Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[ScottM]

The SBHE has acquiesced over and over again to the legislature. It's rather telling that when the legislature changed the name of Bottineau's university in 2009 through statute, the SBHE acknowledged that the legislature had the power to do so.

I think the critical distinction is that the board's actions regarding the Sioux moniker were in conflict with the legislature's. I agree that on any number of legislative issues, the Board did nothing in response or contrary to the statute, and arguably waived its authority on those matters. However, I would submit that if there is indeed a conflict between Board action and legislative action that the constitutional power of the board may provide them the greater leverage.

[The Sicatoka]

If the SBoHE really wanted this constitutional challenge they probably would have pushed the issue a year ago after the law passed. Instead they did everything possible to work the system and get the legislature to fix the problem themselves. That is no longer a good option, and time is much more of an issue, so the SBoHE needed to make a move at this time.

They should've challenged the original law instead of going along merrily.

[mizzou/sioux]

Saw the same poll on MSN.

Did not vote ! Missing a choice

"Want them to keep the name but feel it should be dropped for the good of the University"

Agreed. Would like to keep the nickname. However, believe this controversy is hurting our outstanding world-class university in more ways than one. Don't want it to drag on any longer than necessary. So, we lose the battle. It's better than losing the war.

[82SiouxGuy]

I wouldn't say that I disagree with much of your sentiment, but that's not really the point. For many years, there have been legislative statutes in the Century Code that do far, far more to infringe on the SBHE's efficient and economic administration of UND. The SBHE seemingly has had no issue with them, at least to the provisions I cited.

Call Carlson what you want. Call the law unconstitutional. Say he is evil and has unconstitutional motives. But this nickname law (recall that several other legislators offered statutes of their own that had the same effect) is not as much of a "power grab" than what the legislature has already done to the SBHE . . . ten times over. There is an entire chapter of the Century Code devoted the the SBHE. There are entire chapters of the Century Code relating to higher education.

In other words, what Carlson has done is not novel nor has it infringed on the SBHE's authority even to the extent of previous legislation. Had it not been Carlson's law, it would have been from one of the other legislators who offered similar bills. The SBHE has acquiesced over and over again to the legislature. It's rather telling that when the legislature changed the name of Bottineau's university in 2009 through statute, the SBHE acknowledged that the legislature had the power to do so.

Apparently, the SBHE has made an about face and is challenging the nickname law, which is fine. But the SBHE's actions are not any less politically motivated than Al Carlson's, in my honest opinion.

North Dakota residents have been reluctant to make changes in the constitution regarding Higher Education. If I remember right, there was an attempt to close one or more campuses a few years ago and take them out of the constitution. That attempt was defeated easily. Carlson needed to find a way to generate anger against the SBoHE, and then use the anger to get an amendment passed. The nickname issue was a no-brainer for him. He is trying to take advantage of the situation to accomplish a totally different goal. The nickname law itself wasn't the power grab. Using the sentiment over the nickname to eliminate the SBoHE is the power grab.

I agree that the SBoHE has allowed the legislature to infringe on the SB's authority on many other issues. And the SB wasn't going to push the issue this time either. That's why they didn't fight the constitutionality last year. They are probably concerned about the fight over funding that will come in 2013. But the nickname issue is very serious for UND and could do a great deal of harm. It would be irresponsible for the SB to not do everything in its power to take back control of the issue. They were finally forced to fight to take back the control that they have allowed to erode over the years.

[darell1976]

I'm just grateful that they're dumb enough to believe the chicken little theories. The few Bison fans who are intelligent enough to see beyond only what is immediately in front of them will probably vote the other way in an attempt to make the Sioux go the way of the Whalers and Canucks.

Dave, I don't understand..do you want UND to be on NCAA sanctions forever? I don't see the NCAA saying, "oh the ND state law is back and this time by voters we better take them off the list". Sorry ain't gonna happen.

[Benny Baker]

The nickname law itself wasn't the power grab. Using the sentiment over the nickname to eliminate the SBoHE is the power grab.

I agree that the SBoHE has allowed the legislature to infringe on the SB's authority on many other issues. And the SB wasn't going to push the issue this time either. That's why they didn't fight the constitutionality last year. They are probably concerned about the fight over funding that will come in 2013. But the nickname issue is very serious for UND and could do a great deal of harm. It would be irresponsible for the SB to not do everything in its power to take back control of the issue. They were finally forced to fight to take back the control that they have allowed to erode over the years.

I think you make a lot of well reasoned arguments, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you on this point.

[yababy8]

Dave, I don't understand..do you want UND to be on NCAA sanctions forever? I don't see the NCAA saying, "oh the ND state law is back and this time by voters we better take them off the list". Sorry ain't gonna happen.

Isn't it funny how both sides of this arguement are insisting that their position is the rational one and we all base our position on what WE THINK others (NCAA and

Big Sky) will do.

...My other brother Darell is certain of what the NCAA will do in the future.

[jodcon]

Forever? Like I said, some people just can't see beyond what is immediately in front of them. Try to look beyond only that which you can see at this moment currently. Open your eyes and your mind.

Is that from "The Matrix"?

[ScottM]

I'm just grateful that they're dumb enough to believe the chicken little theories. The few Bison fans who are intelligent enough to see beyond only what is immediately in front of them will probably vote the other way in an attempt to make the Sioux go the way of the Whalers and Canucks.

You mean they're going to move to Vancouver or Raleigh?

[darell1976]

Forever? Like I said, some people just can't see beyond what is immediately in front of them. Try to look beyond only that which you can see at this moment currently. Open your eyes and your mind.

In your opinion what do you see the NCAA doing in say 5-10 years if say the SL lawsuit fails. Do you ever see the NCAA going back on their policy and allowing UND and Alcorn State to use their nicknames? I don't.

[fightingsioux4life]

This is what I see happening:

-The North Dakota Supreme Court will rule that this law is unconstitutional. The June referral vote will not happen.

-The Spirit Lake committee will then push to get the constitutional amendment on the November ballot. This is where the UND Alumni Association has to ramp up its education campaign to tell North Dakotans exactly what is at stake and why UND athletics cannot survive under NCAA sanctions.

-If the amendment still passes, I predict that the Legislature will vote with a 2/3rds majority to overturn the amendment during the 2013 session:

North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 8: A measure approved by the electors may not be repealed or amended by the legislative assembly for seven years from its effective date, except by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house. http://ballotpedia.o...ution#Section_8.

I believe the repeal vote of the nickname law was 2/3rds in the Senate and close to 2/3rds in the House. But I honestly hope that it never gets to that point. If it does, the damage to UND athletics will take years to repair.

[UNDBIZ]

That is a moot point because I don't think the SL lawsuit will fail. They'll win easily and the NCAA will have no choice but to go back on their policy. You can't cower in fear of the bully, you have to stand up to the bully and punch him in the mouth.

They didn't even bother taking the time to check the spelling and grammar of their filing. I don't think the lawsuit has a chance. I wish I was wrong, but I can't simply put my head in the sand and say SL will win in their lawsuit. At most, SL comes away with some settlement $$, which is probably what this is all about for them anyways.

[Benny Baker]

That is a moot point because I don't think the SL lawsuit will fail. They'll win easily and the NCAA will have no choice but to go back on their policy. You can't cower in fear of the bully, you have to stand up to the bully and punch him in the mouth.

Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.

[The Sicatoka]

That is a moot point because I don't think the SL lawsuit will fail.

SL is Butler in the 2010 and 2011 NCAA MBB tournament:

They might go on a nice little run and have some satisfying battle wins along the way; but in the end, the empire (UConn, Duke, ... the NCAA) always comes out on top.

[siouxu31]

Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.

Davey has been saying this the entire time. We all want a little of what he is smoking.

[The Sicatoka]

Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.

His basis is that he's sitting with his fingers crossed, his legs crossed, his arms crossed over his chest, his eyes squeezed shut tight, bobbing forward and back slightly, and murmuring, " ... they gotta win, SL has gotta win, oh please-please-please ... "

That'll carry a lot of weight in Federal court.

[watchmaker49]

Davey has been saying this the entire time. We all want a little of what he is smoking.

It has to prescription meds because there is no type of pot that could make you so irational and delusional.

[darell1976]

This is what I see happening:

-The North Dakota Supreme Court will rule that this law is unconstitutional. The June referral vote will not happen.

-The Spirit Lake committee will then push to get the constitutional amendment on the November ballot. This is where the UND Alumni Association has to ramp up its education campaign to tell North Dakotans exactly what is at stake and why UND athletics cannot survive under NCAA sanctions.

-If the amendment still passes, I predict that the Legislature will vote with a 2/3rds majority to overturn the amendment during the 2013 session:

North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 8: A measure approved by the electors may not be repealed or amended by the legislative assembly for seven years from its effective date, except by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house. http://ballotpedia.o...ution#Section_8.

I believe the repeal vote of the nickname law was 2/3rds in the Senate and close to 2/3rds in the House. But I honestly hope that it never gets to that point. If it does, the damage to UND athletics will take years to repair.

If the SC says its unconstitutional how could it go to the November ballot? If its unconstitutional then its over isn't it?

[Hawkster]

If the SC says its unconstitutional how could it go to the November ballot? If its unconstitutional then its over isn't it?

Totally new issue. If the REFERRAL gets thrown out, the supporters will then circulate new petitions calling for a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. A constitutional amendment can't be declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.

We'd either have to live with it or get the Legislature to repeal it, but since they saddled us with this mess in the first place, you have to wonder how that would turn out.

[iramurphy]

These last two posts hit the nail on he head. The NCAA will penalize UND and should be penalizing the State of N. Dak. I would recommend a letter writing campaign to the NCAA leadership asking them to come out publically stating the sanctions will be against all NCAA schools in the state of N. Dak. similar to the southern states with the rebel flags. That should get our pals from the AC to re-think what a dumb move it is to vote to support or sign these petitions. That should also garner help from the Bismarck area because U of Mary would be penalized as well. UND has done everthing it was supposed to do. Time to get political with the politicians.

[darell1976]

Totally new issue. If the REFERRAL gets thrown out, the supporters will then circulate new petitions calling for a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. A constitutional amendment can't be declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.

We'd either have to live with it or get the Legislature to repeal it, but since they saddled us with this mess in the first place, you have to wonder how that would turn out.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[darell1976]

These last two posts hit the nail on he head. The NCAA will penalize UND and should be penalizing the State of N. Dak. I would recommend a letter writing campaign to the NCAA leadership asking them to come out publically stating the sanctions will be against all NCAA schools in the state of N. Dak. similar to the southern states with the rebel flags. That should get our pals from the AC to re-think what a dumb move it is to vote to support or sign these petitions. That should also garner help from the Bismarck area because U of Mary would be penalized as well. UND has done everthing it was supposed to do. Time to get political with the politicians.

That is what I don't get. UND doesn't want the name, all the coaches, facilty, and even the SBoHE doesn't want it. But yet the NCAA who rules the school wants to punish them. Can't they see its not UND's fault the name came back its North Dakota's politics that the name came back. So maybe sanctions against all NCAA schools in the state need to be punished.

[iramurphy]

The petition to change the constitution is the dangerous one. That would give the legislature the legal authority they don't ha

These last two posts hit the nail on he head. The NCAA will penalize UND and should be penalizing the State of N. Dak. I would recommend a letter writing campaign to the NCAA leadership asking them to come out publically stating the sanctions will be against all NCAA schools in the state of N. Dak. similar to the southern states with the rebel flags. That should get our pals from the AC to re-think what a dumb move it is to vote to support or sign these petitions. That should also garner help from the Bismarck area because U of Mary would be penalized as well. UND has done everthing it was supposed to do. Time to get political with the politicians.

Sorry I was referring to two posts from yesterday but most of you shoudl get my point.

[82SiouxGuy]

Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.

Dave doesn't understand anything about the law or legal issues. His only basis for believing that Spirit Lake is going to win is blind hope.

[The Sicatoka]

The NCAA should come down on the entire state for voting to keep the name and should ban all NCAA schools within the state from post-season play. It's a state issue, not a UND issue. If UND had its say the name would be gone.

The NCAA will penalize UND and should be penalizing the State of N. Dak. I would recommend a letter writing campaign to the NCAA leadership asking them to come out publically stating the sanctions will be against all NCAA schools in the state of N. Dak. similar to the southern states with the rebel flags.

I stated this same thought a couple weeks ago.

If it was just UND deciding to suffer a fate only UND should suffer consequences.

But if the whole state decides but only one would suffer, that's not right, so ...

If the whole state votes for such an amendment, the whole state should suffer the fate. Call it "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And yes, the precedent exists within the NCAA as state laws in MS and SC trigger sanctions against the entirety of those states.