mksioux Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I simply cannot get past this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If it is true that he would then bring it up on membership vote, then he must feel that he has the vote to do it. Why else would he say "It's done."? I have absolutely no legal experience, so I'll have to rely on those who do to explain Brand's comments. Additionally, aren't these kind of comments fodder for the lawsuit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If it is true that he would then bring it up on membership vote, then he must feel that he has the vote to do it. Why else would he say "It's done."? I have absolutely no legal experience, so I'll have to rely on those who do to explain Brand's comments. Additionally, aren't these kind of comments fodder for the lawsuit? You must remember that he is ivy league castle dweller and probably does not fully appreciate or understand the lawsuit. And you have to remember that he has to present a certain amount of resolve to the media to keep in the good graces of the PC hack allies. There is a certain poker faced attribute that all litigants have and must retain to benefit their cases. While I am a lawyer, I have not read all of the pleadings and I do not profess to be proficient in this particular legal area. That said, what pleadings I have read indicate that UND is not only challenging the procedure but also the policy itself. Brand evidently does not even have complete knowledge of the pleadings. UND is challenging the unfair and unequal application of the policy as well as the procedure and it is challenging the policy's infringement of its trademark rights, as far as I can tell. I think ScottM and others on this site are attorneys but PCM is not (although he could certainly be one in this case with his knowledge) and they are a lot more knowledgable on the pleadings than I am. I'll stick to bankruptcy law but, as far as I can tell, both the policy and procedure are being challenged. In fact, it seems that they are, or could be construed to be, the same. If UND wins, perhaps the NCAA would do what it should have done initially -- present the idea for a vote. I am not convinced that they would have the votes necessary anyway. If UND wins on all counts, I do not think such a vote even matters because such a policy would not be capable of being enforced as it would infringe upon UND's legal rights vis-a-vis use of the nickname. Perhaps PCM, Scott M and others can comment further to give a clearer picture but that is my take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 While I am a lawyer, I have not read all of the pleadings and I do not profess to be proficient in this particular legal area. That said, what pleadings I have read indicate that UND is not only challenging the procedure but also the policy itself.UND isn't challenging the policy itself -- yet. I am not convinced that they would have the votes necessary anyway.Nor am I. I believe if putting this issue to a vote was the slam-dunk win that some believe it to be, the NCAA would have done it already. There has to be a reason that approach wasn't taken. That's just my hunch based on seven years of experience working the world of legislative politics. If UND wins on all counts, I do not think such a vote even matters because such a policy would not be capable of being enforced as it would infringe upon UND's legal rights vis-a-vis use of the nickname.I believe you are correct. This is another legal battle to be fought if UND chooses to fight it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 "There are probably ways to reach mediation," Brand said, "but the NCAA will not be changing its position on this. We'll help and work with the university if they so desire, (though) they have not shown any desire at this point."When Kupchella invited the NCAA Executive Committee to visit UND for the purpose of seeing firsthand what goes on here, the NCAA didn't even bother to respond. Is that Brand's idea of working with the university? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 If Myles had the votes to pass the measures through the general membership he would have done so, or at least started down that path now to render any court decision(s) moot. Moreover, if Brand did pursue that path, I'm sure he'd face one hell of a firestorm in Congress, the press and/or the courts if FSU had to give up its currently "non-hostile and non-abusive" name and logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 But if we lose, we'll just change our procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) But if we lose, we'll just change our procedures. Edited January 9, 2007 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Live by the sword, die by the sword. ..... By the time the vendettas end, ... That's the "payback's a ... " theory, and once the door is open the flood follows. It's always fun when it's the other guy's ox being gored. People forget they have oxen also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undsportsfan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I think you are wrong. I have always heard that it is only the tribal leaders and a few others that make a big stink over the nickname. The majority of tribal members supprt UND and like the nickname. I am beginning to think that Gothmog is actually GK in disguise. Ok, how come when the nickname issue is out and about we start 'threatening' to take money away towards Native American programs? the nickname has nothing to do with these programs. why is this accused to be Gothmog GK in disguise? Or am I GK in disguise? or anyone else who is a member of this website that have debated the issue from the opposing side of the discussion? Why can't we just state our personal opinions and all be different people that have similar opinions, as many of you do about supporting the nickname? Or are you all one person? I don't know who Gothmog is, but perhaps it is actually someone new. But I haven't been posting on these forums lately... just reading them. Everyone regardless of their position is often told that they are wrong for what they believe, and in turn, they ask why their opinion is wrong, and everyone else is right? then they go and do the same thing again and again. its like a broken record. as for 'hearing' it's only tribal leaders and a few others, i'd have to beg to differ. There's plenty of people that don't support the nickname, some are more vocal then others obviously. Some of us naive people that we'd be able to give different perspectives on the matter too, only to be harassed and mistreated. And all we wanted was to be heard, to be listened to. Instead nothing but disrespect and claims that a few of us were the ones being disrespectful or calling others racists or engaging in reverse racism. Something I have not been involved in, yes there are people who come on here and do engage in racists acts, which I disagree with, but others, well, again, just want to have an actual conversation without resorting to name calling. Because we know how name calling gets a job done... anyway... I hope everyone had a good holiday and happy new year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 While I am a lawyer, I have not read all of the pleadings and I do not profess to be proficient in this particular legal area. That said, what pleadings I have read indicate that UND is not only challenging the procedure but also the policy itself. The first two counts challenge the procedure. But Count III (Unlawful Restraint on Trade) effectively challenges the policy itself. Unfortunately, Judge Jahnke granted the temporary injunction on Counts I and II, but specifically denied Count III as a basis for the temporary injunction. Count III is a much more difficult legal argument to make and I am not optimistic UND will prevail on this count. Assuming UND wins on Counts I and II and loses on Count III, I think the next step would be for the Executive Committee to bring the measure before the entire membership body as legislation. Nobody really knows for sure how a membership vote would go. Personally, I have no faith in the college presidents to do the right thing, but I respect others' opinions that believe the votes are not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 When Kupchella invited the NCAA Executive Committee to visit UND for the purpose of seeing firsthand what goes on here, the NCAA didn't even bother to respond. Is that Brand's idea of working with the university? I think what Brand means by "work with the university" is work with UND in changing its nickname. I'm sure they'd be willing to work with UND on a phase-out timetable or something like that, but it sounds like there is no willingness to "work with the university" in reaching a real compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 The Herald has picked up the story with Buning's comments added. UND NICKNAME: Brand: NCAA won't back down "Based on Brand's statement, I'm glad we have the injunction and if this is a projected fight, at least the sanctions that would negatively affect the student athletes are off the table for now," Buning told the Herald on Tuesday. "It definitely places great value on the injunction." Buning was at the NCAA Convention in Orlando, Fla., and he was greeted with many questions as to the status of the nickname debate at UND, he said. "People were all very interested and yet I don't know if those people realize how much a part of everyday culture that image is here," said Buning. "This requires a individualized approach to the issue more than a cookie-cutter one." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Basically what he's saying is that if they lose in court, they'll pass the measure through legislation (i.e. membership vote). I've been saying that for a while. I believe if the measure before the membership was to ban ALL Native American names and imagery, it would likely pass. I find it hard to believe a measure exluding the likes of FSU, etc. would pass. It's all or none, in my opinion. I just don't believe that the NC$$ would risk losing the millions of dollars those 'exceptions' bring into the organization to make it an 'all' measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 Ok, how come when the nickname issue is out and about we start 'threatening' to take money away towards Native American programs? the nickname has nothing to do with these programs.Stating that the nickname has nothing to do with these Indiana Studies programs is as preposterous as talk about threatening to defund Indian programs. History says the nickname had a tremendous impact on Indian programs at UND. If it wasn't for the Fighting Sioux nickname, UND would likely be no more distinquished than NDSU or SDSU as far as its Indian programs. In other words: pathetic. I do however wonder what a person like Art Raymond, who founded the Indian Studies program at UND, would think of the present politicized nature of the Indian Studies program. Would Art Raymond disband the Indian Studies program so that it could again be an academic, rather than political, department? But then again, an Art Raymond of today probably wouldn't even be offered a position within the College of Arts and Sciences, as he wouldn't have been PC-enough. Art Raymond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 History says the nickname had a tremendous impact on Indian programs at UND. If it wasn't for the Fighting Sioux nickname, UND would likely be no more distinquished than NDSU or SDSU as far as its Indian programs. In other words: pathetic. Nor would UND be proposing to spend $10M on an American Indian Center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I think what Brand means by "work with the university" is work with UND in changing its nickname. I understand what Brand means. My point was that from the very beginning, the NCAA has shown absolutely no interest or willingness to work with UND to resovle the issue. For him to suggest that the ball is in UND's court is patently ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) Ok, how come when the nickname issue is out and about we start 'threatening' to take money away towards Native American programs? the nickname has nothing to do with these programs.redwing77 can certainly speak for himself, but I don't believe that was his point. Nor do I believe that he intended it as any kind of threat. I think you need to reread what he said in the context of Gothmog's comments. why is this accused to be Gothmog GK in disguise?That comment was certainly out of line. Gothmog is quite obviously not grahamkracker. Their writing styles are very different and Gothmog is not even making the same arguments. Having read his other posts, I believe that he is an NDSU fan who dislikes UND and disagrees with its position on the nickname issue. That, of course, is his right, but he shouldn't expect his opinion to be popular or well-received here. as for 'hearing' it's only tribal leaders and a few others, i'd have to beg to differ. There's plenty of people that don't support the nickname, some are more vocal then others obviously.I have no way of knowing for certain how many American Indians are on which side of this issue. However, the issue is quite often presented as if ALL American Indians are of the same opinion. As you just admitted, they are not. Some people who once supported UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname are now against it. Some people who were once against it are now for it. Some tribes in other parts of the country have given strong support to schools that use their names. That tells me that the issue is one of subjective choice, not of objective right or wrong. Therefore, when someone makes the argument that Gothmog and the NCAA do that UND is morally wrong to use the Fighting Sioux nickname, they are saying that their opionion alone is right and everyone else's is wrong. Personally, I don't understand why more American Indians aren't offended by the type of thinking which implies that they aren't intelligent enough to reach a rational decision for themselves. To me, that type of arrogant, condescending, patronizing attitude is the worst type of racism because it assumes that many American Indians don't know their own minds on an issue that directly impacts them. With every exemption it's granted, the NCAA self-righteously proclaims that it -- a group governed and controled almost exclusively by non-Indians -- knows what's best for all Indians. Does that not bother you? It should. Edited January 10, 2007 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Oh, so you mean like when people criticize how Joe Finley has been playing to this point? Or Lamoureaux? Or any of the freshmen? That is a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 From the Chicago Sun-Times: U. of I. investigates threats against American Indian CHAMPAIGN -- The University of Illinois is investigating online threats made against an American Indian student on a Web page that defended the use of the school's Chief Illiniwek mascot, the university's chancellor said Tuesday. In a letter sent Tuesday to faculty and others on campus, Chancellor Richard Herman said threats aimed at an American Indian student and American Indians in general were made on the Facebook social-networking Web site and appeared to have been made by students. The Web page, which Herman said has been taken down, defended the university's continued use of the Chief Illiniwek mascot, a frequent subject of criticism by American Indians and others.Farnell, part of the university's Native American Studies program, declined to identify the woman but said she is a graduate student and a Sioux. According to the copy of the e-mail received by faculty and students last week, another person wrote on the Web page: ''what they don't realize is that there never was a racist problem before ... but now i hate redskins and hope all those drunk casino owning bums die.'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 From the Chicago Sun-Times: U. of I. investigates threats against American Indian That's not helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 That's not helpful. That's assuming we are getting all the facts and the incident happened as reported. Call me paranoid, but I have my doubts based on what we've seen happen on this very board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 That's assuming we are getting all the facts and the incident happened as reported. Call me paranoid, but I have my doubts based on what we've seen happen on this very board. Yup. I'm surprised U of I had an incident like this before us. The rumors going around that some of the more recent hostile tshirts and sweatshirts (like the ones on ebay) were commissioned by the antinicknamers could easily have moved over to websites claiming to support the nickname but are actually racist like that facebook page in a planted manner. I don't believe there is a racism problem at UND that cannot be resolved by using less drastic measures than what the antinicknamers wish to do. However, with what has happened on this site, I'm sure they'd plant a facebook site or other web site if they thought they could get away with it. I don't think they'd do it because they are criminally minded. I think they'd do it because their sense of right and wrong and their desperation to force their agenda on the majority would make them feel justified in doing so. Is that a racist belief? Nope. Why? Because of evidence provided by actions here on this site. Precedent means a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 ....but now i hate redskins and hope all those drunk casino owning bums die. This sounds so very like posts made by GK after he hacked into my account....... Me thinks someone has found something to do with all his extra time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yekcoh Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 This sounds so very like posts made by GK after he hacked into my account....... Me thinks someone has found something to do with all his extra time. He had a sex change? Hehe. 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.