NoiseInsideMyHead Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think this may kick start the new nickname process and choose a new one before the end of this year. The law states that UND cannot USE the name until 2015 but it doesn't state they can't pick one early. Anything they can use to distract these type of incidents Kelley will find a way. The statute actually says that UND may not "adopt or implement" a nickname until 2015. Whether or not a selection process can begin - publicly or privately - prior to January 1 is up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 IHS study shows NAs have 6 time greater rate of alcoholism than the US average alcoholism rate. Does that mean that all NAs are drunks? Not anymore than a few stupid and ignorant "kids" don't make all the other students or supporters of UND racist. Alcoholism in NAs is a huge problem... yet Jeanotte and company never get on a soapbox to reprimand that "culture" but will basically call the whole university racist from the past logo issue to a few bad apples in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 That would be silly if he did that. First, legally he can't tell 10,000 they can't wear a Sioux jersey. Walk into REA barefoot sometime Goon and I bet you'll be escorted out of the arena in about 8 seconds flat. If building policy is that certain articles of clothing MUST be worn or you can be denied entry, certainly certain articles of clothing actually being worn could be grounds for removal from the same building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaroundsioux Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Walk into REA barefoot sometime Goon and I bet you'll be escorted out of the arena in about 8 seconds flat. If building policy is that certain articles of clothing MUST be worn or you can be denied entry, certainly certain articles of clothing actually being worn could be grounds for removal from the same building. Do you actually think REA (which is not owned by UND) would toss someone for wearing a Sioux jersey? Ralph would rollover in his grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 IHS study shows NAs have 6 time greater rate of alcoholism than the US average alcoholism rate. Does that mean that all NAs are drunks? Not anymore than a few stupid and ignorant "kids" don't make all the other students or supporters of UND racist. Alcoholism in NAs is a huge problem... yet Jeanotte and company never get on a soapbox to reprimand that "culture" but will basically call the whole university racist from the past logo issue to a few bad apples in this situation. Jeanotte is too focused on dealing with the perceived problems of Native Americans than the real ones they have to deal with on the reservations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Walk into REA barefoot sometime Goon and I bet you'll be escorted out of the arena in about 8 seconds flat. If building policy is that certain articles of clothing MUST be worn or you can be denied entry, certainly certain articles of clothing actually being worn could be grounds for removal from the same building. They can't tell people not to wear it for one reason...UND still has to continue the use of the logo by making historical gear or else they lose the trademark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Didn't wear them around and flaunt them? One of the tweets said something to the effect of 'our shirts will get us in trouble i know it.' The other person was more than happy to take a selfie and post his photo on the internet. Now they want to plead ignorance? I'm calling BS on the design too. Custom Ink may have done the artwork but it had to be approved by someone. You don't just pay for custom-made shirts without having some input into what you want the final product to look like. 100% correct...YOU select the logo and text for your shirt, Custom Ink fulfills the order based on your request. Their job is in the fulfillment only, not the design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 100% correct...YOU select the logo and text for your shirt, Custom Ink fulfills the order based on your request. Their job is in the fulfillment only, not the design. But they still have the option to say "no" we are not going to fill that order............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 But they still have the option to say "no" we are not going to fill that order............. I'm not saying it wasn't poor taste, but who gets to decide that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Walk into REA barefoot sometime Goon and I bet you'll be escorted out of the arena in about 8 seconds flat. If building policy is that certain articles of clothing MUST be worn or you can be denied entry, certainly certain articles of clothing actually being worn could be grounds for removal from the same building. WIth your professional experience do you think it could ever realistically come to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'm not saying it wasn't poor taste, but who gets to decide that? Typically management that has common sense...apparently that is void at Custom Ink. Somebody went to them with this design and they didn't have any filter to realize that it was inappropriate and filled the order anyways. This appears to be case of making money over common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The lack of self awareness of those involved absolutely boggles the mind. This isn't merely a simple mistake or bad judgement. These people are absolutely clueless. Years ago idiots like this would wander into a bear's den and get eaten, ridding the gene pool of their defect. Today's society perpetuates their stupidity and allows them to reproduce. Someone please let them know they would also be advised to refrain tossing the "N' word around Compton. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I agree with you. But Kelley and common sense are generally not used in the same sentence very often. I just think we should keep an eye on it. I have a hard time buying the idea that UND would ever ban someone from wearing Fighting Sioux logo. It is even harder to fathom considering that they continue to own the trademarks and in order to keep those in good standing, must occasionally release apparel or other items with those logos on them in order to keep control of the trademark, which they do under the Dacotah Legacy Collection line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Do you actually think REA (which is not owned by UND) would toss someone for wearing a Sioux jersey? Ralph would rollover in his grave. Do I actually think people would call for students to be expelled from the University of North Dakota for wearing a t-shirt? Yes, I do. Yes, I actually think REA could be strong-armed pursuaded into enacting a policy prohibiting the wearing of clothing deemed inappropriate or "potentially racist" and therefore not allowed inside the arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 WIth your professional experience do you think it could ever realistically come to that? Just for the record, I don't even wear sandals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I have a hard time buying the idea that UND would ever ban someone from wearing Fighting Sioux logo. I am with you on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 They can't tell people not to wear it for one reason...UND still has to continue the use of the logo by making historical gear or else they lose the trademark. And how did they use the geometric logo recently by making "historical gear"? Oh yea, that's right...by selling about a dozen grey t-shirts at REA with the old-school logo on them for about forty bucks apiece. Nobody says they have to order 15,000 shirts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 WIth your professional experience do you think it could ever realistically come to that? http://stanfordreview.org/article/stanford-indian-controversy-returns/ http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stype619.htm http://nativeappropriations.com/category/stanford-indian Yes, I do. Those who wear such "offensive" shirts, sweatshirts, and jerseys will be hounded by people who want this image essentially banned from being seen anywhere on campus. If OKCupid.com can bring about the demise of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a $1,000 donation to a group opposed to gay marriage in California, I believe ANYTHING is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Typically management that has common sense...apparently that is void at Custom Ink. Somebody went to them with this design and they didn't have any filter to realize that it was inappropriate and filled the order anyways. This appears to be case of making money over common sense. Here's what I found on Custom Ink's website in their User Agreement section...(this is just two paragraphs pulled from the whole section)...Looks like they may want to brush up on their own policies,however, this in no way excuses the actions of those who designed the shirts. Looks like there was a lot of 'stupid' to go around on this one... "Additionally, CustomInk.com has the sole discretion to reject any order that it considers libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane (according to standards established by the FCC), portraying irresponsible use of alcohol or other substances, advocating persecution based on gender, age, race, religion, disability or national origin, containing explicit sexual content or is otherwise inappropriate for CustomInk.com production." "You agree to not use CustomInk.com's Service to create any material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes on any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any third party." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I have a hard time buying the idea that UND would ever ban someone from wearing Fighting Sioux logo. http://www.thecrimso...s-at-dartmouth/ After Native American groups on campus attacked the symbol as offensive and racist daring the mid-1970's the administration renounced its use. Consequently, any display of the Indian symbol became a "violation of the principle of community," according to Kevin Rosen, President of the Dartmouth Student Assembly. It wouldn't be unprecedented, jdub27...The daughter of a friend of mine attends Dartmouth...you wouldn't DARE wear an old-logo sweater or t-shirt on campus there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Yes, I actually think REA could be strong-armed pursuaded into enacting a policy prohibiting the wearing of clothing deemed inappropriate or "potentially racist" and therefore not allowed inside the arena. This will never happen IMO. Very slippery slope..."inappropriate"..."racist"...where's the cut off and who determines that? Could one then get tossed for wearing a "Redskins" jersey? Tossed for wearing a shirt that is sexually suggestive? Tossed for wearing a shirt with John 3:16 or "WWJD" on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 http://www.thecrimso...s-at-dartmouth/ It wouldn't be unprecedented, jdub27...The daughter of a friend of mine attends Dartmouth...you wouldn't DARE wear an old-logo sweater or t-shirt on campus there... I can't see anywhere that it shows it was banned. The Principle of Community at Dartmouth is described as "a statement of aspirations and values and not a promulgation of rules, it cannot be the basis of a disciplinary hearing." It relates to students only and violating it, in itself, carries no weight. While I don't doubt your firsthand knowledge, there is a ton of Dartmouth Indian gear for sale online, someone must be buying it and wearing it somewhere. And I can't see anything that shows it is actually banned from being worn on the campus. It may be frowned upon by some if you do, but there is nothing they would be able to do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 This will never happen IMO. Very slippery slope..."inappropriate"..."racist"...where's the cut off and who determines that? Could one then get tossed for wearing a "Redskins" jersey? Tossed for wearing a shirt that is sexually suggestive? Tossed for wearing a shirt with John 3:16 or "WWJD" on it? Oh wait...is Kelley still the president at UND? Ok it might happen........................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Once again you can see who will be benefiting from these sitatuions - it all points back at......"The Lawyers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 This will never happen IMO. Very slippery slope..."inappropriate"..."racist"...where's the cut off and who determines that? Could one then get tossed for wearing a "Redskins" jersey? Tossed for wearing a shirt that is sexually suggestive? Tossed for wearing a shirt with John 3:16 or "WWJD" on it? An NFL player just essentially got tossed from his team for a two-word tweet regarding the NFL draft. "Inappropriate"? "Racist?" Who determines that? Who do you think, Oxbow6? The academic "elite" who are here to enlighten all of us. If that doesn't work, I'm sure somewhere down the road, re-education camps will help do the job. http://www.infowars.com/sean-penn-obama-should-issue-executive-order-committing-ted-cruz-to-mental-institution/ These types of people really do exist...and they're essentially half of the US population... 1 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.