Siouxperfan7 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Maybe they are pissed at how he has handled the nickname issue in general. Or maybe they can't stand his liberal, "I know what's best for you" mentality. Another reason why displaying the sign was dumb. Writing an opinion piece in the Herald or the Dakota Student expressing your reasons why you believe Kelley should be fired would get your point across much better than a vague banner at a hockey game. Sure, the banner is getting more attention, but again that brings me back to the point that it was more about the kids than the actual message they were trying to get across. These students knew they were going to be approached by REA officials and most likeley would have to take down the sign. So instead of creating a discussion about the reasons they feel Kelley is to be fired in the appropriate way, all they ended up doing is creating a discussion about a sign and a couple kids having to take i down and whetehr or not they were kicked out of the game or not. Again, making it about themselves and not the issue. Quote
UND-RedSox fan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Or maybe they're stupid 18 or 19 year olds that really didn't have a reason for what they were doing beyond getting attention. Holding a fire Kelley sign has obviously done that. 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I'm not sure if you are saying Kelley is to blame for not settling on a new nickname immediately or not but didn't the legislature eventually mandate a 3 year cooling off period where we weren't allowed to choose a new nickname anyway? Now that you mention that ... Kelley's "do nothing" strategy, is it to freeze the Sioux nickname proponents out of the process of selecting a new nickname? The "no nickname" crowd happily aided and abetted Kelley by sticking to the idea that no nickname is the best approach. So when UND gets around to selecting a nickname that only a PC liberal can love, they'll have only themselves to blame -- not that they'll admit it. The clue here came when UND was willing to take the legislature to court when it wanted to force the school to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname, but acquiescing and rolled over when the legislature mandated a time period for no name. UND and the SBoHE squealed like stuck pigs and screamed about the legislature exceeding its constitutional authority when it tried to make them do something they don't want to do, but they totally folded when the legislature "forced" them to do what they wanted all along, namely, do nothing. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So instead of creating a discussion about the reasons they feel Kelley is to be fired in the appropriate way, ... Welcome to the 140 character world where a hash tag is considered a thoughtful and compelling argument. Quote
yababy8 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 If the students intended it to be related, it was very dumb on their part. Kelley had absulutely nothing to d0 with the name being retired...What is very dumb is you continually attempting to assert the Kelly had no culpability in the loss of our ability to use our nickname. You keep saying the settlement agreement was made before he became President of the University. Of course this is true but what is a miss characterization of the truth is that the settlemente equated to the loss of the name. Not true. You keep saying that the students should understand the history of the situation. This is quite funny because you don't? The reality of the situation is the settlement was just a beginning of what was to be, or should have been, a challenging hiil to climb. Yet Kelly did nothing, I repeat nothing, to rally all involved to achieve the rationale, fair and just outcome ... In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name Kelly did nothing to promote this outcome. In fact he never even chose to publicly decry the truth of the matter which was, is and always will be that there was nothing wrong with the name-a name the Sioux people by majority clearly loved and wanted used. He never stood up as a leader one time to represent this. He never publicly supported the rationality of keeping the name. He did nothing to attempt to rally the Sioux people around the use of their name. The funny thing is they ended up doing it themselves(See federal law suit or letter to the NCAA). -Oh sure you can say that it was Sioux people who failed to support the name in time. Even though I would argue that is not the case, let's just for the sake of argument say that it is. It still has nothing to do with what Kelly did or did not do. He should have been a leader and led all to the correct outcome. Instead once again, he did absolutely nothing! He and the administration around him were beyond pathetic when it comes to how the Sioux name was handled. And for you to attempt to characterize their actions as anything else is simply pathetic itself. The truth is the truth. Look it up! 2 Quote
SJHovey Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 What is very dumb is you continually attempting to assert the Kelly had no culpability in the loss of our ability to use our nickname. Yyou keep saying the settlement agreement was made before he became President of the University. Of course this is true but what is a mis characterization of the truth is that the settlemente equated to the loss of the name. Not true. You keep saying that the students should understand the history of the situation. This is quite funny because you don't. The reality of the situation is the settlement was just a beginning of what was to be, or should have been a challenging hiil to climb. Yet Kelly did nothing, I repeat nothing to rally all involved to achieve the rationale, fair and just outcome ... In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name Kelly did nothing to promote this outcome. In fact he never even chose to publicly decry the truth of the matter which was is and always will be that there was nothing wrong with the name a name the Sioux people by majority clearly loved and wanted used. He never stood up as a leader one time to represent this. he never publicly supported the rationality of keeping the name. He did nothing to attempt to rally the Sioux people around the use of their name. The funny thing is they ended up doing it themselves(See federal law suit or letter to the NCAA). -Oh sure you can say that it was Sioux people who failed to support the name in time. Even though I would argue that is not the case, let's just for the sake of argument say that it is. It still has nothing to do with what Kelly did or did not do. He should have been a leader and led all to the correct outcome. Instead once again, he did absolutely nothing! He and the administration around him were beyond pathetic when it comes to how the Sioux name was handled. And for you to attempt to characterize their actions as anything else is simply pathetic itself. The truth is the truth. Look it up! Maybe Kelley concluded it was a hill that shouldn't be climbed. He is paid, in part, to make those types of decisions. I loved the name as much as anyone. But candidly, I'm glad its gone. I'm tired of the nonsense. Its the world we live in. The Washington Redskins are going to be able to hold on for awhile. The FSU Seminoles are going to be able to hold on for awhile. But the world is not moving towards use of american indian names as mascots/team nicknames. Its moving against them, and you have as much a chance to stop it as you do stopping the tide. It's a frigging nickname. Every program that has switched, voluntarily or otherwise, has survived quite nicely. Trust me, those standing in a public forum petulantly crying about the loss of their dear indian nickname will not be judge kindly by history. The students can voice their displeasure by making and displaying the sign, which they did. And they can rightfully have the sign confiscated, and even be asked to leave the premises. 3 Quote
Siouxperman8 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Most people understand that: we all loved the name we were willing to go to battle to the end the penalties from the NCAA and other universities (UM, Wisc, Iowa) finally got to be too much so we realized the best course of action was to move on 1 Quote
SWSiouxMN Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So do we really know the true motive behind the sign or is just speculation at this point, or will we ever know the motive? Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 What is very dumb is you continually attempting to assert the Kelly had no culpability in the loss of our ability to use our nickname. You keep saying the settlement agreement was made before he became President of the University. Of course this is true but what is a miss characterization of the truth is that the settlemente equated to the loss of the name. Not true. You keep saying that the students should understand the history of the situation. This is quite funny because you don't? The reality of the situation is the settlement was just a beginning of what was to be, or should have been, a challenging hiil to climb. Yet Kelly did nothing, I repeat nothing, to rally all involved to achieve the rationale, fair and just outcome ... In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name Kelly did nothing to promote this outcome. In fact he never even chose to publicly decry the truth of the matter which was, is and always will be that there was nothing wrong with the name-a name the Sioux people by majority clearly loved and wanted used. He never stood up as a leader one time to represent this. He never publicly supported the rationality of keeping the name. He did nothing to attempt to rally the Sioux people around the use of their name. The funny thing is they ended up doing it themselves(See federal law suit or letter to the NCAA). -Oh sure you can say that it was Sioux people who failed to support the name in time. Even though I would argue that is not the case, let's just for the sake of argument say that it is. It still has nothing to do with what Kelly did or did not do. He should have been a leader and led all to the correct outcome. Instead once again, he did absolutely nothing! He and the administration around him were beyond pathetic when it comes to how the Sioux name was handled. And for you to attempt to characterize their actions as anything else is simply pathetic itself. The truth is the truth. Look it up! The Standing Rock tribal council was never going to put it up for a vote and let the people decide and thus was never going to give approval of the Sioux name. The settlement agreement gauranteed that the name would be retired. What was Kelley supposed to do? Sure he could have renounced the NCAA about how stupid they were with this policy, but what good would that have done? Was he supposed to go to the Standing Rock Tribe and get on his knees in front of the tribal council and beg? So please tell me some actions Kelley could have legitimitely done that would have let UND keep the Fighting Sioux name? Because they way I see it, there was very little he could have done based on the fact that any actions that could have been done wwould have to have taken place before he took office. 1 Quote
Redneksioux Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So do we really know the true motive behind the sign or is just speculation at this point, or will we ever know the motive? I'm guessing there was more intended meaning behind the sign. Quote
siouxjoy Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Now that you mention that ... Kelley's "do nothing" strategy, is it to freeze the Sioux nickname proponents out of the process of selecting a new nickname? The "no nickname" crowd happily aided and abetted Kelley by sticking to the idea that no nickname is the best approach. So when UND gets around to selecting a nickname that only a PC liberal can love, they'll have only themselves to blame -- not that they'll admit it. The clue here came when UND was willing to take the legislature to court when it wanted to force the school to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname, but acquiescing and rolled over when the legislature mandated a time period for no name. UND and the SBoHE squealed like stuck pigs and screamed about the legislature exceeding its constitutional authority when it tried to make them do something they don't want to do, but they totally folded when the legislature "forced" them to do what they wanted all along, namely, do nothing. Wasn't it a package deal? My memory is that the mandate to retire the nickname and require a cooling off period were in the same bill. Hindsight is always 20/20. Where was the complaining about the cooling off period when it actually was enacted? Do you really think that people would have been okay with an immediate change to the name? This place would have been in uber meltdown if the name was retired and the search for a new name commenced within days. Three years may have been too long, but there had to be time between the retirement and selection of a new name. On a different note, committees are ALWAYS used in higher education. It is how things process...good, bad, or otherwise. It is silly to complain about Kelley's use of committees when it is standard operating practice. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Wasn't it a package deal? My memory is that the mandate to retire the nickname and require a cooling off period were in the same bill. Yes. What I'm pointing out is that first the Legislature tried to mandate "You must keep name" (Al Carlson, "Sioux Forever") followed up with retire and cool off. Kelley et al balked at "you must keep"; however, when later it was "you must do nothing" nary a peep from him. If being forced to do X is not in the scope of power and should be fought, being forced to do Y is not in the scope of power and should be fought as well. They never fought the second time. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name ... What you're forgetting, or unwilling to admit, is one of those nations (at least what mattered -- the tribal council) was just flat out never going to approve the use of the name. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I loved the name as much as anyone. But candidly, I'm glad its gone. I'm tired of the nonsense. Its the world we live in. The Washington Redskins are going to be able to hold on for awhile. The FSU Seminoles are going to be able to hold on for awhile. But the world is not moving towards use of american indian names as mascots/team nicknames. Its moving against them, and you have as much a chance to stop it as you do stopping the tide. Rightly or wrongly, that is the world we live in. Quote
siouxjoy Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Yes. What I'm pointing out is that first the Legislature tried to mandate "You must keep name" (Al Carlson, "Sioux Forever") followed up with retire and cool off. Kelley et al balked at "you must keep"; however, when later it was "you must do nothing" nary a peep from him. If being forced to do X is not in the scope of power and should be fought, being forced to do Y is not in the scope of power and should be fought as well. They never fought the second time. Right. Except X resulted in severe punishment from NCAA, and Y did not. If Al had his way, the UND athletes would have suffered greatly, all due to the legislature (or really, a few people's vendetta against the Board of Higher Education). Using all arguments against that course of action seems reasonable. Almost like being a strong leader... It is true the same argument could be applied to Y, but since ultimately the people of ND voted on the retirement (not just legislative mandate), the situations are not the same. You are comparing apples to oranges. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 A strong leader, after the statewide vote to retire the name, would've had the new name, logo, and apparel ready to roll out the first day allowed. And he'd have created a consensus such that on that day it would sell out. (The law said "adopt"; you don't make it "officially adopted" until that day.) Instead he's put Sherri Kleinsasser and Karl Goehring out front where he should be leading from. Those two are fine "face people", but they are not in the "buck stops here" job. A leader leads from the front. 1 Quote
Fetch Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So why do we pay these these people so much ? Lets just go with management by committee Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 What is very dumb is you continually attempting to assert the Kelly had no culpability in the loss of our ability to use our nickname. You keep saying the settlement agreement was made before he became President of the University. Of course this is true but what is a miss characterization of the truth is that the settlemente equated to the loss of the name. Not true. You keep saying that the students should understand the history of the situation. This is quite funny because you don't? The reality of the situation is the settlement was just a beginning of what was to be, or should have been, a challenging hiil to climb. Yet Kelly did nothing, I repeat nothing, to rally all involved to achieve the rationale, fair and just outcome ... In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name Kelly did nothing to promote this outcome. In fact he never even chose to publicly decry the truth of the matter which was, is and always will be that there was nothing wrong with the name-a name the Sioux people by majority clearly loved and wanted used. He never stood up as a leader one time to represent this. He never publicly supported the rationality of keeping the name. He did nothing to attempt to rally the Sioux people around the use of their name. The funny thing is they ended up doing it themselves(See federal law suit or letter to the NCAA). -Oh sure you can say that it was Sioux people who failed to support the name in time. Even though I would argue that is not the case, let's just for the sake of argument say that it is. It still has nothing to do with what Kelly did or did not do. He should have been a leader and led all to the correct outcome. Instead once again, he did absolutely nothing! He and the administration around him were beyond pathetic when it comes to how the Sioux name was handled. And for you to attempt to characterize their actions as anything else is simply pathetic itself. The truth is the truth. Look it up! Oh and one other thing that you and others seem to fail to realize. Even if UND would have gotten full support from both tribes and Kelley would have spear headed the effort, the FACT is that the Big Sky, and other conferences we were looking at joining (Summit/MVFC), had an issue with our native American name. Having the Fighting Sioux name after the NCAA came out against them in 2005 became a problem for many Universities. For a school that just reclassified to D1 and in search of conference affiliation, it became a big problem. Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 A strong leader, after the statewide vote to retire the name, would've had the new name, logo, and apparel ready to roll out the first day allowed. And he'd have created a consensus such that on that day it would sell out. (The law said "adopt"; you don't make it "officially adopted" until that day.) Instead he's put Sherri Kleinsasser and Karl Goehring out front where he should be leading from. Those two are fine "face people", but they are not in the "buck stops here" job. A leader leads from the front. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Kelly decides on a nickname with no input from stakeholders, he is critisized for not taking the advice of the people. Drag the process out and form committees to give people a sense of being a part of the process, critisized for dragging out the process. 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Kelley had stakeholders on that first transition committee (Schafer, and yeah, Jeanotte ) so he had input available to him, stakeholders willing to get it done at that time. Kelley chose the course of "no action". Quote
Cratter Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Anyone else think this thread should get moved? Quote
MafiaMan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Someone post the popcorn gif now Sorry, Fetch, I dropped the ball on this yesterday... Quote
Fetch Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I always wondered what a President who was determined to defend & save the name would have done during this time - Because what ever that could have been Kelley did none of it - That alone is enough for us to have lost all respect One specific was Working with the Tribes - &/or the legalities of the ncaa making us have both tribes not just the closest & only truely ND Tribe but nothing was done Where were the committees of the best minds to try to save the name ? Quote
MafiaMan Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I always wondered what a President who was determined to defend & save the name would have done during this time - Because what ever that could have been Kelley did none of it - That alone is enough for us to have lost all respect One specific was Working with the Tribes - &/or the legalities of the ncaa making us have both tribes not just the closest & only truely ND Tribe but nothing was done Kelley waved a magic wand thanks to some t-shirts and - POOF! - a $100K a year "diversity" job was instantly created. Meeting with tribal leaders regarding saving the school name? Meh...too much work. 3 Quote
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.