North Dakota sues over mascot

[Rocknjosie]

If we go down this road, though, we're going to end up ripping every European Country in the 19th Century to shreds. (Granted some ripping of them is due, because Imperialism was not one of humanity's best points.)

Which is why the road is worth going down. Why is saying, European-Americans i.e. white people, should not use the people they've profiled as lesser than throughout history as marketing tools so controversial? Think of all the war imagery used in football and then to turn around and use this symbol of an American Indian warrior as your mascot - a word which here means a symbol envoked to bring good luck - it's sick.

But again, I appologize for steering the debate this way. The NCAA didn't handle this well, I agree with that. The NCAA is a cartel, no doubt about that.

[Francis10]

Since no one's said it yet...

I really hope the NCAA wins. Using American Indians as mascots is exploitive, no different than using a white owner using an African to market his chicken restaurant chain.

And no I don't have a problem with the Fighting Irish because there are actually Irish people on that football team.

You would do well to know your history on this particular case... the local Sioux tribes nearest to UND are nearly unanimous in their support for the Sioux nickname, which has not even been the case in all the exceptions that the NCAA granted.

UND feels like they are being singled out because they are not a high-profile school like FSU. For FSU, the decision to pursue exemption was less about doing what's right and more about preserving their branding and associated advertising revenues.

[STL FANATIC]

Why is saying, European-Americans i.e. white people, should not use the people they've profiled as lesser than throughout history as marketing tools so controversial?

That's such a dumb statement (inside the question). Look at you make something into race when it's not.

So white people are using American Indian people as a marketing tool.

No, it's not a marketing tool, it's symbol and representation of the teams and the schools--this marketing crap is very recent, these traditions are very old.

But wait, the marketing part isn't the dumb part.

You said it like it's strictly white people doing this. No sir. It's white people, black people, Asian people, yes, American Indian people...it's people. Not white people. No, your statement is 12 times more racist than any tradition being called into question.

Furthermore, don't tell me I've profiled anybody throughout history because I'm white. Some people 200 years ago killed a lot of Indians and drove them out of their original homes. Some people since them maybe have profiled the Indians. Maybe most of those people were white. But, it wasn't me. It wasn't most people alive right now. So um, no, just dumb.

Ugh, the whole argument against these things is so weak...and yet it won't go away...there's so many holes that people just ignore.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

heres a compromise, any school that uses an ethnic image/name has to pay reperations to said ethnic group.

[chakfu]

I think it's strange for the US to claim to honor a group that they massacred; that the claim that nicknames honor natives is ridiculous. But, on the other hand, in schools we learn about Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman as heroes, whereas in their own time periods they were looked at as subversives and criminals.

It's also funny, I don't think anyone ever accused "white people" in general of these atrocities against native americans, I think it of the USA and Americans in general. Some people seem to hear things that the US did and equate that to meaning them or their race personally. You don't have to be white to feel bad about and understand the things that your country, the usa, has done in the past...

I can absolutely see the dilemma ND must have been in, it would be impossible to turn down that money...

Now that he's dead, dump the name to spite him!

Seriously, I think it's a big point against them though...But sanction from the tribe itself generally makes things ok in my opinion...

[rams80]

It's also funny, I don't think anyone ever accused "white people" in general of these atrocities against native americans, I think it of the USA and Americans in general. Some people seem to hear things that the US did and equate that to meaning them or their race personally. You don't have to be white to feel bad about and understand the things that your country, the usa, has done in the past...

Because the people who did the bad things were in fact White Americans. Anytime this or a like issue comes up, White Americans know they are going to get the brunt of the blame because it was White Americans who were responsible for the atrocities of the past. (Because there wasn't nearly as large a Hispanic population then as there is now, and back then the powers-that-be had a hard time believing African-Americans should be allowed to serve in the army and use guns-especially without White supervision.)

As for the whole honoring thing-it's a way of keeping them in our consciousness, no matter how indirectly. (For example, the extinct Illini Nation would be completely unheard of now if not for the U of I, while the Seminole and Ute nations would have vastly reduced prominence in the Nation's eyes.)

PS-C2C, under your plan, Illinois is completely off the hook, while smaller colleges such as Bradley have to make massive payouts. Methinks your plan, while noble, needs some twinking.

[chakfu]

the point is though white individuals shouldn't take it personally or get defensive; but all americans should appreciate the past and what has happened

[Bleujayone]

I feel the NCAA should lose this one. If they had passed this rule and stuck to their guns without exception they might have had an argument. But as soon as they started making exception, most noteworthy being Florida State, one of the worst offenders- their argument was rendered useless. It was all about money. Florida State makes a boatload of money with their current moniker and did not wish to change. Other schools followed suit. So the NCAA making some schools follow a rule while letting other schools skate by without doing so is unfair and without merit.

The fact the NCAA rolled over and let other schools have what they wanted proves they have neither the right not authority to make other schools such as North Dakota abide by this same rule. The real argument isn't so much about race and who gets offended by a school's logo, but rather that the NCAA passed a rule that not everyone is required to follow nor is getting equal punishment if they do not- regardlss of whatever that rule may be.

The point is either you make a rule- any rule- that everbody needs to follow without exception or just forget it.

[highwayman]

Lost in all of this is some sort of common sense.

Before you blow a gasket, I am not a NA, but I have many relatives who are, and DISAGREE.

This has nothing to do with stereotypes or racism on the part of UND or any other school that has a NA nickname.

Why on earth would any school or pro team pick a nickname that they would desire to demean THEMSELVES. Yes, I would like to be known as a fan of the Minnesota Vikings because they were hairy and are basically extinct now. Or the Minnesota Gophers, a ground-dwelling rat-weasel. NO organization would pick a name to make themselves look bad. They pick a mascot for pride, community, and comraderie.

What the NCAA and other "like-minded, progressive" types fear is what the OPPOSING FANS might do. Well crap, how many times have I seen a "rope-hung cowboy", a "dolphin on a hook", a "roasted bird" type display by opposing fans. If you are in fear of seeing that, you've got issues that the NCAA, nor any other many PHD'd doctor can help you with. No matter what your mascot or logo is, the OPPOSING FANS will demean you.

TAKE PRIDE IN YOUR TEAM AND MOVE FORWARD.

This all has nothing to do with masacres, discrimination, or one race and another. It's about self-loathing and self-inflicted fear of conflict. Life IS CONFLICT and the measure of one's self worth is the ability to deal with it.

[eSabre]

I have one question and flame me, if you must, if it's a stupid one. What's to stop the NCAA from just kicking out UND from it's association?

Because then the NCAA will get their ass handed to them for violating antitrust statutes, the same way they did when Oklahoma and Georgia challenged them in the 1980's over TV deals. Looking at UND's complaint, they're going to work the antitrust angle as well.

For those who haven't read it, here are the North Dakota's main issues with how this has been (mis)handled by the NCAA. It's unfortunate that Kupchella's letter didn't garner more attention in the media, because I think his arguments destroy any lingering validity the NCAA might have had in enacting such a policy.

Marc

That letter was very informative. I'm completely on North Dakota's side. The Englestad factor is irrelevant. The NCAA has no right to do what they're trying to do.

[doctorpeligro]

The NCAA has no right to do what they're trying to do.

The NCAA has every right to require that member schools eliminate nicknames or mascots that perpetuate racial stereotypes. The problem is that they are applying the policy inconsistently. They should have announced the policy and made no exceptions.

[OHLArenaGuide]

This is also a free speech issue. Saying you can't call your team the Illini or the Hurons is just ridiculous.

It's only a free speech issue if there's a government actor. This is a contract/trade dispute.

I think you'll find that the First Amendment applies even when the government isn't involved.

[STL FANATIC]

The NCAA has no right to do what they're trying to do.

The NCAA has every right to require that member schools eliminate nicknames or mascots that perpetuate racial stereotypes. The problem is that they are applying the policy inconsistently. They should have announced the policy and made no exceptions.

They don't have the authority to decide whether a mascot is perputating racial stereotypes. And they don't have the right to tell a school what kind of mascot they can have. It's in their constitution. That falls under the school's autonomy.

When courts have ruled over and over AND OVER that the Chief Illiniwek and the Fighting Illini nickname do not create a hostile environment or perputuate stereotypes, the NCAA's decision that they do falls under BS all the way.

[doctorpeligro]

The NCAA has no right to do what they're trying to do.

The NCAA has every right to require that member schools eliminate nicknames or mascots that perpetuate racial stereotypes. The problem is that they are applying the policy inconsistently. They should have announced the policy and made no exceptions.

They don't have the authority to decide whether a mascot is perputating racial stereotypes. And they don't have the right to tell a school what kind of mascot they can have. It's in their constitution. That falls under the school's autonomy.

When courts have ruled over and over AND OVER that the Chief Illiniwek and the Fighting Illini nickname do not create a hostile environment or perputuate stereotypes, the NCAA's decision that they do falls under BS all the way.

The NCAA does have the authority to decide where it awards its postseason tournaments and the rules under which those postseason tournaments are played. I have no problem with the NCAA using that authority to provide incentives for schools to get rid of their bigoted "traditions."

[LogoFan]

Lost in all of this is some sort of common sense.

Before you blow a gasket, I am not a NA, but I have many relatives who are, and DISAGREE.

This has nothing to do with stereotypes or racism on the part of UND or any other school that has a NA nickname.

Why on earth would any school or pro team pick a nickname that they would desire to demean THEMSELVES. Yes, I would like to be known as a fan of the Minnesota Vikings because they were hairy and are basically extinct now. Or the Minnesota Gophers, a ground-dwelling rat-weasel. NO organization would pick a name to make themselves look bad. They pick a mascot for pride, community, and comraderie.

What the NCAA and other "like-minded, progressive" types fear is what the OPPOSING FANS might do. Well crap, how many times have I seen a "rope-hung cowboy", a "dolphin on a hook", a "roasted bird" type display by opposing fans. If you are in fear of seeing that, you've got issues that the NCAA, nor any other many PHD'd doctor can help you with. No matter what your mascot or logo is, the OPPOSING FANS will demean you.

TAKE PRIDE IN YOUR TEAM AND MOVE FORWARD.

This all has nothing to do with masacres, discrimination, or one race and another. It's about self-loathing and self-inflicted fear of conflict. Life IS CONFLICT and the measure of one's self worth is the ability to deal with it.

Wow...that was exactly where I was going with my reply. I agree 110%.

The notion that naming a team after some particular group is insulting or inflaming or racist...well, that's a knee-jerk reaction that is short-sighted and stupid. All of us here would agree that when we are brainstorming for concepts, we want to come up with names that are positive and that fans of such names would rally behind. No one would ever, ever, ever want to name their team something just to insult others. It would be stupid and pointless, and something that noone would want to associate themselves with.

Let's stick with the name for UND: "The Fighting Sioux". What image is conjured up in your mind? If you don't immediately picture a strong, proud athlete/warrior, then what do you see? How do you have a negative image by a name that carries with it a strong nobility? The name is not "The (insert negative/deragotory adjective here) Sioux". If you look at the team's name see something racist, Nazi, or anything of the like, then you need to look in the mirror and see if what your mind is seeing is a reflection of some inner hostility or discrimination you have toward others.

The NCAA's time would be more wisely spent getting beyond Political Correctness and work on increasing its players graduation rate.

[STL FANATIC]

The NCAA does have the authority to decide where it awards its postseason tournaments and the rules under which those postseason tournaments are played. I have no problem with the NCAA using that authority to provide incentives for schools to get rid of their bigoted "traditions."

Educate yourself on the traditions. They aren't bigoted. So sorry. You lose. So does everyone else who seems to just automatically assume they are.

The NCAA can't do what they did, and they sucked at doing what they did. They should definatley lose this case.

Justin Striebel

Mrs. Baxter

Honors English IV

27 October 2005

NCAA Goes Out Of Bounds

The NCAA makes many, many rulings a year on issues concerning college athletics. These issues range from player eligibility to recruitment techniques. Rarely does a large outcry breakout over a ruling because the NCAA is usually well informed and well within their bounds when handing down such judgments. Unfortunately, none of that can be said of the NCAA’s most recent major ruling: a policy that revokes certain athletic privileges from member schools deemed to have nicknames, mascots, or other imagery that are “hostile or abusive” (NCAA Executive) to a specific culture, specifically American Indians. Since its release in August, this policy has underwent extreme criticism--not only for the decisions it calls for but also for way those decisions were reached. The NCAA overstepped its bounds in deciding for its member institutions whether their athletic nicknames, mascots, or imagery are “hostile or abusive” to any culture and used a flawed process to make those determinations.

The new policy, which was announced on August 5, 2005, prevents schools using “hostile or abusive” nicknames, mascots, or imagery from participating in any official NCAA championship. Starting in February 2006, any schools in violation of the policy will not be able to host any of the championships. The policy will also prevent cheerleaders, dancers, and band members whose uniforms feature any of the names or imagery from participating at the championships beginning in August 2008. Originally, 33 schools were being reviewed under the policy; these 33 schools were asked to submit self reviews in November 2004 on any American Indian imagery used by the school. Fourteen of those schools either removed that imagery or were determined not to have it, and one school was given an extension to complete the review. The remaining 18 schools were deemed by the NCAA to be in violation of the new policy; since that list of 18 was released, three schools have won appeals to be removed from the list, two have lost an appeal, and several other appeals cases are still being reviewed. (NCAA Executive)

The NCAA has seven core values which are essentially summarized in the NCAA’s core purpose. The purpose is “to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount” (National). The constitution of the NCAA gets into further detail about the association’s beliefs and what can be legislated pertaining to the beliefs and the obligations of its member schools.

Three articles in the constitution concern in a basic fashion what the NCAA can legislate. Article 1.2(h) lists as purpose of the association is “to legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics.” Article 1.3.2 expands on that and clarifies what legislation is intended for when it states “Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility, and recruiting.” Slightly expanding the limits that Article 1.3.2 put on legislation, Article 2.01 states “Legislation enacted by the Association governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be designed to advance one or more basic principals to which the members are committed.” The basic principles then follow in the next several articles. (2005-06 NCAA)

Specifically, the principles in Article 2.2.2, Article 2.4, and Article 2.6 relate to the new NCAA policy. In fact, the 33 schools asked to self review any American Indian imagery they used were specifically asked to consider these three principle when holding the evaluation. Article 2.2.2 says “it is the responsibility of each member institution to establish and maintain an environment that values cultural diversity and gender equity among its student-athletes and intercollegiate athletics department staff” (2005-06 NCAA). Article 2.4 relates to the policy in a slightly broader way:

For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program. (2005-06 NCAA)

Article 2.6 relates to the NCAA policy more than any of the other principles:

The Association shall promote an atmosphere of respect for and sensitivity to the dignity of every person. It is the policy of the Association to refrain from discrimination with respect to its governance policies, educational programs, activities and employment policies including the basis of age, color, disability, gender, national origin, race, religion, creed or sexual orientation. It is the responsibility of each member institution to determine independently its own policy regarding nondiscrimination, including on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, national origin, race, religion, creed or sexual orientation.(2005-06 NCAA)

Once the policy is understood and these purposes and principles can be set as boundaries, it becomes clearer where the NCAA is within its bounds and where its gone too far. The principles call for the NCAA to use legislation to uphold the basic purpose of athletic and academic honor but also implies that it is okay to use legislation to help create a comfortable atmosphere for all races at NCAA activities and events. This means that the NCAA is fine for having a policy to avoid the “hostile or abusive” nicknames and imagery. The NCAA starts to cross the line with the policy when it gets to decide whether a school’s nickname, mascot, or imagery is “hostile or abusive.”

In Article 2.6, the NCAA makes it clear that it is the school’s job to write a policy dealing with avoiding discrimination. Although, the discrimination Article 2.6 is referring to is mostly about recruiting and jobs, it still sets a precedent that should hold true for discrimination in regards to nicknames, mascots, and imagery. This precedent is that it is the schools decision how to avoid discrimination and therefore to determine whether its nickname, mascot, or other imagery is discriminative. The University of Illinois mentions in its currently pending appeal that the NCAA is interfering with something that should be the right of the school. Illinois’ appeal states that “the university should be allowed to continue its work [to resolve its mascot issue] unfettered by the NCAA’s arbitrary new policy and the corresponding deadline. Permitting the university to resolve this situation without undue interference by the NCAA comports with principles set forth in the NCAA constitution and acknowledged by the (NCAA) Executive Committee to be vital” (qtd. University). Illinois is a perfect example of a university who was handling the issue on their own. Illinois is constantly trying to reach a resolution on their mascot, and in fact in July had just set some specific guidelines to help them do so (Wurth).

The NCAA does not outright disagree with the schools being allowed to make these decisions for themselves, however. The NCAA is simply concerned about its national image at its on events. Executive Committee (the NCAA committee that created the policy) Chair Walter Harrison expressed the NCAA’s opinion, “Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter, but as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we administer” (qtd. in Brown). The NCAA feels that an NCAA hosted event should have special NCAA rules because it is presented on a national stage.

At first glance, the NCAA appears to have a reasonable point. However, if further analyzed, it breaks down. The truth is that the NCAA’s national image affects each and everyone of its member schools image. The NCAA is not a separate entity from any member school on it’s on, but that seems to be what Harrison and the NCAA are implying. The NCAA has 1024 active members (National), but only 19 schools have a representative on the Executive Committee. One of those 19 schools was placed on the list of schools with something deemed “hostile or abusive,” but that little amount of representation is not fair considering the punishment. The part that is most unfair, though, is having one small committee of 19 decide for 1024 other schools what they want their national image to be.

Even if representation were more fair, the same policy might be handed down. At best, it’s the NCAA stretching its bounds, at worst, it’s the NCAA completely overstepping them. Regardless, if the NCAA is going to decide whether schools are using nicknames, mascots, or imagery that violate the policy, the NCAA needs to follow an appropriate and in-depth process. With the initial ruling on the 18 schools, the NCAA did not.

The NCAA’s process was relatively simple; they had 33 schools who used American Indian imagery in some fashion hold self evaluations. For those that did not change their image because of the evaluation, the NCAA was sent the evaluation and reviewed it. In reviewing the evaluations, the NCAA looked for tribe approval, local history, and other factors that would affect whether or not the American Indian imagery was used appropriately. Though simple, this process does not appear bad, but something went wrong.

Three of five decided appeals have already been successful, and more rulings are forthcoming. Even if the three successful appeals remain the only successful appeals, that still means that seventeen percent of the NCAA’s original research was not good enough. Steve Smith, a spokesman from Central Michigan, one of the schools who filed an appeal that was eventually successful, said, “Frankly, we wonder if (the NCAA) ever read some of the original documentation we filed in the first place” (qtd. in Zillgitt). That is definitely a possibility; the NCAA may not have fully read the self evaluations. Another possibility is that if they were not satisfied with a self evaluation, they automatically placed that school on the list. A more appropriate next step would have been to contact the school in question and along with that school do more in depth research before reaching a decision.

Two strong examples of this lack of research are the Florida State University Seminoles and the University of Illinois Fighting Illini. Florida State was the first school to appeal after originally threatening legal action; they won their appeal. Illinois’ appeal is currently pending.

For many of the schools on the list, having a local tribe of the same namesake backing them has proven huge. This was the case with Florida State, but the NCAA’s research did not originally show all of the support. The Seminole tribe of Florida has supported Florida States usage of the nickname and their mascot for decades, but it was not that tribe which the NCAA stumbled over. The NCAA failed to accurately research the Seminole tribe of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Seminole tribe had never released anything official on the Florida State issue until July 2005 when the tribe officially voted done a motion to denounce Florida State’s use of the name Seminoles by a vote of 18-2 (D’Angelo). The tribe also spoke out in favor of the name saying at worst it brought them some attention.

Somehow, the NCAA’s research had shown that the Oklahoma tribe was against the name. NCAA managing director of public and media relations Bob Williams said, “We have never seen those comments before. Everything we’ve read from the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma through this process has been that they do not support the use of Native American imagery and mascots” (qtd. in D’Angelo)

Florida State University president T.K. Wetherell feels that the NCAA made the mascot issue the controversy that is has become with their poor research. Frustrated with the NCAA, he commented, “This is just further evidence ... the problem has been created by the NCAA. It seems to me at some point the Seminole Tribe, be it Oklahoma or Florida, is owed an apology by the NCAA for starting this mess. I think (the NCAA) have embarrassed themselves." Later in his letter of appeal, Wetherell would more calmly write, “A more open atmosphere and opportunity for in-person, two-way communication on an issue that NCAA Executive Committee members, themselves, have called "complex" could have averted this faulty policy. The obvious lack of accurate and well-documented information on this issue highlights the flaws in this process” (Wetherell).

In the University of Illinois’ case, the NCAA has not specifically missed an important detail, but rather they have overlooked a lot of deeper explanations and assumed too much. According to Illinois’ appeal, depended on “inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information supplied by one individual” (qtd. in Heckel), and the University also claims they did not have a chance to refute this information (Heckel). One such assumption is that the name Fighting Illini automatically means portraying a tribe of Indians as a warlike people even though that might not be their nature. According to The Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, part of the Illinois appeal is refuting those very assumptions:

Regarding the names "Illini" and "Fighting Illini," the appeal states:

    – The names derive from the state's name and predate the Chief Illiniwek tradition.

    – "Illini" was coined by the student newspaper and is used broadly to describe UI students and alumni, not just its athletic teams.

    – "Fighting" was first used to describe the 1919 and 1920 UI football teams and was adopted for a 1921 fundraising campaign for Memorial Stadium. (Heckel)

Illinois’ appeal also informs the NCAA that they cannot search for approval from a local tribe of the same namesake because it does not exist. The Illini were a loose confederation of tribes that eventually nearly died out. A few remaining Peoria tribe Indians went to Oklahoma, and there descendants are the only connection left at all to the Illini (Heckel).

The judgment has not yet come down on Illinois’ appeal, but like Florida State’s winning appeal, new information has been brought to the NCAA’s attention--information that the NCAA somehow overlooked previously. Had the NCAA done a better, more accurate, more in-depth job of researching these schools, the appeals would not have been necessary or at least could have been quickly turned away.

The NCAA has a constitution for a reason, and for the most part, that constitution has guided the association to making numerous good judgments and policies on issues that fit within its jurisdiction. Now the NCAA has stopped following that constitution fully and made a ruling that has stirred as much controversy as it intended to remove. The NCAA made a bad ruling worse when they rushed to make decisions and overlooked many important facts. The new policy restricting the use of nicknames, mascots, and imagery found to be “hostile or abusive” to American Indians has turned out to be a horrible piece of legislation for most all parties involved, and they would be better off without it.

Works Cited

Brown, Gary T. “Policy applies core principles to mascot issue.” National Collegiate Athletic Association. 15 Aug. 2005. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 26 Oct. 2005 <http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/08_15_05/front_page_news/4217n01.html>

D’Angelo, Tom. “Oklahoma Seminoles back FSU on mascot.” Palm Beach Post. 11 Aug. 2005. Palm Beach Post. 27 Oct. 2005 <http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2005/08/11/c1a_fsumascot_0810.html>

Heckel, Jodi. “UI appeals NCAA policy.” The News-Gazette Online. 14 Oct. 2005. The News-Gazette. 25 Oct. 2005 <http://www.newsgazette.com/localnews/story.cfm?Number=19151>

National Collegiate Athletic Association. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 25 Oct. 2005 <http://www2.ncaa.org/about_ncaa/overview/mission.html>,<http://www2.ncaa.org/about_ncaa/membership/>

National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2005-06 NCAA Division I Manual: Constitution. Indianapolis: NCAA, 2005

“NCAA Executive Committee Issues Guidelines for Use of Native American Mascots At Championship Events.” National Collegiate Athletic Association. 5 Aug. 2005. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 26 Oct. 2005 <http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/2005/august/20050805_exec_comm_rls.html>

“University appeals NCAA policy.” UIUC News Bureau. 20 Oct. 2005. UIUC News Bureau. 27 Oct. 2005 <http://www.news.uiuc.edu/ii/05/1020/ncaa.html>

Wetherell, T.K. “Wetherell’s letter to the NCAA” Tallahassee.com. 13 Aug. 2005. Tallahassee Democrat. 27 Oct. 2005 <http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/12370488.htm>

Wurth, Julie. “UI likely to appeal NCAA policy.” The News-Gazette Online. 9 Sept. 2005. The News-Gazette. 27 Oct. 2005 <http://www.newsgazette.com/localnews/story.cfm?Number=18939>

Zillgitt, Jeff. “Excuses, inconsistencies mar NCAA ruling.” USA Today. 25 Aug. 2005. USA Today. 27 Oct. 2005 <http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/zillgitt/2005-08-24-zillgitt_x.htm>

[doctorpeligro]

The NCAA does have the authority to decide where it awards its postseason tournaments and the rules under which those postseason tournaments are played. I have no problem with the NCAA using that authority to provide incentives for schools to get rid of their bigoted "traditions."

Educate yourself on the traditions. They aren't bigoted. So sorry. You lose. So does everyone else who seems to just automatically assume they are.

The NCAA can't do what they did, and they sucked at doing what they did.

You just undermined your entire argument with your asinine comment.

[FSUWolf21]

I don't know if this has been asked before, and I hope I don't come across as ignorant, but the use of a nickname for a school could it be classified under Freedom of Speech even though it might make you sound ignorant? It crossed my mind. I just find it interesting that the NCAA has banned "Indian" nicknames, and yet the use of Seminoles, and Utes are being allowed because each tribe allows it. To me it sounds contradictory if that's a word, either ban them all or don't. I just personally HATE the NCAA because they seem to worry about things such as team nicknames and yet seem to have this stupid idea that it's okay to allow violent criminals to represent them on the field of play. Oh I forgot, the nicknames aren't putting green into their pocket, that's the real reason they "allowed" Florida State to keep their name. I guarentee you that FSU had to have payed the NCAA a "fee" to keep the nickname. I just find it interesting that we use terms like "fight", "warrior", or "brave" as being courageous and yet if you the use of a native american (is the term Eskimos banned?) as a logo, it's a no-no in the NCAA's eyes. I'm as white as can be, and always have looked at the Native Americans as being screwed over. I've always had a love for Native Americans and through college sports learned what a Huron, Chippewa, Ute, etc. was. I just don't see why the NCAA can't get together with each school and have them have classes about each tribe to teach about these wonderful people. I'm just really afraid that we are heading towards a mono-view society where everything is the same. Don't believe me, look at all the aggresive-childish minor league logos that are created now adays. My view on this might be different as a native american, but I'm not.

First post here (as you can see) and just wanted to weigh in on this, since this issue hit us hard last year. First, Florida State did not "pay a fee" to keep their name - they took their fight to the NCAA immediately after the "hostile and abusive" names list was released, and basically threatened lawsuits and challenged the NCAA to prove why their name was hostile and abusive and should be included on their list. As STL Fanatic 's lengthy article notes, the NCAA checked out the Seminole Tribe of Florida's approval of the university's use of the Seminoles name, but in the case of the Oklahoma Tribe, the NCAA relied on one man who claimed he was empowered by the Oklahoma tribe to speak on their behalf. Turns out he wasn't giving the NCAA the views of the entire tribe, but of himself and a small but vocal minority.

I think it's strange for the US to claim to honor a group that they massacred; that the claim that nicknames honor natives is ridiculous. But, on the other hand, in schools we learn about Martin Luther King and Harriet Tubman as heroes, whereas in their own time periods they were looked at as subversives and criminals.

It's also funny, I don't think anyone ever accused "white people" in general of these atrocities against native americans, I think it of the USA and Americans in general. Some people seem to hear things that the US did and equate that to meaning them or their race personally. You don't have to be white to feel bad about and understand the things that your country, the usa, has done in the past...

I can absolutely see the dilemma ND must have been in, it would be impossible to turn down that money...

Now that he's dead, dump the name to spite him!

Seriously, I think it's a big point against them though...But sanction from the tribe itself generally makes things ok in my opinion...

Just to clarify - the reason Florida State chose to honor the Seminole Tribe of Florida with their nickname was that the Seminole Tribe of Florida has never signed a treaty with the U.S., leading to the school honoring the Seminole Tribe of Florida's legacy of being "Unconquered."

The school has been careful preserve the good relationship with the Seminole Tribe, inviting tribe elders to assist in the design, creation and authenticity of its traditions and imagery, and the school has endowed scholarships for Seminole Tribe members.

[STL FANATIC]

The NCAA does have the authority to decide where it awards its postseason tournaments and the rules under which those postseason tournaments are played. I have no problem with the NCAA using that authority to provide incentives for schools to get rid of their bigoted "traditions."

Educate yourself on the traditions. They aren't bigoted. So sorry. You lose. So does everyone else who seems to just automatically assume they are.

The NCAA can't do what they did, and they sucked at doing what they did.

You just undermined your entire argument with your asinine comment.

Um. Nope. Not one bit.

I did get frustrated and just say some general crap cuz I'm sick of it, but I didn't really undermine anything.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

PS-C2C, under your plan, Illinois is completely off the hook, while smaller colleges such as Bradley have to make massive payouts. Methinks your plan, while noble, needs some twinking.

i was thinking all NCAA/PRO/Semi/amateur teams that feature a native american name, logo or any references to pay. doesn't matter if your FSU, Bradley or the Cleveland Indians.