Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I didn't think a public university could operate via the star chamber code of conduct.To be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand the reference here. But believe me, there has been a number of people questioning whether this decision complies with the Illinois state statute compelling open meetings of public bodies. The Chief opponents were very quick to pull this law out to try and ensure that no discussion of Chief was taking place during non-scheduled Board of Trustee "meetings". But they've been silent about the fact that the Board Chairman took it upon himself to notify the public last Friday about this change in what should have decision made by the entire board of trustees, in a meeting open to the public. I'd love it if someone asked how and when a vote was taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I mean no disrespect for Chief Illiniwek as I know it has a storied tradition and it is sad for many people to see it go. However, if all UND had to do was drop a mascot to get off the NCAA's sh!tlist, I'm relatively sure UND would have also caved in without litigation. As important as Chief Illiniwek is to UofI, there is an enourmous difference between dropping a mascot and dropping a nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I mean no disrespect for Chief Illiniwek as I know it has a storied tradition and it is sad for many people to see it go.I appreciate that. I understand that I'm a guest here and the facts surrounding North Dakota are different than what we have at Illinois. I want to state that at heart, I really do believe all of the supporters of the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota and the Fighting Illini of Illinois (and the supporters of Chief Illiniwek) are all on the same page. I think ALL of us would be happy if the NCAA just stayed out of things, and let our schools either attract students and athletes on our own or perhaps repel others. I read some of the things others post; and while I may point out certain things and quibble over some semantics, I respect that we're in search of the same goal. However, if all UND had to do was drop a mascot to get off the NCAA's sh!tlist, I'm relatively sure UND would have also caved in without litigation. As important as Chief Illiniwek is to UofI, there is an enourmous difference between dropping a mascot and dropping a nickname.All I will say in response is that many of the people who don't like Chief Illiniwek also don't like "Illini". Just yesterday, one day after Chief's last dance, some group called "S.T.O.P." (I don't remember what it stands for, but the "P" is for Privileged) issued some sort of self-styled "press release" saying they wanted to eliminate the nickname. And there are others who demand that the University no longer use the MUSIC that the band played while Chief was on the field/court. Thus my reference above to Neville Chamberlain. Once you start appeasing these "victims", they'll never stop with further demands. I personally do not doubt that the protestors at Illinois will not be satisfied that Chief has been "retired". Bullies don't stop at just one day's lunch money. Technically, we're off the NCAA's list. But for longstanding conference tie-ins, we'd be "on" the list at Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota IMHO. The Bradley Braves are (technically) off the NCAA's list (double secret probation though) but on the list at Iowa. Have we satisfied the NCAA as of 2/22/07? Yes. But the NCAA didn't have a stance at all on this say, 15 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Thus my reference above to Neville Chamberlain. Once you start appeasing these "victims", they'll never stop with further demands. Nick Coleman's column is a great illustration of your point. Like many other opponents of UND's Fighting Sioux nickname, he can't leave Ralph Engelstad out of the discussion, even though Engelstad's been dead for years. And Coleman can't resist mentioning his favorite fantasy -- tearing down Engelstad Arena. So even if UND decided today to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, Coleman and his ilk would continue to complain about Engelstad Arena. They would continue to boycott it and continue to insist that the NCAA hold no events there. Until all traces of Engelstad's association with UND are erased, they won't be satisfied. Anyone who thinks the controversy will disappear with the nickname is sadly mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Anyone who thinks the controversy will disappear with the nickname is sadly mistaken. See: Dartmouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 See: Dartmouth. Ah yes, but high and mighty Dartmouth is now lecturing to the great unwashed masses, at least officially. They've seen the light. Here's something I saw yesterday. It explains a little about how Duke came to choose the nickname Blue Devils (it has nothing to do with their current mascot) and asks if the choice would be repeated today using the same criteria: http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/s...k-2728086.shtml He repeats a lot of the same arguments made here. Nicknames are chosen to exemplify bravery, courage and spirit. Sometimes those people/animals chosen cannot speak for themselves; why some are "spoken for" and others are not can be considered a valid question IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 This is from Charlene Teeters, one of the biggest complainers in the Anti-Chief movement. IIRC, she was the one who said she "sunk back into her seat in shame" during halftime of the first game she saw on campus. She also saw some sort of squaw dance by sorority girls during tailgates. Personally I never witnessed this during many, many years of attending games. But, people see what they want to see I guess. Who knows, maybe I just didn't recognize a squaw dance when I saw one. In any case, yes, I'm sure that Teeters thinks this is all the University has been known for in recent years. Our Supercomputing center has been entirely overshadowed by this. Top ten rankings in business and engineering studies weren't even noticed, thanks to Chief. At least in her not-so-humble opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 BTW, if you think the thought police are ever going to give up despite having some sort of official sanction from the University, I think you ought to read this: http://www.620wtmj.com/_content/news/story_7021.asp Marquette Student Told Not to Wear Indian Headdress to Games Once they've convinced someone in the administration of their offended-victim status, they'll go on and on and on. T-Shirts will be next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 University of Illinois will have a Board of Trustee meeting tomorrow: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...rustees_meeting http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200..._chief_decision http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200..._to_oust_eppley I find the last article most interesting. You can bet that if somehow Chief had been confirmed without the Chairman of the Board of Trustees talking to everyone, the squealing from the PC patrol about "violations of the Open Meetings Act" would have been heard in the Andromeda Galaxy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Here's news of a lawsuit against our Board of Trustees. FINALLY. http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/293...7illini.article The statute referenced is kind of funky though. When it passed the legislature, the governor at the time insterted some term to make it purposely vague. I think that the "and may remain" wording is what was inserted. And that may hang up this lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Here's news of a lawsuit against our Board of Trustees. FINALLY. http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/293...7illini.article The statute referenced is kind of funky though. When it passed the legislature, the governor at the time insterted some term to make it purposely vague. I think that the "and may remain" wording is what was inserted. And that may hang up this lawsuit. Thank God someone has a pair. Let's hope a Judge overturns the B.S. decision of the Board of Trustees. I can't believe that the Board of Trustees was so spineless to begin with. Where does all the mularky end? Now, the PC nut jobs are going after "offensive" t-shirts? In Washington State, the high school sporting league is actually contemplating the banning of booing? These lame brains should experience true offensiveness, in my opinion. If UND is forced to change the name, I hope they will change it to the "Fighting Cavalry," like one Sioux fan has expressed, and I hope they play "Gary Owen" before and during every sporting event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 U of Illinois board ends use of Chief Illiniwek logo and The University of Illinois swept aside the last vestiges of Chief Illiniwek this morning, voting to retire the mascot's name, regalia and image. The resolution lets Chancellor Richard Herman decide the details such as how and when the Chief Illiniwek name and image would stop being used and licensed to apparel makers and others All but gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 All but gone.Yes, the vote was merely a formality; we would have had more trustees speaking out if it was going to go the other way. The latest lawsuit remains interesting, but the more I think about it the more I think that our old governor purposely changed the bill in order to insert the ambiguity of "may remain" instead of "shall remain". One other thing: Here's one for all those who think the Native American community is totally united against these symbols. Its from our student newspaper (notorious for taking quite a while to link): American Indian denounces University's Chief decision So when you say "Indians don't like it" think about this guy. And the Seminoles. And the Utes. And PLENTY of others. Why the people who don't like Chief should somehow own the sole vote is beyond me. Unless of course, its simply because they agree with you; and therefore everyone else is just wrong. And whatever argument you need to get others to agree, you'll throw out there-facts be damned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Yes, the vote was merely a formality; we would have had more trustees speaking out if it was going to go the other way. The latest lawsuit remains interesting, but the more I think about it the more I think that our old governor purposely changed the bill in order to insert the ambiguity of "may remain" instead of "shall remain". One other thing: Here's one for all those who think the Native American community is totally united against these symbols. Its from our student newspaper (notorious for taking quite a while to link): American Indian denounces University's Chief decision So when you say "Indians don't like it" think about this guy. And the Seminoles. And the Utes. And PLENTY of others. Why the people who don't like Chief should somehow own the sole vote is beyond me. Unless of course, its simply because they agree with you; and therefore everyone else is just wrong. And whatever argument you need to get others to agree, you'll throw out there-facts be damned. I've read some of this guy's stuff before. Unless he's widely considered a crackpot, it seems there's still a battle to be fought up in Grand Forks.... "I want to speak on a campus where they have an Indian mascot," Yeagley said. "I want to hit the target. I want to campaign where the battle is - if there's a battle left." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 So when you say "Indians don't like it" think about this guy. And the Seminoles. And the Utes. And PLENTY of others. They have no voice because the media ignores them. They have no vote because those who represent them ignore them. They have no rights because the minority of their minority tramples them. They're treated as if they don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsDoc Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I've read some of this guy's stuff before. Unless he's widely considered a crackpot, it seems there's still a battle to be fought up in Grand Forks.... Well, if you google him and read his stuff ... let's just say you wouldn't want an opposing attorney to have a shot at cross-examining him, OK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well, if you google him and read his stuff ... let's just say you wouldn't want an opposing attorney to have a shot at cross-examining him, OK? That's kind of what I was worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 That's kind of what I was worried about.Well some may consider him a loose cannon or crackpot. I personally happen to agree with him on this issue. And on the subject of crackpots, the other side certainly has no shortage: consider the full professor at Colorado. They have no voice because the media ignores them. They have no vote because those who represent them ignore them. They have no rights because the minority of their minority tramples them. They're treated as if they don't exist.I'd refine this one more step. People who could be considered part of a "minority" are often denied their status as even a member of that minority group if they should decline to fully embrace the idea that all minorities are automatically victims of discrimination by "the man". An interesting corollary is being played out in national politics on the presidential level. Barack Obama is being attacked on the basis of the color of his skin-and the people who are attacking him consider themselves leaders in the Black community. One comment from another thread-the movie "300" isn't going over well in Iran. Their government officials apparently think that it depicts the people that the present-day Iranians descended from as "lacking in culture and humanity", and "only interested in attacking other nations and killing". (Those are paraphrased quotes, but you can see the story in most newspapers today.) Therefore, we need to immediately get rid of this movie. While the movie isn't offensive to me personally, it is offensive to many Iranians, and for that reason, I too find it offensive and feel it has to go. I've talked to several other people who feel the same as I do. This movie needs to go away, and the only way to do it destroy all copies of this movie. Start showing something nice and neutral. Then we can get back to the business of supporting our chosen entertainment with everything we've got. I honestly want to see the human race move forward. I'm more interested in getting this movie behind us rather than fighting about it. Can I suggest that we get rid of this movie by burning it? Gather up all the copies, put them into a big pile, wait until nightfall, and then fire them up. Invite the people who hate the movie to witness the bonfire too. And while we're at it, if there are any books that the movie is based on, lets throw them in too. You know, a good old-fashioned book burning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsensa Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This movie needs to go away, and the only way to do it destroy all copies of this movie. Start showing something nice and neutral. Nice and neutral doesn't exist! Sorry, eliminate everything. That is our only hope! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 And on the subject of crackpots, the other side certainly has no shortage: consider the full professor at Colorado. 100% right on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 The ban of 'hostile and abusive' name/logo/ mascot/imagery is for post season games. Why didn't the UofI CU keep the Chief for the regular season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The ban of 'hostile and abusive' name/logo/ mascot/imagery is for post season games. Why didn't the UofI CU keep the Chief for the regular season? The NCAA banned the usage of the "hostile and abusive" logos, names, etc. at all times. The penalty for non-compliance was not being able to host post-season events. This did affect at least our men's tennis team; and possibly also one of our women's teams also. And as a point of info, the NCAA won't even let our Chief Alumni perform at an off-campus site in a pep rally-esque situation. 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.