UND Fans

[redwing77]

Hi folks, just got out from the meeting with Adam Baker.

What he told me is the lowdown on things. I didn't accuse him or the Prez of anything, I just sat down and asked him for clarification on what Kupchella has against the students at athletic events. What he told me was interesting.

Kupchella is NOT responding to the letters UNA and WSU fans have sent to the University. Those letters are just fuel to the fire. Kupchella has, evidentally, been sitting on this since the Gophers series last November. Apparently the fans started chanting "F#CK the Gophers" when Charles Kupchella and both ND and MN Governor's were in the penalty box with AD Roger Thomas.

I mentioned to Adam Baker that, although it was a classless time to chant that, what the students say is protected by the first amendment. He did not dispute it, but he did ask why the students couldn't have waited until they had at least left the penalty box before starting the chant. I had to agree that chanting that to the MN Governor isn't exactly a classy thing to do.

We then talked about what could be done to better things at the Ralph atmosphere wise. I told Adam that the students feel wronged as a whole by the Univeristy, AD, and the REA since the Old Ralph closed. I told him the predominant feeling that is pervading the student section that is saying that because we have to sit down, we have to shut up. Although that isn't the case, I still get the opinion that that is what everyone percieves the establishment wishing by establishing the sit down rule. Adam Baker noted that the students have been more than good about following the rules put down by the administration in this matter.

We talked about the technology at the Ralph. I brought up your points about the song lyrics and stuff. He told me that, when he brought that up, Roger Thomas took the blame for neglecting that. There are plans to put up a similar display during the Sieve chant that the Pepsi Center in Denver does when Colorado scores a goal. There will be waves of water that run around the marquis with the words "SIEVE" either along the wave or on the jumbotron. They are working on the lyrics bit.

When I mentioned the student suite thing, he didn't know much about it. That promise, I think, was made before he became student body president so I didn't hold it against him.

There will be a student appreciation day on March 5th against MTU where there will be free food for students and a variety of other things as well. This will hopefully turn into an annual event. I told him that this was a good first step, but there needs to be more, even if the changes are subtle. I told him that words are cheap and that actions speak volumes and that is what the students expect. I told him that we don't want statements because the statements would only be taken as a statement, not as an actual plan of action with some weight behind it.

I told him about other universities and their vulgarity (I mentioned Cornell, Harvard, SCSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan). And said that it happens everywhere. I warned Adam about what "making examples" would do to the atmosphere, and he interrupted me to say that he didn't think that it would be wise for Pres Kupchella to take such actions. I don't know if there is any heed to that by Kupchella, but Adam HAS spoken against that part of the statement Kupchella made. He also said that Kupchella is going to go before the Sioux boosters and city council later on to talk about fan conduct at the games. I am not sure what will come out of this but I was assured that students would not lose their seats or anything like that out of this. However, it was inferred that racial slurs will be viewed as disorderly conduct and grounds for removal. We did not talk about how this was going to be enforced because it isn't clear exactly what action Kupchella wants to take as of yet.

Also, expect a contest sponsored by Student Government regarding chants, making up creative ones that are not vulgar. I told him that it would be a good thing to do with expected mixed results, but the image is important and maybe something good will come out of it. The results will be displayed for chanting over the marquis. I told Adam that the newspaper thing of years past wouldn't work so no props would be acceptable as a replacement for the chant of "Who's He..." We both agreed that chanting needs to continue, but some of the chants needs to be cleaned up. We only differed in opinion of whether or not we can stop it using administrative action. He believes it has to come entirely from whoever is sitting next to the offending people, to tell them not to say such things that are offensive. I believed that it came from ownership in the arena. If fans take pride that they have some sort of modicum of control over at least their portion of the arena, even if it isn't absolute, things will change over time.

That's the gist of the meeting folks.

[NorthDakotaHockey]

Boy you sound like a law school professor. Except you are wrong - when a private entity "opens it doors to the public" they are subject to the first amendment. I'm too lazy to find my con law book but I'm sure there is a few Supreme Court cases that can be found.

Most of what I hear out of the student section is what the courts would call "fighting words."

I think that you can put the snuff on fighting words, at least on an individual basis.

They'll never put the snuff on the student section.

Keep up them there "fighting words" chants.

You think that "F*%K THE G&$H#RS" chant when the puck dropped back in November wasn't classic? And intimidating?

KupKake is nuts to try and regulate this harmless behaviour. For crying out loud.

The guy needs something more constructive to do with his time.

[PhillySioux]

Boy you sound like a law school professor. Except you are wrong - when a private entity "opens it doors to the public" they are subject to the first amendment. I'm too lazy to find my con law book but I'm sure there is a few Supreme Court cases that can be found.

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Marsh v. State of Ala. 66 S.Ct. 276, U.S. 1946.

While the Court has sometimes put public speech ahead of Private ownership rights, its by no means a decided issue for REA's purposes. The case above referred to a town that was completely owned by a mining company.

And since then, the balance has only really addressed such places as Shopping Malls in their capacities as "Modern Day Town Squares." So, the REA MAY be subject to the 1st Amendment as a private actor, however doubtful. The real issue is whether private facilities are subject to their respective state constitutions.

If you're super bored, here's a law review article that touches on the issue.

THE UNITED MALL OF AMERICA: FREE SPEECH, STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE GROWING FORTRESS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, 33 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 615

[NorthDakotaHockey]

Apparently the fans started chanting "F#CK the Gophers" when Charles Kupchella and both ND and MN Governor's were in the penalty box with AD Roger Thomas. 

I am sure that Pawlenty could have cared less, and as an old hockey player himself, he probably appreciated the chant all the more.

At a chess tournament or a piano recital, well then, that is a different story.

[Fedorov]

Even if he doesn't know about the student suite, he should understand that it is another area where the students were screwed. Did you acknowledge that the atmosphere has been the best when the students are standing?

[redwing77]

Even if he doesn't know about the student suite, he should understand that it is another area where the students were screwed. Did you acknowledge that the atmosphere has been the best when the students are standing?

I didn't talk about the standing issue. I did that early last semester. It's an argument that goes nowhere. It was either have reserved seating and sit down rule or move to the corner and lose 50-150 seats. We'd've gotten screwed either way.

[Fedorov]

I am just going to go sit in the student section at the Kohl Center this week. Their atmosphere destroys the new REA. They stand as much as they want, get together on cheers, and just have a great time. I love UND hockey, and I love the Red Wings. The NHL is going to be ruined with a lockout. I am starting to hate college hockey with the UND crap and the way the WCHA (especially officials) deals with things. Why do people have to mess with the best sport in the world?

[Fedorov]

For those of you taking the time to read my post, there is going to be a video feed of the Saturday game. I'm not sure if it is free since there is no link. It doesn't sound like people can get the game on the dish, but hopefully it will be put on TV locally. If not, it is on the right.

Saturday Video Feed

[The Sicatoka]

Wisconsin fans are great. They have a great time. And they do none of the things Dr. Kupchella is raising the issue of. So, do we have to go to R-rated language to have a good time? (I'd give Wisconsin a PG-13 at most and that's on a harsh day.)

And the standing thing? Students didn't stand at the old Ralph in the late 1980s and that place roared. Not standing (for the whole game) is a courtesy-thing for the non-student neighboring sections. A reminder to students: You'll be in those sections one day. Will your story change then?

However, power plays, goals, critical situations, sure, stand. You bet. Again, be a good neighbor. Know why you are standing and if it's for a good reason get those who aren't to "Stand Up and Cheer."

As far as new chants (someone brought this idea to me once and I still like it):

Scott Hennen on the PA: Starting at center for Docile State, number 26, John Doe.

11,406 Sioux Hockey Fans: Non-factor!!!

[Basil]

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Marsh v. State of Ala. 66 S.Ct. 276, U.S. 1946.

While the Court has sometimes put public speech ahead of Private ownership rights, its by no means a decided issue for REA's purposes. The case above referred to a town that was completely owned by a mining company.

And since then, the balance has only really addressed such places as Shopping Malls in their capacities as "Modern Day Town Squares." So, the REA MAY be subject to the 1st Amendment as a private actor, however doubtful. The real issue is whether private facilities are subject to their respective state constitutions.

If you're super bored, here's a law review article that touches on the issue.

THE UNITED MALL OF AMERICA: FREE SPEECH, STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE GROWING FORTRESS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, 33 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 615

You have got to be kidding me...Preach on brother.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Scott Hennen on the PA: Starting at center for Docile State, number 26, John Doe.

11,406 Sioux Hockey Fans: Non-factor!!!

This is the problem....it's not 11,406...it's just going to be 1,000 or so.

Kupchella doesn't want anything to do with the students...I've passed him walking down University and he looked the other way like I didn't even exsist.

Dean Bruce Smith on the other hand...says "hi" everytime he sees anyone, aerospace or not. I've talked to him a few times, really nice guy. Must be a St. Louis Park thing

[The Sicatoka]

Forgive me, but I won't chant along with what the students chant, "Who's he ...," today.

I would, however, readily go along with something less graphic. I suspect there are many others sharing this view. Maybe 11,406 is optimistic, but you'd easily increase your 1000 number.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Sic...what about "Who's he, he sucks." Take out that last word.

[YaneA]

You could communicate the students' starting lineup chant to the whole arena with the Daktronic or the fascia ring: "Non-factor!" "Cake Eater!" "Hole-y Goalie" The cure for "Who's he? He sucks $hit" is to stop at "Who's he?" It's not rocket surgery.

[gjacks]

I have tried to think of a way to express something that I think everyone knows but can't really articulate - that there IS something wrong with public vulgarity, that there IS something we owe to people around us in public gatherings, that there IS something wrong when amusements and entertainment are glorified and personalized beyond their legitimate role, that there IS something wrong when we emphasize the "right" to do something without consideration to the attendant responsibilities and in some cases suspend all restraint and act as if the "right" is actually an obligation.

In "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" , societal decay was traced to a collection of factors that included (among others): Brutalization of sport, Glorification of amusements (the rise of "stars" and construction of elaborate stadiums), the acceptance and celebration of excess and deviation, and preoccupation with self indulgence in disregard of others. I will leave it to each to interpret the author in his/her own way.

I think that President Kupchella is doing the right thing in trying to apply some braking action to what over the past 20 years has been a noticeable decline in civility among the Sioux faithful. We can be part of the problem or find a way to be part of the solution.

Fight on Fighting Sioux!

[01grad]

I was one who would always lead these cheers and chants in the pit crew at the old arena. A guy talked to me one time about not doing this and being removed and also wanted to use me as a leader to change this. I probably didn't do the best job at this. I still yelled but just didn't swear outloud. I didn't want to try to stop others because I still thought it was funny. Now looking back I feel bad for the families and little kids around us that may have heard and I am embarassed. I think that is just the way we all were in college. We just didn't care like many of the high school students I now have in class. They always threatend to put a camera on the section, which I didn't think was right if they ever did.

Anyways, I think that if everybody is still swearing that will be tough to change because it is part of our tradtition sadly enough. The only reason I ever started up was because I heard others do the chants and they were fun at the time. I think the game would be just as enjoyable with or without the language, but if I took my kids to a game I just wouldn't sit by the students. I don't think it is that big of a deal for Kupchella to get his undies in a bunch. I remember when Baker used to sit with the pit crew and he would cheer with us.

What is Kupchella going to do? How would he ever get people to stop the beer polka cheer and fun stuff like that? It wouldn't be a Sioux game if the beer cheer isn't heard. Friends of mine and I still get together and sing it when we watch.

I remember when we used to heckle the other team so bad that they would shoot pucks at us in warmups. This was an advantage for out team because it took these players out of the game mentally. Perhaps the opposing players were thinking about us or pressing too hard, but I think it helped us. I remember our team laughing a few times, which may have relaxed them and given them some extra motivation and causing the other team to take stupid penalties. That helped create our dominating home ice advantage and hype for each game. I don't know if this is possible in the new rink since the glass is so high, but it may not be the best way to go about acting at a game now. I agree that now we should cheer our team on more than we try to drag down the other team, but probably not to the extent that Kupchella does.

[dagies]

I have tried to think of a way to express something that I think everyone knows but can't really articulate - that there IS something wrong with public vulgarity, that there IS something we owe to people around us in public gatherings, that there IS something wrong when amusements and entertainment are glorified and personalized beyond their legitimate role, that there IS something wrong when we emphasize the "right" to do something without consideration to the attendant responsibilities and in some cases suspend all restraint and act as if the "right" is actually an obligation.

In "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" , societal decay was traced to a collection of factors that included (among others): Brutalization of sport, Glorification of amusements (the rise of "stars" and construction of elaborate stadiums), the acceptance and celebration of excess and deviation, and preoccupation with self indulgence in disregard of others. I will leave it to each to interpret the author in his/her own way.

I think that President Kupchella is doing the right thing in trying to apply some braking action to what over the past 20 years has been a noticeable decline in civility among the Sioux faithful. We can be part of the problem or find a way to be part of the solution.

Fight on Fighting Sioux!

Amen brother.

I used to scream the Who's He He Sux! chant back in the '80's. I WON'T yell the new chear with the added word on the end in public (and I've got a filthy mouth in private).

I would yell the sux ending around the student section. I WON'T yell it surrounded by my kid, or the old lady sitting next to me.

ANYONE who says screaming vulgarity is somehow intimidating at sporting events is nuts IMHO.

Being loud, chanting something simple, and chanting it together is what is intimidating to the opposition and motivating for the home team. That is why I could not care less with fans of other teams make fun of us for "Let's Go Sioux". It ain't the most clever thing, but when you get 10,000 people screaming it the energy in the building steps up a notch.

[YaneA]

The last few posts raise the interesting question whether the yelling and chanting should be directed only at building up the Sioux and not at tearing down the opposition. I think a balance can be struck between the amount of pro-Sioux cheers and the anti-opponent ones. But I'd hate to see the students told that they can't direct any comment at all, whatever its content, to the opposing players. The students are hockey fans, for crying out loud, not diplomats.

[The Sicatoka]

Sic...what about "Who's he, he sucks." Take out that last word.

I stop at two words.

And trust me, I have a vocabulary that could make a sailor blush. I just choose to use it when I'm sure exactly who is listening.

[PCM]

Part of Kupchella's job is to make sure that UND projects a good public image. Perhaps some here don't think that's important, but it is.

Anyone who wants the best recruits to come to UND for athletics should also be concerned about the school's image. And if you favor retaining the Fighting Sioux nickname, you should do all you can to avoid giving the PC crowd more ammunition to use against UND.

[The Sicatoka]

Anyone who wants the best recruits to come to UND for athletics ...

.... or (gasp!) academics for that matter.

Trust a PR guy when he speaks of things like projecting a good public image.

With the Fighting Sioux Sports Network putting games on satellite, everyone in The Ralph Engelstad Arena becomes a first-line ambassador for UND. What do you want to show the world?

[jloos]

"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Marsh v. State of Ala. 66 S.Ct. 276, U.S. 1946.

While the Court has sometimes put public speech ahead of Private ownership rights, its by no means a decided issue for REA's purposes. The case above referred to a town that was completely owned by a mining company.

And since then, the balance has only really addressed such places as Shopping Malls in their capacities as "Modern Day Town Squares." So, the REA MAY be subject to the 1st Amendment as a private actor, however doubtful. The real issue is whether private facilities are subject to their respective state constitutions.

If you're super bored, here's a law review article that touches on the issue.

THE UNITED MALL OF AMERICA: FREE SPEECH, STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE GROWING FORTRESS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, 33 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 615

Most of the cases addressing the public/private distinction involve malls, however I'm pretty sure there is at least one case that found either Cleveland or Atlanta's (cannot remember for sure) baseball parks where subject to 1st (or 14th) Amendment speech. The case involved anti-logo protestors on their property. Something that could be relevent at the REA.

If I have some extra time I'll read that article and try and find the case. Now that I spouted my big mouth off, I'll probably find that case and see it was decided the other way.

[UMDDogz]

Most bands will "intervene" if a bad chant starts up if there is no play on, but most college pep bands get boned from the get go...no money for them and new music, so you are stuck with old 70's tunes that sucked then. Adding the words to "good" songs/chants is a good idea, but it doesn't always work either. The best way to get a group of students do do the "right" thing is do it ala (*SHUDDER*) the BADgers. That student section rocks, is loud and cohesive, but actually generally "behaved". Teach 'em young and teach 'em often as freshmen.

WPoS

Or you could just have the band play "In Heaven There Is No Beer" during every stoppage.

[Smoggy]

Or you could just have the band play "In Heaven There Is No Beer" during every stoppage.

*sigh*

If only the crowd knew "the beer barrell polka," so the band wouldn't always have to play "in heaven there is no beer."

I agree with others, that it is how many do the chant as to whether it is affective. At the same time, it's good to have some students razz the opposing players. It should be done tastefully, but only a handful of students can hear what is being said anyways. It's not as if the players don't use foul language and trash talk.

[Goon]

I think this subject is a lot to do about nothing. Ignore it and it will proabably go away. What are they going to do clear out the student section. I didn't think the Student behavior has been too bad this season in Football or hockey. Beside I sat near the student section for the WSU-UND football game and I just didn't see all of this bad behavior they were talking about. I thought if anything some of the WSU fans were kind out of hand. Time for the Administration to find something else to scrutinize.