N.D. higher ed board may fight Fighting Sioux nickname law
February 8, 2012 at 4:51 am in Grand Forks Herald
The head of North Dakota’s Board of Higher Education says the board may go to court if a law requiring the University of North Dakota to revert to its Fighting Sioux nickname is restored. Continue Reading
Oh yes…this will end well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
16
Kind of like a STD that just keeps giving and wont go away
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
72 
25
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
31 
57
Let us hope this case of herpes does not turn into a case of HIV/AIDS
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
21
Night of the living dead plus all of its sequels
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
17
I like the sioux name and logo but the team is going to be in danger of getting kicked out of the big sky conference and maybe worse if this sort of thing keeps up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
88 
38
They will. North Dakota is on the rise like never before and yet this name thing gives the image of bizarre crazed infighters. Yes UND sports will be dropped if the leadership allows continued use even if only for a short time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
65 
41
There goes the “Sky”….
What idiots these nickname supporters are, they actually believe that a vote from the North Dakota part of the Standing Rock reservation will satisfy the NCAA? Most of the SR people don’t live in ND but live in SOUTH DAKOTA or off the Rez. Therefore, this so-called ND vote won’t and will never reflect the will of all the SR people, stupid Eunice and Archie. I hope when the Big Sky and NCAA revoke UND’s memberships, Eunice and Archie apologize to the people of North Dakota, they need to be held accountable for their selfishness.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
70 
48
The neither Big Sky, nor the NCAA are going to drop UND. But, you keep looking to the skies for scary dragons, OK? We’re all counting on you to keep us ignorant villagers safe.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
26
If the UND is damaged in any way in its efforts to become a D1 school in all sports because the name is retained, you can expect to hear the most abusive and hostile treatment of the Sioux name like you have never heard before! It will be the epitome and characterization of the joke which this entire process has become solely as a result of the bad decision of the Standing Rock tribe!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68 
39
Bad decision by Standing Rock?
Standing Rock has no obligation to clean up the racist and paternalistic practices of the NCAA and your President Kelley…
How is this the fault of Standing Rock?
If you want to pin the blame on someone you need look no further than to the lack of leadership at the University and the NDBHE.
Hot debate. What do you think?
57 
59
The Standing Rock Council, headed by Charles Murphy, killed the deal by not supporting the name and simultaneously, the Spirit Lake efforts. If the SR Tribal council would have supported it, the petitions would have been unnecessary and this issue would have been finalized five years ago! If the state and the Native Americans want to retain the name, the only entity having prevented that was and is the SR Tribal Council!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
32
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
40 
52
You are correct that Standing Rock has no obligation to jump through hoops the state, the university, etc. However, the people of that tribe did ask for a vote and were denied. Guess asking politely doesn’t actually work.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
24
Good for them! Everyone understands that. That is not the issue. The issue is retaining the name at the demand of Native Americans. If the SR Council would have been smart enough and brave enough to follow their counterparts lead, the Native Americans would not be spear-heading petitions today. There is no one to blame but the SR Council. And as far as being polite, many polite requests were made of Mr Murphy and the SR Council…all of which were flatly and rudely rebuked.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
16
It seems awfully politically correct to call something racist. I try to support you alwayserectoverthename but I can not figure out when it is ok to be politically correct or not. Help me out. The NCAA is basically calling the logo racist. Your calling the NCAA and I think UND President racist. Which is being politically correct so i can be against it?
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Herald says Shaft says:
“He said the board likely will meet by teleconference.”
So…Espy really is in Florida?
Yes…leader? Shaft. Good call.
This issue has only tormented the people of North Dakota, has become a “Constitutional Question” required that good people on both sides travel the Country, petition for referendums, instigated a proposal to amend the Constitution of the State of North Dakota….
Yeh…couple phone calls should handle it.
This is the kind of spineless leadership people have come to expect.
“Leadership is action, not position.”
Donald H. McGannon
Tell the NCAA that UND will except the sanctions and carry on, that is the extent of the agreement.
Tell the NCAA that any further interference from the NCAA (conference affiliation and scheduling) will result in legal action by the State of North Dakota against the NCAA.
Just do it!
It is time someone put the NCAA in it’s proper place…they should stick to stealing money from the athletes and selling over-priced hot dogs….that is what they know how to do..that is what they are good at…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73 
45
Totally agree. Rather than Shaft and the Board fighting the wishes of the majority of they state (that they represent), they should be fighting the source of who started this problem: The NCAA.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
42
Always: we already sued the NCAA & lost. Just thought you should know
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
36 
50
Yes they will. I second that. Just think of the recruits who agreed to come here thinking this squabble was over.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
35
If there were “recruits” out there that were so brain dead as to believe this was over…they shouldn’t be in college anyway.
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
39
This should be called “pc voices” not area voices.. The only people on here all think they are 110% correct on everything to do with anything anti-nickname . And they are 90% of the visitors to this as well… The same stuff over and over again & no one has any clue as to what will happen or not, its literally all speculation… not even a fun read..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
17
I think all comments should be limited to fifty words…preferably less.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Going D1 was as bad a mistake as keeping the nickname.
The nickname has been a thorn in the side of UND for forty years. I remember going to the Shrine Circus inside the basketball stadium at UND, and remarking on the “new” geometric Indian head, while my mother (who began her college life as a Flickertail, but graduated as a Sioux) explained that the new logo should make the Indians happy since UND wouldn’t use the silly and demeaning cartoon logo any more.
That’d be…what? About 1970? The Indian head logo/ Sioux nickname problem is AT LEAST that old.
UND could have confronted and addressed the issue back then, asked for Tribal approval of the geometric logo and nickname–or tribal advice on what would be acceptable, and it would have been a non-issue from that time forward. Instead, UND “leadership” avoided the issue and let it fester until it became the over-blown disaster we know today.
Well, at least it keeps our attention away from REAL problems. God forbid we’d make the politicians take care of IMPORTANT business when we’ve got the UND nickname to distract us.
GO FLICKERTAILS!
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
26
UND did change the logo…and they recieved permission from the Sioux.
The beginning and end of this situation is the NCAA…it really is that simple.
If the NCAA had not introduced this racist and ignorant and arbitrary policy, we would not be having this discussion.
If they would shut-up…and just be content to continue making millions from amatuer athletes without compensating them, and selling exorbitantly priced concessions…this would be over.
The policy accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
30
I wish all this time and attention were being put to good use…as in the problems people are having in the Devils Lake Basin with flooding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
55
I suppose your answer to the loss of farmland is to grow wild rice instead of wheat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
10
Buying a boat doesn’t help people losing their farm land while still paying a discounted rate of taxes on unusable land does it?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
7
I was joking…and it was not funny.
the point is that there are hundreds of these blogs…
this one discusses the ignorance of the NCAA and the cowardice of the NDBHE and UND President.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
30
Everything you say is a Joke Alwayserect over the name.
Like or Dislike:
19 
6
How about the total ineffectiveness of our last two wonderful governors, Hoeven and Rumplestiltskin. Much less the pathetic Stenjem. And our loser legislature.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Dealing with the sanctions in the NCAA agreement are one thing, the bullying of the Big Sky, and other institutions, by the NCAA, is the real problem. Personally, I am looking forward to seeing what the vote does: allow the ND Citizens on SR to vote, alows the ND Citizens on SL the opportunity to reafirm, or repeal, their earlier vote, and allows the Citizens of ND to vote on the Fighting Sioux name/logo issue. Are the anti’s really afraid of the voters in ND? Is this an issue where only a select few (SBoHE, NCAA, UND administrators) can be trusted with making the “(PC) correct” decision?
I do not understand why the ND SBoHE is running to the ND Supreme Court to try and derail democracy in action! This issue, with broad support accross ND, is not the “vehicle” for the SBoHE to have it out with the State Legislature. Note to the SBoHE: there are 3 Branches of Government in North Dakota & the SBoHE is not one of them!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
49 
55
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
24 
45
Always: A serious question: Where do you go to have constitutional questions handled?
In the US of A, those questions are handled by the Supreme Court. If the people want to change the constitution, they do that through amendment. That is what your side is trying to do last time I checked.
Am I to understand you are only in favor of following the constitution only if it agrees with your views?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
22
Always: same sex marriage is the other board. This is the racism, cartoons, & constitutional law board.
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
You go to Alwayserectoverthename because he has plenty of time and of course is always on his own side.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Since you are obviously conservative alwayserectoverthename when did it become a conservative position that government should step in and tell private citizens who they can Marry. Since that is off subject but you brought it up how bout when did it become a conservative position that government should come in and force private organizations, like the NCAA and the Big Sky, to take members they do not want. Or not allow these private organizations to make their own rules for membership. Seems your confused over what is liberal. Maybe I could get North Dakota legislature to vote me a membership to Augusta National golf club. Then they would have to take me right? Just my conservative thinking I guess.
Like or Dislike:
17 
4
Mike, Augusta is a private org., the NCAA is not. The NCAA was founded by public schools. Augusta was founded by private wealthy individuals in order to be able to golf without Africans around the place.
Like or Dislike:
9 
18
The NCAA is in fact a private organization that is run by its member schools.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
The Big Sky is also a private organization run by member schools. As far as Augusta National the courts have ruled that they may make any rules for admission that they want and a few years back refused to allow women even with major protests from the majority. They did admit 1 token women for whatever reason they felt that was necessary but they reserved every single one of their rights to govern themselves and so will the NCAA.
Like or Dislike:
17 
3
Mike is 100% correct with lots of court cases in their favor re-affirming this fact.
That is two incorrect arguments in one night spearman. You are usually more acute than that. You need to quit hanging out with Always. He is dragging you down to his level
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
Mike, The NCAA is private to the extent that all citizens own it by definition as taxpayers. The NCAAS is not private in the sense that Cargill, Augusta or Hazeltine is private. Of course the NCAA can make its own rules as long as the member schools funded by citizens agree to the changes.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
That makes no sense at all. No by definition at all. NCAA is private.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Don: your question is rhetorical, correct? The SBHE is going to the Supreme Court because the law is unconstitutional. Your own lawyer says so. When a piece of legislation is unconstitutional it is the court system that overturns it. Civics 101.
In order to keep the name, you either have to change the complexion of the SBHE or change the constitution. This repeal of the repeal is simply a monumental waste of time. & resources. You should be spending your time & efforts on the constitutional amendment.
I will fight you & yours every step of the way, but if you truly want to keep the name that is your only hope.
The SBHE owns the name & they want it gone. Since you can’t get rid of them, in order to succeed you will have to take control of the name away from them.
Good luck
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
No, the citizens own the name.
Like or Dislike:
10 
14
In the end the citizens own everything. Just like in Russia.
Since you slept through class, let me bring you up to speed: the State of ND has a constitution that all of its laws must comply with. It is the state’s founding document & charter.
Several years ago the legislature proved incapable of fulfilling their duties. In response the citizens of ND, through their elected representatives took control of the university system away from the legislature & gave it to the SBHE.
Yes the citizens of ND own the name, but they have chosen the SBHE to manage it. If you don’t like what the SBHE is doing, you have to either fire them or take control of the name back & give it to someone else.
We’re you paying attention? There will be a quiz
Like or Dislike:
17 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
16
Sprearman what the heck are you talking about. Your saying all schools should leave the NCAA and start their own NCAA. Lets call it the NAIA. Than once these member schools, the same schools that voted to find Native American names to be offensive, will turn around and change their mind now that they are in the NAIA. All because of pressure from North Dakota citizens. That is a solution and about the only solution besides changing the name. But we are dealing with reality here right.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
“If you don’t like what the SBHE is doing, you have to either fire them or take control of the name back & give it to someone else.”
Therin lies the problem flyingnurse. The SBHE has absolutely no oversight. They are appointed, and if one of them, or all of them, are not doing what they are supposed to there is no way of removing them from that post. The nickname is what it is, I’m sure we’ll all find out the exact truth and live with the consequences or lack thereof.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Guilty I agree to a point. The SBHE can be removed. They have to be impeached.
I have asked Always & his side a dozen times what they are doing to influence the complexion of the state board. Are they letting the governor know he or she will not receive their vote unless they go on record saying they will only nominate pro nickname characters? They never get back. I guess the answer is no
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I think you may have misunderstood. I’m speaking in general with the SBHE, not solely on the issue of of the nickname. I do support the nickname, but not at the cost to all of UND Athletics. I would much rather see UND go without a nickname, and leave it so unless Spirit Lake’s lawsuit goes somewhere. I have a bigger problem with the SBHE and the management of funds for the College’s and Universities in ND than anything else.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Spearman: when this whole thing started oh so many months ago, I repeatedly said the only honorable thing to do would be for ND to withdrawal from the NCAA. UND & the Ralph Engelstadt arena folks said absolutely not. Way too much money was at stake.
The NCAA Board has voted numerous times to keep the policy despite pressure from schools much larger than us, so it is safe to say they are not going to change, at least in the short term..
I will reiterate what I said then: keep the name & lose the NCAA or keep the NCAA & lose the name. It is a choice. There are no victims here. Just choices.
Like or Dislike:
15 
8
Mike , You miss the point. I’m not suggesting all schools dissolve the NCAA or secede, only that they could since it is their org. Since it is their org. it is by definition a citizens org. also, unlike Augusta or the NRA. All citizens contribute tax money to all universities nationwide in the form of federal taxes that go to all schools in the form of 100s of billions of $$ in research grants and aids. The American K-20 education system is socialist by definition & thank God it is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I would love to see what your comments are about the Fullerton interview today on the radio that put all of that valuable research you did into the toilet. How exactly did you come up with that Big Sky needs UND more than UND needs it? Or that UND won’t be kicked out of the Big Sky. Both of which were replied to be incorrect. Also noted on the radio, a full majority yes vote of the Presidents isn’t anything out of the ordinary and happens quite frequently.
Would love to see the bibliography that you have as backup to that research.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Found a new home yet Don? The bank won’t let you stay in a foreclosed house forever.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Real classy post Rob. Your mother should have considered contraception.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I love how the poll won’t accept my NO vote.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Mine either Mav. Communist conspiracy?
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Communist no.. Forum communications possibly. It won’t take my vote from either my home computer or work.. so do I think someone doesn’t know how to program.. yup.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
It won’t take the vote to keep the name either.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
The comments on here never cease to amaze me. My friends on the far right of the chamber are forever championing a strictly constructionist view of the constitution, unless it does not suit their argument.
The ND constitution is very clear on what organization controls the name & logo. The courts have reaffirmed this view in an earlier case on the same subject.
You would think that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, as I said my friends in the opposition only believe in the constitution when it agrees with their world view.
Since the pro nickname faction does not believe the constitution applies in this instance, they are fighting to reserect a law their own legal council says is unconstitutional.
You either believe in the constitution or you don’t. There is a mechanism for the people of ND to change the constitution if they do not like it.
Wasting time & effort on a law that is unconstitutional makes a mockery of our system. If you insist on gathering petitions, it should be for the recall of Al Carlson. He took an oath to uphold & defend the constitution. He obviously did not take this ritual very seriously
Like or Dislike:
17 
10
Bending the Constitution to benefit one’s side in an argument is not the sole possession of those on the “right”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agree 100% guilty. Unfortunately as of late (meaning the last generation and a half or so) it has been the right who has been wrapping itself in the flag and disregarding the document they have sworn to uphold. Iran Contra, The Patriot Act, American citizens arrested in the US and then held incommunicado without charges in a military prison’ you get my point.
Before that: Huey Long and FDR come to mind. I am sure there have been others. I loved FDR’s attempts to pack the Supreme Court. At least he had actually read the Constitution and knew if he wanted to circumvent it, he would have to do it the old fashioned way: buy judges.
Neither side is pristine. But since two wrongs do not make a right (modern math aside), I have to side with those cared enough to take their oath seriously.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Add Citizens United
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Agree 100% with all of those you named. I consider myself conservative, more libertarian than anything though, and I absolutely hate the Patriot Act. I understand the intention, but some of the world’s greatest atrocities were brought about by the greatest of intentions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The NDBHE:
Grant Shaft,
Duaine Espegard,
Kirsten Diederich,
Claus Lembke
John Girard,
Janice Hoffarth,
Richie Smith,
Robert Vallie
Michael Haugen,
Bill Goetz,
Terry Hjelmstad
These are the people that will be taking you to court, in order to acquiesce to the NCAA and make it certain that you will be forever known as a bunch of ignorant racist hicks.
Of course, some are probably at a convention (wink, wink) in Florida or Las Vegas…but they will do what Kelley tells them to do anyway.
No need to put down that margarita!
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
I bet you call out their names in your sleep.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
More like a nightmare…
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
Always: we discussed how to fix that already. Quit wasting time, treasure, & political capital on battles you cannot win & concentrate on the constitutional amendment & recalling Al Carlson.
Since with the amendment petitions you will become a new believer in the sanctity of the constitutional process, you will be unable to tolerate such a constitutional detractor such as Carlson in your midst. Recalling him will be mandatory.. You can leave the petitions unattended laying next to each other
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Don’t know why you are so down on Carlson…right or wrong….he is the only one in this whole sordid saga that has shown an ounce of courage.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
Always: he took an oath to uphold the constitution then authored a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional. That would be considered criminal if it was over anything more important than an advertising slogan.
If Carlson was truly courageous he would have authored a bill to require UND to withdrawal from the NCAA as a condition of funding. Funding is within the responsibility of the legislature.
Carlson was just going for an easy political victory. Pandering to his base with the full knowledge that what he authored would not stand judicial review. He was an opportunistic coward.
Just because someone agrees with you does not make them brave Always.
Like or Dislike:
15 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
24
ND Constitution – ARTICLE VIII EDUCATION – Section 6 Para. 6b. (snipped) . . . The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational institutions. . . .
————————————–
“within constitutional and statutory limitations” – meaning the legislature has some control over SBHE by setting “statutory limitations” The SBHE cannot establish “statutory limitations” Anyone else have a different reading on this?
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
I am stunned by the “efficient and economic” administration part…
They have gone back and forth under the leadership of Captain Stubing..err.. Grant Shaft so often, they make Congress look like George Patton.
And I thought they were a bunch of mindless dolts wasting the taxpayers money. I get that impression because all I have seen is that they couldn’t make a reasoned decision if their life depended on it….
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
Alwayserectforthename is against the constitution. Again I am confused. Should I sign petition to change the constitution to keep the name, because if I do than I am against the name because it is the constitution. Help me Alwayserectforthename. By the way I think we should change the Red Pepper to Red Pecker. 73% want it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
The constitution is designed to be altered and modified to reflect the will of the people.
The SBHE, if they go to the Supreme Court, is seeking to change the constitution to reflect the will of the judges…not the will of the people.
That is the definition of judicial activism.
judicial activism: legal definition
noun
A usually pejorative phrase implying that a judge is applying his or her own political views, rather than basing decisions on law or prior precedent.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Always: STAY ON TOPIC. Are you talking about gay marriage or the SBHE? The constitution in this case does not require altering, it is plain: the nickname and logo are controlled by the SBHE. No judicial activism involved. That issue has already been settled. Your law was simply trying to circumvent the constitution. Carlson knew this, he was just hoping to get away with it. When the law is thrown out he will not act surprised.
Also, if you want to change the constitution, there is a way to do that. I am just not going to help.
If you are talking about gay marriage … that is the other board.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
Correct to an extent nodak: There was a court case either last year or the year before that dealt with who has authority over the name and logo. The court took about 30 seconds to decide and another week to write it up: The SBHE has authority over the name.
The statutory limitations simply means the SBHE is dependent upon the legislature for its funding.
You have to remember why control of the university system was taken away from the legislature in the first place: the legislature treated the university system as a political football, going so far as to try and regulate what courses were taught and who was eligible to teach them. Since this changed every time there was a change in power, the academic environment was suffering — badly.
This is more of the same. People on both sides have lost rationality. We are talking about an advertising slogan and cartoon like they were sacred. Tradition is nice, but lets not go crazy here. We don’t wear breached pants and funny hats just because our fore fathers did.
This issue has gone on for so long that people do not even remember why we are fighting over it. When you get down to it, Always et. al. just do not like it that an external power has the ability to tell them what to do. While I understand I have zero sympathy because no one is telling the people of ND what to do.
We want to be part of the NCAA. In order to do that we have to do certain things. We have made a choice.
My present employer forbids facial hair. I think that is the stupidest rule I have ever seen. Guess what, since I want the job, I now scrape my face on a routine basis, something I have not done in well over a decade.
I do not have to work where I do. I made a choice. There is nothing that says UND has to be part of the NCAA. It seems rather adolescent that people want to join the club, just not follow the rules.
I would love to see how well their kids get along at school if their parents believe that when you don’t like a rule you don’t change yourself, you demand the rule change.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
I am not conceding that the NCAA is a private club…and I am not the only one…the NCAA is constantly in court over this issue…
and you are wrong…the stupidest rule you have ever seen is the one that says Native American imagery cannot be displayed at NCAA events…
you just haven’t realized it….yet.
Like or Dislike:
10 
16
Always: you are correct, the NCAA is constantly in court. The trouble for your side is they keep winning.
Is the NCAA too big for its britches? Are monopolies a good thing for society? All of these are legitimate questions. Taking on Goliath over a nickname and logo is downright dumb. If you are going to go to war, make it over something worthwhile.
Remember Always, I have one degree from UND in the bag and God willing I will have the second one from there come May. This is my school we are talking about here, not some abstraction. I pay for it with my ND taxes and my tuition (which at the graduate level is about $2000 a semester).
The time and money wasted on this issue could be better spent elsewhere. If you do not like the NCAA rules, don’t renew your subscription. They will stop sending the magazine in the mail.
Think of it this way. Do you go to church and then when you discover you do not like certain parts of their theology demand they change? No, you either have a nice sit down with yourself and decide to see things their way or you move on.
This is exactly the same. If you do not like what the NCAA is offering, move on. What right do you have to expect the rest of the country to change to satisfy you? Is North Dakota really that important in the grand scheme of things that the rest of society has to change to meet our needs?
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
FN said “I would love to see how well their kids get along at school if their parents believe that when you don’t like a rule you don’t change yourself, you demand the rule change.”
I completely agree and thumbed up that post.. But you are expecting quite a lot when we have helicopter mothers and fathers who refuse to abide by the rules set forth when their own children joined sporting organizations or other events much less something of this magnitude.
The amount of self entitlement in today’s society is enough to make any rational person want to throw up in convulsive fits from the sheer nausea of the whole situation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Dang it. I just sent my donation to Notre Dame because I thought the Fighting Sioux were gone. I’ll wait it out and if the nickname stays I’ll make another donation to North Dakota.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
I wonder if the following has happened: An Assistant Professor at UND needs to get funding in order to do research so that she can have publications. She understands well that this is required in order for her to earn tenure. She prepares a grant proposal and submits it to a federal agency but knows that this agency generally funds about 10% of the proposals it receives. The agency receives 100 proposals in this round and the committee is brought to DC in order to determine which proposals are appropriate for funding. The UND Assistant Professor has submitted an excellent proposal and the committee decides that it is one of the top 15 proposals. Now comes the hard part. They have to decide which of these 15 excellent proposals should actually be among the 10 proposals which receive funding. Somebody on the committee says “this proposal is from the University of North Dakota. Aren’t they having some sort of fuss about a Native-American nickname”. The other committee members nod their heads and they are now down to just 14 proposals to examine for further consideration. When it comes time to submit her materials for tenure she can say to the tenure committee “They ranked this proposal high but for some reason which was not very clear, it was not funded”.
Has this actually happened? Hard to know for sure.
Do committees that evaluate grant proposals make decisions based upon reasons which seem to have little to do with the actual merits of the proposal? yes.
Does the Assistant Professor in the story get tenure? Probably not.
Is the logo fight hurting the academic mission at UND? probably yes
Do the Sioux logo supporters care? Many of them, sadly, do not.
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
That might be a little far fetched, but certainly possible. I studied history & I saw more than one project get torpedoed by committee members of a different political persuasion.
More realistic is the red hot recruit that UND & several other schools as well as the jr leagues are vying for. Since it is a buyer’s market this kid has his choice.
In the past UND would have been his 1st or 2nd choice. Now with the controversy he simply does not want to deal with the hassle. He wants a Frozen Four birth before going to the NHL & he doesn’t want to have to turn his jersey inside out to get there or talk with Brad Schlossman about something other than his game.
So, instead of UND he goes to Omaha, or Colorado College, or the Jrs. In his mind, UND was eliminated in the first round
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
I will assume that the 9 people (to this point in time) who “dislike” would be included among the Sioux logo supporters who do not care if their efforts harm UND’s academic mission.
and to Flying Nurse, I would say that my described scenario is not at all far-fetched. The scenario that you describe is also very possible (or even probable).
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/complaint-and-jury-trial-demand_cc-clerk-of-court.pdf
The latest actions by the petition bearers’ submissions to the Secretary of State only reinforces, validates, and strengthens the federal lawsuit filed last year by the UND American Indian students against the University of North Dakota and others regarding the discriminatory “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65000002/Motion-to-Dismiss
Last year, November, 2011, North Dakota Attorney General filed a MOTION TO DISMISS in federal court against the UND American Indian student lawsuit. Please read above link.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Correction: Motion to Dismiss was filed September 2, 2011 by North Dakota Attorney General.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The motion was filed, but what was the outcome? Was the lawsuit dismissed or is the decision still pending?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
I wonder if the folks opining about how “tired” they are of this whole thing realize how weak they sound? I expected more stamina from this community and its students, guess not. Oh and I find it curious how everyone is worried about how this fight will effect the sports programs. I thought it was all about the “children and their educations”. Guess not… what good would the sports program be if the NCAA got to tell us what we call our teams? Does the NCAA get to dictate any other items as it concerns ND scholastics? The best I can tell is that I shouldn’t support this fight because its gotten old and its time to move on. Funny, I don’t see it that way. If the fight was worth having two three or four years ago, its good enough to carry forward.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
The NCAA does dictate standards as to the academics required of student athletes to be eligible for competition.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The official Florida State Seminole site still sells hats & jerseys with the Seminole cartoon character.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Not the pre agreement cartoon. Their present mascot absolutely.
Just for clarity’s sake. I think the FSU logo and behavior (Chief White Frat Boy dressed in Brown Face and Kabuki makeup galloping around on a horse during football games) are more racist and derogatory than UND’s by half.
That said, FSU went through the motions and got permission of the tribe. They did their due diligence. We did not.
Before you start AGAIN about the disenfranchisement of the SR people. I would remind you we killed this horse. They voted: twice. Your side was voted down. The fact that not enough people on the reservation cared to make it the central issue is not my fault. The end result is they voted and your side lost. It is as simple as that.
Lets take this to its illogical extreme. Lets say there is a vote and your side looses. The repeal of the repeal is voted down. However, the majority of people on the ND side of the SR voted in favor of the resolution. Are you going to then say the majority of the people of ND were deluded, and it doesn’t matter anyway, because the majority of the SR folks on this side of the line voted in favor, so we can now go to the NCAA and they will let us have our cartoon?
An election is an election. 80% of Republicans HATE everything to do with the Big O. That is nice but it doesn’t matter. He is still President until he gets voted out or has to retire after two hitches.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
SirVesa:Hopefully there’ll be a decision on that motion to dismiss within a year. It’d be a shame if this issue got dragged out for an uncomfortably long time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
oops. I meant to respond to uvikings, sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Putting that 2010 Supreme Court case aside, does everyone still follow this universal agreement that the constitution grants the power to the SBOHE to choose UND’s athletic nickname?
I mean, if the legislature wanted to write a law to name UND’s hockey arena or a law to limit the dimensions of the grounds upon which UND’s Alumni Center sat, would they be unconstitutional too?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Jude,
Read what you just wrote: putting that SUPREME COURT DECISION ASIDE. You cannot put a Supreme Court decision aside. It is the final say. In order to change the decision you have to change the constitution.
Please do not let your emotions get in the way of common sense.
I placate Always Correct some some of the other dunderheads this way: For argument’s sake lets say the SL crowd is successful in their bid to write the cartoon and advertising slogan into the constitution. It is not very likely, but for argument’s sake lets just say it happened.
Now, 5 years down the road, a much more enlightened and thoughtful state assembly passed a law saying the nickname and logo must be retired. Who would be the first to jump on their soap boxes and expound the sanctity of the constitution.
This is not Fox News. You cannot like the constitution when it agrees with you and discard it when it becomes inconvenient. It is not that malleable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
This is an internet message board. It’s okay to ask abstract questions. But quite frankly, the Supreme Court’s discussion of the State Board’s control of the nickname was not the holding in Davidson v. State, it was merely dicta that the court is not necessarily inclined to follow.
The reason I proposed the question was this: if it is unconstitutional for the legislature to choose the hockey team’s nickname is it unconstitutional for the legislature to choose the name of the hockey team’s arena? Similarly, if the legislature cannot determine the name of UND’s athletic teams, would it be permissible for the legislature to go so far as to limit the amount of land space for university buildings? That is all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
You raise good points. My take is that if the legislature tried to mandate a building’s name on campus, they would have to go through the SBHE to do it. The SBHE is charged with overseeing & managing the state’s higher education assets.
The state legislature is not completely impotent; they control the purse strings.
Remember it was politically motivated micromanagement that got the authority taken away from them in the first place. This is a perfect example of why.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
I just don’t get why the SBOHE hasn’t had issue with this law:
15-11-38. Ralph Engelstad arena.
The hockey arena constructed on the campus of the university of North Dakota with funds
donated by Ralph and Betty Engelstad is officially named the Ralph Engelstad arena.
So it’s fine if the legislature names the school’s arena but it’s unconstitutional when they choose the name of the team that plays in it? More importantly, the North Dakota Century Code is filled with chapters of statutes, similar to the one at issue, which limit the SBOHE’s control and administration.
“Remember it was politically motivated micromanagement that got the authority taken away from them in the first place. This is a perfect example of why.” This was partly true in 1913. The SBOHE wasn’t created until 1939, however. In fact, the SBOHE’s predecessors, the board of regents and administration, were filled with executive branch cronies. The creation of SBOHE came with a caveat that the aforementioned predecessor’s did not face; the Senate’s necessary ratification of the SBOHE’s member appointments. So in reality, the SBOHE was created to increase legislative influence and management. Not the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The sky is falling!
Life under sanctions is not a death penalty. Had the nattering nabobs of negativity not stirred this into a frenzy, we’d have sanctions.
Ask Alcorn State about sanctions. They’re doing it and have been for years. Not.A.Big.Deal.
This has been totally blown out of proportion…
Like or Dislike:
11 
12
Who???
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
OK, so it comes down to this: 1) Fight the NCAA by keeping the nickname, losing conference affiliations, losing top flight prospects , and losing the ability to host playoffs. OR 2) Change the nickname and solidify conference affiliations, continue to gain top flight prospects and the ability to host playoffs. Because this is unsettled, Hakstol has had very few of the top flight prospects commit or even speak to UND for 2012-13 and 2013-14. He is in a tough position. I’ll keep my hockey season tickets for now, but have no interest in watching sub-division hockey later.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
I know football and women’s hockey have the potential to host post-season games, but what other sports have the potential to lose out on hosting post-season games?
Who told you that the nickname issue is the reason that very few top flight recruits commit or even speak to UND. As far as I know, Hakstol’s recruiting pool has remained strong. Heck, the ONLY university being considered by Seth Jones, the nation’s NUMBER ONE defensive recruit, is the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Jude,
I do not know where you are getting your information, but the Harold has run numerous stories and Schlossmann’s blog has discussed more than once the change in hockey recruiting. More are going to the Jrs and our posture as a dominant powerhouse team is not what it used to be.
College used to be the gateway to the pros. Now more and more are going the Canadian route. There are also several up and coming schools that are attracting lots of attention (thank you Dean Blase).
We are not destitute but we are not lighting cigars with $100 bills either.
If I am a top tier recruit, my goal is a nice contract with the NHL, not a diploma. Whatever insures I get noticed and the best contract is the way I go. Everything else being equal, if one school is knee deep in a distraction and another is not, which way am I going to go?
Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Yes, I am aware of the change in college hockey recruiting. But what does that have to do with UND’s nickname? What recruits have left or suggested that they wouldn’t come to UND because of the sioux controversy? Are you suggesting that UND’s nickname is the reason that other college hockey powerhouses like Michigan and Miami have had top recruits flee to the CHL?
Now, if I’m getting my info from the wrong sources, please point me in the direction where I can read this information, which identifies hockey recruits choosing the CHL over UND, let alone the NCAA, because of the sioux nickname. If so, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Otherwise, some other people need to admit they’re wrong.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
I agree- the problem is not the nickname but rather the problems and distractions that the nickname issue drags out there. THAT is the problem. 1 recruit does not make a recruiting class. I’m proud to wear my closet full of Sioux gear. But being delusional is not going to help the team formerly known as the Sioux. And right now, there is a lot of delusion out there with folks who think things are just fine-and still will be.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Flying Nurse, Obviously you nothing about the relationship between college , junior & pro hockey. You’re using disinfo to make your case against the name/logo. Most US college players played in the USHL on assignment from college teams that have already recruited them & send them to juniors for development. USHL participation doesn’t result in NCAA ineligibility because Commisioner Gino Gasparini had the genius to make it classed as Olympic development. Few US players have ever gone to the CHL because of loss of NCAA eligibility. The CHL has finally caved & decided to offer scholarship money to compete with the NCAA schools. The CHL has always been the main route for Canadian players to go pro & still is. Quit blowing smoke. Your know it all attitude is getting old.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Don’t follow as close as you spear chucker, I’ll take your word for it. Just know what I read in the GF Harold. They have a differing opinion of our future prospects than you. Would not be the first time they were wrong.
Time will tell. I stand by my stance that if this nonsense continues we will be a second rate team in a first rate house.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
The Herald knows what I know. You are misreading them because you don’t understand what junior hockey is about vis a vis college hockey.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Due to your uncanny ability to see into the future, I am surprised you attend sporting events at all.
Being as you already know the outcome.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I noticed this topic was the #4 item searched on Bing this morning.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Univ. of ND will use Fighting Sioux nickname
By DALE WETZEL, Associated Press – 20 hours ago
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — The University of North Dakota resumed using its contentious Fighting Sioux nickname Wednesday even though it triggered NCAA sanctions, leaving some fans weary of the seven-year fight over a moniker that critics believe is demeaning.
A law requiring the school to use its longtime nickname and logo, which shows the profile of an American Indian warrior, was repealed eight months after it took effect last year in a bid to help the university avoid NCAA sanctions. But ardent nickname supporters filed petitions with more than 17,000 signatures late Tuesday, demanding that the issue be put to a statewide vote.
As part of that process, the law — which the university, the state Board of Higher Education and local lawmakers oppose — temporarily goes back into effect. An NCAA spokesman said Wednesday that means the school won’t host championship events, and its athletes will be barred from wearing uniforms with the nickname or logo in post-season play.
“As soon as that petition was filed last night, the law reverts,” University President Robert Kelley told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “I don’t want to violate the law.”
Still, the decision frustrated fans and alumni who have watched the fight drag on since 2005, when the NCAA prodded 19 schools to get rid of American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots that it considered “hostile and abusive” to Indians. The University of North Dakota is the only school left where the issue is in serious dispute.
“It’s getting pretty tiresome, even for a pretty gung-ho nickname supporter,” said 36-year-old alumnus Shawn Carlson, who lives in Fargo, about 80 miles south of the school’s campus in Grand Forks, near the Minnesota border.
Former Fighting Sioux football player Ross Almlie, 39, agreed: “I’d have just as much pride for the university with or without the nickname and logo. Put me in the camp that believes we have bigger fish to fry.”
Since the repeal, the school has moved to retire the nickname and logo, dropping references to them from websites and changing Internet addresses that referred to the Fighting Sioux. The Indian profile was replaced by a new logo showing the interlocked letters N and D.
However, nickname supporters revived the issue anew by filing referendum petitions that they said had more than 17,000 signatures. They need a minimum of 13,452 signatures from eligible North Dakota voters to qualify for the June ballot.
Secretary of State Al Jaeger has about a month to scrutinize the petitions and decide whether they meet legal standards. He then will decide whether the referendum should go on the June ballot.
Kelley said the university’s men’s and women’s hockey teams and the women’s basketball team have a chance for post-season play in the coming months, and he wasn’t yet sure how the teams would be affected.
“But clearly, by being mandated by state law to be Fighting Sioux, we are right back to where we were before the repeal,” the president said.
The university has been accepted into the Big Sky Conference as part of its move to NCAA Division I athletics.
Doug Fullerton, the conference’s commissioner, said the school could become a weaker conference member if uses its Fighting Sioux nickname and logo because it would be barred from hosting playoff games. The sanctions also could result in recruiting problems.
“We’re not making a value judgment about the nickname,” Fullerton said. “We think we’re one of the strongest conferences in the (Football Championship Subdivision), and we expect our members to play right at the top. If they can’t play post-season home games, that doesn’t help.”
The state Board of Higher Education will likely meet with North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem on Monday to discuss whether to go to court to block reinstatement of the law, board President Grant Shaft said Wednesday.
When the fight began seven years ago, the NCAA told the University of North Dakota and the other schools with American Indian nicknames or logos that to avoid sanctions, they needed to change the names or obtain permission from local tribes. Most changed their nicknames, though some — including the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas — got tribal permission to keep them.
North Dakota challenged the NCAA edict in court. In a settlement, the school agreed to begin retiring its nickname if it could not obtain consent to continue its use from North Dakota’s Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes by Nov. 30, 2010.
Spirit Lake tribal members endorsed the name. But the Standing Rock Sioux’s tribal council, which opposed the nickname, has declined to support it or to allow its tribal members to vote.
Current supporters of the nickname and petition drive include members of both the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock Sioux tribes.
The law forcing the school to use the name and logo was approved in March, pushed by some prominent university alumni and Republican House Majority Leader Al Carlson. Carlson said he resented the NCAA’s bullying and what he regarded as the Board of Higher Education’s clumsy handling of the matter.
Carlson hoped the law would make the NCAA reconsider its opposition to the nickname and logo, but NCAA officials remained adamant during a summer meeting with Carlson, Gov. Jack Dalrymple and other officials.
The law was repealed during a special legislative session last November, with many former supporters switching sides and saying it had not accomplished its purpose of influencing the NCAA.
Reed Soderstrom, chairman of the referendum campaign, hailed the university’s decision Wednesday and discouraged members of the higher education board from going back to court.
“They would seem to be following a method of trying to disenfranchise the voters, and I don’t think they have the power to do that,” he said.
Associated Press writer Dave Kolpack contributed to this report from Fargo, N.D.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
uvikingslost said: On February 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WAYNE STENEHJEM
ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE NCAA
October 26, 2007
On August 5, 2005 the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) announced that it had adopted a policy that prohibited the display of Native American names or imagery deemed hostile or abusive on team uniforms and associated paraphernalia at NCAA Championship events and additionally prohibited schools that continue to use Native American names and imagery from hosting or bidding to host
Championship events. The Policy further announced a set of “best practices” for member institutions to consider adopting which would encourage member institutions to
refrain from scheduling regular season competition with schools that continue to use Native American names and imagery. The University of North Dakota (“UND”) was
identified and placed on the list of schools subject to these restrictions.
The NCAA subsequently announced the procedures that an identified school had for challenging its inclusion on the list of offending schools. The NCAA also announced that as part of that review, one primary factor that would be considered would be whether a sovereign tribe had provided formal approval for the use of the name and associated imagery. Through the appeals process provided by the NCAA, only those schools with namesake tribal approval were granted exemptions from the Policy.
UND appealed its inclusion on the list of offending school through each step of the internal process afforded by the NCAA. On April 27, 2006, the NCAA issued a final decision rejecting UND’s appeal, determining that UND would remain on the list of offending schools deemed to be using hostile or abusive names and imagery.
At the conclusion of the appeals process, it was determined that the only remaining recourse available to UND was through the initiation of litigation. The internal appeals process was complete and UND did not have any further ability to challenge the NCAA’s determination and its inclusion of UND on the list of schools deemed to be
using hostile or abusive names and imagery. The North Dakota State Board of Higher Education subsequently authorized, and on October 6, 2006, UND initiated a lawsuit
against the NCAA for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of North Dakota antitrust law. On November 11,
2006, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the application of the Policy to UND until the issues were resolved at trial.
After extensive negotiation, the State Board of Higher Education on October 26, 2007, formally agreed to settle the lawsuit against the NCAA. Under the settlement terms, UND will be provided a three-year period from November 30, 2007 in which to engage in a dialogue with North Dakota Sioux Tribes for purposes of securing namesake approval for the continued use of the “Sioux” name and logo. If namesake
approval is provided by both Spirit Lake and Standing Rock during this time period, the NCAA will agree to exempt UND from application of the Championship restrictions.
At the end of the three-year period, should UND not have namesake approval from both Spirit Lake and Standing Rock, UND agrees to transition to a new name and logo. The NCAA agrees to provide UND additional time until August 15, 2011 to
accomplish the transition. In addition, certain imagery is allowed to transition at later dates, and some imagery would be allowed to remain indefinitely without implicating championship restrictions.
The NCAA also expressly agreed to make a public statement on the campus environment at UND. The NCAA statement is:
The NCAA recognizes the University of North Dakota’s many
programs and outreach services to the Native American
community and surrounding areas. The University of North
Dakota is a national leader in offering educational programs
to Native Americans. The University has indicated that it intends to use the current name and logo with the utmost respect and dignity, and only for so long as it may do so with the support of the Native American community. The NCAA does not dispute UND’s sincerity in this regard.
The NCAA believes, as a general proposition, that the use of
Native American names and imagery can create a hostile or
abusive environment in collegiate athletics. However, the
NCAA did not make any other findings about the environment on UND’s campus. The NCAA also acknowledges that reasonable people can disagree about the propriety of Native American imagery in athletics. The NCAA believes that the time has come to retire Native American imagery in college sports. This public acknowledgement was an important component of the settlement.
The settlement was agreed to by the Board by unanimous vote and approved by the Attorney General. As part of the settlement, it is stipulated that the lawsuit against the NCAA will be dismissed with prejudice.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Always: Did you notice the story about the Pine Ridge Sioux suing everyone and their mother because of the alcoholism rate on the rez and its consequences?
I distinctly remember a while back you lecturing me (After you admitted that you have never spent a night; or had any Native American over to your house in the last year; but insisting some of your best friends were Native American) on how racist I was for commenting that there is really nothing in the modern American Indian reservation existence worth honoring.
I view this story much like your love affair with those Native Americans (good Indians) who agree with your nickname stance while you ignore and downplay those Native Americans (bad Indians) who disagree with you.
The story goes into detail describing everything I did. I guess the Sioux tribe itself is racist because they are trying to sue anyone in sight for all of the problems I was outlining.
Nothing worse than a group that refuses to cooperate with your fantasy. Right Always?
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Herald says:
“The tribe views the lawsuit as a last resort after numerous failed attempts to curb the abuse through protests and public pressure on lawmakers, White said. He said the tribal council voted unanimously about four months ago to hire his law firm.”
I read this and see the tribe trying to address the problems on the reservation. The tribe says that they have made every effort to gain cooperation from law enforcement to help them. Asking only that they help by enforcing the law.
But, as the Government has done throughout history, they have refused to allocate any rescources to assist the tribe.
This situation is not unlike any two sovereign countries having a dispute over their responsibilities.
Mexico blames the United States for allowing weapons to be smuggled into Mexico.
Is it the problem of the United States or is it the problem of Mexico?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
You are joking, right? The tribe has an 80%-90% alcoholism rate so the problem is not the person who chooses to drink, but the closest store to the reservation who sells it.
For argument’s sake lets say they close that liquor store.. Now the tribe has to drive or walk another 5 miles to the next store. Are we going to close them too?
The problem is not the store, it is the drunk. Whenever there is a demand, a supply will rise up to meet it. Economics 101. That is why the drug war is a joke & always has been. If you are serious about curbing drug use, you do not lock up the dealers, you lock up the users. No demand = no supply.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Using your logic it is right that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world based largely on drug usage getting people locked up. Try thinking about Wall St. being addicted to about $ 1 bill./yr. in laundered drug money. Try thinking about a capitalist system addicted to exploitation by the 5% controlling 60% of our country’s wealth. You sound as though you are a disciple of Ayn Rand as most on Wall St. are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Spearman:
I never said I wanted that to happen. I am for the legalization of marijuana, remember. I was just stating an economic fact. If you want to solve a social problem you do not attack supply, you remove the demand.
The war on drugs, regardless of its incarnation (prohibition, Nixon, Carter, Regan, etc.) has always failed because it does not address the simple fact that as long as people are willing to pay, someone will be willing to supply.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
So we only lock up meth, coke & heroin users & legalize grass, right? A large % of inmates are there for other drugs than grass. How about locking up the producers incl. the financiers of the deals that live on Wall St. It is the addictive qualities of the drugs that create the producers motivation to finance grow & sell. Alchohol prohibition worked to some extent in the 20s. It just didn’t work as well as it could have in a free market economy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quick Vote poll on that liberal POS website CNN.com today addressing the use of Native American mascots by college sports teams shows that 84% of over 112,600 respondents are in FAVOR of using them. Enough said. Strong work by those who recognize heritage not hate.
Like or Dislike:
14 
7
Zeke. In 1948 Harry S. Truman desegregated the armed forces AGAINST the wishes of every southern member of congress, his military advisors (the Joint Chiefs or whatever they were called back then were against it) & the vast majority of the American people. Was he wrong to do so? Are public opinion polls more important than leadership?
All of the opponents to desegregation talked about heritage, tradition, & the fact that we had just won a war without desegregation, so why change.
You see, heritage can equal hate. It just depends which side of the equal sign you are on.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
I flat out feel sorry for people who let groups, committees, associations, politicians and any other mob decide what is best for them.. That is all.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
I would like to encourage everyone to join my page on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/RetireFightingSiouxName
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
8 out of 10 stories on these boards are for this name game nonsense, and several of them are pretty close in content. Apparently someone at the Herald is too lazy to look for articles and just slaps up any article pertaining to the Sioux name because of course…..We just don’t care about anything else…..I’m surprised that so many of the same posters want to continue with the same arguments they’ve been using for all these years on this issue…..It’s been said over and over again……We can cut down to say a limit of three related articles and you’d still get every argument ever posted….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0