dagies Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 OK I need to ask a question. I am taking a writing and research class and have decided to write a Persuasive agruement paper on why UND and other schools should be allowed to keep their nicknames. Does anyone have a suggestion on where I can get some research on this topic? I need to cite my sources and have to use fact. I need help people, so please i would appreciate any help y'all can give me. Thanks PS I am the old guy in class, so I would like to do well. You're smack dab in the middle of a puddle of research right here on SiouxSports.com. By reading through these threads you'll get very good ideas on what avenues you want to take to make your point. Read the links to Kupchella's letter, interviews by Pat Miller, and various newspaper articles that have discussed the 2000 Spirit Lake Resolution, the referendum results publicized by the judicial chair of the Standing Rock tribe, and you should be able to put together a fairly persuasive argument of your own. In this thread there are some good takes on the issues with how the NCAA implemented this policy from the start, so there you go. I have to run and can't collect all the links for you now. But I will pm you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Heck, I would look at a small, unique part of the situation: Why can't anyone get an answer out of Spirit Lake regarding tribal support for or against the nickname. That's an issue worthy of a thesis or dissertation in communications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Heck, I would look at a small, unique part of the situation: Why can't anyone get an answer out of Spirit Lake regarding tribal support for or against the nickname. That's an issue worthy of a thesis or dissertation in communications. You really are trying to push some buttons today. Spirit Lake issued a statement in 2000 saying that they were in favor of allowing UND's use of the Fighting Sioux name as long as UND did not abuse it. This has been discussed on this board many times. Name opponents and the NC$$ tried a lot of pressure in recent years to get the tribal council to issue a statement against the name. Earlier this year they said that they stand by their 2000 resolution and don't see any point in making any further resolutions unless UND does not fulfill their side of the last one. The tribal council believes they have more important issues to deal with on the reservation. So there is your answer, they gave it 6 years ago. Try a question that hasn't been answered many times before or leave it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Earlier this year they said that they stand by their 2000 resolution and don't see any point in making any further resolutions unless UND does not fulfill their side of the last one. Really, they said that? Really? I'd love to see a source on that. The resolution stated they approved UND's use of the name conditionally. According to Skip Longie, formal tribal chairman, these conditions were never met. Assertions that the NCAA tried to get them to change their position is a mis-characterization. The NCAA wanted to know how they felt-TODAY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Once again, let's stick to the topic. Otherwise just post what you mean: I'm tired of you coming on here and posting things that I disagree with. You're a annoying sh$thead, go away. Well know I am no Sh%$head but if we are going to start calling names. You can be the one to go away. You are a tad annoying, I think almost everyone here would agree with me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Really, they said that? Really? I'd love to see a source on that. The resolution stated they approved UND's use of the name conditionally. According to Skip Longie, formal tribal chairman, these conditions were never met. Assertions that the NCAA tried to get them to change their position is a mis-characterization. The NCAA wanted to know how they felt-TODAY. "However, we had within days of that exchange, a unilateral resolution of support for permission given to us by the Spirit Lake Tribal Council, signed by members of the council that said, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Who in the heck is the NC$$ to demand that the Spirit Lake tribe answer it's questions or even to respond to them? "Yes sir, the fact that we have not withdrawn our resolution to not oppose the use of the Fighting Sioux name by the University of North Dakota , means we have not withdrawn our resolution to not oppose the use of the Fighting Sioux name. No sir, our non response to your question regarding the use of the Fighting Sioux name by the University of North Dakota does not override our resolution to not oppose the use of the Fighting Sioux name by the University of North Dakota. Our resolution to not oppose the use of the Fighting Sioux name by the University of North Dakota has not been rescinded and stands as written. You appear to be having trouble understanding that we have not rescinded our resolution to not oppose the use of the Fighting Sioux name by the University of North Dakota. Would you like us to provide you with a translator, sir?" Geeze!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Really, they said that? Really? I'd love to see a source on that. The resolution stated they approved UND's use of the name conditionally. According to Skip Longie, formal tribal chairman, these conditions were never met. Assertions that the NCAA tried to get them to change their position is a mis-characterization. The NCAA wanted to know how they felt-TODAY. So, is Dr. Kupchella lying when he wrote the following? we offered the facts that (1) our nearest Sioux Tribe gave us written permission (which still stands despite repeated attempts by the NCAA staff itself and other nickname opponents to ask the Tribal Council to rescind its resolution) to use the name That comes from this letter from June 7, 2006. I have no first hand knowledge that he's correct. I also have no reason to not believe him. Do you? If so, where is your proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Kupchella also said the following when I interviewed him for this June 21 USCHO article: I hasten to add again: we already have permission. We've had it for six years. When asked if they want to keep it, the Spirit Lake tribal leaders have asked, "Which word isn't clear? We passed a resolution and we stand by it." The Spirit Lake Tribal Council has been to UND to meet with the administration about the NCAA policy. It's been lobbied by the NCAA and activists to rescind the December 2000 resolution. If Kupchella is mischaracterizing the council's position, they've certainly been awfully quiet about calling him on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 So, is Dr. Kupchella lying when he wrote the following? That comes from this letter from June 7, 2006. I have no first hand knowledge that he's correct. I also have no reason to not believe him. Do you? If so, where is your proof? There is a difference between conditional and unconditional approval. You do concede that the 2000 resolution had conditions, don't you? Will you concede that there wasn't the follow through that UND promised? There was no American Indian awareness training was there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Kupchella also said the following when I interviewed him for this June 21 USCHO article: The Spirit Lake Tribal Council has been to UND to meet with the administration about the NCAA policy. It's been lobbied by the NCAA and activists to rescind the December 2000 resolution. If Kupchella is mischaracterizing the council's position, they've certainly been awfully quiet about calling him on it. Thanks for the info, PCM. It's interesting that Myra Pearson, current tribal chair(wo)man, is obviously against the name. As is former tribal chairman Skip Longie. I wonder which leaders President Kupchella is referring to? And no, I'm not calling him a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 UND hasn't meet the condidtions and should get on the ball with that, but Spirit Lake hasn't withdrawn their support. What is the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Kupchella also said the following when I interviewed him for this June 21 USCHO article: The Spirit Lake Tribal Council has been to UND to meet with the administration about the NCAA policy. It's been lobbied by the NCAA and activists to rescind the December 2000 resolution. If Kupchella is mischaracterizing the council's position, they've certainly been awfully quiet about calling him on it. PCM do you have any examples, or sources, for the NCAA lobbying against the name? I know that the Association contacted the Tribe repeated, but I've read that was for clarification only. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 There is a difference between conditional and unconditional approval. You do concede that the 2000 resolution had conditions, don't you? Will you concede that there wasn't the follow through that UND promised? There was no American Indian awareness training was there? What part of this quote: The Spirit Lake Nation formally offered a resolution of support for UND's nickname and logo in 2000, but it included conditions. Kupchella said that Spirit Lake tribal leaders recently told him that they have no intention of rescinding that resolution.don't you get? Yes the resolution had conditions. UND has admitted they didn't do enough yet to live up to the conditions. But the tribal leaders still have no intentions of rescinding the resolution so they must believe that UND has made some efforts. It is their resolution so they can decide how they want to proceed, I don't think they need your help interpreting. Move on. Don't you have enough to discuss over on Bisonville about the possibilities of joining the MidCon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 But why do they need to rescind it if it is essential invalid as UND didn't meet there end of the bargain? It's dead already. I don't mean to sound like a horse's a$$ all the time (every once in a while I do, I can't lie), I'm just trying to learn about the situation. And a lot of what's out there just doesn't match up. I wasn't being facetious when I stated a thesis or dissertation on the topic would be worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 But why do they need to rescind it if it is essential invalid as UND didn't meet there end of the bargain? It's dead already. I don't mean to sound like a horse's a$$ all the time (every once in a while I do, I can't lie), I'm just trying to learn about the situation. And a lot of what's out there just doesn't match up. I wasn't being facetious when I stated a thesis or dissertation on the topic would be worthwhile. It isn't invalid unless they decide it is. If Congress passes a law it isn't recinded just because people don't follow it exactly as they wrote it. It a treaty between 2 countries is made it isn't automatically recinded because 1 country doesn't follow it to the letter. If 2 parties enter into a contract the contract isn't automatically voided just because a single clause isn't completed. The only way a legal document has an automatic ending is if it is written into the document that way. This one wasn't. The tribal council has to pass a new resolution to replace the current resolution. They have said that they don't have any current plans to do that so they must have determined that the conditions are still fine. So they must think that UND is living up to the bargain enough to keep it in place. The whole thing is pretty basic contract law. They teach that in business school at UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) It's interesting that Myra Pearson, current tribal chair(wo)man, is obviously against the name. I don't know that it's so obvious. Most of the statements I've heard her make have been rather non-commital. I believe it was on WDAZ that I heard her say that the tribal elders favored UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. Perhaps she's tempering her statements out of respect for their wishes. Edited June 30, 2006 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 PCM do you have any examples, or sources, for the NCAA lobbying against the name? I know that the Association contacted the Tribe repeated, but I've read that was for clarification only. I only know what UND's administration has told me and said publicly. I haven't heard anyone from the NCAA deny it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Will you concede that there wasn't the follow through that UND promised? There was no American Indian awareness training was there? I'm only going from memory here, but as I recall, UND did make the effort to begin the cultural awareness classes. As I remember it, some of the anti-nickname faculty on campus objected to what was being taught. The whole thing seemed to come to a screeching halt because of that. It's possible that some of the tribal leaders recognize that UND made a good-faith effort in that direction. That's only speculation on my part, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I don't know that it's so obvious. Most of the statements I've heard her make have been rather non-commital. I believe it was on WDAZ that I heard her say that the tribal elders favored UND's use of the Sioux name and logo. Perhaps she's tempering her statements out of respect for their wishes. Pretty sure Myra is against the name. Signature on Name Change My opinion, based on tea leaves, and having a lot of friend and family around Devils Lake, including south of it, is that tribal members care significantly less about the issue than other residents of the state. And I think the lack of a new resolution has to do with two issues: 1, disagreement on support or opposition and 2, members of the board not giving a hoot/not wanting to deal with it. If you think about the tribal board as an organization similar to a county commission the latter point makes a lot of sense. They are busy dealing with roads, that damned lake, taxes, and a hundred other things. I think that is to the benefit of those who support the name because if people were really upset, one way or the other, another resolution would have come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 It isn't invalid unless they decide it is. If Congress passes a law it isn't recinded just because people don't follow it exactly as they wrote it. It a treaty between 2 countries is made it isn't automatically recinded because 1 country doesn't follow it to the letter. If 2 parties enter into a contract the contract isn't automatically voided use a single clause isn't completed. The only way a legal document has an automatic ending is if it is written into the document that way. This one wasn't. The tribal council has to pass a new resolution to replace the current resolution. They have said that they don't have any current plans to do that so they must have determined that the conditions are still fine. So they must think that UND is living up to the bargain enough to keep it in place. The whole thing is pretty basic contract law. They teach that in business school at UND. That doesn't make any sense and part of it is wrong. A contract can have any number of conditions, if any aren't met the contract is in breach, the same principal extends to the resolution. If I promise to rent your boat if its sunny tommorow, I'm not obligated to do anything if it rains. The Tribe promised to support the name if x,y, and z occured and one them didn't they poof - the resolution is not binding. PCM brought up a very good point about some folks at UND interferring with the University's initial work to met some of the conditions. I can definitely see that (thinking they're conducting sabotage for the greater good, while actually being absolute hypocrits) and it's very sad if it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 You sound like someone with buyers remorse! "I know I signed the contract but I didn't mean it! I want to change it but they won't talk to me. I didn't want to continue to pay them the agreed amount and since they wouldn't take my calls that meant I didn't have to pay them. Why are you reposessing my house?!? It's not a valid contract!! They won't talk to me about changing it so it isn't worth the paper it's written on! The former owners of the house agree with me!! It's not a valid contract." About conditions, there are no deadlines written into the resolution regarding when they should be completed. Since the U and the Tribe are discussing things out of the public eye, I believe the deficiencies are being addressed and will be in place. It's up to the tribe to decide if the contract is invalid, not the NC$$, not Longie and not you. They have not done so. You are beating a dead horse and I agree with you, you are sounding like an a$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Let's recap: PCM brings up a series of articles written by an Illinois partisan, one of which borrows a quote from Tarkanian v. NCAA. IowaBison notes Tarkanian was overturned. I point out that this isn't a "state actor" case but a "contract law" case and that the NCAA Executive Committee may have overreached. IowaBison asks how so I answer. IowaBison points out NCAA constitution 4.1.2 and 2.6. Minor squabbling over POVs ensues. I point out 1.2 (a-h), all of 1.3, and 2.2.2, all of which show that ExecComm may have overreached. IowaBison jumps on the "tribal support" question (and is shown again that Spirit Lake stands by their 2000 resolution). IowaBison, why'd you leave the "contract law" question? And as far as the "support" question, from Spirit Lake Tribe A05-01-041 the Spirit Lake Council feels that as long as something positive comes from this controversy, they are not opposed to keeing the "Fighting Sioux" name and the present Logo at UND, " ... something positive ... ", though clearly a subjective measure, may be occurring right here, right now, on this board (how's that for suckin' up to the Administrator?): USCHO: One final question: When you accepted the job to be president of UND back in 1999, did you ever think that you would spend as much time as you have on this issue? Kupchella: There's an assumption in your question that it's lots of time, and it really isn't. It seems like a lot more than it is because of the media and public interest in it. Of course, you could argue that any time spent on it is unfortunate. I don't happen to believe that. I think this is one of those classic issues that it's kind of not altogether bad to have it to sharpen minds on. Where's the boundary between social justice and political correctness? There are fundamental questions here such as: How big an opposition group you need before you change something? When does the majority not have control even when it's so large? These are some fundamental, interesting issues. There are those who say that it's disruptive of classrooms here. Hey, we're educating students about how to deal with a world that gets kind of fuzzy around the edges, and not all the answers are clear. There are good people with good arguments on both sides of almost anything you call an issue. So it's not bad at all that we Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Re-reading the petition letter that IowaBison posted, I remember thinking the first time I read it, 'Where's the proof?' The university has over three dozen American Indian programs, over 400 American Indian students, has graduated 25% of the countries American Indian physicians, etc., etc., etc., >>> Proof that the University of North Dakota is not a 'hostile or abusive' environment for American Indians or other minorities. Where's the proof in this statement, This controversy has had a damaging effect on UND's educational mission, its national academic reputation, its relationship to regional tribes and tribal organizations, and its educational commitment to racial equity..? In the midst of all this and besides all this 'controversy', the University and state American Indian tribes have continued to work together developing new programs such as an American Indian Elder health program. None of this has come to a screeching halt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 You sound like someone with buyers remorse! "I know I signed the contract but I didn't mean it! I want to change it but they won't talk to me. I didn't want to continue to pay them the agreed amount and since they wouldn't take my calls that meant I didn't have to pay them. Why are you reposessing my house?!? It's not a valid contract!! They won't talk to me about changing it so it isn't worth the paper it's written on! The former owners of the house agree with me!! It's not a valid contract." ? Since the U and the Tribe are discussing things out of the public eye, I believe the deficiencies are being addressed and will be in place. And your belief is based on what? 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.