North Dakota sues over mascot

[jimsimo]

All you PC people are a bunch of whiners.

I'm of Greek descent and I take no offense to the imagary of the Michigan State Spartans, San Jose State Trojans, Troy Trojans, etc. I'm honored that someone would think my ancestors were brave and strong enough to represent their univesity as their mascot.

In life, you will at some point be offended, insulted etc. As much as the PC lovers try, you cannot create a world that is insulated from this and there is no real way to do so.

[DDR]

Just so we're all clear on this in terms of Illinois (and this isn't in reference to anyone on here, it's just that I've talked to many people about this, including U of I alums, and many people don't seem to have a grasp on the dispute: The nickname "Fighting Illini" is not in jeopardy. The NCAA has ruled that "Illini" is derived from "Illinois" and now represents "the people of Illinois" not just the Illini tribe. The Chief Illiniwek mascot is what the NCAA wants retired.

In reference to another post--the name "Fighting Irish" isn't offensive, but not because they have Irish members on their teams. It's because Irish people don't take offense at being stereotyped as belligerent. Hell, they don't even really mind being called drunks. I'm Irish, and everyone I know that is Irish has no problem with the name and I guarantee it's not because there's an Irishman playing Guard.

[ElwoodCuse]

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.

Oh really? And how might that be?

Determining whether or not a government actor is involved is a HUGE preliminary part of many First Amendment challenges. Private entities can violate the First Amendment all they want.

[Mingjai]

If the NCAA is going to legislate nicknames, maybe they could also rule that any school with any Native American reference in its school name is ineligible. That would rule out half of the state schools in the U.S. because so many states have names derived from American Indian words.

I think it's a little wierd that a school name North Dakota can't have the Souix nickname. Anyway, the NCAA will soon know the wrath of Sherman and Clayton!

[doafhat]

It might be worth noting that, at least where I grew up, most Native Americans really couldn't care less about the supposed hostility of the mascot for a sports team. Furthermore, at least in my encounters, Native Americans do not like to be labeled simply as "Indians" or "Native Americans," they prefer to be referred to by the name of their respective tribe. In many instances, the "hostile and abusive" nicknames are actually a source of pride for many people that one would think would be offended. It is my belief (which is shared by many in my state) that completely eliminating any reference to native cultures in the public medium is more damaging to the tribes because they're little more than sweeping history and cultural distinctiveness under the rug.

Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma is in the process of changing their mascot from the "Redmen" to something more politically correct. To the best of my knowledge, the Cherokee Nation (whose capitol is in Tahlequah) had no issues with the "Redmen" name, and I believe they appealed on behalf of the university to the NCAA when the whole witch hunt began. If you were to poll many Cherokees on the NSU campus (and across northeast Oklahoma, for that matter), you'd find that a substantial majority either have no opinion on the matter or actually oppose changing the nickname.

Personally, I feel that the Native American mascot controversy would be a significantly smaller issue the American society as a whole wasn't so litigious and politically correct, but that's just the opinion of an Okie born and raised amongst the people at the heart of the issue.

[mfoster]

It is my belief (which is shared by many in my state) that completely eliminating any reference to native cultures in the public medium is more damaging to the tribes because they're little more than sweeping history and cultural distinctiveness under the rug.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the term for this movement is ethnic cleansing.

Marc

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

It might be worth noting that, at least where I grew up, most Native Americans really couldn't care less about the supposed hostility of the mascot for a sports team. Furthermore, at least in my encounters, Native Americans do not like to be labeled simply as "Indians" or "Native Americans," they prefer to be referred to by the name of their respective tribe. In many instances, the "hostile and abusive" nicknames are actually a source of pride for many people that one would think would be offended. It is my belief (which is shared by many in my state) that completely eliminating any reference to native cultures in the public medium is more damaging to the tribes because they're little more than sweeping history and cultural distinctiveness under the rug.

Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma is in the process of changing their mascot from the "Redmen" to something more politically correct. To the best of my knowledge, the Cherokee Nation (whose capitol is in Tahlequah) had no issues with the "Redmen" name, and I believe they appealed on behalf of the university to the NCAA when the whole witch hunt began. If you were to poll many Cherokees on the NSU campus (and across northeast Oklahoma, for that matter), you'd find that a substantial majority either have no opinion on the matter or actually oppose changing the nickname.

Personally, I feel that the Native American mascot controversy would be a significantly smaller issue the American society as a whole wasn't so litigious and politically correct, but that's just the opinion of an Okie born and raised amongst the people at the heart of the issue.

the people behind this are the usual suspects that like to disturb society. this time they are using the indians/native americans/*insert tribe name here* to push their guilty white liberalism. just like they use every other minorty group in the country to upset society.

i personally don't call it political correctness, i call it cowardly behavior. which is what political correctness is, cowardess. granted i don't like abuse and anything that is grossly abusive should be dealt with, but this is really stupid.

I come from an irish background, and i have zero problem with the ND Irish. i do think the leprachaun is a bit weak and childish, i much prefer something like an irish/celtic warrior like out of Braveheart.

[powersurge]

My head is spinning from reading all of these posts...UGH

It should be pretty simple...or so you would think. If a tribe endorses the name then case closed.

Its names like "Indians" or better yet "Redskins" for example that should be banned. Imagine having a team called the "Black skins" or "Yellow skins", I mean how much more abusive and racist can that be? Having a college team named after a tribe is much more honorable than naming it after a generalized stereotypical racist term.

I will also mention that its ridiculous that names like "Braves" "Chiefs" or "Warriors" is on the list because they are in no way refering to anything negative. These names are similar to "Generals" "Kings" or "Gladiators" and should be looked at as positive and honorable.

[ROCHitman]

An update on the lawsuit

Hearing set for 11/9

[Epiphanic]

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The article made reference to other colleges that have been exempted from the policy (i.e. Seminoles, Chippewas, Choctaws, etc.), which made me think of something.

Does the fact that North Dakota is a DII school make them an easier target for the NCAA to go after?

[gosioux76]

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The article made reference to other colleges that have been exempted from the policy (i.e. Seminoles, Chippewas, Choctaws, etc.), which made me think of something.

Does the fact that North Dakota is a DII school make them an easier target for the NCAA to go after?

I think it's more of an issue of UND's profile than its division status. There are many who believe that the only reason UND still has to fight this is because the university isn't as high-profile or as well-monied as Florida State and others where the NCAA granted exceptions.

UND is now the on the move to D-IAA, much like its rival North Dakota State, but I doubt that will make much of a difference in the eyes of the NCAA. And while the vast majority of its atheltic programs are now DII, its D1 hockey team is one of the most successful and recognizable programs in all of college hockey. That, clearly, had no bearing on the NCAA decision.

[griffelh]

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The article made reference to other colleges that have been exempted from the policy (i.e. Seminoles, Chippewas, Choctaws, etc.), which made me think of something.

Does the fact that North Dakota is a DII school make them an easier target for the NCAA to go after?

I think it's more of an issue of UND's profile than its division status. There are many who believe that the only reason UND still has to fight this is because the university isn't as high-profile or as well-monied as Florida State and others where the NCAA granted exceptions.

UND is now the on the move to D-IAA, much like its rival North Dakota State, but I doubt that will make much of a difference in the eyes of the NCAA. And while the vast majority of its atheltic programs are now DII, its D1 hockey team is one of the most successful and recognizable programs in all of college hockey. That, clearly, had no bearing on the NCAA decision.

I agree completely. If the Seminole riding in on a horse and acting like an idiot is not offensive, then no Indian portrayal is offensive imho. But Florida St is "big time" so you can't pick on them. NCAA is a bunch of hippocritical cowards.

[walkdesign]

Well, now it is in the courts.. so there is your government factor.

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.

[walkdesign]

It's not whether or not you agree or disagree with using American Indian names or not. It becomes an issue of who decides who will be deciding social policy. And what gives the NCAA the authority to discriminate against certain schools and not others to obtain a resolution that they feel comfortable with. Who are they to decide that certain schools are respectful and not others? And if this resolution of theirs gives you the outcome you want, fine, but be weary that this flawed logic will come back and bite you in the ass later as well. If the names are that offensive than people shouldn't buy the products or attend the schools. If you feel they are offensive then spend the money educating people as to why and then live with the decisions that are made based on that knowledge.

It's like any hot topic issue like abortion, gay marriage, race, religion... you need to let the people as a whole make there decisions on how to deal with it by either referendums or boycotts or whatever. It?s is unconscionable to go around letting people make decisions by using the courts and getting some judge to rule like a dictator rather than just interpret the law. If it is what the people want, then let the people decide through voting, economic decisions that they make (purchases, support), polling the fan base, etc.

You should not force change on people because you don't like the choices they have made either right or wrong. That is not what true democracy is about. And true democracy is what made the NCAA the rich fat cats that they are, so to me this is a case of them biting the hand that feeds them and maybe killing the goose the laid the golden egg.

[Epiphanic]

Excellent point. Something to keep in mind with many other discussions/debates.

[Telemundo219]

See names like seminoles, fighting sioux, aztecs, or illini are based from a native american tribe from the past and in my eyes, naming a team after any tribe is somewhat a honor, not neccessarily to our country's history but the the history of the region they represent. But names like the Washington Redskins, or Savages or Indians or even logos like this:

or

are not acceptable. Those are names and logos based on stereotypes of a culture that has served a terrible fate at the hands of the "fathers" of this country,.

Anyway on the subject of UND and the NCAA, it would be hyrocritical to allow FSU or other well known universities the rights to keep their names/mascots but force UND, Bradley, and other lesser known institutions into renaming the mascots for their sports teams.

[southpawstu19]

the seminole tribe is very proud to have fsu use their name, this is why you never see controversy with it. the tribe actually commends the fact that their name is used and wants it to continue to be used

[powersurge]

It's not whether or not you agree or disagree with using American Indian names or not. It becomes an issue of who decides who will be deciding social policy. And what gives the NCAA the authority to discriminate against certain schools and not others to obtain a resolution that they feel comfortable with. Who are they to decide that certain schools are respectful and not others? And if this resolution of theirs gives you the outcome you want, fine, but be weary that this flawed logic will come back and bite you in the ass later as well. If the names are that offensive than people shouldn't buy the products or attend the schools. If you feel they are offensive then spend the money educating people as to why and then live with the decisions that are made based on that knowledge.

It's like any hot topic issue like abortion, gay marriage, race, religion... you need to let the people as a whole make there decisions on how to deal with it by either referendums or boycotts or whatever. It?s is unconscionable to go around letting people make decisions by using the courts and getting some judge to rule like a dictator rather than just interpret the law. If it is what the people want, then let the people decide through voting, economic decisions that they make (purchases, support), polling the fan base, etc.

You should not force change on people because you don't like the choices they have made either right or wrong. That is not what true democracy is about. And true democracy is what made the NCAA the rich fat cats that they are, so to me this is a case of them biting the hand that feeds them and maybe killing the goose the laid the golden egg.

Although I whole heartedly agree with most of your points, I will point out that nothing in our country is a "true democracy". Unfortunately in the 'representative' democratic society we live in, things like what you mentioned happen all of the time. The NCAA is more of a dictatorship in a sense because even if they were a true democracy they would let the schools vote on the issue at hand, but they didn't. They just simply imposed the sanctions.

[gosioux76]

See names like seminoles, fighting sioux, aztecs, or illini are based from a native american tribe from the past and in my eyes, naming a team after any tribe is somewhat a honor, not neccessarily to our country's history but the the history of the region they represent.

While I agree with you on your points, this sentence here is the fundamental reason why this argument tends to escalate -- especially among the eyes of those opposed to American Indian mascots.

I'm not an American Indian. So I'm in no position to be able to tell them what's honorable and not honorable about an American Indian mascot -- despite my devotion to the Fighting Sioux and the best intentions implied by the moniker.

Therefore, the issue here shouldn't be one of whether the general public feels its honorable or otherwise. The issue is whether the NCAA has the right to arbitrarily sanction one university while allowing the same practice to continue unfettered at another.

[mydogisgomez]

I've posted this before, but, should I be offended that an NFL team in Houston, Texas uses my ancestors as a mascot? I assume the reason I'm not is because the term "Texan" is not derogatory. I'm used to it because it has been in use for so long, but I think the Redskins might be the only undefensible nickname in use today. Anyone care to defend? I do, however, think that Cleveland should keep Chief Wazoo but change their nickname to the Americans, since they were the first Americans and it would be cool to have a minority group represent all of us Americans (cartoon and all).