The NCAA revealed

[IowaBison]

IowaBison, why'd you leave the "contract law" question?

It's a complex issue that I wouldn't have any idea where to start with and we'd surely get lost in the discussion.

Is membership a contract? almost certainly.

Does membership mean that the organization can still change rules? Yes (conditionally).

Did the NCAA's actions meet those conditions? good question (and most importantly good luck proving that they didn't in a court of law).

If they didn't, what method of recourse does UND have? the NCAA appeals process, then threats and a lawsuit.

I had heard that issues of due process and the NCAA's monopolistic nature would be considered but based on previous cases that argument doesn't appear that it will work. Pursuing the case as a breach of contract will be very interesting, but I think many of the same issues arise.

[PCM]

Also remember, as Kupchella pointed out, that it was a unilateral resolution. In other words, UND didn't ask for the resolution and didn't promise anything in exchange for the tribal council's approval.

UND didn't sign any contract that committed it to do anything. It was a request from the tribal council that the university do certain things. Overall, I believe that UND has done what the resolution requested and made an honest effort to live up to it. And if it didn't, the tribal council has all the freedom in the world to resicnd the resolution or pass a different one. But it hasn't.

That's not to say that UND was free to ignore the requests, and I don't believe that Kupchella did. But, as a practical matter, how realistic was the request for cultural awareness classes for every student at the university? Did the tribal council even ask UND whether or not such a thing was possible before it made the request? Could the university force students to take the class if they didn't want to? Would UND potentially run into civil rights issues if it forced its students to take a class on the culture of one particular race? What if other races demanded such courses for their cultures?

And not to split legalistic hairs too finely, but the resolution asks Kupchella to "begin the process of establishing a cultural awareness course for all students." If he started the process, but then ran into problems that made fulfilling the request impracticable, he lived up to what the resolution asked him to do.

IowaBison, you can continue to play the role of the NCAA's Bernard Franklin here if you want, but I think you're fighting a losing battle. Regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees with UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, there are huge holes in the NCAA's implementation of the anti-nickname policy, its rationale for implementing it and its inconsistent application of it.

Does that mean UND will win its court case against the NCAA? Not necessarily. However, as the series at illini.scout.com demonstrates, how the NCAA has handled this issue is quite typical of how the organization has operated for decades. I'll ask again: Why do you insist on defending this abuse of power?

[IowaBison]

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.

I don't think the state's tribes are too involved with any of the programs at UND (and that's not a slam on UND).

[PCM]

I don't think the state's tribes are too involved with any of the programs at UND (and that's not a slam on UND).

You don't think. But you don't know. I know you're wrong.

Edited June 30, 2006 by PCM

[IowaBison]

Also remember, as Kupchella pointed out, that it was a unilateral resolution. In other words, UND didn't ask for the resolution and didn't promise anything in exchange for the tribal council's approval.

UND didn't sign any contract that committed it to do anything. It was a request from the tribal council that the university do certain things. Overall, I believe that UND has done what the resolution requested and made an honest effort to live up to it. And if it didn't, the tribal council has all the freedom in the world to resicnd the resolution or pass a different one. But it hasn't.

That's not to say that UND was free to ignore the requests, and I don't believe that Kupchella did. But, as a practical matter, how realistic was the request for cultural awareness classes for every student at the university? Did the tribal council even ask UND whether or not such a thing was possible before it made the request? Could the university force students to take the class if they didn't want to? Would UND potentially run into civil rights issues if it forced its students to take a class on the culture of one particular race? What if other races demanded such courses for their cultures?

And not to split legalistic hairs too finely, but the resolution asks Kupchella to "begin the process of establishing a cultural awareness course for all students." If he started the process, but then ran into problems that made fulfilling the request impracticable, he lived up to what the resolution asked him to do.

Those are some very good points and I agree.

The use of the contract analogy was to show the use of conditionality, it was not a statement of the resolution being a contract, it obviously isn't.

IowaBison, you can continue to play the role of the NCAA's Bernard Franklin here if you want, but I think you're fighting a losing battle. Regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees with UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, there are huge holes in the NCAA's implementation of the anti-nickname policy, its rationale for implementing it and its inconsistent application of it.

Does that mean UND will win its court case against the NCAA? Not necessarily. However, as the series at illini.scout.com demonstrates, how the NCAA has handled this issue is quite typical of how the organization has operated for decades. I'll ask again: Why do you insist on defending this abuse of power?

I'm not fighting a win/lose battle. I want to learn more about the situation.

I think that the cards are stacked in the NCAA's favor with regard to the process and the impending court case, that's just my opinion.

I'm not defending anything or anyone.

[IowaBison]

You don't think. But you don't know. I think you're wrong.

And I'd be happy to be shown otherwise.

I've got experience both living and working with natives in the state. working with them, even when the work is designed solely to benefit them can be extremely challenging, if not an exercise in futility.

[The Sicatoka]

Is membership a contract? almost certainly.

Agree.

Does membership mean that the organization can still change rules? Yes (conditionally).

Agree, as long as "conditionally" means by the process defined in the contract. This is a legislative matter and it did not follow the legislative process for changes.

Did the NCAA's actions meet those conditions? good question (and most importantly good luck proving that they didn't in a court of law).

UND argues "no." (From Dec 23, 2005, UND to NCAA correspondence):

While the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA or

[Sioux-cia]

And I'd be happy to be shown otherwise.

I've got experience both living and working with natives in the state. working with them, even when the work is designed solely to benefit them can be extremely challenging, if not an exercise in futility.

Google is your friend, too.

http://www.med.UND.nodak.edu/depts/rural/news/040504.html

The needs assessment research team includes Leander

[PCM]

And I'd be happy to be shown otherwise.

I know for a fact that it's otherwise. If you spent some time walking in my shoes, you'd know it, too.

I've got experience both living and working with natives in the state. working with them, even when the work is designed solely to benefit them can be extremely challenging, if not an exercise in futility.

Right. Some institutions get frustrated with the challenge and use it as an excuse to give up trying. But UND isn't one of those institutions.

[IowaBison]

Right. Some institutions get frustrated with the challenge and use it as an excuse to give up trying. But UND isn't one of those institutions.

That's a pretty arrogant comment, PCM.

[IowaBison]

You don't think. But you don't know. I think you're wrong.

This doesn't jive with your latest statement where apparently now you know I'm wrong.

[PCM]

That's a pretty arrogant comment, PCM.

The truth sometimes hurts.

[IowaBison]

The truth sometimes hurts.

It does.

Apparently everything UND touches regarding Native Americans turns to gold.

[PCM]

Apparently everything UND touches regarding Native Americans turns to gold.

I never said that, but here's what you said:

I don't think the state's tribes are too involved with any of the programs at UND...

And I'll say this again: I know for a fact that you're wrong.

[PCM]

This doesn't jive with your latest statement where apparently now you know I'm wrong.

I edited the statement for consistency's sake. Happy now?

[IowaBison]

Yeah. And I apologize for being snide, PCM.

I do appreciate the information.

[yekcoh]

This whole thread is turning into something I heard in a sermon in church last Sunday.

"If you look for bad, wrong, evil, or the negative in something, that is all you will see."

[PCM]

Part VIII of the illinois.scout.com series "Through the trifocals" has been posted.

What happens when the differences in perspective between two people are extreme enough to be opposites? For instance, how can a liar and an honest person understand each other and find any synthesis? The liar presumes the honest person is lying because he would lie under the same circumstance, and the honest person assumes the liar is honest because he would be honest in the same situation. The two are at a perpetual impasse and reconciliation is impossible. And how can an outside observer determine the truth?

[redwing77]

Part VIII of the illinois.scout.com series "Through the trifocals" has been posted.

That's a lie.

[PCM]

Part IX of "Through the trifocals" is posted here. It details how Illinois successfully fought back against false charges of recruiting violations leveled by the NCAA, but lost nonetheless.

All the major charges against Illinois, the $80,000, the Chevy Blazer, and the illegal inducements for LaPhonso Ellis, were dropped by the NCAA. Lou Henson and Jimmy Collins were permitted to keep their jobs. While not admitting it publicly, the NCAA found the University of Illinois innocent. However, in a tactic they can use arbitrarily to provide extra punishments, the NCAA said Illinois "lacked institutional control." This IS considered a major charge, so Illinois was punished anyway. They lacked institutional control because they didn't submit to the NCAA power elite or accept charges that proved completely false.

In a public statement at the conclusion of this lengthy and expensive case, the NCAA said that, although they could find no evidence of major recruiting violations, Illinois was a cheater school. They had no power to level major penalties for the Bruce Pearl/LaPhonso Ellis charges, so they convicted Illinois in the press. They reconfirmed what they have long wanted the nation to believe, that Illinois is a renegade program that cannot be trusted to obey the law. No proof, but loud and repeated prose.

[The Sicatoka]

Parts

X: http://illinois.scout.com/2/545899.html

XI: http://illinois.scout.com/2/546183.html

C'mon PCM, you're slackin' if I have to keep this up to date.

[PCM]

C'mon PCM, you're slackin' if I have to keep this up to date.

I got bored when bouncy ball became the focal point of the series.

[The Sicatoka]

I got bored when bouncy ball became the focal point of the series.

Touche.

[PCM]

Part XII of the "Through the trifocal" series of the University of Illinois' dealings with the NCAA has been posted here. It has returned to the subject of the Fighting Illini name and mascot.

[The Sicatoka]

XIII is out there.