Ugh.
This year's Homecoming parade will kick off at 6 p.m. Friday and will follow the same route as in previous years. However, groups making floats for the parade have a new rule to follow: displaying the Chief Illiniwek symbol in any form will not be allowed, said Jillian Kachel, senior in AHS and parade co-chair.
Kachel said groups cannot use the Chief symbol on their floats, signs, costumes, or T-shirts. She still expects the best of the parade's 35 floats to employ some creative design ideas.
This is going to keep getting more and more ridiculous.
My understanding that this is an educational institution. Homecoming has already faced criticism in the past for being hostile to minority student groups. This seems like a perfectly logical step. And this certainly should lead to MORE creative designs, not less.
That being said, I understand why people bemoan the loss of tradition.
Wow! What can we do? Let's protest, withhold donations to the big U. Boycott!
This is the big story of the day. Can we get Congress involved? Maybe the UN?
Get. A. Life.
Yup.. my right to swing my fist ends at the other person's nose. My right to smoke ends at the other person's nose. And my right to wear a Chief shirt ends within the range of sight of anyone who might be offended. It's all totally logical.
Restricting what kinds of beliefs and positions can be proclaimed may seem like some to be an infringement on the first amendment. But when you really think about it, the school is doing those racists a favor by keeping them out of trouble. This restriction has the added benefit of making it look like students aren't that upset about the dumping of the Chief.
I think the best thing to do for the parade is to have themed floats based on what the university actually supports. We can have the free condom float, the queer float, the black graduation ceremony float, the la casa float, and the failed college athletes who were exploited by the University float. By using programs that the university runs as the basis for float designs, students can ensure that they will not offend the campus censors , umm, guardians of decency.
good news. now i won't have to put up with any of that hate speech against george bush when i walk on the quad.
Sorry, but this is an easy call for the university and anyone involved in planning or managing the Homecoming events. Here's an excerpt from the March 13, 2007 final (?) resolution:
"3. THAT the Board hereby directs the immediate conclusion to the use of Native American imagery as the symbol of the University of Illinois and its intercollegiate athletics along with the related regalia, logo, and the names “Chief Illiniwek” and “Chief,” and the Board hereby directs the Chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus to manage the final disposition of these matters and report the decisions back to the Board and in so doing to remain in compliance with the NCAA policy..."
The Homecoming parade is clearly a university-sponsored event. But what about, let's say, the 4th of July parade? I missed it this year -- were there any Chief-centric displays among the participants?
"The Homecoming parade is clearly a university-sponsored event. But what about, let's say, the 4th of July parade? I missed it this year -- were there any Chief-centric displays among the participants?"
An English 101 class is also clearly a university-sponsored event. Should students be banned from wearing Chief Illiniwek attire in classes?
At what point does this policy just become completely insane?
At what point does this policy just become completely insane?
How about when Stephen Kaufman attends a UI sponsored "town hall meeting" to discuss all of the hurt feelings over the recent "stereotype party" held at someone's off-campus apartment (you couldn't make this stuff up), and was first at the mike to keep flogging the Chief issue. Some people just can't take yes for an answer.
http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/10/24/News/Romano.Future.Discussion.Needed.To.Solve.Problems-3052133.shtml
"Sorry, but this is an easy call for the university and anyone involved in planning or managing the Homecoming events..... "The Homecoming parade is clearly a university-sponsored event."
The university also sponsors the sports teams as well as the facilities. By the logic used people should then not be allowed to enter any university sports facility wearing 'Chief' themed apparel. Or would this be an infringement of something? By extension, is what the university doing an infringement on something?
Fair enough, but given the history of the event, it seems logical that it is not identical to an English class. You don't have to agree with the decision, but calling those with a different perspective "insane" is hardly a "sane" approach.
"Fair enough, but given the history of the event, it seems logical that it is not identical to an English class. You don't have to agree with the decision, but calling those with a different perspective "insane" is hardly a "sane" approach."
The policy is insane. Notice that I'm insulting the policy, not "those with a different perspective."
Let me try a different example - a group enters a float with no Chief Illiniwek imagry, but features a group of students chanting "Save the Chief" over and over. Would such an entry be acceptable to the UI and NCAA?
I have to confess that I have been dismayed by the increasing university regulation of speech. Why don't they just set Professor Kaufmann up as some kind of speech censor, and he can decide whether what we all say, wear or do offends his tender sensibilities. The fact that the Unversity is trying to regulate a private party off campus is ludicrous. They should stick to education, which apparently is lost in the shuffle of political correctness. Where are all of the defenders of free speech? Is the U of I going to become one of those universities who censors speech that liberals don't like?
"Let me try a different example - a group enters a float with no Chief Illiniwek imagery, but features a group of students chanting "Save the Chief" over and over. Would such an entry be acceptable to the UI and NCAA?"
The Homecoming parade, the English class, the sports fans wearing Chief attire, etc etc, are examples of university-related or -sponsored events where enforcement of the policy could prove problematic. This is why I quoted the resolution and posed the question. Remember, I said it was an easy call for the university -- not that I agreed with it or thought it was enforceable. In fact, I think the direction this thread is taking is to point out that the policy isn't universally enforceable.
My reading of the policy suggests that the university actually could attempt to censor Chief-related attire and make fans remove it before entering the stadium or the Assembly Hall -- maybe even before entering university property. This would be ridiculously impractical by anyone's measure, but controlling content at a Homecoming parade is apparently manageable. I guess we'll see how that works out.
The Champaign Unit 4 school district was forced to deal with a similar issue in the past, if you recall.
"My reading of the policy suggests that the university actually could attempt to censor Chief-related attire and make fans remove it before entering the stadium or the Assembly Hall -- maybe even before entering university property."
The point is this is a calculated move on the part of the chancellor's office to nip any complaints in the bud even if inclusion of the Chief in a Homecoming parade wouldn't violate NCAA policy regarding their mascot policy as it concerns a university's official mascot or symbology (mind you, the floats aren't built by the university). If the chancellor decided to implement what Unit 4 did in the classroom at sporting events you can imagine a greater outrage than was seen after the BoT secretly and unceremoniously dropped the Chief. Herman doesn't want that and he won't institute such a policy. Banning Chief themed floats at Homecoming will irritate relatively fewer poeple, but will still give the university bad PR.
Let me try a different example - a group enters a float with no Chief Illiniwek imagry, but features a group of students chanting "Save the Chief" over and over. Would such an entry be acceptable to the UI and NCAA?
That'd be great! I hope someone does that.
"My reading of the policy suggests that the university actually could attempt to censor Chief-related attire and make fans remove it before entering the stadium or the Assembly Hall -- maybe even before entering university property."
Let me offer a counter-example. What if the University, last year, had tried to ban anti-Chief imagry from the Homecoming parade?
One more: What if the University tried to ban anti-Chief-related attire on University Property and at University sporting events? Didn't something like this actually happen a few years ago, and the University backed down in the face of legal threats?
(I'm working off of memory here, so forgive me if I'm incorrect...)
Let me offer a counter-example.
The Chief is gone. Gone. What part of that don't you understand?
Just like Southern crackers you just don't understand that the Civil War is over. You can view Blacks like the Southern crackers do, friendly, happy feet people who we all love, it's a tradition you know and you can view the chief as a friendly, noble person who we all love, it's a tradition you know, or you can join the 21st century.
Now if you would all steer me to some wetbacks I need my lawn work done, and after that, a chink in a coolie hat to prepare my meal, just like Hop Sing.
Wow, what a prejudicial individual you are, Anon 2:19...
Anon2:19 I hope that your comment is a parody and not a true expression of your opinions. If this is what you believe, how are you any different or better than the Southern crackers that you disdain?
If you can't say stuff that is stupid or offensive on a college campus, where can you say such things? What happened to all the open-minded, non-judgemental, exploring?
IP:
To your latest questions/counterexamples, I'm not sure that the outcome this year would be any different than it would have been last year...potentially bad. Bad as in fan/police confrontations, arrests, the works.
Let's see -- mix some rowdy tailgaters in Chief T-shirts with some university police officers at the entry gates who have been tasked with prohibiting Chief-related garb from entering the stadium on said fans. Not a good situation.
More importantly, to set the stage for such a confrontation would be an unforgivably bad decision.
"More importantly, to set the stage for such a confrontation would be an unforgivably bad decision."
Right - that's my point.
The UI and NCAA are setting themselves up for lots of double standards and bad feelings by selectively enforcing when people are allowed to wear a Chief or Anti-Chief t-shirt, for example.
They've already banned the Chief from games and forced merchandise sales to stop. Why does the UI/NCAA feel the need to engage in this petty silliness?
IP:
All good points. The NCAA has no problem engaging in petty silliness, but are they even involved in the Homecoming parade decision, other than by virtue of the resolution itself? The university, on the other hand, seeks to avoid confrontations when and where it can, while at the same time garnering some PC-positive PR. I'm sure the UI hopes Chief apparel simply disappears over time. Will they feel that they can ban such apparel from official events in 10 years, for example? How about ever? How many Illini fans bought up stashes of Chief Ts before the deadline?
"Will they feel that they can ban such apparel from official events in 10 years, for example? How about ever? How many Illini fans bought up stashes of Chief Ts before the deadline?"
There's also the free speech aspects. Whether or not the UI realizes it, actions like this have exactly turned the tables on the Pro-Chief/Anti-Chief free speech issues from the past decade. Carrying a Pro-Chief sign or wearing a t-shirt are now political speech (just as the anti-Chief stuff was/is political speech), and the UI is attempting to ban it, just as they tried previously with Anti-Chief slogans and shirts.
Engaging in this type of parsing and nit-picking is insanity. You got rid of the symbol at the games and on the merchandise. Stop picking the scab.
Of course it was satire. Duh.
But equating Chief supporters on the "tradition" factor and southern oafs on the 'tradition" factor is spot on, people, like it or not.
The Chief is gone. It's over. Whining about a Homecoming parade is silly, childish.
I liked the Chief. Many people did. Many people didn't. But it's over, and whing because you lost the Chief, or lost the Civil War, and continuing on like you didn't lose, is poor judggment, counter-productive, a waste of time, and does nothing but rip open scabs of festering wounds. Drop it. OK? Got it? Just drop it and move on with your lives, and quit whining.
Who's more whiny? The whiner or the guy that whines about the whiners whining about other whiners whining? Or... wait... now I'm just confused...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Engaging in this type of parsing and nit-picking is insanity. You got rid of the symbol at the games and on the merchandise. Stop picking the scab."
If the bold You above refers to me, then you've made some incorrect assumptions about me. It would not have been my decision to get rid of the Chief, but I understand why it became necessary to do so. Although I'm a proud UI grad and longtime Illini fan, I didn't really get caught up in the emotion of this controversy. I certainly understand why it was a big deal for people on both sides.
What we're discussing in this thread is how the university continues to mishandle the situation. In response to your last post, I absolutely agree that the free speech issue is in play. I don't see how the UI can ban a Chief T-shirt anywhere on university property any more than it could ban a "Nuke Iran" T-shirt. (You might be too young to remember those, but they should be making a comeback any time now.)
Anon2:19 I hope that your comment is a parody and not a true expression of your opinions. If this is what you believe, how are you any different or better than the Southern crackers that you disdain?
The original comment was idiotic, but this is pretty bad too. I mean he's being rude and derogatory, not lynching people, locking them out of opportunities on the basis of their race or anything comparable.
What escapes me is why anyone wants to go this year. To wave at the trustees' limousine motorcade?
So what ever happened to free speech?
I understand that since the University is a state institution, there is a free speech component here, but I can't help hearing the typical "free speech" misnomers in many of the arguments in this thread.
Free speech is constantly being designed and shaped, and the banning of this symbol does bother me, but let's not act like this is unchartered waters. How many of you object to any regulation of the messages of the floats, and how many just miss the Chief and thus are concerned about free speech.
Outside of the speech issue, I commend it as it should lead to some more interesting floats. But that's another thing altogether.
IP wrote
>"My reading of the policy suggests that the university actually could attempt to censor Chief-related attire and >make fans remove it before entering the stadium or the Assembly Hall -- maybe even before entering university >property."
>Let me offer a counter-example. What if the University, last year, had tried to ban anti-Chief imagry from the >Homecoming parade?
>One more: What if the University tried to ban anti-Chief-related attire on University Property and at University >sporting events? Didn't something like this actually happen a few years ago, and the University backed down in >the face of legal threats?
>(I'm working off of memory here, so forgive me if I'm incorrect...)
What happened a few years ago is this: remember that the university used to have a homecoming king and queen? well the last year they had it, the king and queen walked onto the field to begin the festivities, then took off their coats to reveal anti-chief t-shirts. the ceremony was immediately halted, and they were quickly led off the field. the university then eliminated homecoming king and queen.
I don't recall any pro-chief people protesting then about freedom of speech.
the question about whether or not the university can bar students from wearing chief t-shirts is an interesting one. i'm not a lawyer, but i am fairly certain that the courts have ruled that high school principals can ban certain clothing. i don't know if that has ever been tested at the college level.
After the "bong hits for Jesus" case (Frederick v. Morse?) high school principals can ban any speech, symbolic or otherwise, that promotes "illegal activity". Not sure if that transfers to college or not. Also not sure if the Chief is now "illegal activity".
What I do know is that this is not silly or petty. I saw a woman in line at the IGA the other day with a shirt that had a drawn "Injun" urinating on the NCAA. The drawing was not in any way respectful to Native Americans. Unfortunately it seems that the ignorance of Native cultures has gone to new lows.
"If the bold You above refers to me, then you've made some incorrect assumptions about me."
No - I was referring to those who handed down the policy - the UI and NCAA. Sorry I wasn't very clear.
"What happened a few years ago is this: remember that the university used to have a homecoming king and queen? well the last year they had it, the king and queen walked onto the field to begin the festivities, then took off their coats to reveal anti-chief t-shirts. the ceremony was immediately halted, and they were quickly led off the field. the university then eliminated homecoming king and queen.
I don't recall any pro-chief people protesting then about freedom of speech."
Exactly. And I don't see any of the Anti-Chiefers who were so libertarian then uttering a word now. More than enough hypocrisy on both sides (as usual), even among those who know what's best for everyone and aren't afraid to force them to do it.
Again, my point is, if the UI really wants the Pro-Chiefers to "get over it" (in President White's phrase), then why keep picking at this scab like this? It doesn't teach anyone anything, and only reinforces that the UI is now actively enforcing double-standards to buttress its own political correctness.
"What I do know is that this is not silly or petty. I saw a woman in line at the IGA the other day with a shirt that had a drawn "Injun" urinating on the NCAA. The drawing was not in any way respectful to Native Americans. Unfortunately it seems that the ignorance of Native cultures has gone to new lows."
And the longer the UI keeps selectively enforcing speech policies like this, the resentment will remain. Who is being educated by this policy? How is this teaching anyone respect about anything? It's picking at a sore spot, and breeding resentment (of the UI and NCAA - rightly - and of Natives - not rightly) and nothing more.
The Anti-Chiefers won - most of us Pro-Chief folks realize that. But if the UI and NCAA and Anti-Chiefers expect and lecture the Pro-Chiefers to be good losers and go away quietly and graciously, then it would serve them well to set an example as gracious and good winners. And there's precious little of that in policies like this.
Ok, how about a policy that just says, "No T-Shirts depicting mistrelsy and urination"?
Either one individually--redface or pissing--is totally fine, just not both individually.
You view it as "winners and losers". That is sad.
The U of I has merely said, "No Chief imagery in the homecoming parade".
It has not said,,"You may not wear Chief clothing" to students, fans, or the public at large.
The U of I, after all, owns the Chief. It is the University's to do with it as it wishes, and has the right to limit it's usage.
That is basic contract law, basic capitalism, basic rights of business owners. The owner may dictate the use.
Even if you just love it. It's not an emotional issue, it is strictly a business issue.
Businesses do have the right to control their property, don't they?
I don't understand how anyone is confused about the line, which seems clear to me. If you're officially representing the University, you can't have any Chief paraphernalia. Period. So that means no to people on the floats, the players, faculty, and staff.
No one cares (or should care) what students wear to English 101, or what fans tailgating or entering the stadium wear. Students and fans are consumers, but not representatives of the University. I don't think the University has any business officiating what people dress up as at private parties either - they're free to opine on it, but people are free to be you and me, or free to dress up as whatever they like (including douchebags) at private parties[1].
Stanford has been through this. In fact, back in 1997 (IIRC) none other than the News-Gazette did a feature article on what happened to schools that retired Indian mascots, and they found that (1) donations didn't drop off, nor did they increase, and (2) while fans who remembered the mascot clung to it and for years wore their old merchandise to games, the new students switched over with no hassle and once the U quit selling the stuff, it was just a matter of "okay, yeah, those old holdouts, whatever." I don't see any reason that UIUC should be so different - which means, yeah, no one cares if you wear Chief stuff to games, even if you do it for 20 years out.
[1] I went to a Halloween party once that had an apparently preggers woman (Asian, if anyone cares) smoking up a storm and drinking crazy amounts of alcohol. I admit at first I wasn't sure if it was real, and was thinking, wow, not so good for the kid, hm? Maybe I should say something? But no, turns out, it was just one of those "don't get preggers 'cos it's like wearing this suit for 9 months" fake pregnancy kits they use at some high schools.
"Ok, how about a policy that just says, "No T-Shirts depicting mistrelsy and urination"?
Either one individually--redface or pissing--is totally fine, just not both individually."
I, for one, don't particularly want the University to be in the business of issuing policies on what comprises acceptable or unacceptable clothing. Again, that's my point (one of them, anyway) - who decides what arbitrary standards to use?
No one decides, except the owner of intellectual property, such as the Chief. The University owns it and may control it. Those items which have been properly sold under license are out of the owner's control. Otherwise, the business owns it and may arbitrarily dictate the standards of use.
It is business, not First Amendment, not love, not tradition. The Commerce Clause trumps the use of the Chief by others outside the owner and the licensee. This conservative, strict constuction of the Constitution, ie, Republican values.
It is business, not First Amendment, not love, not tradition. The Commerce Clause trumps the use of the Chief by others outside the owner and the licensee. This conservative, strict constuction of the Constitution, ie, Republican values.
Walmart, Coca-Cola, Exxon, and all the other companies whose names and trademarks are used in protests will be happy to hear this new interpretation.
If it is a commerce/trademark issue, then it will only apply to the logo, right? The word "Chief" is not protected.
"It is business, not First Amendment, not love, not tradition. The Commerce Clause trumps the use of the Chief by others outside the owner and the licensee. This conservative, strict constuction of the Constitution, ie, Republican values."
As I said, the UI and NCAA have turned "Save the Chief" and some uses of the Chief logo into political speech. And now they're trying to restrict it, and doing so in an incredibly clumsy fashion, and exposing themselves to litigation.
Again - if the University wants Pro-Chiefers to "get over it," they need to stop picking at the scab.
Discussions about the Chief is political speech.
Use of the Chief is controlled by the owner.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Anyone watching the parade may wear Chief items. That's free speech.
Anyone IN the parade must have permission. Permission has been denied.
"Discussions about the Chief is political speech.
Use of the Chief is controlled by the owner.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Anyone watching the parade may wear Chief items. That's free speech.
Anyone IN the parade must have permission. Permission has been denied."
I disagree, both on legal and practical/political grounds.
If the tables were turned, and the Anti-Chief images (the ones that use the official logo) were banned, we'd be hearing complaints about censorship, and teeth-gnashing about how a University is supposed to be a place for discussions like this. Like it or not, a Chief Illiniwek sign with "Save the Chief" chanted along with it is political speech, just as the Chief logo with a circle/slash and "Racial Stereotypes De-Humanize" was also political speech. You can't stop political speech just by claiming that part of it is trademarked. Nobody in the parade is profiting from the trademark - they're using it to express a political point.
In addition, and maybe more importantly, I think it's unwise for the UI to engage in pettiness of this sort, if they want Chief Illiniwek to stop being a sore spot.
If the tables were turned, and the Anti-Chief images (the ones that use the official logo) were banned, we'd be hearing complaints about censorship, and teeth-gnashing about how a University is supposed to be a place for discussions like this.
You mean like we are right now?
As I said above, I feel your argument, but I think you are over reaching a bit. By your logic, anything that might be banned is protected political speech. That's not a bad argument, but is that what you're really arguing?
Chancellor's office is reversing decision - per WDWS - Robin Kaler (sp?) on right now
I like this explanation (thanks to Akibare):
"If you're officially representing the University, you can't have any Chief paraphernalia. Period. So that means no to people on the floats, the players, faculty, and staff.
No one cares (or should care) what students wear to English 101, or what fans tailgating or entering the stadium wear. Students and fans are consumers, but not representatives of the University."
If you are representing the university, you may be required to follow certain rules. Otherwise, the rights and laws that normally apply to citizens should also apply here.
"You mean like we are right now?"
Yes - exactly. As I said, more than enough hypocrisy on both sides.
"As I said above, I feel your argument, but I think you are over reaching a bit. By your logic, anything that might be banned is protected political speech."
When it's the government that's doing the banning, and the imagry/speech is explicitly political, that makes it banning political speech.
Regardless, the UI has changed the policy. If only they hadn't been so clumsy in the first place.
OK, free speech. I will soon announce my IlliniPundit.com line of merchandise, depicting (fill in the name of your particular messiah) eating babies, with IP.com saying, "Mmmm, tastes good!".
Free speech, Mr IP, or do you think you actually control the business of IlliniPundit.com.?
It is a business, you take in ad revenue and expend costs to operate. I'm sure you reflect that income (or loss) on your taxes, don't you?
"OK, free speech. I will soon announce my IlliniPundit.com line of merchandise, depicting (fill in the name of your particular messiah) eating babies, with IP.com saying, "Mmmm, tastes good!".
Free speech, Mr IP, or do you think you actually control the business of IlliniPundit.com.?"
There's a difference between holding a sign in a parade, and selling merchandise - one involves making money off of someone else's trademark, the other does not.
If the UI had said that no floats could sell Chief merchanse to raise money, that would have been perfectly OK.
"It is a business, you take in ad revenue and expend costs to operate. I'm sure you reflect that income (or loss) on your taxes, don't you?"
As a significant net loss, yes. Ad revenues and donations aren't nearly enough to cover the costs of operating IP.com.
If it's free speech about political issues, may floats depict an African-American hanging from a noose, or an Hispanic swimming across a river?
May a float depict an image of a person on a crucifix eating babies, with the label "IlliniPundit.com" ?
"If it's free speech about political issues, may floats depict an African-American hanging from a noose, or an Hispanic swimming across a river?
May a float depict an image of a person on a crucifix eating babies, with the label "IlliniPundit.com" ?"
The UI has issued no policies banning such depictions. None of these things are offensive enough to be banned, but a sign with a Chief logo and "Save the Chief" is.
Thank you for illustrating my point for me - that the UI was getting itself into a morass of double-standards and gotchas with this silly, petty policy.
The UI has issued no policies banning such depictions. None of these things are offensive enough to be banned, but a sign with a Chief logo and "Save the Chief" is.
Thank you for illustrating my point for me - that the UI was getting itself into a morass of double-standards and gotchas with this silly, petty policy.
This is an insane argument ;P.
There's a major difference in these cases--the likelihood of anything of these things actually happening. It's completely insane to say that none of those things are offensive enough to be banned. Is that a personal statement or a statement of what you believe the university would do in an analogous situation?
Of course, however we feel personally, these examples are more than offensive enough to be banned and would be banned on the spot by pretty much any university in the country.
Because lynching depictions is pure political speech, evil as it is. The Chief is commercial speech. Commercial speech is treated differently than political speech. You can debate all day about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad, but you can't use it's logo, without permission from the owner, even on protest signs. Wal-Mart may tolerate it, but it doesn't have to. You can debate all day about whether or not the Chief should be retired, but you can't use the logo, without permission from the owner.The University may tolerate it, but it doesn't have to. Just because you talk about a commercial enterprise doesn't turn the commercial enterprise, and what it owns and controls, into political speech. You need to understand that not all speech is political speech, which has great but not unlimited protection, and commercial speech, which is tightly regulated. And btw, the Homecoming Parade is a University event. It "owns" it, and may control it on it's property. It may cancel it, prevent it, or modify it as it sees fit. If the Homecoming Parade is on strictly public property, that would be different, the parade could go on, but still without the Chief.
In past parades people participated that were anti-Chief and they were not stopped. Keep in mind that the parade is not closed and is open to outside entities. It was finally brought to the attention of the Chancellor's office that they could not enforce this policy against one group when it had not done the same to others in the past. Censorship was raising its ugly head. Rather than try and let people slowly get over this on their own White and Herman would like to get past this much more quickly. Expect to see rules set down for the next homecoming that include more than banning the Chief so it doesn't look like they are only banning the Chief.
You can debate all day about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad, but you can't use it's logo, without permission from the owner, even on protest signs.
If Wal-mart licensed its logo for sale on a T-shirt, can they stop you from wearing it in places they don't like?
"There's a major difference in these cases--the likelihood of anything of these things actually happening. It's completely insane to say that none of those things are offensive enough to be banned. Is that a personal statement or a statement of what you believe the university would do in an analogous situation?"
Of course the other things are offensive, but the UI doesn't think they're offensive enough to explicitly ban them for the parade. Silly, isn't it?
"You can debate all day about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad, but you can't use it's logo, without permission from the owner, even on protest signs."
Sure you can, as long as you're not making money on it.
"And btw, the Homecoming Parade is a University event. It "owns" it, and may control it on it's property. It may cancel it, prevent it, or modify it as it sees fit. If the Homecoming Parade is on strictly public property, that would be different, the parade could go on, but still without the Chief."
I don't disagree. I think there's some ambiguity in that the University is also the government.
Either way, I think the UI would have been much better off if it hadn't tried this clumsy, ill-considered ban. if the goal of the UI is to move past the neverending Chief discussion, doing things like this is very counterproductive.
"You can debate all day about whether or not Wal-Mart is good or bad, but you can't use it's logo, without permission from the owner, even on protest signs." Sure you can, as long as you're not making money on it. That is just flat wrong. That is not the law in America, and hasn't been for a long long time, according to the US Supreme Court. Ask one of your lawyer friends.
"That is just flat wrong. That is not the law in America, and hasn't been for a long long time, according to the US Supreme Court. Ask one of your lawyer friends."
Citation, please.
I am not an attorney, but I have never heard of any court ruling that a protestor couldn't use a company's name or logo on a protest sign.
US Supreme Court case Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission (1983). The Court held that "expression related solely to the economic interest of the speaker and the speaker's audience" would be afforded "lesser protection" under the First Amendment based on "the nature of both the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation."
That should get you started.
I like this line of reasoning. Levi's gets to decide where you can wear their jeans. Um, sure. That's the law. You buy the product, you've bought the rights to that particular use of the logo or trademark. Now, to reproduce it in some fashion might require more legal work, but it's pretty obvious that owners of trademarks can't restrict, after a sale, where that product can be displayed.
And I don't see how anyone can consider that people in the parade are "representatives" of the university.
Good decision by the University to allow these things. Thank goodness Cantor is gone.
I think you two are talking past each other. Protestors can and do use company logos all the time.
I think IPs main point is that the UI was silly for trying to ban the Chief images from the parade because it is just rehashing the debate one more time. I agree with that. The rest is just details. I wish the UI *could* ban the Chief images from the parade without the blow up, but the wound is too fresh.
They would be wise to set some sort of long-term policy in place. Maybe let students, faculty, etc. use the images for five years and then phase it out. It should all be figured out already and they should never back down once they have set the policy in place. That would be the professional thing to do, imo.
But this "you can't use the images" then "you can use the images" is really unprofessional and frankly not very helpful.
Just my two cents. Have a great day!
"US Supreme Court case Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission (1983). The Court held that "expression related solely to the economic interest of the speaker and the speaker's audience" would be afforded "lesser protection" under the First Amendment based on "the nature of both the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation.""
Thanks. Again, forgive me, as I'm no legal scholar. But I don't think this applies:
The protestors, either Pro- or Anti-, have no economic interest.
Good to see Jillian Kachel overruled.
I have no idea if the UI now agrees with me on legal grounds, but I'm glad they reversed themselves, and I'd have been even happier if they'd have never tried to enforce such insanity in the first place:
I wonder what their legal advice was?
Take a look at thefire.org/guides for a good summary for free speech law.
I was at the Michigan game and must admit the halftime show was lack luster at best. If the university wants the chief to go away, then simply ban the music which plays to announce the chief and we are so acustomed to seeing the chief. The out of sight, out of mind philosophy.
But here is another idea that would completely point out the hypocrisy of the entire mess. A recent organization associated with past chiefs was formed to solicit funds for scholarships for the indian tribes. Very admirable and certainly long overdue. In fact, I heard them announce the same over the speaker at a game.
Want to get a pot load of funds in that organization? Then try this.
Have the Indian Chief Scholarship fund buy time on the big scoreboard, it is for sale for any good cause or any business that wants the exposure. Free speech and free advertising, yep.
Have the band continue its long tradition and play the chief song (sans chief of course) and at the proper moment and timing.................
have the scoreboard play a video of selected past chief dances (with the scholarship information at the bottom in small print).
By God I would contribute to that kind of creative advertising.
So who complains?
The Athletic Department?
Hey they get a handsome scoreboard fee for the 2 minutes, they would be foolish to bitch.
The NCAA?
Hey I thought they represented STUDENT athletes and scholarships are certainly good for STUDENTS, especially minority students. Lets see, we want to ban that advertising because scholarships give people a bad impression about indians. They should not go to school, stay on the reservation or pay your own way. Yep that convinces me.
The University of Illinois?
Hey it is about scholarships, not the chief, about scholarships so some members a minority group may go to school. What would they suggest to solicit scholarships for indians, have Bart Simpson be their spokesman?
Maybe, the ultimate gripers would the the 20% in the polls who said get rid of the chief, after all, lets get rid of all the indians at the University of Illinois, even the ones who want to attend with scholarship money.
Come on Sam....play it just one more time.......and with a video please.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Oh there it is. Thanks
I'm going to the parade. I'm gonna dress up as an injun, and carry a bottle of firewater, and tell everyone I am the real injun Illini, and I'm gonna leer at the white women, and dance until I fall down cuz that's what injuns really do
The "Chief" logo is a trademark. Trademarks are only defendable if they are used. If the University doesn't actively use this trademark, they will lose control of it. It is NOT copyrighted, as far as I understand. AND the University cannot copyright it either, as far as I understand, as they did not commission it or make it "in-house". In fact the designer of the symbol wants it back, and it very debatable whether the University has the right to withhold it, unless they USE it.
Since the University has "abandonned" the logo....in some amount of time ( I don't know the statute of time) it will become the property of the designer, OR PUBLIC DOMAIN. And whether they retain it or not, it'd only take a slight change to the logo to make it useable by the public. All that needs to be satisfied is that it not be reasonably confuseable as a sanctioned University symbol.
I am no lawyer, but that's he way it was explained to me by an attorney.
I sincerely doubt the U is going to abandon the Chief logo, as they've no doubt got lawyers on staff who have read all the same case law.
However that doesn't mean the U has to use or license the logo for anything that the mass public will get its hands on or see.
Either way - Stanford went through all this. As long as the official representatives of the University don't use the logo and imagery, no one cares what the fans do, just as they didn't care at Stanford. Sure, for quite some time there were groups of fans in the stands with the old merchandise, but as new people came in, it died off naturally. At that point, even if it goes into the public domain, it's not such a big deal.
The change in the parade policy doesn't change this basic philosophy - the only thing they changed was the designation of float riders, it was determined that ordinary floats sponsored by RSOs and the like are representing the individuals and not the U itself. As such, absolutely, they should be free to do whatever they like with legal (i.e. previously purchased) Chief merchandise. Reading over how you get to have a float, I think this makes sense. But floats sponsored by campus units will not have the Chief on 'em.
The Chief logo is trademarked. The protections are similar to copyrighting. The guy who designed the logo sold it to the university. He now realizes what a fool he was to sell it for so little, but that's not germaine. he did sell it, and the university owns it.
I was struck by this from the NG article: ""If you're a participant on a float, you're representing a personal point of view. The analogy is you frequently see university employees wearing Chief apparel to work or deciding to decorate their offices with Chief items. Those are people expressing this point of view," Kaler said."
So does that mean I can teach my classes in an anti-Chief shirt?
There have been some comments about no longer being able to legally purchase Chief merchandise. This is not true. No more can be PRODUCED, but the date by which all Chief merchandise must be SOLD is, I think, sometime next year. I guess retailers will just give any leftovers away when that date arrives but right now Chief items are still selling like hotcakes.
"So does that mean I can teach my classes in an anti-Chief shirt?"
I can't imagine the UI has a policy expressly forbidding it on the grounds it's an Anti-Chief shirt.
"There have been some comments about no longer being able to legally purchase Chief merchandise. This is not true. No more can be PRODUCED, but the date by which all Chief merchandise must be SOLD is, I think, sometime next year. I guess retailers will just give any leftovers away when that date arrives but right now Chief items are still selling like hotcakes."
The date for production has already passed - I think it was 4/30/07. The last date for sales is, I think 12/31/07.
I hope Michael Fuerst doesn't read your post, or he might start distributing the logo overlaid with the words "Bozo Urbana"
"There's a major difference in these cases--the likelihood of anything of these things actually happening. It's completely insane to say that none of those things are offensive enough to be banned. Is that a personal statement or a statement of what you believe the university would do in an analogous situation?"
Of course the other things are offensive, but the UI doesn't think they're offensive enough to explicitly ban them for the parade. Silly, isn't it?
I just addressed this in an earlier post. What are you talking about? Banning doesn't exclusively deal with "offensiveness" and it's"insane" to say that it does. Those things are not explicitly banned not because they are unoffensive, but because they clearly already violate existing codes and would be dealt with quickly and decisively should they surface. I don't want my students to spread peanut butter on our projector, and it's "insane" to say that I find they less egregious simply because I don't explicitly ban it.
"Those things are not explicitly banned not because they are unoffensive, but because they clearly already violate existing codes and would be dealt with quickly and decisively should they surface."
You're incorrect, at least in some cases. Anti-Chief imagery - even though some of it uses the Chief logo - isn't banned by any UI policy, nor was it banned for the parade - nor could it be, as the UI would never have thought of doing so, as they knew the complaints they'd get.
That's what's silly - the UI is setting itself up for thousands of different double standards.
It looks like a rain dance will wipe out the parade.
Powers beyond comprehension.
There is a difference here between anti-Chief imagery and pro-Chief stuff. The anti-Chief stuff is, by its nature, political speech. It was created to change university policy. It may be offensive to the pro-Chief crowd, I guess, but at its nature it is political speech – it does not insult anyone's race.
The Chief has been found to be insulting to a minority group. This is not political speech and therefore is not easy to protect. A banner saying "Bring Back the Chief!" without the use of the symbol would, I guess, be considered political speech. But once you start forcing people to look at cartoonish, insulting depictions of a minority group you are (imo) crossing a line.
That said, I still agree with IP - the wound is too fresh and this was a mistake to begin with. I still think the U should put some policies in place and follow them, not just let this stuff get resolved along the way.
There is a difference here between anti-Chief imagery and pro-Chief stuff. The anti-Chief stuff is, by its nature, political speech. It was created to change university policy. It may be offensive to the pro-Chief crowd, I guess, but at its nature it is political speech – it does not insult anyone's race.
Well, isnt' that convenient. One side of the argument has protected political speech, and the other side doesn't. I wonder how this one will turn out. Oh, wait ....
I think the main point is that it is pointless for the U of I to try and ban any individual's speech. Remember, early on in the debate about the Chief, then Chancellor Weir tried to prohibit the faculty from talking about the Chief to prospective athletes and was slapped down by the courts for prohibiting speech. If the U of I banned the Chief from floats this year, would they be able to ban the image of a toy badger hanging from a noose during the years that the homecoming game opponent is Wisconsin because it is offensive to PETA? The 1st amendment was written specifically to protect unpopular speech, like the KKK's right to march in Skokie, Matt Hale speaking at the Champaign Public Library or Larry Flint's right to publish a smut magazine. That protection would also include a float in the homecoming parade with a depiction of a black person hanging from a tree. That being said, the float builders would also have to bear the consequenses of such an expression, whether the consequences would be from student affairs or from the general public or both. Just becasue the 1st amendment protects the right to say something, the speaker(s) are still responsible for the content which is expressed.
I think anyone who misses the Chief should simply dress as the Chief and rush the field at halftime. They should do the same during the parade. After all, it's free expression. As more and more of the empty heads get clubbed, there'll be less of this back-and-forth nonsense. Evolution through head wounds -- this seems to be where we're headed.
The real problem is, a minority of the general population has gained control of decision making positions. The same thing happened in prohibition, it was not what the majority of the people wanted, it was what the minority who were in control wanted, hence it never went away. It will be very interesting when the politics change and the Board changes accordingly, if the chief doesn't make it back.
I saw where the university (South Dakota?) that used the "Fighting Souix" logo, just took it to court, the decision was if it was ok with the indians, then it was ok with the court and the NCAA could go jump. The leadership of the University of Illinois did not want to chance losing control to a court. It was not about the Chief, it was about power.
No poll that I saw during the debate concering the chief ever indicated that more than 30% were in favor of removing the chief, and in downstate illinois is was only about 10%. A minority controlling the decision making positions is really a bad problem, because 80% of the people are NOT going to just stand idle.
It is absolutely insane to say the the Florida State symbol who rides around and throws a spear into the ground is not offensive, and The Chief is offensive, when he only appears at halftime of home games. Jesus.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
...what the majority of the people wanted,...
How did that election go for ya, Rex?
Anon--He got a hell of a lot more votes then you did. Your not even brave enough to use your real name, let alone run for GA.
You're incorrect, at least in some cases. Anti-Chief imagery - even though some of it uses the Chief logo - isn't banned by any UI policy, nor was it banned for the parade - nor could it be, as the UI would never have thought of doing so, as they knew the complaints they'd get.
That's what's silly - the UI is setting itself up for thousands of different double standards.
I didn't say that Anti-Chief imagery is banned by any policy.
You claimed that the U of I has more of a problem with Chief imagery than with imagery depicting lynching because they didn't list lynching as banned at a homecoming event.
The idea that for something to be voiced it has to be the worst imaginable action at that moment would mean that everytime you restricted any type of behavior you would need to list all unencouraged behavior:
"You may not tread on the grass...or kill babies with shovels...or kill babies with pickaxes...or dog fight...or cock fight..."
"Oh wait, you left genocide off the list! That means that you think all of those things are more offensive than genocide!"
08:45 PM, Anonymous
Thanks for asking, the election process was very exciting and I was glad to be a part of it. But I did not prevail. The people of this area believed Naomi was the person they wanted to represent them, just as the voters in the State believed they wanted Gov. B, Jones and Mike running their state.
Again, thaks for asking, nice to know I was not forgotten.
But I am perplexed about the meaning of your question, I was not even born when prohibition was being considered, and that was the subject of the question you took out of my content. Did I miss something?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"It will be very interesting when the politics change and the Board changes accordingly, if the chief doesn't make it back."
You should hold your breath until that happens.
"I saw where the university (South Dakota?) that used the "Fighting Souix" logo, just took it to court, the decision was if it was ok with the indians, then it was ok with the court and the NCAA could go jump."
I guess that's one way of looking at it, slick. The other, more realistic way: The university has a certain amount of time to get that approval or it's bye-bye, racist mascot.
Of course, you can't even spell Sioux. Good to see that use of the mascot is boosting knowledge about Native American culture!
"The idea that for something to be voiced it has to be the worst imaginable action at that moment would mean that everytime you restricted any type of behavior you would need to list all unencouraged behavior:"
Which is exactly why it is futile to try and ban individual speech/expression and hence is the beauty and forethought of the 1st Amendment.
Geez, how does that go again? "i" before "o" except after "x", or was it "u" before "i" except before "x", oh my, so many decisions.......orrrrrrrrrr, it could be I suffered from finger failure when I was typing and just hit the wrong keys. But fortunately, misspelling is not a capital offense, so loosen the saddle and untie the noose, I will live to mispelll agian......
I know, I know, so many different perspectives....
is the glass half empty, or is it half full?
Actually from an engineering view point, the glass was twice as big as it needed to be.
AND one more issue..................
Gordy tries his best on this site to quell some personal remarks, but occasionally some slip through.
I post under my real name. I do so because disguise and deception have never been nor will ever be a part of my personality. My name is Rex Bradfield, it is not, nor will it ever be "slick". Such derogatory and unpolite referrals of a personal nature detract from any quality your posts may have and serve no purpose whatsoever, other than self gratification.
So take a step back, think about what you are doing, and post with dignity. Don't cloud good thoughts with thoughtlessness.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Which is exactly why it is futile to try and ban individual speech/expression and hence is the beauty and forethought of the 1st Amendment.
Sure, if you believe that absolutely, that's a fine position. But what you are talking about reaches far beyond the 1st Amendment in its current application. There are plenty of forms of speech/expression banned or restricted.
Those who believe in consist and free expression, that's wonderful. I'm just a little weary that some of the folks on here seem to think that all sorts of other restrictions are fine, just not restrictions on Pro-Chief speech--sort of a freedom of expression just for me type of ideal.
To clarify, my problem with Gordy's comments were that they claimed that the University found Pro-Chief speech more offensive than Lynching imagery simply because they articulated a policy against the former at one place in time without explicitly mentioning the other. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Xian-Are you saying that you can pick and choose what University Policy to follow based on when and what is the topic at the time, interesting I will try that if it doesn’t work can I blame you?
No. I'm not even sure where you are getting that from. I'm saying that when my kid breaks curfew and I talk to him about curfew, that doesn't mean that I think breaking curfew is somehow more offensive than murdering our neighbors.
If I hire a plumber because my toilet is leaking, it doesn't mean that I think that plumbing is more important than getting heart surgery. I just needed plumbing at the time.
But now that I re-read, I'm not sure what you are saying. If you're asking whether I follow laws mindlessly regardless of context, no absolutely not.
But hey, please feel free to clarify. Much appreciated.
You mean things only have importance if you personally find them important. Do the kids you teach get in trouble a lot because they think policies and rules are all out of context?
I follow you Xian - you are perfectly clear. And I agree with you on this one.
"To clarify, my problem with Gordy's comments were that they claimed that the University found Pro-Chief speech more offensive than Lynching imagery simply because they articulated a policy against the former at one place in time without explicitly mentioning the other. That makes no sense whatsoever."
Point taken, and I agree. I took it too far, and you're right. My original point - that the policy is ill-considered and uneforceable - still stands.
Fair enough. I'm glad we came to an understanding there. On the main point, I'm not sure where I fall. I think that free speech is very important, but also acknowledge the danger of institutionally sanctioned expression that attacks others even when not explicit. This is similar to much of the school prayer debates. Does Chief imaging do this? I'm not sure. It's a fuzzy area, especially as the powers that be have shifted over time on the issue.
The one thing I will reiterate is that while I think that the Chief is an overtly racist caricature, I really hope it is not lost to the sands of time and the desire to bury "wrong" relics of a past era. In order to understand the present and learn for the future, we must acknowledge and understand the past. As I said, I really would have supporting the retention of the Chief had it either been in the domain of Native Americans to redesign a less minstrelish symbol or simply been honest in its portrayal "White guy in a fake Indian Suit".
What scared me more about the Chief than the symbols existence was the hostility one encountered when one spoke aloud truthfully, "The Emperor's naked, dude!" More than the image itself, it was the deception that was occurring--"People are learning about Indian heritage through this symbol", "This fabrication is to honor" etc.
I don't doubt that people thought that was true. But once confronted with the truth, it was the pathology that bothered me.
That's not to say there was no pathology on the other side. But to many folks of color, to people who have to be ready at any moment for a barrage of racial slurs or stereotypes, it's that brash "I am infallible so if you call me out, I'm going to attack you" attitude that is most troubling.
I can handle the "Ching Chong Ching Chong" crap, but when I point out the ignorance involved and they get angry, there's not much I can do about them being mad that I won't pat them on the back for what I see as racism. It's not about trying to suppress their freedom--quite the opposite--I deserve as much of a chance to react genuinely.
If you had just called them pro-Chief nutcases, you would have won.
The cowardly heart loses where the bold one wins.
See? Here, you can call me a pro-Chief nutcase, and I won't delete it, as it's mildly topical.
Immature and annoying, but mildly topical.
Well done.
Yeah, I guess it's not as mature as plugging one's ears for 15 years or so and shouting: "But the Chief isn't offensive because WE SAY IT ISN'T!"
I'll try to work harder to emulate the shining example of the pro-Chief nutcases.
"Yeah, I guess it's not as mature as plugging one's ears for 15 years or so and shouting: "But the Chief isn't offensive because WE SAY IT ISN'T!""
Because that's what you think my position is?
You have no idea what you're talking about - clearly you've not read anything I've ever written about Chief Illiniwek.
Gordy,,,,sometimes like now, I am just content to be a garden variety nutcase,,,,,,,I guess I could be called a "utility nutcase" able to play more than one position on the field:-)
I don't mind being called a nutcase - I've been called much worse, especially on here.
But I at least want the person doing the insulting to know why they're calling me a nutcase.
"But I at least want the person doing the insulting to know why they're calling me a nutcase."
I never had the slightest reason to call you a hopeless optimist until now.
Or perhaps you believe that every individual possesses at least a modest measure of insight.
I was operating from the pro-Chief nutcase example: latch onto a comparison and grip it as tight as the Unit 4 administration clings to a bad plan.
So Gordy, still dead set on this anonymous issue? It seems like every good thread is ruined by someone who needs to vent their insecurity without reprecussions over the internet...
"So Gordy, still dead set on this anonymous issue?"
Yes.
"It seems like every good thread is ruined by someone who needs to vent their insecurity without reprecussions over the internet..."
I'm not happy with requiring registration. I need to do a better job of incenting it, but I just haven't had time.
Thanks, though. Keep bringing it up - it reminds me that people are paying attention, and I really do reconsider it each and every time you do so.
"I never had the slightest reason to call you a hopeless optimist until now.
Or perhaps you believe that every individual possesses at least a modest measure of insight."
Actually, I do believe that.
"I was operating from the pro-Chief nutcase example: latch onto a comparison and grip it as tight as the Unit 4 administration clings to a bad plan."
OK - I don't think it fits in either case, but as for Unit 4 - they're in the process of asking the community to help them come up with a new plan. That doesn't seem like clinging to me.
Their process is bad (their could mean either Unit 4 or the PCNs), but all of that is covered in the Unit 4 thread.
"Yeah, I guess it's not as mature as plugging one's ears for 15 years or so and shouting: "But the Chief isn't offensive because WE SAY IT ISN'T!"
...and how is that any different from, "The Chief IS offensive, because WE SAY IT IS!" ?????
The hypocracy continues when many of the anti-Chief crowd, who claim to be inclusive and tolerant, will not even discuss the issue with the pro-Chief crowd, (inclusiveness), or attempt to understand the pro-Chief crowd's viewpoint, (tolerance).
(Please note I said many of the anti-Chief crowd, not all. Teters, Kaufman and the PMRC all stated their positions and then turned a deaf ear to any discussion of the issue. Even after the retirement of the Chief, Kaufman is still not happy and continues to rant and rave against the University.)
The difference is the NCAA said it was.
"The difference is the NCAA said it was."
All things considered, that carries very little weight with many of us, as even before the Chief Illiniwek decision, the NCAA had proven itself to be a corrupt, exploitative bureaucracy concerned only with its own power.
For the NCAA to lecture on morality is a sad, sad irony indeed.
Ironic. But a fact. And the difference.
"Ironic. But a fact. And the difference."
A difference only in that they can force the UI to do its bidding.
Being able to force something to happen doesn't make it moral or right.
You could better apply that philosophy to the BOT members and pro-Chief nutcases who forced nothing to happen for far too long
You could also apply that statement to some anti-Chiefers (including yourself, I assume), who were so antagonistic and insulting for so many years that they persuaded nobody of the rightness or morality of their cause except the amoral, corrupt bureaucrats at the NCAA.
You've accomplished your goal through coercion. You've persuaded nobody of the righteousness or morality of your position. Yet you gloat and throw insults as if you've achieved some sort of watershed triumph. And you think I'm a nutcase?
You assume incorrectly.
Well, I know you're anti-Chief, antagonistic and insulting. So actually, I shouldn't have said "I assume" when I was just stating facts.
Nope, just antagonistic and insulting. I am anti-pro-Chief nutcase, though.