Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[PCM]

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

Kupchella said in one of his statements that the NCAA was well intentioned. I believe that's true. However, I think Brand and the executive committee were operating with the idea that the end goal justified the means. They took lack of opposition from the general membership as tacit permission to depart from standard procedure. They believed that simply because the all-powerful NCAA told a few schools that they must comply with the policy or else, those schools would do as ordered.

I believe Brand and the executive committee enacted the policy with the idea that they wouldn't grant any exemptions and that nobody would dare sue the NCAA over it. I believe most NCAA members didn't lift a finger to stop Brand because dealing with the issue by a wink and a nod was far safer than formally enacting a policy that, in effect, declared an end to the NCAA's written principle giving schools autonomy to deal with matters of discrimination.

Most college administrators are aware of skeletons in their schools' closets. They know that every day, their schools are one incident away from an explosive controversy. To officially go on record by pointing self-righteous fingers at other members while spouting holier-than-thou platitudes about social justice opens them up to the same sort of accusations down the road.

[Chewey]

Kupchella said in one of his statements that the NCAA was well intentioned. I believe that's true. However, I think Brand and the executive committee were operating with the idea that the end goal justified the means. They took lack of opposition from the general membership as tacit permission to depart from standard procedure. They believed that simply because the all-powerful NCAA told a few schools that they must comply with the policy or else, those schools would do as ordered.

I believe Brand and the executive committee enacted the policy with the idea that they wouldn't grant any exemptions and that nobody would dare sue the NCAA over it. I believe most NCAA members didn't lift a finger to stop Brand because dealing with the issue by a wink and a nod was far safer than formally enacting a policy that, in effect, declared an end to the NCAA's written principle giving schools autonomy to deal with matters of discrimination.

Most college administrators are aware of skeletons in their schools' closets. They know that every day, their schools are one incident away from an explosive controversy. To officially go on record by pointing self-righteous fingers at other members while spouting holier-than-thou platitudes about social justice opens them up to the same sort of accusations down the road.

So they must have brains somewhere then. Remarkable! They sit on them daily. I agree 100%. It just shows one how myopic and short-sighted Myles and Co are. I guess if you have a bunch of worms that bend to your every wish, you get used to that and learn to not expect opposition.

[Shawn-O]

Pride, arrogance, stupidity, poor judgment...perhaps. An evil intent...no.

Arrogance - Brand, Harrison, and Co's refusal to acknowledge Kupchella's repeated overtures to visit the campus, come out to a game, and decide for themselves whether the surroundings were "hostile and abusive".

Poor judgement - The hasty exemptions for Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan.

[Gothmog]

An intent to placate certain minority political groups with which the Executive Committee agrees irrespective of the majority? At best it's a highly cynical, depraved and twisted abuse of power and position. At worst, it's evil. Certainly, the former attributes are components of the latter aren't they? There is nothing benevolent about the NC00 in this regard or with much of anything else. It needs to be stripped to its core and broken up. Any resulting regional organizations should be comprised of alumni rather than a bunch of administrators or professors who know virtually nothing outside of their ivory towers. Alumni actually have a reality-based grasp on how things work.

Or maybe it's a courageous attempt to do the right thing. Ever consider the possiblility that you, and others on this board, have lost your sense of perspective on the issue?

[THETRIOUXPER]

Or maybe it's a courageous attempt to do the right thing. Ever consider the possiblility that you, and others on this board, have lost your sense of perspective on the issue?

Is that you graham cracker?

[sioux7>5]

Or maybe it's a courageous attempt to do the right thing. Ever consider the possiblility that you, and others on this board, have lost your sense of perspective on the issue?

No I do not think we have lost our perspective. I think you lost your perspective. The NCAA is not courageous they are bullies. You have to stand up to them and when possible knock them flat on their asses. Bullies will back down or get a beat down if you stand up to them. I am so glad that UND has decided to stand up to the NCAA, and say that you are not going to shove your PC thinking down our throats. The NCAA needs to shut up and go back to scheduling games and stay out of social engineering.

[Gothmog]

No I do not think we have lost our perspective. I think you lost your perspective. The NCAA is not courageous they are bullies. You have to stand up to them and when possible knock them flat on their asses. Bullies will back down or get a beat down if you stand up to them. I am so glad that UND has decided to stand up to the NCAA, and say that you are not going to shove your PC thinking down our throats. The NCAA needs to shut up and go back to scheduling games and stay out of social engineering.

Gee, that sure sounds like someone who has lost all perspective.

[Shawn-O]

Or maybe it's a courageous attempt to do the right thing. Ever consider the possiblility that you, and others on this board, have lost your sense of perspective on the issue?

"Courageous attempt to do the right thing?". That's devil's advocate talking. You don't believe an ounce of that drivel, and you know it.

[Sioux-cia]

...you, and others on this board, have lost your sense of perspective on the issue?

Lost perspective? Why don't you read this thread and show me where anyone on this board is saying anything different today than they did 11 months ago.

No one now or ever is going to tell me how to think, how to vote, how to live, or what is morally right or wrong. Those are MY decisions to make and live with. If you believe that the UND Fighting Sioux name is 'hostile or abusive', then don't support it. I do not believe it is 'hostile or abusive' and will continue to support it. But I have to point out that this fight is not about a name or logo, it is about not lying down, bending over or going down on our knees because the NC$$ wants to dictate social mores to it's membership (to me).

[Gothmog]

"Courageous attempt to do the right thing?". That's devil's advocate talking. You don't believe an ounce of that drivel, and you know it.

"Perspective", as I used the word, is the ability, or willingness, to consider all relevant facts and viewpoints when forming an opinion. Native American rights advocates would very likely consider the NCAA's policy a "courageous attempt to do the right thing." Your dismissal of that viewpoint betrays a loss of perspective on the issue.

[Gothmog]

Lost perspective? Why don't you read this thread and show me where anyone on this board is saying anything different today than they did 11 months ago.

No one now or ever is going to tell me how to think, how to vote, how to live, or what is morally right or wrong. Those are MY decisions to make and live with. If you believe that the UND Fighting Sioux name is 'hostile or abusive', then don't support it. I do not believe it is 'hostile or abusive' and will continue to support it. But I have to point out that this fight is not about a name or logo, it is about not lying down, bending over or going down on our knees because the NC$$ wants to dictate social mores to it's membership (to me).

OK, you never had perspective on the issue.

[Sioux-cia]

OK, you never had perspective on the issue.

Let me dumb it down for you. My point of view on this issue is the same, unchanged. Still over your head?

I believed the NC$$ was wrong last August and I still believe the NC$$ is wrong. OK?

[Shawn-O]

"Perspective", as I used the word, is the ability, or willingness, to consider all relevant facts and viewpoints when forming an opinion. Native American rights advocates would very likely consider the NCAA's policy a "courageous attempt to do the right thing." Your dismissal of that viewpoint betrays a loss of perspective on the issue.

How are Native Americans being harmed by "University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux"? No one has been able to answer that question. Feel free to take a stab, I'll listen.

[GeauxSioux]

"Perspective", as I used the word, is the ability, or willingness, to consider all relevant facts and viewpoints when forming an opinion. Native American rights advocates would very likely consider the NCAA's policy a "courageous attempt to do the right thing." Your dismissal of that viewpoint betrays a loss of perspective on the issue.

If you mean that I don't see this through the eyes of a vocal minority, you're right. Polls have shown that most Native Americans don't hold the same opinion as this vocal minority. I've used this analogy before, but here it goes again. If UND was called the Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather as the logo would I be protesting. No, I would be darn proud. This is where I really don't get the Native American right advocates. Do the they really believe that UND fans or the administration behave in a hostile and/or abusive manner? Probably not. It's a cause for them and yes they probably look upon the NCAA as their heroes. I tire of the vocal minorities and their feeble causes. If they would expend half that energy into real problems of society they may actually accomplish something and I would support them for doing it.

[Shawn-O]

"Perspective", as I used the word, is the ability, or willingness, to consider all relevant facts and viewpoints when forming an opinion. Native American rights advocates would very likely consider the NCAA's policy a "courageous attempt to do the right thing." Your dismissal of that viewpoint betrays a loss of perspective on the issue.

Miles Brand and the NCAA demonstrated a lack of "perspective" (by your definition) by refusing Kupchella's invitations, would you agree? They formed an opinion that our sporting events are a "hostile and abusive" environment. Lack of perspective, indeed.

[PCM]

Or maybe it's a courageous attempt to do the right thing.

Ignoring the NCAA's own rules, procedures, constitution and bylaws to sneak a policy the members didn't even vote on through the back door is "courageous"? You and I have different definitions of the word.

[Gothmog]

Miles Brand and the NCAA demonstrated a lack of "perspective" (by your definition) by refusing Kupchella's invitations, would you agree? They formed an opinion that our sporting events are a "hostile and abusive" environment. Lack of perspective, indeed.

No, not really. The issue is whether UND has the right to use the name and likeness of any group over the objections of the members of that group. It doesn't really matter whether UND uses them in an obviously offensive way or not. What matters is whether the members of that group object to their use. If they do, UND has an absolute moral obligation to stop using them immediately. If you want to argue about whether this particular group really objects, have at it.

UND's beef with the NCAA is just a sideshow.

[Gothmog]

If you mean that I don't see this through the eyes of a vocal minority, you're right. Polls have shown that most Native Americans don't hold the same opinion as this vocal minority. I've used this analogy before, but here it goes again. If UND was called the Fighting Icelanders and had a picture of my grandfather as the logo would I be protesting. No, I would be darn proud. This is where I really don't get the Native American right advocates. Do the they really believe that UND fans or the administration behave in a hostile and/or abusive manner? Probably not. It's a cause for them and yes they probably look upon the NCAA as their heroes. I tire of the vocal minorities and their feeble causes. If they would expend half that energy into real problems of society they may actually accomplish something and I would support them for doing it.

Well, there is at least some legitmacy in that argument. The opinions of Native Americans in general, and the Sioux tribe in particular, are really at the heart of the matter. If they don't really object, the NCAA's case loses any legitmacy it may have had. However, if you're going to make that argument you better be ready to accept the consequences. Don't forget that nearly every tribal government has asked UND to change the name.

[GeauxSioux]

Well, there is at least some legitmacy in that argument. The opinions of Native Americans in general, and the Sioux tribe in particular, are really at the heart of the matter. If they don't really object, the NCAA's case loses any legitmacy it may have had. However, if you're going to make that argument you better be ready to accept the consequences. Don't forget that nearly every tribal government has asked UND to change the name.

What I stated was my personal opinion regarding the politically correct crowd. The case against the NCAA doesn't even touch on any of this. The consequences that I will have to accept are the ones handed down by the court.

I have to hand it to you, Gothmog, you've stirred up some conversation in what is usually a quiet time of the year.

[PCM]

What matters is whether the members of that group object to their use.

What matters is whether the minority of a minority can claim ownership of words and images in the public domain and engage in race-based censorship of free expression. You seem to be okay with that. I am not.

[Gothmog]

What matters is whether the minority of a minority can claim ownership of words and images in the public domain and engage in race-based censorship of free expression. You seem to be okay with that. I am not.

That is simply absurd.

[GeauxSioux]

That is simply absurd.

What part of that statement is absurd?

[PCM]

That is simply absurd.

How so?

[Gothmog]

How so?

You're trotting out a legal concept to defend against a moral argument.

[Sioux-cia]

??? Isn't this case in a legal court of law? Is there a 'moral' court trying this case other than in the media?

Just because you believe something is morally wrong that doesn't mean I do. I would defy anyone to find 12 or even just 6 jurors who have identical 'morals' unless they're the Stepford wives. Again, just because a few people believe something is 'hostile or abusive' that doesn't make it so.

The case with the Sioux meeting in Bismarck is a clear example of the disparity amongst the Sioux 'leaders' and the rest of the tribe. The judicial committee has the majority of the tribe's approval to support the Fighting Sioux name and logo. The 'leaders' are against it. Have the people spoken? NO. A few men and women believe they know better than their constituents and have made a decision contrary to the what the majority wants.