might have a strong case against the NCAA on a number of legal fronts. That gave me hope that the state might prevail in court, but the case never made it through the courts. Therefore, we never found out whether legal action might have ultimately allowed UND to retain the nickname.

The day the settlement was announced Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said the NCAA’s lawyers told him that even if they lost the case because the organization didn’t follow its own rules, they would simply change their rules. He allowed for the possibility that the attorneys were bluffing (he didn’t think they were). But in the end, his assessment of the situation proved correct. The NCAA simply changed its rules to make valid the manner in which the Executive Committee implemented that anti-nickname policy.

During the three year period in which UND had to gain approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock, voters at Spirit Lake and the tribal council granted the university perpetual use of the nickname. Suddenly, nickname supporters were half way to a goal that once appeared totally unreachable. There were predictions from Standing Rock that if the tribal council there allowed people to vote, the outcome would be similar. I don’t think it’s difficult to understand why these developments provided encouragement to those who wanted to keep the nickname.

Shortly after the State Board of Higher Education voted to drop the nickname, the Big Sky Conference announced that it was granting UND membership. Although the conference had never publicly made an issue of UND’s nickname, it wasn’t difficult to understand that there was linkage between the two occurrences. Since then, the conference has let it be known that the nickname is an issue. That helped persuade many more that jeopardizing membership in the Big Sky was not a good exchange for maintaining the nickname.

By the time Al Carlson got involved with legislation mandating that UND continue to use the Fighting Sioux nickname, those of us who’d been closely following the issue not only knew it was a bad idea because the NCAA had absolutely no reason to change its stance, but also saw it for what it really was: a cynical political ploy designed to enlist nickname supporters in an effort to get rid of the State Board of Higher Education.

So, let’s see: In exchange for keeping the nickname, UND would likely be kicked out of the Big Sky Conference, be under NCAA sanctions, become a pariah with the world of college athletics and see its efforts to become a successful Division I school blown out of the water. But wait! There’s more under Al’s Grand Plan, North Dakota’s university system would once again become a political football for the legislature to kick around every two years. You can’t beat a deal like that!

As with many controversial issues, it took longer for some to see the light than it did for others. When it really counted, those who mattered most came on board and did what was best for the long-term interests and future of UND, recognizing that the welfare of the university was more important than the nickname, no matter how much it meant to them personally.

However, for some reason, you seem to believe that lemmings headed over the cliff and ostriches with their heads buried in the sand are worthy of praise because of their willingness to self-immolate for blind loyalty and for their absolute refusal to deal with reality. I’m guessing that you’re also a great admirer of General George Armstrong Custer, who divided his force and led his troops to slaughter, despite warnings from his scouts about the imminent danger ahead. But, hey, it was all good because Custer stuck to his convictions to the bitter end, right?

Custer was not a general.

[PCM]

Custer was not a general.

He was a major general in the Civil War.

[Chewey]

He was a major general in the Civil War.

Well, you have to admit that using that terminology in the context you were using it was wrong. When he divided his forces and got justifiably whacked by Sioux, Cheyenne, etc., he was a Lieutenant Colonel. And, Custer did not have convictions except to stoke his own ego and do things that would vault him one day into politics and sustain his name for posterity -- a consummate egoist. Bad example for your point, PCM. One of Custer's famous quotes from his writings is that he did not want to be learned, did not want to be wise, did not necessarily want to be wealthy but he wanted to be "great." That says it all. He ultimately had aspirations to be the Democratic nominee to run against Grant, I believe, for President. Watchmaker and his side have convictions and they stuck to them and did not let people ignore them. They are advocates, though I believe strongly that their viewpoint on this issue was and is flawed. They, though small in number (from my perspective but they may disagree) got attention and they were persistent. Much more than I can say for the other side, undoubtedly much more numerous but filled with expedient defectors all still claiming to honor traditions and customs and history. Consider the "cost" of retaining the nickname as juxtaposed against the "cost" of removing the Sioux imagery in light of the claims of honor in each context. Could anything be more transparent? The Alumni Association, SBoHE, etc. dropped the ball and bascially let Hoeven, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy and Berg off the hook. You worked for Dorgan, if memory serves me correctly from your statements here. Why didn't you and the Alumni Association, SBoHE call out the members of Congress? If as much energy, even at the 11th hour, had been put to doing that as opposed to engaging in fear mongering and duplicity, perhaps we would not have had to retire it at all.

[petey23]

52 of 53 counties in the state voted to retire the name. Neither of the counties where either of the tribes vote was the dissenting county. On what basis could you still possibly offer that the Native Americans of North Dakota support the University continuing to use the name and logo?

I voted to allow UND to retire the name. It had absolutely nothing to do with wanting the name to go. Are you insinuating that the people who live in those counties were not smart enought to vote the same way?

The funny thing is in leading up to the vote The Forum polling numbers showed(inadvertantly I would guess as they have always been anti-name) that 7% of people were actually against the name.