Establishing a front: UND alumni leader issues sharp warning if Sioux nickname is sustained
February 10, 2012 at 7:44 am in Grand Forks Herald
“The retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname must continue,” UND Alumni Association head Tim O’Keefe writes, “as the issues and dangers “have extended themselves way beyond the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on teams that used American Indian imagery.” Continue Reading
Nickname supporters: You are letting your emotions (black) cloud your judgments.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
137 
80
Love it. Well said. Two thumbs up
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
35
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
33
Agreed Skate. How many board saying the same thing are really needed? Kind of much even for a junkie like me.
I hate to say it but I think I have finally reached the “I’m over it” point. That is until Always or Don says something particularly stupid and we start all over again.
Like or Dislike:
16 
9
8 out of 10 stories on these boards are for this 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 pertaing to the Sioux name because of course…..We just don’t care about anything else…..You know my position FN….I’ve been over this for a long long time now…..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:
1 
1
Tim-Keep up the good work! Message is clear, concise and attacks to the heart of the issue. The association is truly fortunate to have you as its leader!
UND could and probably would suffer irrepairable damage if this petition were ever to be voted in the positive.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
136 
85
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
72 
88
Thank you Tim: for your keeping quiet counsel up to now and for speaking with a clear and truthful message at this time. I hope that the citizens of the state listen to your wisdom.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
108 
83
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
61 
104
For all the people complaining about how long this has dragged out, remember that if both tribes had been allowed to vote (Democracy Anyone?) this issue would have been settled a LONG TIME AGO – pursuant to the terms of the NCAA settlement.
One tribe voted for it. One tribe has been denied the opportunity to vote. That’s not fair or right no matter how you look at it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
99 
54
I thought in June of 2010 the Standing Rock council voted 10-4 to retire the name, therefore no vote was necessary.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
74 
54
Your “no vote was necessary” is another person’s “no vote was permitted.”
The Standing Rock Sioux’s tribal council, which opposed the nickname, has declined to allow its tribal members to vote. You can look at it from any angle of this issue, but the bottom line is that Standing Rock members haven’t been afforded a popular vote or referendum. Many people think that’s good enough, but when you have that tribe’s members involved in the state-wide referendum, that’s a pretty good gauge that the popular sentiment of the tribe is not settled. What possible argument can there be against letting the Native American community vote?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
59 
34
You do realize that the SR Tribal constitution does not allow for a referendum or a democratic vote because it is not a democracy. It is a form of government ruled by a Council. Plus, there was another informal vote among the SR tribe, this time voting against the name. There were as many or more signatures on that vote as their was on the previous “Pro-Name” petition. It all came down to the SR Council did not approve, nor would it even open it up for further discussion. Simply “NO”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
21
you do realize that in doing so the council broke their own constitution, laws and customs. The tribe had already given permission to UND in a sacred ritual in 1969. The only way they could recind the permission given was with the approval of a majority of the tribe members that permission was never asked for or obtained.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
19
Must be an interesting case study in the Reservation Law course at the UND Law School, the right of the TC to deny a tribal wide vote. Must be legit as no one has legally challenged it! Give this up and get on with what it is and not what I would like it to be!
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
17
You know.. Ron His Horse is Thunder was voted out of office because the tribe wasn’t allowed to have a popular vote. They voted in Charles Murphy in Oct. 2009. IMO they were afforded more than enough opportunity to engage themselves in the political process. The deadline of the UND Settlement was November 2010.
Hot debate. What do you think?
38 
26
And Archie Fool Bear (nickname supporter and petition leader) LOST just last year in the Standing Rock Tribal Council Election.
The people of Standing Rock have spoken loud and clear!
Foolish nickname supporters continue to believe the fairy tale that a state vote will solve the NCAA tribal permission issue when clearly it will not, SR people mostly live in SOUTH Dakota not NORTH Dakota. Learn geography people. Blame the permission issue on your own AG who negotiated the settlement, not the SR people.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
19
GF: we have all said the same thing many times. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
If they didn’t have a popular vote, just how did they vote these people in?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
You do realize that whining about SR not allowing a plebiscite is entirely irrelevant? There has been no approval and UND and the BofE is bound by the terms of the settlement. You can go further and whine about the settlement but that, too, is irrelevant. It is what it is. The only issue is whether or not the State of ND is going to tell the NCAA, the Big Sky and all of the individual schools that have policies in place against scheduling teams with nicknames that run afoul of NCAA policy to go to you-know-where and risk the viability of athletic programs at UND. For those nickname supporters that think that there will be no adverse impact on athletics at UND–I’d like to see your evidence. Mr. Black Cloud can believe with all his heart that there will be no impact but I don’t think that counts as evidence. All the evidence is that UND will be playing an NAIA shedule (at best) if we keep the name. I doubt even Ralph Englestad would want to see that happen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
8
Thanks, Tim. I just hope these pleas are not too late. rich guy: you must be just a headline reader. No intelligent person can call him a alarmist;) priceless.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73 
50
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” – Abraham Lincoln.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
15
Sometimes You got to take one for the team, for others to benefit.
You can’t win all the time.
Now more Alumni needs to speak-out in this same tone!!!
It’s time for the UND to move forward with a new and BETTER CHAPTER!!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
92 
52
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
46 
88
Are you an alum or a pretender?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
ac: it doesn’t matter what they are labeling us. This is about UND functioning after the nickname is restored. Move on, man. Some are willing to pay the price. You don’t event think there will be any damage. Everyone who disagrees with you is a liar or worse. You have zero credibility. Actually, if the Herald monitored the “dislikes”, you’d be cut off by now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
7
Well everyone after Big Sky refuses to let the UND stay in their Conference, the only teams UND could probably find to play against, will be High School teams!!! Cause without being in a Conference that would mean no teams for them to play. So next year look forward to Red River and Central and Fargo North and Fargo south and Bismarck all to be playing against the Fighting Sioux…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
66 
48
this crap shouldn’t have even happened, it was all a knee-jerk reaction by the NCAA just to avoid a lawsuit by a few greedy people. just like the Florida Seminoles, UND had the Souix name gifted for use also. so there really should not be any reason to change the name.
Hot debate. What do you think?
61 
62
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
47 
69
ndberi, you really think they care about your measly donation? Seriously the Alumni the TRUE ones who are there to support the SCHOOL will still donate. And sum of the Alumni had NOTHING to do with Athletics so they really could careless what the nickname and logo are. Another thing if they CARE about the school they will support such a change to take the school to a new level of excellence. And finally there will be new people who will line-up and start donating just to take part in such a historic event of the name change. That way they can say I help build that school and the kick butt and are 100 times better now.
Hot debate. What do you think?
39 
31
I may be too late as Tim suggests. The problem is the current administration never made a concerted effort to retain the name, so we’ll never know if the NCAA would have listened to reason.
Hot debate. What do you think?
47 
43
Randy, in case you were asleep fo r the past year, the Governor of the state & the leader of the state senate — may he be recalled — went to the NCAA. I don’t know how you can characterize that as less than a concerted effort.
As for the school, every election since 1997 has been to retire the name. Maybe the school didn’t try as hard as you would have liked because they don’t want the name? I know I don’t.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
23
Does anyone know when this state wide referndum is to take place?
Like or Dislike:
11 
17
News reports stated it would be on the June Ballot.. You know that time of year when pretty much nobody goes to the polls.
Like or Dislike:
18 
7
I have been thinking about that very same thing Mav. Traditionally less than 25% of votors go to the poles for a primary election. Will this issue increase turn out? Which side will mobilize their forces more? The students are out of town so those solid “anti” votes will not be there.
If ND mattered to anyone besides ND, this would be a good subject for the talking heads.
One question I have is: If the law is declared unconstitutional (which it is – even the pro nickname side says it is), will the repeal of the repeal stay on the ballot?
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
41 
51
None. The Alumni Association paid for them because it is the official position of the Alumni Association. He is not discussing his personal feelings, he is discussing the official position of the organization.
This is not surprising. Every vote by students, staff, and alumni have been for the retirement of the name as long as I have been there (2002). It is not like any of the above groups are late to the game.
The only people who have been more consistent than the forementioned groups in their opposition to the cartoon and advertising slogan are the SR Tribal Council. They have been against it for 25 years.
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
29
Quote, “I am completely opposed to the petition drives”
sounds personal to me flyingnurse.
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
22
He is speaking as the point man for the association. He did not draft this response himself. It was vetted by the powers thar be. I suppose you can overthrow the governing board if you want, but I will oppose you. The only thing I fault them for is not being more engaged earlier.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
24
Flyingnurse,
Quit twisting your ill prepared response into something other than the truth. I quoted Mr O’Keffe directly from his letter and the words, “I am” mean his direct view. O’Keffe didn’t say our or the univeristy he said, “I AM.”. When the petiton was filed the Univeristy became the Fighting Sioux again and Mr. O’Keffe is NOT the voice of the University and has no authority to speak as a voice of the univeristy. In fact the university spoke and became the Fighting Sioux when the petition was filled.
Do you seriously want to go down the road of Bill Clinton and define the word “IS”?
This isn’t about the name it is about the fact that Mr. O’Keffe directly used his office to support a personal politcal view.
Accept the FACT you didn’t read the letter and posted a response in haste because that is what YOU do on this site. Quit playing devil’s advocate for once and admitt the truth.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
22
Settle down None. No one said he is the voice of the university. He is the voice of the alumni association. Since he is paid by that same association, if he spoke out of turn (he didn’t, but for the sake of argument lets say he did) they will remove him.
His views are the majority of alumni. Like the present students, they just want this issue to go away.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
“UND’s future, “athletically, academically, in stature and in reputation,” is at stake if Fighting Sioux nickname supporters prevail and force the university to keep the name and corresponding logo”
Well, then, by all means shut the place down and send students, faculty, admionistrators, and everyone else to another institution. This is the viewpoint that sees no problem with coaches making millions of dollars and sports teams as the only reason to have a university.
Hot debate. What do you think?
36 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
43
I do not know Mr. O’Keefe nor anything about his education. I just get tired of the vapid rgetoric which implies that UND’s reputation rests on sports and that the elimination of the nickname and athletics would be the downfall of the institution. It’s the mindset that universities exist for the athletic departments that got you all the debacles: Penn St, USC, Ohio St, SMU. As I said, if Mr. O’Keefe believes in sports as sancrosanct, he should refuse all alumni donations for academics.
Like or Dislike:
18 
7
Gene: You are morally correct, but as we discussed before, if UND was just about educating ND future, we would not even have a sports program beyone intramurals.
I share your frustration but we both know that our arguments are dead in the water before we even begin. It is what it is.
UND is a fantastic university that also happens to have a top rated pipeline to the NHL on campus (notice Ralph built a Taj Mahal to sport, not academics). No matter how you dress it up, the University will be dependent upon the money sports bring in.
We both have said numerous times before: this is not about honoring a people or preserving a tradition, those are just the sales gimmicks nickname supporters used to rile their base; this is about athletic dollars.
When is the last time the governor went to Washington to lobby for more money for education? Does Al Carlson even know there is an active university in GF or does he think that the Ralph is the only building on campus?
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Have to disagree with you on 2 points: Sports bring no money into UND, they operate in the red. Even the NCAA admits a handful of schools barely break even. People look at the turnout at the REA for hockey and think that’s the same wherever they play. They spend a bundle to go up to AA and get about 4000 a game. They played at the Darmouth Tourney a few years ago in front of 200. And lets not even mention women’s hockey, where UND gives tickets away. As for Ralph, he built the place to aggrandize himself. A “gift” owned by a separate corporation is no gift. But I will admit, he viewed hockey as the only reason for UND’s existence.
Like or Dislike:
9 
14
flyingnurse, question.
Why doesn’t O’Keefe and the Alumni just issue a statement saying that the use of the Sioux name is HOSTILE AND ABUSIVE?
Everyone is perfectly clear on your position, you believe that the use of the name is Hostile and Abusive to Native Americans.
Everyone can respect that position.
You have the courage to let your position be known, why not expect the same from O’Keefe, Kelley, Grant and the NDBHE?
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
29
I don’t think they care either way Always. They see the continuation of this fight as a threat that must be removed.
You are correct, I object to the name on moral grounds. They are charged with protecting the school & it’s portfolio.
If there was no danger to the school they would not be involved. They would let you & me fight it out while continuing to collect our tithes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
22
“Traditional and potential competitors “have clearly made known their absolute unwillingness to compete with UND as the Fighting Sioux,” I don’t think I’d worry about that too much — as long as competitors can make money playing UND, they will. UM still plays Illinois. Money drives everything in major college sports.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
21
Burntsider – I would be curious to see a list of universities who are anxious to “make money playing UND”. Anybody from the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC-12? I don’t think so.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
24
Not much demand for on campus fraternity, sorority and dorm club games should it win!
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Do you really think that I care about the buy-a-friends?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Pretty sure that not to long ago it was voted the GREATEST logo in sports history. Just saying.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
19
The disaster O’Keefe fears is NOT caused by nickname supporters or the band members who want to see the name retained.
UND officials and the SBOHE blew this one all on their own, when they suddenly decided to agree it was a racism issue–days after learning it would be the big ATHLETICS issue that O’keefe talks about here.
Lately, take careful note of how UND officials tone and words have changed.
Specifically–they now freely admit that it is an ATHLETICS issue for them.
It is athletic problems they fear, and athletic problems they point to when they say people “need to move on”.
This has been my frustration with my alma matter all along.
UND was appropriately working towards resolution of the issue until the very day that the Summit league told them they may not be allowed in until the nickname was dropped.
Almost overnight, UND changed their public stance on the issue–from one of working towards a reliable answer from band members from both bands on the issue and urging patience–to saying it’s a racism issue that has gone on long enough, and we need to move on NOW.
They and the state board did not push for and allow time for the many serious questions on the issue to be worked out. They no longer cared about standing rocks seeming large disparity between band member opinion and band council actions.
The answer to that is clear to everyone now–then and there, it became an ATHLETICS issue.
UND and the SBOHE has acted with dishonesty from that point on.
I know many nickname supporters like myself who understand the gravity of the situation but understand that hard feelings will continue amongst supporters–and many band members–towards the university ,if some restoration of honest dialogue and attempts to resolve do not occur.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
Tim it is a racism issue. There is no sense trying to hide that fact. Always has been trying for six months and failed.
Some Native Americans consider the cartoon and nickname demeaning. In fact every major national Native American organization and lobby group is on record against the name.
One group of Siox do not consider it racist. They are backed by a multitude of old white guys who cannot stand the idea of an outside force telling them what they can and cannot call their sports teams.
It is a racial issue. You do see anyone arguing over whether or not the Bison is deameaning to buffalo do you?
Trying to sugar coat the issue makes you just as PC as those who your side delights in villifying. This is about what perceive as a racist cartoon. Not everyone agrees. But until we quit trying to protect everyone’s feelings it will never be solved.
My father — a proud member of the Greatest Generation and veteran of 3 wars — was one of the most racist people I have ever met. I loved him, but I would not be seen in public with him unless he promised to behave. To him the “N” word was simply the way his generation talked. He even pointed out that it could not be a racist or derogatory term because it was in the dictionary.
He died holding firm to his belief. I am sure Always will too.
This is a racial issue. Some say it is racist, some say it is not. You have to decide which side you fall on, but to pretend it is anything but is foolish.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/09/09/native-american-tribe-defends-fighting-sioux-logo-53229
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Since there is no such thing as race one can only be racist if one believes there is validity to the obsolete concept of race. Prejudice is the only syndrome at work here. Since even the anti logo/name proponents believe the concept of race is real then they are the actual racists.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
“They no longer cared about standing rocks seeming large disparity between band member opinion and band council actions.”
We discussed this very issue at length previously. Many on your side think the SR council does not represent the will of the people of the SR tibe. Yet, their have been two council elections. Including one highly publisized one where your guy was defeated.
Just because you do not like the outcome of an election does not invalidate that election. SR internal politics are only our concern if we are members of the tribe.
Always thinks we should take them over and declare their council null and void because they obviously do not know what is good for them. Are you telling me you agree?
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
Come on FN if you spend time on the res you know issues is not what decides elections… it is what family/connection you have not what you stand for.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
So sick of hearing people crying about SR’s inability to vote, they NEVER asked the AG Stenhjmen to be part of the settlement, who is the AG to force a sovereign nation to do anything. That’s like saying Canada has to vote on some stupid issue in GF, I’m sure the Canadian government would laugh in your face.
Blame the AG and leave SR out of it, you never cared what SR thought or did about anything else before, unless you could some how benefit from it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
I agree completely Glen, but that does not change the fact it is their rez. They get to run it the way they see fit (provided they don’t break any federal laws in the process).
We may not like the way they do things, but that is tough. It is their rez. They are supposed to be “sovereign.” I put the word in quotes because they are anything but a sovereign nation, but they are supposed to be.
We would not allow any of them to dictate the terms of our elections, it is rather bold of us to assume to dictate the terms of theirs.
It is their bed. They made it. They can sleep in it.
How the rez conducts business would never have even come to light if not for this issue completely external to them. If the only time we care about what happens to them is when it affects us, we do not care at all.
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
Please, just let this stupid issue die.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Flying Nurse you miss the point entirely. You think it’s a racism issue–I agree at it’s core, that’s what it should be.
But what caused UND to change how it approached the issue and what they are talking about as far as impacts and the need to put this behind us now–is all about ATHLETICS.
What motivated the state board of higher education to move to end the nickname–ATHLETIC concerns.
I believe North Dakotans to by and large by good, reasonable people.
The issue of whether the nickname use can be respectful to the majority of band members was never settled. The issue of whether a minority opinion should be allowed to rule on a major decision–was never settled.
I believe the way the process was handled and those lingering, completely unresolved questions–together with the NCAA’s inarguable hypocrisy–is what is causing the issue to not go away.
Few nickname supporters come with racist intent. They just don’t feel that a case has been convincingly made that the nickname can’t be used honorably, or that more than a minority of band members have issues with retaining the nickname.
I suppose you could say it matters not whether a minority or majority believe use of the nickname is racist–that a minority at a minimum clearly do.
I would agree with that, but then that begs the question of the size of the minority, and whether any minority opinion should influence such an important issue? How do things work if someone can scream foul at anytime and get the outcome they want, even if a huge majority disagrees with them?
These are questions that good, non-racist people are grappling with, while UND and the SBOHE has moved on–for ATHLETICS reasons!
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
No argument from me on the athletics = money issue. i agree completely. I was just responding to the way many people on the board are uncomfortable talking about the R word.
Always and I have been back and forth so often about it we are old friends and I don’t mind stating flat out that I find much of the pro nickname side’s rationale if not racist, highly paternalistic and insulting.
I would agree with you that UND did not show leadership when it was about racism. That subject was one of those “we will deal with it in time” issues which is unfortunate.
When it became about money, then they got serious. UND should have told Ralph no thank you. Kupchella wasn’t going on his own, he was responding to another in a long series of focus groups and student votes saying it was time for the name to go. SR has a solid 25 year public record of opposing the name.
Kupchella and the SBHE could not tell Ralph thanks but no thanks, because they would have lost their job; not because the name honors anyone and is an integral part of ND history, but because $110 million is a lot of money.
You see Tim, the actions in this controversy have always been about money: Ralphs $110 million then, and the NCAA millions annually now.
The actions have been prompted by money, but the underlying ideology has a racial undertone that cannot be denied.
In this case the two are interwoven to the point they are almost indistinguishable. That is sad.
You make excellent points in a reasoned manner. I am glad you have joined the discussion.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
“You see Tim, the actions in this controversy have always been about money: Ralphs $110 million then, and the NCAA millions annually now.”
Especially accounts receivable. Which just underscores what a bunch of hypocrites the SBHE has been.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
II am not sure you have the timeline right FlyingNurse…Ralph donated his money for “the Ralph” long before the NCAA issued any ultimatum on the nickname.
If you are saying that UND knew of a developing controversy then–as did Ralph–I agree.
But I believe in those days UND’s public message and actual intent were the same. They felt that with time and patience there was a reasonable chance of working something out so the nickname could be retained.
Hard to blame them really, if you followed what had gone on with the Seminoles and other tribes around the country where the use of symbols were much more offensive than UND’s–in the words of many indians from around the country.
In many cases the nicknames were retained. Florida State sued the NCAA successfully on the matter, and to this date still retains it’s nickname. And the use of chants, costumes, weapons, etc. that are deemed offensive by a majority of indians.
The reality is that in all of the nickname controversies around the country, the majority of indians do not have a problem with the nickname–it’s the pageantry, chants, costumes that they object to.
Those who do object are usually considered to be activists– and are in the minority when polling or voting is allowed to occur.
This appears to the be case with standing rock as well.
Again the issue in UND’s case is whether a minority controls a decision in opposition to the majority. Some people are still arguing over who’s in the minority.
These things needed a thorough discussion that never occurred.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Ralph didn’t donate squat. He set up a private corporation which owns and runs the place. UND pays to use it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
The only reason Ralph set up corps. is because the state couldn’t afford future upkeep on the bld. By setting up multiple non profits Ralph was able to ensure the future viability of a bld. designed to last 100 yrs. He funded these as foundations to provide resources for future needs. Originally he meant to only put $50 mill into the bld. & $50 into academics. When Kupchella minimized the importance of the arena portion of the donation Ralph reacted by putting all $100 mill. into the arena. I know this 1st hand.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
The state couldn’t afford the grandiose Taj Mahal he built to enshrine his name forever, no. The 50 million originally planned was doable. His reneging on the original promise reflects more his disdain for academics than for Kupchella. You continue to see Ralph characterized by his altruism, I for his enormous hubris.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
You are not alone Gene, but there are two sides to that argument.
I find him a bully. That does not make him unique by any means. If I was giving $110 million I would have conditions too.
Overt racism aside, I would like him better if he had given $1 million to the library as well. He could have put little cartoon heads on the ends of the shelves to forever enshrine his beliefs.
The timeline and story of that time is a sad one. Ralph is building away, Kupchella responds to a vote by the students, Ralph has a fit, the SBHE acts like a victim of domestic violence and cowers in the corner.
It is amazing how much ND talks about things one way (rugged individualism, we don’t let people tell us what to do), until someone threatens to cut off the cash, then they whimper just like every other recipient fearful of losing their welfare benefits.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
The attitude that allowed Ralph to thrive and prosper in Las Vegas is precisely that which North Dakotans find distasteful. Yet many were willing to overlook that since, as you say, he arrived with boatload of cash. While NoDakers don’t care for the non-native born crossing the border, money is another matter.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I agree with most of what you say Tim, the difference is, and every time I remind people of this they get their under clothes bunched up in inconvenient places, is FSU and Illinois reached agreements with their respective tribes and we did not.
Now that the pro nickname side failed, everyone is crying foul: going on and on about how the people of SR are disenfranchised and if given the chance to vote everyone would see how much support their is; completely ignoring the fact that they have voted – twice.
We made an agreement and failed to live up to it. All the political machinations in the world will not alter that fact. We lost. Some people are just very poor losers.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
“FSU and Illinois reached agreements with their respective tribes and we did not.”
Exactly! And let’s examine that closely.
Look at the chants, the costumes, the many offensive actions that go along with the use of nicknames in Ilinois and Florida State–and compare them to UND. Night and day difference! It’s not the nickname in Illinois and Florida State that indians have such a problem with–it’s the actions, words, and displays that go along with it.
Now–both Illinois and Florida State get to continue use of the nickname according to the NCAA. UND does not. So tell me again–how is it a racism issue?
As far as Standing Rock goes–your assertion that their band members voted twice is overreaching more than a bit in an effort to bolster your favored outcome. There is a clear difference between support for a person in an election and support for every stance they take. Also–try to answer this–if it’s so clear to those who think that standing rock members don’t want the nickname, why not just settle the issue with a vote? Why drag things out? Why prolong what might be a long painful process which might lead to long-held very hard feelings? A vote doesn’t necessarily settle the matter but it does frame where the band members fall on the issue once and for all. In my opinion, anything approaching 50% provides effective ammo for ending use of the nickname AND–(I feel this is something being ignored but is very important) would get most nickname supporters to accept defeat and move one without lingering, hard feelings.
And regarding the agreement that we failed to live up to (your words): I think I can speak for the vast majority of nickname supporters–”WE” did not make that agreement! UND– focused purely on athletics $$ concerns–did. “WE” nickname supporters are still trying to work out the unresolved racism issue.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Both sides have been so anxious to occupy the moral highground in the debate, spouting “victimization,” “hostile and abusive,” “honor,” it’s almost as if they haven’t seen what this is all about. FN hit it on the nose, and you too in your last graph: money. FSU and Illinois have it, and the NCAA knows it. UND is a little fourth-tier university on the prarie. People up here think hockey championships are a big deal. 2/3 of the country couldn’t care less. IL gave up its dancing mascot in the quid pro quo. For good or bad, UND gave up the nickname with the settlement. No going back on that.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Tim,
I have said many times before that I find FSU imagery and behaviors more racist than UND by half. However, that is entirely beside the point.
No matter how you dress it up, they closed a deal with the tribe and we were not able to. It is as simple as that. Everything else is window dressing.
The good news is this is not a dead issue at FSU (I have no clue about IL). There is a very vocal minority within the Seminole tribe that are against the name and imagery. Since FSU agreement stipulates that the tribe, not the university or the people of FL have control of the name and imagery, when that vocal minority becomes a majority, FSU will look like UND. God have mercy on their souls
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Merriam Webster says this:
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
The use of the Sioux by UND can fit into only the second…if at all.
prejudice?
definition of PREJUDICE:
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
2a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
No violation of “rights” and certainly not to the detriment of anyone’s “legal” rights or claims.
So…The use of the Sioux name by the University of North Dakota is not racist.
The discrimination against the Sioux (Native American) by denying them representation and the freedom to celebrate their heritage, while allowing that privilege to the Irish (European American)…now that is racist(discriminatory based on race).
The Sioux name as used by UND is not hostile and abusive either.
But don’t take my word for it…ask O’Keefe, or Kelley or Shaft or the NDBHE.
I would love to hear their answer.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
Since there is no such thing as race one can only be racist if one believes there is validity to the obsolete concept of race. Prejudice is the only syndrome at work here. Since even the anti logo/name proponents believe the concept of race is real then they are the actual racists.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
The trouble with understanding half of the post modernist argument Spearman is you look like an arse to those of us who had to sit through the whole thing.
Like I said, keep up the good fight. I think you and Always should date. You keep finishing each other’s sentences anyway.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Please try & be a little more intelligible instead of talking in riddles.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Always: I know you are the king of cut and paste, but what are you trying to say? What is your argument?
Please do not continue to ramble.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Always: Just for fun (and I cannot believe I am humoring you like this) look very closely at your definition of race/racism. You discount number 1 out of hand. I would argue quite the opposite.
Just ask any white supremacist why African Americans, Hispanics, or Jews are inferior. It is all about race.
While I grant you there is a great deal of prejudice out there, I am not nearly as willing to dismiss the racial argument as you. Within our parents lifetime, African Americans were not allowed to use the same facilities as their white counterparts, were prevented from voting (even after 1968), and the first year on record without a racially motivated lynching in the south was 1952.
As I have shared before, my father used the N word as a noun. He refused to believe it was inappropriate. He would point to the dictionary and say how can it be racist if it is in here?
Race is integral to human relations. It is a purely social construct, but that said, it is a very real part of our psyche. We cannot overlook race anymore than we can overlook gender.
Hopefully someday that will be so, but definitely not now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Race is a lot bigger deal to the older generation.
Thankfully, for most younger people, the race issue is pretty much a non-factor.
The liberals need to keep the issue alive though, that is why they (NCAA) do stupid things, like forming nonsensical and useless policies. They claim they are concerned and caring, but these policies only help advance the “victim mentality” that more and more, minorities are beginning to reject.
If they continue to reject the victim mentality…..the liberals lose voters. Liberals don’t like that.
It is a sad and destructive and deceitful practice in which liberals engage.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Two points Always: Yes, the older generation (my dad) is much more racist, but it is a fallacy to say it is not a factor to young people. It is just better hidden (gays are not the only ones in the closet).
Do not get me wrong. The amount and severity of racism among today’s kids is significantly less than in my father’s or even my generation, but it is wrong to assume everything is hunky dory.
As a quick illustration: prison and church. In prison, about 10 seconds after finishing being processed, you will have no choice but to find your gang to survive. These gangs are 100% racially based. I was talking to a prisoner one night (prisons are the only growth industry in AZ) and he explained in no uncertain terms that even though my wife was MX and half of my kids were brown, I’d be sporting a swastika or other symbol real fast if I had any intention of surviving.
The other great American institution that resembles the 1950 is church. Even though you will find many churches with a very multicultural congregation (my Baptist church is a rainbow, reflective of the town I live in) if you take the nation as a whole, 10 am on Sunday is the most segregated hour in America. Churches have been trying to break this barrier down for years.
While theologically I cannot think of one single TV preacher I can hang with, looking at their audiences is instructive: Joel Ornstein meets in a freaking 16,000 person stadium and 80% of the congregation is white. TD Jakes congregation is 95% African American.
As for your belief that liberal theology is the cause of all of mankind’s problems, I think that is a tad simplistic; even for the nonsense that passes for thought on these boards.
There is no doubt that victimhood is a cottage industry in this country, and that the prevailing power structure promotes it because it is part of their locus of control. No argument there.
The biggest example of this institutionalized dependence to the point of genocide is the reservation system. We have talked about that before. I find it interesting that a story about a cartoon takes up 9/10 of the most popular discussion boards, but a story describing the effects of alcoholism and hopelessness on the rez had comments blocked and disappeared after one day.
That said Always: these patterns are voted for by both parties over generations. You may wish that liberals were the root of all evil and that if they went away the NCAA would let you keep your cartoon and advertising gimick, but no such luck.
Who was the President with the biggest expansion of welfare: it was not LBJ (that was my guess), it was Nixon; and he was a Republican.
Doesn’t it bite when facts get in the way of strongly held emotional arguments.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
“Race is integral to human relations. It is a purely social construct, but that said, it is a very real part of our psyche. We cannot overlook race anymore than we can overlook gender.”
Why is it a social construct? What is your understanding of how it became a social construct?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Spearman: If I had any indication your questions were sincere, I might give you some resources. I am not about to waste my time playing word games with you.
You either already know what a social construct is so you are just doing your Always imitation and being contrary, or you honestly do not know and are too lazy to google it. Either way I am not interested in playing.
If you are serious, please feel free to send me a message through the boards and I would be happy to give you a short bibliography you can catch up on.
Remember in a past life I studied history (women and gender). Needless to say I have done more work with the subjects of cultural formation and the genesis of gender norms than you can shake a stick at. I had to pay for my graduate level babble-fest. I am offering you some for free, but I am not about to waste my time throwing pearls before swine as it were simply because we have exhausted the main topic and are too stupid to turn off the computer and go to bed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Spearman,
That response came out much harsher than I intended. I apologize. It was not my intention to be rude.
Social Constructs deal with that wonderful half statement you were making earlier: there is no such thing as race. Well in fact there is and it influences every aspect of society.
I honestly do not know if you are just being contrary (in which case I am not interested in playing) or if you are serious, in which case it is going to take more than a message board entry to bring you up to speed.
It is a fascinating subject, one with a lot of support on one hand (everyone agrees race and gender are socially determined) and almost no consensus on how these constructs came to be. The postmodernist say it is all about language. The behaviorists say it was chemically mediated via hormones. The psychologists have another take.
Everyone agrees that it is nurture much more than nature that determines race and gender roles, they just cannot agree about the how and why.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
The easiest way to determine whether or not something is biologically determined (no matter how much society interferes, I am not going to have a baby, wrong plumbing) or socially constructed and controlled is to look across cultures.
There is no culture or race where men have babies. There are lots of cultures where men assume what we in the west would call “feminine” roles. Likewise, we believe women should be equal in most aspects of life. Obviously we fail in that belief but it is the goal we strive for.
Not so in other cultures. In certain middle eastern cultures women cannot drive, must be accompanied by a family member when out of the house (harem), and will get killed for premarital sex.
Having babies is biologically determined. How a woman should act as a member of society is completely determined by that society.
Race is very similar. Again, if you were African American in 1840 in Georgia, and were a slave, you were worth about as much as a car, but treated worse. Someone could own you.
This had nothing to do with your abilities or attributes as a human, but simply a fluke of nature (your skin color). Biology made you dark, society made you a piece of property.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
The most significant research is by Dr. Spencer Wells at Stanford. Skin color is only the result of where one lives in relation to the equator. The closer the darker. It is nothing more, nothing less. The result is a history of ignorance about differences that are literally only skin deep & have nothing to do with anything more than an expression of genes activated by sun exposure. We all have the same genes that have the potential to express themselves in terms of color only in relation to one’s geographic location on the surface of the planet. See the excellent Dr. Spencer Wells PBS doc. called the “Journey of Man”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
IOW , we are all African.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Spear: we are saying the same thing: our differences are largely skin deep. Agree completely.
Where we differ is the impact society has on the remaining 1%. You say it is nothing & I say the only force in this country with a more profound influence is religion.
Race is so tightly interwoven with how we organize ourself as a society you do not even realized its there. Most people do not see it till it becomes a larger part of your life.
I live in AZ & my wife is MX. I never realized the subtleties until being with her. Little things, like when I was telling my white kids about her (I have white & brown) my oldest asked what part of MX she’s, from & when she came over. WTF. Her parents were born here. It was her grandparents who came over after WW1 at the request of the government to work.
Little things like that happen all the time. Race is everywhere & influences everything
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I never say race has no effect. Just the opposite. My point is since there are no races in essence but only a lack of understanding that we are all genetically the same we end up having a culture that behaves as though the differences are more than skin deep. As I mentioned in a previous post we kind of still think like Columbus, believing that if you live too far south or north of the Mediterranian climate you are less intelligent & therefore fit to be a slave.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Agreed Spearman. Like I said we are saying the same thing but from opposite directions. We all may be the same under the skin but that is not where society lives or makes its decisions. That would make too much sense and the human race has never been known for that.
Philosophically you could say it is all about power. We use our minute differences to marginalize the “other.” Once they are marginalized they are easily overwhelmed and controlled.
Immediately before the civil war there were 4 times as many African Americans as whites in the deep south. They could have risen up and taken over at any time. The white plantation overseers would have ran out of bullets long before the African American slaves ran out of people.
Why did they never do it? Most believed what society told them: you are a slave, that is your lot in life. Most could not see any other way, therefore they just tried to make the best of it. No matter where you are on the social ladder, raising your family is always more important than the situation you find yourself in.
If people truly cared about American Indians and wanted to honor them, they would be demonstrating to dismantle the reservation system and incorporate Native people into mainstream life.
This statement will make Always and Don froth at the mouth, but objectively it is undeniable that the reservation system shares more with South African apartheid than a functioning piece of America.
For those who say doing away with the rez will kill Indian culture, I would invite them to demonstrate how the present situation is fostering Native Culture. If this was happening in anyplace other than America, the UN would call it a human rights catastrophe and demand the international community step in to stop what is amounting to a cultural genocide.
With all of the problems the rez has (see the earlier article), especially 25% of the children born with fetal alcohol syndrome, how many generations until we do not have to worry about Native American sensibilities because there will no longer be any people to worry about?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
http://www.ag.nd.gov/NCAA/SettlementAgreement.pdf
State of North Dakota In District Court
County of Grand Forks Northeast Central Judicial District
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and MUTUAL RELEASE
Civ No. 06-C-01333
Filed: October 26, 2007
State of North Dakota, by and
through the North Dakota
State Board of Higher Education,
and the University of North Dakota,
Plaintiff,
v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I would like to encourage everyone to join my page on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/RetireFightingSiouxName
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
The alumni association and its Board of Directors are in the pocket of Mr. Kelley. Like Grant an Duane and the whole PC professor crowd before them, they want to be “in” with the popular girls on campus and the NCAA. You know the ones that think; Fighting Sioux….Ew, seriously, so gross….. caving to peer pressure regardless of the suit brought by the Committee For Understanding and Respect. Sidestepping this legal process is an insult to our legal system; on that even Kelley agrees. The NCAA does not rule the word of sports (I know they think they do). This private club defense is weak and the Committee will win in court on the 12 points they brought against the NCAA. If the NCAA is so powerful why bother with the US Court system; just have the NCAA BOD make all civil rights decisions for our country. We are not an all inclusive or offensive names such as Indians, Braves, Savages or Red Skins; we take our name from the specific Tribe that defined us as a Territory, region of the country, State and Indian Nation. We are the Fighting Dakota/Lakota Sioux of North Dakota. Our name is not generic it is specific to our region and heritage. It is historic and serves all people who are from North Dakota.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Thank you Bully.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
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:
3 
0