Judge Rules in UND Favor

[SiouxMeNow]

I guess I don't understand why the injunction would apply to UND only and not to every school affected by it. If the judge says that the NCAA violated its own rules to implement the policy, then the policy is illegitimate. If the policy is legally void, then nobody is covered by it.

the injunction does apply across the board to every school...it basically suspends the ncaa policy until it's decided in April...

[jloos]

the injunction does apply across the board to every school...it basically suspends the ncaa policy until it's decided in April...

The ruling solely applies to UND. Another school could try and use collateral estopple to prevail, but this would be unlikely because this ruling was under ND law.

If you sue someone and win, it does not automatically give the same relief to every other potential claimant. However, the other claimants can use "collateral estopple" and argue that they should not have to litigate the matter as it has already been decided. In this case that probably would not happen unless it was upheld by an appellate court and was based on uniform law.

[ScottM]

Having had some time to review both parties' documents over the weekend, it seems to me UND is presenting a very structured legalistic attack, and the NC$$ is trying to blunt it with a bunch of idealistic fluff. I was surprised Judge Jahnke actually issued the injunction, but it doesn't seem to bode well for the NC$$ unless they are able to fire back against the points UND is pressing.

The cynic in me suggests that if the NC$$ loses this battle, they'll still keep trotting out their "agenda" on a larger scale and write their battle with UND off as casually as they granted exemptions to FSU, etc.

Is there a copy of the Order available yet?

[mksioux]

Is there a copy of the Order available yet?

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/NCAA/MemorandumD...yInjunction.pdf

[PCM]

Is there a copy of the Order available yet?

Here it is.

[7>4]

When you click on the link on CNNSI.com about the story, there is an ad that comes up for the Liberty Mutual Coach of the year. One of the versions of the Ad starts out with the phrase "Get your war paint on." I guess the NCAA ban on "hostile and abusive" imagry does not extend to its corporate sponsors.

[GBpakrzz]

Good for UND. I am obviously in full support of stopping the NCAA from dictating team mascots. That said, I am a realist and it's problably only a matter of time before it happens across the board. When it happens, I will be fine with it on ONE condition.... They ban ALL mascots that have any hint of race or ethnicity. They can start with the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.

What's fair is fair guys and I am tired of the double standard in this great country that I served. So Native Americans can be offended but Irish Americans can't? You can't be white and be discriminated against?

I am part Irish and not even remotely close to being offended by Notre Dame's mascot. I don't think Native Americans should be either but that's their business I guess. My point is, the NCAA is diving into very shallow water here head first by singling out certain races and leaving others out. It's not right no matter how you slice it and quite frankly, it pisses me off.

[mksioux]

I read the order and the Judge ruled that UND was likely to prevail on Counts I and II of its Complaint (breach of contract and breach of implied duty of good faith), but was not likely to prevail on Count III (anti-trust). That is what I expected. Count III is going to awfully tough for UND.

Unfortunately, Counts I and II are only procedural violations. UND will certainly face a membership vote if it prevails on only those counts. But I suppose that is better than being the victim of an arbitrary policy by an unaccountable committee. At least UND would have an opportunity to present its case and make an argument to its fellow members.

[The Sicatoka]

UND will certainly face a membership vote if it prevails on only those counts.

If Brand, Harrison, Westerhaus, et al at the NCAA, were confident a vote on this would go their way, why wouldn't they have done it already?

They've already had the January 2006 convention opportunity come and go, and could have put this to rest then.

But they didn't.

Why not?

[mksioux]

If Brand, Harrison, Westerhaus, et al at the NCAA, were confident a vote on this would go their way, why wouldn't they have done it already?

They've already had the January 2006 convention opportunity come and go, and could have put this to rest then.

But they didn't.

Why not?

I understand your point. PCM has wondered the same thing. My opinion is that they didn't take it to the membership originally because they wanted to establish precedent for the Executive Committee to have this type of authority (not necessarily because they thought the members would vote it down). So they will fight this lawsuit for that reason. If they are unsuccessful, they will send it to the members.

Although the policy/legislation may be different, I think that ultimately the membership would approve some sort of legislation that punishes certain schools for their Indian nicknames.

[mksioux]

NCAA won't appeal ruling in UND nickname case

[GeauxSioux]

NCAA won't appeal ruling on North Dakota nickname

An NCAA spokesman says the group won't appeal a judge's decision that allows the University of North Dakota to keep its Fighting Sioux nickname until the case is decided at trial.

"For all practical purposes, there really isn't time [to appeal]," Wynne said. "UND is going to host a playoff game and they will wear their normal uniforms."

[PCM]

I understand your point. PCM has wondered the same thing.

I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know.

Exhibit A is the University of Wisconsin. At one point, it was hailed as an NCAA "model institution" for its policy against scheduling games with schools that have American Indian nicknames. More recently, UW received an F grade from the Black Coaches Assocation for refusing to participate in a survey about its recruitment of minority coaches. We know from the Confederate flag controversy that the BCA has the NCAA's ear.

It's quite obvious that even the status of an NCAA "model institution" can change nearly overnight. That's why I think NCAA members are willing to turn a blind eye to an Executive Committee decree with which they mostly agree. However, they're smart enough to know that voting on legislation to skewer other members is an invitation to open the floodgates.

There's Stanford's misbehaving tree and band, Iowa's sexist pink vistor's locker room, Wisconsin's band of hazers, anti-Semitism at SCSU, age discrimination at NDSU and Miami's gangsta football team. All NCAA members know that they have skeletons in their closet and potential "social justice" problems on the horizon. The membership is willing to give the Executive Committee just enough freedom to do what they're not foolish enough to do themselves because of the boomerang effect.

If they lose in court, so what? Look at how many schools they've forced to change their names. And they can tell the tribes, "Hey. We tried and we accomplished something."

[mksioux]

I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know.

Agree to disagree then. I have absolutely no faith in America's colleges and universities. If given the chance to vote on some PC "social justice" legislation, I believe the vast majority of institutions will vote for it despite whatever skeletons they may have in their closet. In fact, I believe it's especially true for those institutions that have skeletons in their closet (like SCSU) because it deflects attention from them and allows them to effectively say "see, we really do care..."

And if the member institutions are worried about the "floodgates" opening, they'd be more concerned about the transfer of seemingly unlimited power from the members to an unaccountable committee. All I've heard from schools unaffected by this policy is crickets.

[The Sicatoka]

However, they're smart enough to know that voting on legislation to skewer other members is an invitation to open the floodgates.

There's Stanford's misbehaving tree and band, Iowa's sexist pink vistor's locker room, Wisconsin's band of hazers, anti-Semitism at SCSU, age discrimination at NDSU and Miami's gangsta football team. All NCAA members know that they have skeletons in their closet and potential "social justice" problems on the horizon. The membership is willing to give the Executive Committee just enough freedom to do what they're not foolish enough to do themselves because of the boomerang effect.

" ... boomerang effect"?

I've normally heard it as, "Payback's a ..... "

... Iowa's sexist pink vistor's locker room ...

Don't forget UM-Duluth's.

[PCM]

Agree to disagree then. I have absolutely no faith in America's colleges and universities. If given the chance to vote on some PC "social justice" legislation, I believe the vast majority of institutions will vote for it despite whatever skeletons they may have in their closet.

So why didn't they?

You claim that passing the legislation is a slam-dunk. If that's true, the members would have done it and made the policy bullet-proof. But they didn't, and there has to be a reason why they didn't. I'm giving a reason that's pure speculation on my part, but it's based on my experience in association politics. I've seen this kind of thing happen before.

And if the member institutions are worried about the "floodgates" opening, they'd be more concerned about the transfer of seemingly unlimited power from the members to an unaccountable committee. All I've heard from schools unaffected by this policy is crickets.

I think it's a case of the most powerful members of the NCAA believing that they can reign in the Executive Committee when the need arises. They run the association, not the executive committee.

[The Sicatoka]

I think it's a case of the most powerful members of the NCAA believing that they can reign in the Executive Committee when the need arises. They run the association, not the executive committee.

Why do the words "FSU" and "tribal approval exception" scream into my head all of a sudden ....

[mksioux]

You claim that passing the legislation is a slam-dunk. If that's true, the members would have done it and made the policy bullet-proof. But they didn't, and there has to be a reason why they didn't.

I believe the reason is because the NCAA wanted to establish the authority of the Executive Committee for future "social justice" battles that perhaps would be too controversial to pass the entire membership. The key is to establish the precedent on agreeable issues and use the precedent on more controversial issues. I believe we've only touched on the social engineering the NCAA has in store. After all, you don't establish a Subcommittee on "Gender and Diversity Issues" if you don't intend to use it.

[Sioux Traveler]

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/807846.html

Updated

[Goon]

If Brand, Harrison, Westerhaus, et al at the NCAA, were confident a vote on this would go their way, why wouldn't they have done it already?

They've already had the January 2006 convention opportunity come and go, and could have put this to rest then.

But they didn't.

Why not?

They know they don't have the votes, that schools will get together and deals will be made.

I have said this for a long time, Brand way over stepped his bounds of control here and I think eventually he is going to cost the NCAA a lot of money. I would bet Brand is trying to base his legacy on the Indian names issue. Too bad he is going to look like a self rightous moron on this issue.

[Fetch]

A Better Read http://www.startribune.com/191/story/806092.html

He gets it Right & we are Proud of his People & Name for all the RIGHT Reasons

Why the vocal few, with Bad Attitudes, don't get it, & so many just believe these few, is beyond me Extremes on any side of honest issues, have to be put in their place. That is what this has become

[nd jg]

A Better Read http://www.startribune.com/191/story/806092.html

He gets it Right & we are Proud of his People & Name for all the RIGHT Reasons

Why the vocal few, with Bad Attitudes, don't get it, & so many just believe these few, is beyond me Extremes on any side of honest issues, have to be put in their place. That is what this has become

Wow. good article

[rochsioux]

NCAA won't appeal ruling on North Dakota nickname

Not sure I understand why they won't appeal if they think an appeal would have merit. It may be too close for the first round of playoffs, but there is a possibility of the SIOUX hosting in later rounds. Surely there is enough time to appeal and prevent everyone from being exposed to all the hostile and abusive images. There is also the possibility of hosting playoffs in other sports long before the trial starts in April. I can only surmise that the NC$$ cannot find any grounds to appeal the decision.

For some reason I don't expect this case to go to trial next April if the NC$$ thinks they might lose. Something will happen that will keep it from going to court. I have no idea what this would be, maybe another Sioux tribe will say it is OK to use the name (one should be enough but it seems the NC$$ doesn't like that resolution). Maybe a second one will give the NC$$ an excuse to grant the exception and settle the court case...who knows what UND might turn up during the discovery process. A loss in court may also cause a few schools that gave in to the NC$$ edict a reason to backtrack and keep their name (e.g. Newberry). God forbid, maybe WM will put the feathers back.

I really don't think the NC$$ believed anyone would take this to court once the big schools were given exceptions. As soon as FSU started talking lawsuit the NC$$ came up with the exception clause.

In fact, other than UND almost every other school as capitulated. The only other remaining school that I could see filing a lawsuit is Illinois and they were given an exception for the nickname. I doubt they will sue the NC$$ over the Chief.

[Sioux-cia]

I read the order and the Judge ruled that UND was likely to prevail on Counts I and II of its Complaint (breach of contract and breach of implied duty of good faith), but was not likely to prevail on Count III (anti-trust). That is what I expected. Count III is going to awfully tough for UND.

Unfortunately, Counts I and II are only procedural violations. UND will certainly face a membership vote if it prevails on only those counts. But I suppose that is better than being the victim of an arbitrary policy by an unaccountable committee. At least UND would have an opportunity to present its case and make an argument to its fellow members.

Forgive my legalese ignorance..

When we win, if the win is based only on Counts I and II, and there has been no NC$$ membership vote to change policy, do we get to keep the name and logo?

[PCM]

When we win, if the win is based only on Counts I and II, and there has been no NC$$ membership vote to change policy, do we get to keep the name and logo?

Yes.