Most N.D. Supreme Court justices, attorneys in Fighting Sioux nickname case have UND ties
February 28, 2012 at 10:07 am in Grand Forks Herald
All the UND Law School connections are hardly surprising in a state where the large majority of lawyers are UND graduates. And at least one political science observer doesn’t see anyone making an issue of it.
Continue Reading
Well well well. College sports has deep roots. They may have to farm this out to some other state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime the name and problems associated with it linger.
This is America people and it may be that this can’t be, finally, decided for a few years yet. Through the courts. In the meantime they might as well suspend the UND sports program until this is over.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
27
Conflicts of interest are routinely ignored around here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
29
I have faith that the North Dakota Supreme Court will rule from law and not the heart.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
57
You clearly don’t know what you’re writing about. We have graduates all over ND and throughout the country thank you. Many law students come to ND for law school from out of state and remain here because ND is a great place to live and work. Many others do go on to careers elsewhere. I’m sorry, but to suggest that students staying in the state is some sort of negative is a sad commentary on what you must think of North Dakota.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
43
Gene you are just being mean. Not everyone gets to go to Harvard or clerk for Supreme Court (the real one, in Washington) Justices.
If you want really bad lawyers you have to come here to AZ. They are more common than history professors. The employment situation for lawyers is so bad down here that they are having to move because they cannot even earn enough chasing ambulances or suing people for credit companies to pay back their student loans. A dime a dozen does not begin to describe it.
UA had their normal career day and there were more students looking for jobs than companies trying to find help. It was a major splash in the papers here for an hour or two.
Like or Dislike:
11 
11
Not being mean. How is mean simply repeating what the ABA accreditation panel said about UND Law? How is it being mean that most UND Law grads stay in ND?
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
23
You might consider lifting a finger to confirm the substance of your assertions. ND residents account for 57% of this year’s law school class.
http://law.und.edu/news/2011/08/2014-law-class.cfm.
Compare that to:
68% resident enrollment at Nebraska and 78% retention after graduation;
51% resident enrollment at Iowa and 60% retention after graduation;
64% resident enrollment at U of Washington.
Please allow me to point out one primary reason for resident enrollment and retention after graduation — state licensure. Unlike teaching kids how to listen to Spanish, those who wish to practice law must be licensed by the state and, among other things, pay to take a bar examination in the desired state.
But, I’m sure you knew all of this, including the class profile statistics in ND and the other states listed here. I know you were just testing the knowledge of your fellow readers and University of North Dakota campus members.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
As for the Law School, let’s see what happens over the next few months.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
This is another red herring. The Supreme Court already ruled that the SBHE had control. To decide otherwise would require negating that earlier ruling. We are not talking Roe v Wade here. We are talking advertising and who owns the rights. This is an easy decision. All of the upcoming decisions regarding how much of our land to forfeit in pursuit of oil money will be a little tougher for the Fab 5
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
11
You take your bar exam usually where you’re located. As to the ties the State Supremes have with UND you don’t get to be a judge unless you’ve attended lots or parties and been part of every important organization you can touch. UND sports and leadership organizations are part of that stair climbing process. Thus the problems with getting to close to the name issue.
Like or Dislike:
12 
16
Implying that the justices who graduated from UND’s law school cannot have an unbiased opinion gives too much credit to the reach of the sports program, frankly. Most of the people I know in law school are busy and may attend games now and then, but definitely don’t approach the kind of fervor you see with undergraduates. I’m not saying they aren’t fans, only that the judges’ particular partisanship in this case may be overstated.
It seems like it would be an easy thing to analyze by a review of their judgements in cases related to higher education throughout North Dakota and involving UND specifically. Maybe that would have been useful information in the article.
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Craig:Not only that, but to suggest that a Supreme Court justice couldn’t make an honest effort is such an insult to our system. I wonder how dishonest some of these posters must be to not trust anyone in a leadership position. Also, what’s the point of trashing other’s work just to make a point. A lot of good people must just be just squirming with this steady exhibition of bad form.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
The issue is perception not whether or not they make the correct decision. What are the goals here? Is it to put this issue to rest for once and for all? Most of you say yes. Ok. If there’s the appearance of biased opinion then it starts all over again meaning continued court challenges.
What I’ve posted, previously, is this has to be a careful, deliberate set of steps going forward. Let them rule on it. Let them not rule on it.
If any of you had to guess based on the pass history with this name issue, would you say this matter will be settled in less then 60 days, or 6 months or 2 years? That’s a response I’d be interested in seeing from some of you. When will this name thing be officially settled.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I’ll take a stab at that. This issue, 60 days. The nickname issue, 2 years or more. I think ND will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Nov. If statute allows it, it will show up on future ballots. You know, to a white person in the South, the confederate flag is a symbol of valor against overwhelming odds, but offensive to many African Americans. Honestly, it’d probably be easier to eliminate the confederate flag from the Mississippi capitol than to lose the Sioux nickname.
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
I’m going to stay 2 years or more depending on the SL lawsuit. The whole point of all of this… is that it is offensive to Native Americans, but yet we have Native American group suing the NCAA. Yes there are divisions even within the tribes, but that is for them to settle or not, whatever be the case. They have put those people in power and they have chosen to go after the NCAA for a multitude of reasons.
The one issue they have that I think holds water, is that the they people through their leaders of both tribes weren’t invited to the negotiations, when all of this hullabaloo has everything to do with them as a people. Their legal voice has to be heard in this thing, but ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
This is so not news why did it even make print. We also have a huge number of UND law school grads in the legislature is that the reason that UND gets significantly more per student funding than any other higher ed school in the state???
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
North Dakota Supreme Court Opinions
Davidson v. State, 2010 ND 68, 781 N.W.2d 72
Filed Apr. 8, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2010 ND 68
Eunice Davidson, John Chaske, Oliver Gourd, Renita Delorme, Lavonne Alberts, Frank Blackcloud, Demus McDonald, Alex Yanton, Members, Committee for Understanding and Respect, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
State of North Dakota, by and through the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20100022
Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Michael G. Sturdevant, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by Sandstrom, Justice.
Lolita G. Hartl Romanick (argued), Patrick Robert Morley (on brief), and Bradley John Beehler (on brief), P.O. Box 14519, Grand Forks, N.D. 58208-4519, for plaintiffs and appellants. Douglas Alan Bahr, Solicitor General, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for defendant and appellee.
Davidson v. State
No. 20100022
Sandstrom, Justice.
[¶1] Eight members of the Committee for Understanding and Respect (“plaintiffs”) appeal from a district court judgment dismissing their action against the State Board of Higher Education to enforce a settlement agreement in a prior lawsuit by the University of North Dakota (“UND”) and the Board against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and to enjoin the Board from shortening the time period for the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to consider approving or rejecting UND’s use of the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Because we conclude the district court did not err in interpreting the language of the settlement agreement, we affirm.
I
[¶2] In August 2005, the NCAA adopted a policy prohibiting member institutions from using or displaying hostile and abusive racial or ethnic nicknames, mascots, or imagery at NCAA championship events. The policy prohibited identified member institutions from bidding and hosting NCAA championship events and from selling nickname, mascot, or imagery related merchandise at NCAA championship venues. The policy also urged member institutions to refrain from scheduling regular season games against institutions identified as subject to the policy. The NCAA identified UND and its Fighting Sioux nickname and logo as a member institution subject to the policy.
[¶3] In October 2006, the Board and UND sued the NCAA, challenging the NCAA’s promulgation of the policy and its application of the policy to UND. In October 2007, the parties to that action executed a settlement agreement in which UND recognized the “North Dakota Sioux Tribes . . . have important contributions in determining whether, to what extent and in what manner the ‘Sioux’ name and the ‘Fighting Sioux’ nickname or logo should continue to be used in conjunction with the athletic tradition at UND.” The Board and UND agreed to dismiss their claims against the NCAA pertaining to the policy, and the NCAA agreed to provide UND “a period of time until November 30, 2010 (the ‘Approval Period’), to seek and obtain namesake approval for its nickname and related imagery, during which time the Policy will not apply to UND and UND will not be restricted from hosting and bidding to host championship events for which it otherwise would be eligible to host.” The settlement agreement required UND to have “clear and affirmative support” for use of the nickname and logo from both the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and provided that if UND obtained tribal support within the approval period, the NCAA policy would not apply to UND unless either of the tribes withdrew or reversed its support for UND’s use of the nickname and logo.
[¶4] The settlement agreement required UND to announce the “transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy or render UND subject to the Policy, if [i] it is unable to secure namesake approval as set forth in this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Approval Period, or [ii] namesake approval, once provided, is withdrawn.” The agreement said, “If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.” The agreement required UND to continue to solicit the views of the North Dakota Sioux Tribes on the appropriate use of the Sioux name and related imagery in UND athletics. The agreement also stated, “If UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at anytime during the Approval Period,” the NCAA would remove UND from the list of institutions subject to the NCAA policy and UND would retain any intellectual property or licensing rights to the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. The agreement required the NCAA to make a public announcement that it did not dispute UND “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.”
[¶5] In April 2009, the members of the Spirit Lake Tribe voted to allow UND to continue using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo and the Spirit Lake Tribal Council thereafter adopted a resolution granting UND perpetual use of the nickname and logo beginning on October 1, 2009. In May 2009, the Board passed a resolution to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, effective October 1, 2009, with full retirement completed on August 1, 2010, unless both the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Spirit Lake Tribe gave namesake approval consistent with the settlement agreement for a period of not less than 30 years. As of October 1, 2009, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe had not voted either to approve or to disapprove UND’s use of the nickname and logo.
[¶6] The plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Spirit Lake Tribe, thereafter sued the Board, alleging its proposed termination of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, violated the settlement agreement and seeking to enjoin the Board from terminating the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010. The plaintiffs claimed the settlement agreement precluded termination of the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, and the Board was contractually bound to make a good-faith effort to obtain namesake approval from both tribes during that time. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. Before answering the complaint, the Board moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action and to vacate the temporary restraining order, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the settlement agreement and the Board had authority to terminate the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010.
[¶7] After a hearing, the district court concluded the plaintiffs had standing to sue the Board. The court nevertheless dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint to enjoin the Board, concluding the settlement agreement was not ambiguous and the Board’s decision to terminate the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, did not violate the plain language of the agreement. The court explained there was “nothing in the Settlement Agreement which binds the Board to the continued use of the Fighting Sioux nickname or the pursuit of tribal namesake approval,” and under the agreement, “the NCAA simply agreed that it would not enforce its Policy against UND during the Approval Period in order to allow the Board to make an effort to obtain namesake approval until November 30, 2010 if it so chose.” The court explained there was nothing in the settlement agreement requiring UND to retain the nickname and logo and the language of the agreement contemplated transition to a new nickname and logo “at any time during the Approval Period.” A judgment was entered dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint, and they appealed.
[¶8] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The plaintiffs’ appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01.
II
[¶9] The Board argues the district court erred in deciding the plaintiffs have standing to enforce the settlement agreement. The Board claims the plaintiffs do not have standing because they are not parties to the settlement agreement and they are not intended third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. The plaintiffs respond they are third-party beneficiaries of the agreement and they have standing.
[¶10] Under N.D.C.C. § 9-02-04, “[a] contract made expressly for the benefit of a third person may be enforced by that person at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.” See Apache Corp. v. MDU Res. Group, 1999 ND 247, ¶¶ 1, 10-11, 603 N.W.2d 891 (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs’ action because evidence and language of contract did not show parties expressly contracted for benefit of third party). Because the plaintiffs’ status as third-party beneficiaries involves the interpretation of the language of the settlement agreement, we consider the district court’s interpretation of that agreement in conjunction with this issue.
III
[¶11] The Board moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint before filing an answer. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(b) (“party against whom a claim . . . is asserted . . . may move, at any time, with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party’s favor”). The district court considered matters outside the pleadings, including video exhibits and testimony, in ruling on the Board’s motion to dismiss and effectively treated the motion as one for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (stating if court considers matters outside the pleadings in deciding motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56); Livingood v. Meece, 477 N.W.2d 183, 187 (N.D. 1991) (discussing relationship between N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and N.D.R.Civ.P. 56). Consequently, we review the plaintiffs’ appeal under the standards for summary judgment, which is a procedural device for promptly resolving a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no disputed issues of material fact and inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or if the only issues to be resolved are questions of law. Beckler v. Bismarck Pub. Sch. Dist., 2006 ND 58, ¶ 7, 711 N.W.2d 172.
[¶12] The plaintiffs argue the plain language of the settlement agreement delegated to the two Indian tribes the ultimate authority to determine usage of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. The plaintiffs claim the agreement gave the two tribes an opportunity to approve use of the nickname and logo until November 30, 2010, and the Board’s decision to retire the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, constitutes a breach of the settlement agreement. The Board counters that the settlement agreement does not require the Board to wait until November 30, 2010, to change UND’s nickname and logo; rather, the Board asserts the agreement provided a grace period to secure tribal approval and does not require UND to continue using the nickname and logo during the approval period, or preclude the Board from exercising its constitutional and statutory authority to terminate use of the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010.
[¶13] The parties have postured their argument as an issue about contractual interpretation. When a settlement agreement is merged into a judgment, however, the agreement is interpreted and enforced as a final judgment and not as a separate contract. Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 2007 ND 124, ¶ 10, 736 N.W.2d 441; Thomas v. Stone, 2006 ND 59, ¶ 11, 711 N.W.2d 199; Sullivan v. Quist, 506 N.W.2d 394, 399-400 (N.D. 1993). Although the actual judgment dismissing the prior action by the Board and UND against the NCAA is not part of the record in this case, the order for judgment of dismissal in that action is part of this record and says that “[e]ach of the claims set forth against [the NCAA] are dismissed with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, incorporated herein by reference.” During oral argument to this Court, counsel for the Board stated the settlement agreement in the prior action was incorporated into the judgment in that action, and we interpret the language of the settlement agreement under the rules for interpreting a judgment, which mirror the rules for interpreting a contract. See Slorby v. Slorby, 2009 ND 11, ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 89 (district court’s application of rules for interpreting contracts instead of rules for interpreting judgments was harmless because rules for interpreting judgments mirror rules for interpreting contracts); Silbernagel, at ¶ 10 (same).
[¶14] In Sullivan, 506 N.W.2d at 401 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Henry S. Grinde Corp. v. Klindworth, 77 N.D. 597, 613-14, 44 N.W.2d 417, 427-28 (1950) (on petition for rehearing)), we outlined the general guidelines for interpreting a judgment:
“The legal operation and effect of a judgment must be ascertained by a construction and interpretation of its terms, and this presents a question of law for the court. If the language used in a judgment is ambiguous there is room for construction, but if the language employed is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction or interpretation, and the effect thereof must be declared in the light of the literal meaning of the language used.” The judgment “should be so construed as to give effect to each and every part of it, and bring all the different parts into harmony as far as this can be done by fair and reasonable interpretation.” “A judgment, plain and unambiguous in its terms, may not be modified, enlarged, restricted, or diminished by reference to the” Findings of Fact.
[¶15] The plaintiffs argue the clear intention of the settlement agreement, when read as a whole, is to give the two tribes a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate “clear and affirmative support” for the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo by precluding the Board from retiring the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010. The plaintiffs argue the Board’s reliance on the phrase “at any time during the Approval Period” is contrary to and repugnant to the contracting parties’ intent when the settlement agreement was executed. The plaintiffs argue that phrase must be read in the context of the entire contract, which establishes a time frame for the two tribes to give approval for use of the nickname and logo until November 30, 2010. They claim no language in the agreement gives the Board authority to retire the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010.
[¶16] The Board responds the settlement agreement does not require the Board to wait until the end of the approval period to change the nickname and logo. The Board claims it did not agree to allow use of the nickname and logo until the end of the approval period and the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the settlement agreement ignores the Board’s constitutional and statutory role as the policymaking entity for North Dakota institutions of higher education. The Board asserts the settlement agreement, when read as a whole, does not strip the Board of its constitutional and statutory authority and allows UND to transition to a new nickname and logo “at any time during the Approval Period.”
[¶17] Under N.D. Const. art. VIII, § 5, all North Dakota land grant universities and universities supported by a public tax shall remain under the absolute and exclusive control of the State. The Board is the constitutionally established entity for the control and administration of state educational institutions, including UND. N.D. Const. art. VIII, § 6(1)(a). See also N.D.C.C. §§ 15-10-11 and 15-10-17. The purpose of the settlement agreement was to end a lawsuit by the Board and UND against the NCAA regarding the NCAA’s promulgation of the policy for displaying hostile and abusive racial or ethnic nicknames, logos, and imagery and the NCAA’s application of that policy to UND. The plain language of the settlement agreement does not restrict the Board’s constitutional and statutory authority to change UND’s nickname and logo, and we agree with the district court that nothing in the plain language of the settlement agreement limits the Board’s constitutional and statutory authority, or requires the Board or UND to continue using the nickname and logo throughout the approval period. Neither does the settlement agreement require the Board and UND to change the nickname and logo. Rather, if UND does not obtain namesake approval from the two tribes, the Board and UND agreed to either change the nickname and logo, or be subjected to the NCAA policy.
[¶18] Under the plain language of the settlement agreement, the NCAA agreed not to apply the nickname policy to UND during the approval period, but the parties agreed the policy would apply to UND if it was unable to obtain namesake approval, or if namesake approval was withdrawn. The language of the settlement agreement provided UND with an approval period, but UND did not agree to continue using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo throughout the approval period. Rather, the settlement agreement specifically states the NCAA agreed to remove UND from the list of institutions subject to the policy “[i]f UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at any time during the Approval Period.” The agreement also specifically states the NCAA agreed that UND shall retain the intellectual property and licensing rights to the Fighting Sioux nickname “[i]f UND announces a transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at any time during the Approval Period.” That language plainly and unambiguously evidences the parties’ contemporaneous intent that UND could “transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at any time during the Approval Period.” We reject the plaintiffs’ argument that a more logical interpretation of that phrase only authorizes the Board to retire the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, if either tribe expressly denied or withdrew approval for the nickname and logo before that date. The plaintiffs’ interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the settlement agreement.
[¶19] Although the language of the settlement agreement recognizes the North Dakota Sioux Tribes have important contributions in determining whether the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo should be used by UND and the agreement requires UND to continue to solicit the views of the two tribes on the use of the nickname and logo, we do not construe that language to require UND to continue using the nickname and logo through November 30, 2010. That language must be harmonized with the language allowing UND to “transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the Approval Period, or at any time during the Approval Period.” Moreover, we agree with the district court that the language stating that UND “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” is not a contractual agreement requiring UND to continue using the nickname through November 30, 2010. Rather, that language is a statement about the manner of UND’s use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo and not an agreement by UND requiring it to continue using the nickname and logo, or to wait until November 30, 2010, to terminate the nickname and logo.
[¶20] We construe the language of the settlement agreement as a whole to allow UND to transition to a new nickname and logo at the end of the approval period, “or at any time during the Approval Period.” We conclude the plain and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement, when construed as a whole and in conjunction with the Board’s constitutional and statutory authority, does not require the Board or UND to continue using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo until November 30, 2010. We therefore conclude the settlement agreement, when construed as a whole, does not delegate to the two tribes the ultimate authority to determine usage of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, or limit the Board’s authority to terminate the nickname and logo before November 30, 2010.
[¶21] Because we construe the language of the settlement agreement to permit the Board to terminate UND’s nickname and logo before November 30, 2010, it is not necessary to further consider the issue about the plaintiffs’ standing. We have considered the remaining issues and arguments raised by the parties and find them to be either unnecessary to our decision or without merit.
IV
[¶22] We affirm the district court judgment.
[¶23] Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
Benny A. Graff, S.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
[¶24] The Honorable Benny A. Graff, S.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J., disqualified.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
That’s a mouthful. And why don’t you explain it, in a nutshell, so that it doesn’t kill this comments section.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
No, you and the rest can read the opinion from the North Dakota Supreme Court, as it is relevant and we don’t want to leave out any of the specifics.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Did you realize that 100% of the United States Supreme Court are Americans. Since they are ruling on the founding documents for this country, don’t you think an outside third party would be more appropriate? I mean being born and raised in the United States will obviously result in the justices being prejudiced towards one side or the other depending on how they were raised and what life experiences they have had.
Take Clarence Thomas. He is one of the most conservative constructionists on the court until you get to the area of race. Being an African American he has some very specific feelings about race relations and the ability of the state to influence them.
How can he possibly be expected to be impartial on a race based case?
I think we need to do away with all of the American judges on the Supreme Court and replace them with Canadians, English, and Mexicans. These outsiders will be better able to follow the letter and intent of the constitution because they will not come with all the baggage being an American entails.
******hopefully everyone can see the sarcasm and still get the point******
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NCAA says sanctions in place against UND
By DALE WETZEL | Associated Press BismarckTribune.com | Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:30 pm
…BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) – University of North Dakota teams risk forfeiting any post-season games if their athletes, cheerleaders or band wear or display the school’s Fighting Sioux nickname and American Indian head logo, an NCAA official said Wednesday.
Bernard Franklin, an NCAA executive vice president, said in a letter to university provost Paul LeBel that the university “must forfeit competition” if “it has not adhered to this requirement” in any post-season games that UND teams have been invited to play in.
“We ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname brought to an NCAA championship venue,” Franklin’s letter said.
The NCAA has long said the nickname and logo are hostile to American Indians and that the Grand Forks school’s teams may not wear uniforms that have the nickname or logo during post-season contests. But the Franklin letter’s mention of forfeiting games is a new development.
UND’s women’s hockey team, which is ranked fifth in the nation, may be the first affected by the sanctions. The team still could win a high enough seed to host the first round of the NCAA’s post-season tournament, but the nickname penalty will bar the team from doing so in any case.
“You ask them to … work hard, and (they’ve) had a great season, and then be told, ‘Hey, regardless of what you do, you’re going on the road.’ That kind of stinks,” coach Brian Idalski said at a news conference in Grand Forks.
Brian Faison, the university’s athletic director, said the letter should help convince skeptics of the reality of NCAA sanctions.
“We knew going in that this was a possibility, but it’s in black and white now,” Faison said.
The nickname and logo, and the NCAA’s attitudes toward them, have been the focus of an intense political and legal debate in North Dakota.
In March 2011, the North Dakota Legislature approved a law that required the university to use the logo and the Fighting Sioux nickname, which it has had for decades, despite the threat of NCAA sanctions.
When the NCAA declined to exempt UND from its policy discouraging schools’ use of American Indian nicknames and logos that it considers offensive, the Legislature repealed the pro-nickname law last November. Nickname backers responded by filing referendum petitions that demand a June statewide vote on whether UND should be forced to keep the nickname and logo.
The Board of Higher Education, which supports dropping the nickname and logo, responded by filing a lawsuit against Secretary of State Al Jaeger in a bid to keep the measure off the ballot. The North Dakota Supreme Court is considering a request to hear the case without first assigning it to a lower court for review.
Franklin’s letter said if UND’s use of the nickname and logo forces the school to forfeit games, the NCAA may demand that the university reimburse it for its travel and meal costs in connection with the championship.
“It is the spirit of the NCAA’s championship policy that the competing student-athletes … not be distracted or disrupted during the championship by debates about when and where your institution’s Native American imagery or nickname may be displayed or worn,” Franklin said in the letter.
Reach Nick Smith at 250-8255 or 223-8482 or at nick.smith@bismarcktribune.com.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
“It is the spirit of the NCAA’s championship policy that the competing student-athletes … not be distracted or disrupted during the championship by debates about when and where your institution’s Native American imagery or nickname may be displayed or worn,” Franklin said in the letter.”
Ah yes…the “consummate porfessional” (at least according to Kelley) finds it useful to threaten the University, no doubt trying to send a message that the NCAA is ever watchful of diversions from it’s policy.
Too bad they weren’t as watchful at Penn State.
Hey “consummate professional” when you are skulking around looking for violators, stop and take a look in the shower for grown men raping ten year olds.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
alwaysinfect: you have no ability to stay on task. You need to change your medication, seriously.
Penn State having a pedophile on their staff has, to quote my relatives, “nothing with this to do”.
You have no credibility. Did you ever, ever ask yourself, “I wonder why nobody don’t like me?”
Look at your history. To 95% of the population, your opinion doesn’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Good. Maybe they will decide in a way that is best for the future of UND. We’ve already experienced NCAA sanctions. Our teams cannot wear Sioux jerseys to NCAA post season games. We cannot host NCAA tournament games. The Gophers and Wisconsin will not play us in hockey for the next two years because of the controversy. These are two teams that we should be playing to have a quality schedule. If we don’t play the top teams we will never rank high enough in the pairwise to get to the big time. It’s time too drop the name and join the rest of the world in sports.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
John: You can try and change these 17,000 people’s minds, but, all kidding aside, pride and ignorance are interchangeable with the remaining nickname supporters. Only in ND (maybe Mississippi & Arkansas) would such an issue take years and years to settle. North Dakota stands alone, #1, the last Dawg standing. Next, it’s about 30,000 voters petitioning for a constitutional amendment. Really! Again….all kidding aside.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0