North Dakota retiring "Fighting Sioux" nickname

[Spearhead]

In May 2006, after receiving the report from William and Mary, the NCAA told them that "Tribe" was OK as a nickname, but WM logo with feathers needed to go.

Orwellian.

[oldschoolvikings]

they didn't suck any less than Dylan himself.

Are you stupid?

Apparently

[STL FANATIC]

I've been holding out a while, but I've gotta jump in on some things.

First off, the NCAA violates it's own mission by creating the rule they did. It has no place in the organization. Certainly, the NCAA can do what it wants (within the US law), and if the member schools don't challenge it, then it stands (as has been the case), but it's important to note that the rule does not fit within the NCAAs mission.

Their website states that the NCAA is "a voluntary organization through which the nation's colleges and universities govern their athletics programs. It is not an arbiter of taste, or ethics, or social justice." Their own mission statement says "Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences."

This is well beyond their stated purpose, and I wish this would be challenged more. Now, this is not to say that the these names and logos should all stand. They're related, but different issues. The issue here is that the NCAA is going beyond it's stated purpose to take away autonomy from its institutions, something it's mission statement explicitly says it will not do.

So that's one part.

Then let's move on to the other part--the names and logos themselves. This part still has to be sorted out, it's just not the NCAA's job to do so. But this part I'm going to keep it short on, because it just has a tendency to always be a rinse and repeat situation. But I'll throw out these questions.

What if these tribes approved of the names years ago, but today change their mind? Respecting traditions of others is at issue here, is it not? Should the universities who've built much of their identity around these names be forced to shrug off 80 years of tradition because generations later a tribe has a change of heart (mind, or money)? (This is not a specific example of any one situation.)

What if the tribe no longer exists? Should we really stretch ridiculously hard to try and label an "owner" of a tribe name just so someone can approve or disapprove? What if these people aren't who the name was intended to pay homage to in the first place? Many if not most of these names were named for the historical tribes, not their current existence. Unimportant?

Lastly, should the approval or disapproval on a small (generally 3-9) tribal council overrule the fact that a poll of the rest of the tribe may and often does result in (unofficial) approval?

[The_Admiral]

Well, isn't that representative democracy? I don't know if tribes elect their council members, and if they do, if they feel they should vote the bums out for voting against UND paraphernalia.

You're absolutely right that the NCAA regularly oversteps its self-imposed boundaries, which I suppose is really easy for anyone to do when it comes to self-imposed boundaries. See also, the FCC going beyond its mission of regulating broadcast frequencies to ban words and breasts.

[STL FANATIC]

Whether it is or isn't, that's not really my point. We're talking ethics, here right? So my question is when making this decision if it is ethically right or wrong to be using these names, do we abide by the three guys making the technical stance, or do we listen to the tribe at large. Ethically, wouldn't it make more sense to listen to the greater number?

Now in fairness, there haven't been that many polls, and they certainly haven't been done tribe by tribe, so what I'm suggesting hasn't ever actually happened. All I'm doing is calling into question how much these "tribal stances" really count for. Especially when you consider motivation. If the truth is that the people don't care, the guys not in charge are going to say "we don't care." But the guys in charge that still might not care are going to go "we might be able to get money for this... we don't care--as long as you give us money."

Am I rambling nonsensically or does that kind of make sense?

I get how those things come to be the "official" stance of a tribe, but it's just that when talking about an issue of ethics, I think it requires we go beyond technicalities.

(And as a smaller response to your post, even if they are representative democracies AND the members of the tribe don't agree with this decision in question, it's likely not the issue of largest importance to tribe at large, so it probably wouldn't be an issue they'd replace a member over. That's just a standard happening of representative democracy.)

[oldschoolvikings]

Well, isn't that representative democracy? I don't know if tribes elect their council members, and if they do, if they feel they should vote the bums out for voting against UND paraphernalia.

You're absolutely right that the NCAA regularly oversteps its self-imposed boundaries, which I suppose is really easy for anyone to do when it comes to self-imposed boundaries. See also, the FCC going beyond its mission of regulating broadcast frequencies to ban words and breasts.

See, now THERE you go! What can't the anti-PC crowd get behind something important, like letting us see boobs on TV.

[Spearhead]

See, now THERE you go! What can't the anti-PC crowd get behind something important, like letting us see boobs on TV.

You're going to be surprised when they get cable television in Detroit.

[The_Admiral]

We're talking ethics, here right? So my question is when making this decision if it is ethically right or wrong to be using these names, do we abide by the three guys making the technical stance, or do we listen to the tribe at large. Ethically, wouldn't it make more sense to listen to the greater number?

We're talking intellectual property, I think, and if the decision to license or approve said intellectual property is supposed to rest with the council, then that's what you have to go with, isn't it? I suppose they could've thrown it to a referendum if they wanted, but evidently they didn't or couldn't. I don't really know how tribal government works.

[STL FANATIC]

Well I'm talking about the ethics of using the name. I don't really consider the names of these tribes to be protected Intellectual Property. I've never heard that even brought up until this thread. And while Goth dismissed it, I really don't see how it IS any different than Irish or American or anything else.

[quantum]

Intellectual property seemed misplaced in this discussion. The use is for commercial ventures/products, not imagery for sovereign nations. As such, I believe such imagery would be public domain, since currently I could make products using a national image for the US or Canada or the UK, etc.