Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[watchmaker49]

Bad drugs?

He is a victim of those drugs that jet airplanes are spraying all around the country. Those contrails contain mind altering chemicals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

[darell1976]

Sioux nickname supporters are going to love the people on Bisonville.

http://www.bisonvill...ickname/page568

Re: Bill to keep Sioux nickname

Originally Posted by SeattleBison

Make sure you all get out and vote in support of the nickname!

I'm telling everyone I know to vote for continued use of the name! (While at the same time going heavy on popcorn futures)

But in all seriousness, if you really wanted to screw over the Whioux, vote yes.

aces1180:My family is going to vote yes per my request!

[CMSioux]

Sioux nickname supporters are going to love the people on Bisonville.

http://www.bisonvill...ickname/page568

Re: Bill to keep Sioux nickname

The perpetual inferiority complex at work, they are so worried about having to compete once again on a level playing field that they will stoop to any level.

[darell1976]

The perpetual inferiority complex at work, they are so worried about having to compete once again on a level playing field that they will stoop to any level.

Thats what it sounds like...their 5 year head start is crumbling like the wall did in Berlin. First volleyball, now basketball...would football (their #1 sport) be next??

[ScottM]

Sioux nickname supporters are going to love the people on Bisonville. http://www.bisonvill...ickname/page568 Re: Bill to keep Sioux nickname

And the sad fact is that the 'SU supporters seem to grasp the impacts of the NC$$ sanctions on UND more than some people on this board, or in the state electorate.

[yababy8]

You sound like some "end of days" preacher on TV. And about as delusional and entertaining as well.

Let's play a quick game of 'where's Waldo' with "end of days" preaching on this forum shall we?

[Goon]

Sioux nickname supporters are going to love the people on Bisonville. http://www.bisonvill...ickname/page568 Re: Bill to keep Sioux nickname

What a bunch of Buffoons, they say that UND is "not" their rival but they would vote against them by supporting the nick name ballot. Wow!!!

[ScottM]

What a bunch of Buffoons, they say that UND is "not" their rival but they would vote against them by supporting the nick name ballot. Wow!!!

Which goes to my earlier point, the 'SU fans seem to get it when it comes to understanding the sanctions' effects on UND. Their comments and motivations in voting "Yes" should really give thinking moniker supporters pause.

[jdub27]

Which goes to my earlier point, the 'SU fans seem to get it when it comes to understanding the sanctions' effects on UND. Their comments and motivations in voting "Yes" should really give thinking moniker supporters pause.

They (moniker supporters) are as blind to why they are getting support from NDSU folks as they are to true motives of Al Carlson/Rob Port. They are being played like pawns and either don't know or don't care.

[Hayduke]

Thats what it sounds like...their 5 year head start is crumbling like the wall did in Berlin. First volleyball, now basketball...would football (their #1 sport) be next??

You know, since UND won the last meeting with NDSU, and we have the Nickel Trophy, I would say that an argument could be made that UND has the superior football team.

Just sayin'...

[Rick]

Look out Notre Dame. The Irish have been offended by a shoe so it's only a matter of time before someone takes on the Fighting Irish logo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/nike-black-and-tan_n_1344197.html

[The Sicatoka]

The Fargo Forum's editorial board takes a nice swipe at Carlson' Folly.

" ... because of the obtuseness of a legislative majority led by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, whose conduct in the logo debate ought to disqualify him from leadership, and likely even from re-election to the North Dakota House. Arguably, he is single-handedly responsible for leading his lemming-like caucus into a miasma of litigation and recrimination that has put the university at risk ... "

And they sum up Thursday pretty well:

"The court has to cut through all the tangential currents swirling around the logo. The core of the issue is whether the constitutionally mandated higher ed board has the power to do what the state constitution says the board is supposed to do. The question is whether a legislative leader who seems quite willing to undermine the state constitution will be granted more power to pursue a campaign to politicize and micromanage the state’s colleges and universities."

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/354035/group/Opinion/

[The Sicatoka]

Look out Notre Dame. The Irish have been offended by a shoe so it's only a matter of time before someone takes on the Fighting Irish logo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/nike-black-and-tan_n_1344197.html

Honestly, given that response to a shoe, I'm not sure how some won't be coming after this:

[Uncle_Rico]

What a bunch of Buffoons, they say that UND is "not" their rival but they would vote against them by supporting the nick name ballot. Wow!!!

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.

[Goon]

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 name was already transitioning and gone from almost everything. The School did everything they could to make sure the Logo didn't show up during interview and what not.

[Benny Baker]

The Fargo Forum's editorial board takes a nice swipe at Carlson' Folly.

" ... because of the obtuseness of a legislative majority led by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, whose conduct in the logo debate ought to disqualify him from leadership, and likely even from re-election to the North Dakota House. Arguably, he is single-handedly responsible for leading his lemming-like caucus into a miasma of litigation and recrimination that has put the university at risk ... "

And they sum up Thursday pretty well:

"The court has to cut through all the tangential currents swirling around the logo. The core of the issue is whether the constitutionally mandated higher ed board has the power to do what the state constitution says the board is supposed to do. The question is whether a legislative leader who seems quite willing to undermine the state constitution will be granted more power to pursue a campaign to politicize and micromanage the state’s colleges and universities."

http://www.inforum.c.../group/Opinion/

When speaking about micromanaging the state's colleges and universities, I wonder why the Fargo Forum chose not to mention all those other "micromanaging" laws like NDCC 15-10.3-03, whereby the legislature prohibits the SBHE from increasing fees by more than 1 percent; NDCC 15-10-13.1, whereby the legislature requires a certain level of written and oral English proficiency for all instructors irrespective of the SBHE's opinions; or perhaps NDCC 15-10-12.1, whereby the legislature requires the SBHE to obtain legislative approval to perform infrastructure maintenance funded by private donations.

So the SBHE chooses to challenge the static presence of a nickname and logo because it infringes on its "full authority" over the "efficient and economic administration" of UND, but chooses to ignore the presence of statutes limiting the SBHE's control over university fees?

Let the the blind keep leading the blind.

[ScottM]

So the SBHE chooses to challenge the static presence of a nickname and logo because it infringes on its "full authority" over the "efficient and economic administration" of UND, but chooses to ignore the presence of statutes limiting the SBHE's control over university fees?

Let the the blind keep leading the blind.

Perhaps you should take up that "abuse of power" with Clueless Al.

[Benny Baker]

Perhaps you should take up that "abuse of power" with Clueless Al.

No thank you, Clueless Scott. You're completely incorrect as filing a lawsuit is not an abuse of power. Heck, the SBHE may even win. But it's pathetic to call Carlson's actions politically motivated while ignoring the fact that the SBHE has chosen to skip the normal litigation process (because the nickname law might not even be around come June) by filing this suit . . . and then to further ignore the laundry-list of statutes that most certainly, under the SBHE's interpretation of the law, infringe on the SBHE's constitutional rights.

[ScottM]

No thank you, Clueless Scott. You're completely incorrect as filing a lawsuit is not an abuse of power. Heck, the SBHE may even win. But it's pathetic to call Carlson's actions politically motivated while ignoring the fact that the SBHE has chosen to skip the normal litigation process (because the nickname law might not even be around come June) by filing this suit . . . and then to further ignore the laundry-list of statutes that most certainly, under the SBHE's interpretation of the law, infringe on the SBHE's constitutional rights.

You don't think Carlson's Folly wasn't a baldfaced power grab by somebody pushing his personal agenda? Really, even after all of the noise he made about about the Board's constitutional perogatives toward higher ed? And you don't think the court should recognize its original jurisdiction when there is a clear tension between the legislative and executive branches?

[Benny Baker]

You don't think Carlson's Folly wasn't a baldfaced power grab by somebody pushing his personal agenda? Really, even after all of the noise he made about about the Board's constitutional perogatives toward higher ed? And you don't think the court should recognize its original jurisdiction when there is a clear tension between the legislative and executive branches?

Power grab? Maybe, but the fact remains that there are a number of statutes that, under the SBHE's legal theory, do much more to infringe on the SBHE's authority over the "efficient and economic administration" of state colleges and universities than this nickname law. Why the legislature chose to challenge the nickname law rather than statutory fee caps, infrastructure maintenance, etc. is a bit confusing to say the least.

The SC won't be using its "original jurisdiction" because of a dispute between the two other branches of government, but because it has "original jurisdiction" to review the "petition process." Here, the petition process was fine. No errors; Jaeger has certified the petitions for vote. So no, it should not exercise its original jurisdiction, because the SBHE has failed to claim that the petition process was in error in the first place.

Now, I do understand the argument that "well, it's already at the Supreme Court, so they might as well decide it." But it sets up a horrible precedent. There is a litigation process for a reason. No discovery was performed in this matter, and the SBHE has produced no facts for the court as to how the presence of the nickname infringes on its economic and efficient administration of UND other than its own conclusory statements. And while I'm sure we can all list numerous examples, the fact remains that the SBHE had to skip this process for a reason---because the law might not exist in 80 some days. I mean, for all the laws that one could challenge, the SBHE goes after the statute, which may no longer be on the books in less than three months? Again, its a bit confusing to say the least.

[82SiouxGuy]

Power grab? Maybe, but the fact remains that there are a number of statutes that, under the SBHE's legal theory, do much more to infringe on the SBHE's authority over the "efficient and economic administration" of state colleges and universities than this nickname law. Why the legislature chose to challenge the nickname law rather than statutory fee caps, infrastructure maintenance, etc. is a bit confusing to say the least.

The SC won't be using its "original jurisdiction" because of a dispute between the two other branches of government, but because it has "original jurisdiction" to review the "petition process." Here, the petition process was fine. No errors; Jaeger has certified the petitions for vote. So no, it should not exercise its original jurisdiction, because the SBHE has failed to claim that the petition process was in error in the first place.

Now, I do understand the argument that "well, it's already at the Supreme Court, so they might as well decide it." But it sets up a horrible precedent. There is a litigation process for a reason. No discovery was performed in this matter, and the SBHE has produced no facts for the court as to how the presence of the nickname infringes on its economic and efficient administration of UND other than its own conclusory statements. And while I'm sure we can all list numerous examples, the fact remains that the SBHE had to skip this process for a reason---because the law might not exist in 80 some days. I mean, for all the laws that one could challenge, the SBHE goes after the statute, which may no longer be on the books in less than three months? Again, its a bit confusing to say the least.

This is a power grab by the legislature to take even more control of the SBoHE, or even eliminate the SBoHE. The legislature would like to micro manage the operation of Higher Education the way that they micro manage everything else. Carlson decided to use the nickname because it is an issue that can push emotional buttons with a lot of North Dakota citizens. He knew that he could make the SBoHE look like the enemy and he would look like a hero by taking down the bad guy. In doing so, he could push sentiment against the SBoHE into votes to get rid of the SBoHE. Remember, besides the nickname law last session he introduced legislation that would amend the constitution to replace the SBoHE with a Department of Education. He is again looking at different ways to accomplish the same thing in the next legislature.

The SBoHE wasn't looking for a constitutional fight. This was something that Carlson wanted in one form or another. Now he got it. The SBoHE is challenging the constitutionality now because they want to slow, or even stop, the momentum that the issue has developed. Right now there is probably a pretty good chance the initiated measure would pass. All of the unscientific polling I've seen gives the law a better than 70% favorablility rate. The law passing in June would add momentum to the possibility of the constitutional amendment passing in November. People in North Dakota have a history of being conservative with constitutional amendments and voting no, but it would be much easier for them to vote yes if the issue was already a state law. It also buys people time to inform the public about the issues that UND faces by keeping the nickname. 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.

[Chewey]

With giving diplomas to ghost Chinese students and with NDSU Presidents going wild with taxpayer money, it sounds as if the SBoHE and the whole higher ed system needs some significant micromanaging.

[82SiouxGuy]

With giving diplomas to ghost Chinese students and with NDSU Presidents going wild with taxpayer money, it sounds as if the SBoHE and the whole higher ed system needs some significant micromanaging.

The SBoHE definitely needs improvement. But getting the legislature more involved would be horrible for Higher Education.

[Benny Baker]

This is a power grab by the legislature to take even more control of the SBoHE, or even eliminate the SBoHE. The legislature would like to micro manage the operation of Higher Education the way that they micro manage everything else. Carlson decided to use the nickname because it is an issue that can push emotional buttons with a lot of North Dakota citizens. He knew that he could make the SBoHE look like the enemy and he would look like a hero by taking down the bad guy. In doing so, he could push sentiment against the SBoHE into votes to get rid of the SBoHE. Remember, besides the nickname law last session he introduced legislation that would amend the constitution to replace the SBoHE with a Department of Education. He is again looking at different ways to accomplish the same thing in the next legislature.

The SBoHE wasn't looking for a constitutional fight. This was something that Carlson wanted in one form or another. Now he got it. The SBoHE is challenging the constitutionality now because they want to slow, or even stop, the momentum that the issue has developed. Right now there is probably a pretty good chance the initiated measure would pass. All of the unscientific polling I've seen gives the law a better than 70% favorablility rate. The law passing in June would add momentum to the possibility of the constitutional amendment passing in November. People in North Dakota have a history of being conservative with constitutional amendments and voting no, but it would be much easier for them to vote yes if the issue was already a state law. It also buys people time to inform the public about the issues that UND faces by keeping the nickname. 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.

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.

[ScottM]

The SBoHE definitely needs improvement. But getting the legislature more involved would be horrible for Higher Education.

Kind of like when Minnesota's Board of Regents gets turned into a political pinata nearly every legislative session?