I know this is bringing up an issue that almost everyone is tired of discussing, but:
A district judge has granted a preliminary injunction to stop the NCAA from banning the University of North Dakota from hosting a postseason game because of its "Fighting Sioux" nickname, state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.
Stenehjem said judge Lawrence Jahnke alerted him to the decision Saturday night. Stenehjem did not know the details.
UND is among a handful of schools with American Indian nicknames and logos that the NCAA considers hostile and abusive. Those schools are barred from holding postseason tournaments, or from using their nicknames during road playoff games.
I would think that the Illinois residents who hate Chief Illiniwek should be feeling pretty good right now. Even if the NCAA loses these lawsuits, the Illinois Senate is now controlled, veto-proof, by someone who hates the Chief as much as anybody. And I don't know how Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi feels about the Chief, but I'd venture to guess that she's going to be less likely than current Speaker Dennis Hastert (an Illinoisan) to call legislation authored by Rep. Tim Johnson designed to reign in the NCAA.
So, given that, why is NCAA action even necessary? Why can't the anti-Chief activists get their views through an Illinois legislature that is both anti-UIUC generally and is most probably anti-Chief specifically?
(Has Senator-elect Mike Frerichs ever taken a position on Chief Illiniwek?)
You mean the legislation that Johnson was trumpeting right before Election Day? That legislation?
Yes, that will have such a positive effect on the everyday lives of people in the district. It will be so helpful for even more time to be spent on this Chief issue.
We just can't have enough debate on this issue.
A more interesting post to me would provide detailed support for the claim that the Illinois senate is "anti-UIUC." This may be true, but I'm not aware of the facts that support this claim, aside from the one instance where Jones directed some new money to Chicago State that might otherwise have gone to UIUC (or to UI in general?). I'd like to hear more of the Republican take on purported anti-UIUC attitude.
If there is indeed such an attitude in the IL Senate (and there may well be), the situation surely isn't much helped by the myopic efforts of some vocal Chief supporters to retain a native American mascot that so many find inappropriate and offensive. When the only thing people know about UIUC is that it uses a racial stereotype as a half-time show, it's no wonder that the university is increasingly seen as an embarrassment rather that a source of pride for the state of Illinois.
Here is one article (I think it's from Ebony):
The NG archives are also full of articles replete with Jones' animosity towards the UI. His animus may be entirely Chief-based, but doesn't that seem like a silly reason to penalize the leading public research institution in the State of Illinois?
If it's silly for Chief supporters to fight to keep the Chief in light of Jones' hostility, isn't it just as silly for Jones to use his hostility towards the Chief as a cudgel to punish an institution that is otherwise outstanding?
Interloper says "When the only thing people know about UIUC is that it uses a racial stereotype as a half-time show, it's no wonder that the university is increasingly seen as an embarrassment rather that a source of pride for the state of Illinois."
I say if that is all people know of the UIUC, they would never be a source of U of I pride. As for pride in the State of Illinois that will not occur with or without the chief until the people of Illinois vote in legistators who are not corrupt or thieves or owe their souls to special interest groups, have a balanced checkbook approach to spending and reduce the debt.
Gordy asks "Why can't the anti-Chief activists get their views through an Illinois legislature that is both anti-UIUC generally and is most probably anti-Chief specifically?"
The answer is because we anti-Chief activists don't believe the Illinois legislature should be deciding the mascot for the UIUC. That's where we differ from the "smaller government" Republicans who wanted the state government to intervene in a University governance matter.
It's also interesting how Tim Johnson, who claims he proposed his D.O.A. legislation (aka campaign pandering) to ensure the matter is decided by the University's Board of Trustees, was one of the original sponsors of the bill in the Illinois legislature to take away the power of the Board of Trustees over the Chief. Which makes him, in Republican speak, a flip-flopper.
Hey Jay----Who do you anti-Chief activists believe should be making decisions regarding a mascot for the UIUC?
What is wrong with funding Chicago State? The U of I is still the greatest university in Illinois in most, but not all of course, areas.
It seems to me building a university in Chicago makes the U of I stronger, since many of those students who would marginally come to the U of I stay in Chicago, opening more seats for better qualified students even if from out of state or from outside the US.
The U of I is still recognized as one of the great universities in the US, and certainly is not an embarassment, as some have suggested.
The whole idea, though, is to keep the University where it has been in terms of prestige.
Tim Johnson may have won another term, but many people are growing tired of this tired ploy. It's time for the Congressman to hang his hat on another issue -- one that actually has some meaning to people.
"The answer is because we anti-Chief activists don't believe the Illinois legislature should be deciding the mascot for the UIUC."
So you're not OK with the IL legislature getting involved, but you're OK with the NCAA?
I'd be OK with neither getting involved if the NCAA would just let each school's BoT make it's own decisions.
I would like to say that any involvement of the state or federal government on the Chief issue would be hypocritical at best. Our federal government has been sued because of gross mismanagement of the Indian Trust fund. The NCAA should be outraged that the Indian people were cheated out of billions of dollars instead of the perception that the Chief propagates stereotypes. As an alum I find it unfathomable that the school would consider replacing the Chief symbol. School symbols represent continuity between generations. When you wear the Chief symbol, it can be an opportunity to educated people about the school, the state and the region.
"I would like to say that any involvement of the state or federal government on the Chief issue would be hypocritical at best."
Same goes for involvement by the NCAA.
how does the chief "educate people about the school, the state and the region"
there's not much there. about all you can glean from the fact that UI has a chief is that there were american indians here --which is true of every state except hawaii.
the costume is from another part of the nation. the dance is based on an Eagle Scout performance.
the average Illinoisan and Illini fans knows next to nothing about the Illini tribe, myself included
Two observations:
1. The University of Illinois has not won a major sport national championship since adopting the symbol of a tribe that was neither fighting nor successful, having been easily (nearly) wiped out.
2. What do you think Jesus would say about the Chief?
I have two degrees from the University of Illinois, and I would never wear anything with the Chief on it. I'd be embarassed to think how many people seeing me in that logo would think it's racist. I normally don't wear things that make me appear racist. Even if I'm not racist, and even if I don't think the Chief is racist, I know that a lot of people disagree, and if I wear the Chief, a lot of people will think I'm racist. If I'm going to show my school spirit, I'll find something with a nice orange "I" and skip the racial commentary entirely.
I wish our "honored symbol" was a rainbow or a pink triangle. I'd love to see alumns saying, "I don't care what some overly sensitive people think about it, it's a symbol of pride, er, honor for our school. I don't care if people think I'm gay, I just support my school." Somehow, I think we'd have a new symbol already.
I am curious if the Chief wore authentic Illini tribe headdress and robe and performed an authentic tribal dance would people embrace the symbol? I still believe people would find some reason to claim that the symbol does not honor the spirit of the tribe. When I attended Illinois we worried about Apartheid and Reagan, spent Hash Wednesday on the Quad, listened to Evangelist and Hare Krishnas every Friday and attended the original Farm Aid. Is there nothing else for the students to think about except the Chief? Should we adopt the bear theme from Chicago and go with the Grizzlies or Black Bears? We understand that school unity depends on flying a winner's banner for the major sports. Maybe we did not worry about the Chief when I was in school because we went to the Rose bowl and the elite eight.
Why don't we just hire the CHIEF from FLORIDA STATE? Seems both the NCAA and College campuses have no problem with their chief...maybe he could come to U of I on "loan?". By the way....I noted a post that said the U of I only had 14 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS enrolled on campus? Surely this is false...what's the actual total?
Local Voter asked me "Hey Jay”â€Â-Who do you anti-Chief activists believe should be making decisions regarding a mascot for the UIUC?"
I can only speak for myself, but the mascot for the UIUC should be decided by the Chancellor of UIUC in consultation with the UIUC Faculty-Student Senate.
It is not appropriate for the BOT to be micromanaging the mascot of one of its campuses.
"I noted a post that said the U of I only had 14 NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS enrolled on campus? Surely this is false”¦what's the actual total?"
Based on the Freshman Profile found here:
http://www.oar.uiuc.edu/staff/pdf/reporting/FreshmanProfile_Fall2005.pdf
There were 25 American Indian/Alaskan Natives admitted in the 2005 freshman class, and approximately 15-20 every year before that. I'd guess that there are probably ~75 undergraduate students at any given time.
I am curious if the Chief wore authentic Illini tribe headdress and robe and performed an authentic tribal dance would people embrace the symbol?
Well, "authenticity" is a fuzzy area. After all, even if the Chief were not just some white dude, it's not like "any Native American" would do.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is my plan which I would throw out there:
The Chief position would be a highly competitive full scholarship given to a student from a Native American background who showed great leadership and knowledge. The student occupying the position would receive time at school events and get to fill that time with whatever they deemed appropiate with the collaboration of faculty and students in Native American studies.
This would not only maitain the tradition of the school, but deepen and improve it. Instead of dismissive mistrelsy, Native Americans could see the truly respectful, empathetic nature of our school and community.
Also, the Chief would be allowed to scalp drunken idiot fans who are disrespectful to the learning process.
The last sentence is of course a joke that is not funny and in terrible taste. Otherwise, though, that's my plan.
Oh geez. So much for the spirit of bi-partisanship.
If Illinois doesn't like the rules the NCAA puts up, they can simply bow out of the association. Or they could just say, "ok - no more tournaments. done."
It's not rocket science. If someone supports Johnson's legislation, then would that person should also support legislation demanding the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals to become Scout Masters. If not, that's understandable, but surely they'd at least be a big supporter of Affirmative Action. You know, when the government tells universities how to hire people, etc. Right?
You can't have it both ways. The NCAA is a private association of national colleges that join together for organized sports. If Illinois is so proud of it's mascot, and this is such an important issue that it demands minutes and votes in the United States House of Representatives, then surely it it worth walking out on the NCAA over. No?
If no, then could we move on? This is another one of those issues where conservatives show their intolerance and lack of an ability to "get it". It's a freakin' white kid dancing around like an Indian at a football game. It's not cool anymore, it's rude and disrespectful.
Let it go. ;)
Anonymous: Dont u liberals ever freaking "get it" Take a look in the mirror and beyond the face with the fear on it that someone may"think" you are an insensitive racist (whether you are or not is not important) you will see the face of "intolerance".So what if its a "freaking white kid"..? its acting, entertainment performance and thats what actors do... portray people, groups other than themselves.You, in your intolerence, feel free to impose your idea of what is right, just and good and of course "inoffensive" regardless of the rights of others of freedom of expression and freedom to watch. To most students, faculty and alumni the Chief is not offensive but the professors who are paid by tax payers and who way exceeded their authority by contacting recruiters are offensive and we would like to see them removed for this offensiveness. Will u condone that violation of what u perceive to be their right of expression? Hypocricy, self-righteous intollerance and disrespect/rudeness, look in the mirror.
The NCAA has no authority at my house. The chief is safe there, and he's never going away. EVER! I'll bring my chief on campus and display him anytime I choose. As for you spirit-challenged chief haters, you're not welcome on my property nor are you to come within 100 feet of my orange and blue, chief adorned vehicle during football and baseball pregame festivities. Now That's the final word.. Get Over It..
Damn. This stuff just never ends.
Illinois competes in the NCAA. The NCAA made a ruling. It can enforce that ruling and has chosen to do so.
What. Word. Do. You. Pro-Chief. People. Not. Understand?
The strategy of just continuing to argue weakly and throw out non-sequiturs and cling haplessly to the status quo has failed. Did you get the memo yet?
Seriously, the HSQD club needs to get a new agenda. You have plenty to choose from.
Why don't we just hire the CHIEF from FLORIDA STATE? Seems both the NCAA and College campuses have no problem with their chief”¦maybe he could come to U of I on “loan?”ÂÂ.
That is the best suggestion I have heard!
The NCAA has no authority at my house. The chief is safe there, and he's never going away. EVER! I'll bring my chief on campus and display him anytime I choose. As for you spirit-challenged chief haters, you're not welcome on my property nor are you to come within 100 feet of my orange and blue, chief adorned vehicle during football and baseball pregame festivities. Now That's the final word.. Get Over It.
Obviously the 100 feet rule is not enforceable unless you have gotten some sort of court order. I can't imagine that you can get a restraining order against a belief rather than a person.
That being said, of course you have every right to Chief it up on your own time and dime. Just as on their time and dime, people are free to think you are a total racist.
Cowgirl: Please explain to me your beliefs on freedom of expression. They don't appear to be anywhere in the constitution. "Freedom to watch"? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Is that a porn term?
I take it you are in favor of the old style of casting in which whites would just put on blackface or yellow face and a fake accent to play minority roles?
There are two issues here for me:
1. The Chief has no place as the mascot for the flagship state funded institution of the State of Illinois. This is something that is backed by most of the faculty in the institution who have the highest credentials to study these issues.
2. If a private individual, regardless of race, chooses to do something that I or anyone else thinks is demeaning to Native Americans--regardless of our race--we have the right to voice that opinion without being shut down. You have no obligation to abide by that opinion.
To the chief-haters,
Do you find all chief symbols used by any university demeaning and racist?
kyber Says:
November 14th, 2006 at 9:09 am
To the chief-haters,
Do you find all chief symbols used by any university demeaning and racist?
Yes.
You all know the history. The Illini were actually a group of tribes from Illinois. If any of their descendants were left, they would probably be found in the Peoria Nation of Oklahoma. Look at their web page, www.peoriatribe.com , and on the top banner is a picture of the chief's twin brother. Maybe we could hire them to be the chief symbol. Then who would we be offending? If the image of the chief doesn't bother them, then why should it bother you?
crusader, that shield-with-arrows logo at the Peoria site is cool too.
There are currently 94 undergraduate students, 21 grad students and 5 professors who have identified themselves as Native American at UIUC as of Sept. 21, 2006.
http://www.dmi.uiuc.edu/stuenr/abstracts/FA06_ten.htm
You all know the history. The Illini were actually a group of tribes from Illinois. If any of their descendants were left, they would probably be found in the Peoria Nation of Oklahoma. Look at their web page, www.peoriatribe.com , and on the top banner is a picture of the chief's twin brother. Maybe we could hire them to be the chief symbol. Then who would we be offending? If the image of the chief doesn't bother them, then why should it bother you?
I don't see what good this does besides assuage some guilt and let us continue to do what we want to do. If we are really empathetically trying to honor Native Americans, why not educate rather than just pay off?
Thanks for the figures on Native AMericans on campus...I suppose we are including ALASKA natives too? As a percentage of the student body..would it be safe to say it is "less than 1%"? Mathmaticians?
Interestingly enough -- the racial/ethnic designations are subjective measures. While "asian" is a designation, it is not considered a "minority" in the common usage of the word. The U of I only recruits "under-represented minorites" in terms of diversity recruiting, and the Asian population is not under-represented.
Someone (in fact, ANYONE) can claim to be Hispanic, African-American, or Native American. It is self-reported and not verifiable. You can also claim to be a female -- again, there are no gender tests during the admissions process! All you have to do is get decent grades (class ranking will help too) and claim you're a female native american and you stand a good chance of being recruited to attend! Changing your bio-demographic data after the fact is an easy process...