A Response to George Will
Last Thursday Washington Post columnist and Champaign native, George Will commented on the ongoing controversy surrounding the use of Chief Illiniwek, a controversy that is heating up again because the Board of Trustees must soon decide whether or not to comply with the NCAA mandate to retire the Chief. Mr. Will rhetorically asks why the disapproval of a nickname should doom it.
While Mr. Will is correct that people do not have an entitlement to not be offended, the relevant question is whether or not it makes sense for one of the nation’s finest public institutions to continue using a nickname that so many find offensive. When a mascot’s main purpose is suppose to be uniting a campus, does it make sense to use a mascot so divisive that over 30% of the student body opposes it. George Will, like many other pro-Chief advocates, offers examples of mascots that are allowed by the NCAA such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Florida State Seminoles. Although he claims the NCAA is arbitrarily censoring Illinois, Mr. Will overlooks an important distinction. Carol Spindel said it best when she pointed out that at Notre Dame if the Irish Catholics did not approve of “The Fighting Irish” as a mascot, the team name would be changed overnight. Similarly, with institutions like Florida State, the NCAA has approved of mascots and team names where the relevant tribe has approved.
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the decedents of the Illini Tribes. In April of 2001, the Peoria Tribe passed a tribal resolution asking the University of Illinois to stop using Chief Illiniwek as its mascot. Despite the passage of this tribal resolution, Mr. Will claims the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about the Chief Illiniwek. They do care. They have spoken up. However, the university has ignored their request for the last five years.
Regardless of your stance on the Chief, no one can deny that the controversy is a tremendous waste of resources. We have funded countless diversity and sensitivity studies, which almost all recommend retiring the Chief. Additionally, due to the controversy surrounding the mascot, the university has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on wholly unnecessary litigation. We continue to throw good money after bad wasting more administrative time and energy on a debate that will continue to divide and disrupt us until the mascot is ultimately retired.
Perhaps the only factor preventing the retirement of the mascot is the threat of reduced donor money. On its face this threat seems empty. People give to Illinois because of fond memories of college and because of an appreciation for the tremendous wealth of opportunities Illinois gave them, not because of a mascot. Other schools faced similar threats (Stanford, Dartmouth, and Marquette) and after a brief decline, giving soared to unprecedented levels. Since the NCAA is forcing the University to either retire the mascot or lose the opportunity to host any postseason tournaments or events, donations will continue because reasonable athletic boosters would see that retiring the Chief will only help Illinois athletics.
Mr. Will also overlooks the native students currently enrolled at the University of Illinois. A staggering majority of our Native American students oppose the continued use of the Chief. Sadly, those who speak up and voice their criticism are often taunted, threatened, and told “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.” This kind of behavior is obviously inappropriate in a community of scholars. The Board of Trustees has the power to end this sort of treatment if they can summon the political courage to do so.
The ultimate question facing the Board of Trustees must be what course of action is best for the University of Illinois. The time has come for the Board to boldly answer that question, even if the answer is unpopular.
-Josh Rohrscheib
While Mr. Will is correct that people do not have an entitlement to not be offended, the relevant question is whether or not it makes sense for one of the nation’s finest public institutions to continue using a nickname that so many find offensive. When a mascot’s main purpose is suppose to be uniting a campus, does it make sense to use a mascot so divisive that over 30% of the student body opposes it. George Will, like many other pro-Chief advocates, offers examples of mascots that are allowed by the NCAA such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Florida State Seminoles. Although he claims the NCAA is arbitrarily censoring Illinois, Mr. Will overlooks an important distinction. Carol Spindel said it best when she pointed out that at Notre Dame if the Irish Catholics did not approve of “The Fighting Irish” as a mascot, the team name would be changed overnight. Similarly, with institutions like Florida State, the NCAA has approved of mascots and team names where the relevant tribe has approved.
The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma are the decedents of the Illini Tribes. In April of 2001, the Peoria Tribe passed a tribal resolution asking the University of Illinois to stop using Chief Illiniwek as its mascot. Despite the passage of this tribal resolution, Mr. Will claims the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about the Chief Illiniwek. They do care. They have spoken up. However, the university has ignored their request for the last five years.
Regardless of your stance on the Chief, no one can deny that the controversy is a tremendous waste of resources. We have funded countless diversity and sensitivity studies, which almost all recommend retiring the Chief. Additionally, due to the controversy surrounding the mascot, the university has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on wholly unnecessary litigation. We continue to throw good money after bad wasting more administrative time and energy on a debate that will continue to divide and disrupt us until the mascot is ultimately retired.
Perhaps the only factor preventing the retirement of the mascot is the threat of reduced donor money. On its face this threat seems empty. People give to Illinois because of fond memories of college and because of an appreciation for the tremendous wealth of opportunities Illinois gave them, not because of a mascot. Other schools faced similar threats (Stanford, Dartmouth, and Marquette) and after a brief decline, giving soared to unprecedented levels. Since the NCAA is forcing the University to either retire the mascot or lose the opportunity to host any postseason tournaments or events, donations will continue because reasonable athletic boosters would see that retiring the Chief will only help Illinois athletics.
Mr. Will also overlooks the native students currently enrolled at the University of Illinois. A staggering majority of our Native American students oppose the continued use of the Chief. Sadly, those who speak up and voice their criticism are often taunted, threatened, and told “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else.” This kind of behavior is obviously inappropriate in a community of scholars. The Board of Trustees has the power to end this sort of treatment if they can summon the political courage to do so.
The ultimate question facing the Board of Trustees must be what course of action is best for the University of Illinois. The time has come for the Board to boldly answer that question, even if the answer is unpopular.
-Josh Rohrscheib
posted by Illinois Student Senate | 6:00 PM
10 Comments:
"The time has come for the Board to boldly answer that question, even if the answer is unpopular." -Josh
Perhaps the board has never BOLDLY answered the question, but it has, time and time again, reaffirmed the Chief as the symbol of the University. I think it is a testament to the BOT's respect of the minority opinion that it continues to entertain and investigate when the outcome is predetermined, that is, the Chief stays. I don't think the NCAA ruling has enough teeth to have much effect on the BOT.
Additionally, even if the Chief was retired, it would NOT end the issue. It would undoubtedly result in a backlash that I believe would prove far more costly than the diversity and sensitivity studies you mention. Those studies are cheap compared to angering the alumni donor base.
Also, the Chief image is copyrighted. If the University retires the Chief then that image would be considered "abandoned" under the law, and ANYONE could use it for anything. It would go from being seen on licensed products to being seen EVERYWHERE. I doubt that's the Anti-Chief crowd's intended effect.
I think there are a lot of issues on campus that progressive- or liberal-minded people could have a lot of success with but, frankly, the Chief propably isn't one of them.
-Allan Niemerg
The contraversy will continue forever if it isnt retired. If it is, then about 4 years from now things will die down almost entirely. This is much less costly than continuing on the present course.
We wont lose donor funds, at least not for long. Note the other examples in my post.
Regarding the copyright, the university would likely sell it to someone else. It would not be abandoned, but a party other than the university would control it. It just wouldnt be university sanctioned. that isnt what the anti-chief people want, but i dont think it would be abandoned. they also dont want someone profiting off of it, right now the university is using it less and less, if its sold to a private party it will be used much more.
"The contraversy will continue forever if it isnt retired. If it is, then about 4 years from now things will die down almost entirely." - Josh
I absolutely disagree on this point. The pro-Chief crowd is every bit as feverent as the anti-Chief crowd. Absent a consensus on a new symbol, or mascot, the Chief issue won't go away, instead, eveyone switches roles. There will be Pro-Chief rallies on the quad and maybe even Pro-Chief sit-ins at Swanlund!
And yes, there will be a decrease in alumni donations. Perhaps, it will be a transitory decrease but it will nevertheless be more expensive than maintaining the status quo. And as far as I can see, maintaining the status quo is exactly what the BOT intends to do.
And frankly, the status quo isn't all that bad. The issue will inspire and shape countless liberal activists in the future and be a lasting reminder of the past (regardless of whether you think it's a positive or negative reminder).
-Allan
I'd rather have liberals trained to focus on more important issues. The campus liberals are doing a really bad job on this issue. They frame their argument by leading with calling everyone who doesnt agree w/ them a racist, instead of merely explaining how native americans believe the mascot is disrespectful.
It is interesting that while you note that Marquette has continued to receive funds from alumni of it's university, you failed to note that the mascot issue at Marquette has still not been settled. There is a sizable faction of alumni at Marquette that now are powering a movement to reinstate the former "Warriors" mascot at Marquette.
If Chief Illiniwek causes his viewers to conjure stereotypical images in their heads about Native Americans, then what "hostile and abusive" images can be possibly brought to mind? Certainly, the thought that there are going to be 16,650 people leaving the Assembly hall, after watching the Chief perform, preparing to circle their Suburbans and Excursions like modern day covered wagons to keep those "savage indians" away is ludacris. Nor would an individual visit a reservation (say, in Oklahoma)today and expect its inhabitants to be brutal people, yet master choreographers.
The debate about Chief Illiniwek is really not relevent in any realm. The major issues confronting native americans today are not the potential "offense" that they may take from the name of athletic program mascots--rather, the crucial problems that need to be addressed are social vices that plague the native american population on reservations and a larger focus on opportunities for Native American youth. If truly concerned about the welfare of your fellow man, or just more specifically concerned with the feelings of a single race, one should look past logos and into a deep subject--changes that matter. The struggle over political correctness continues to reach new extremes. It is a sad day when these distractions cloud demanding problems and revent bold and successful resolutions.
This is going to reveal how much of a nerd I am, but please consider the following analogy.
A reaction-coordinate diagram is commonly used in chemistry and biochemistry to describe the course of a reaction, going from reactants, to a transitional state (of higher overall energy) to the product(s) which usually have a different amount of energy. (An example of such a diagram is here: http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~claude/bigpic.html ) Generic diagrams have the reactants residing at a higher energy level than the products, much like diagram A on the linked page. My understanding of the Chief issue is very much like a generic reaction coordinate diagram, in that it will require less energy/effort/whatever to retire the Chief than to keep him, but that there is a very large energy barrier between the two positions. So far, not quite enough energy has been brought to bear on the topic to surmount the barrier, and so the Chief stays. However, once that barrier is surmounted, the way back (the "reverse reaction" if you will) is even less energetically favorable, perhaps impossibly so, making it much more likely that once retired, the Chief will stay retired. My rationalle for this is that bringing the Chief out of retirement would be stigmatized by allegations of racial bigotry and as such suffer under a handicap of bad PR.
I'm sure that was much more technical than was necessary, but if I can't make obscure metaphors after three and a half years of college, what was the point of me being here?
First a Reply to Mr. Diller
1. The vote was in 2001. On Sunday there was a letter from the current chief of the Peora Tribe of Oklahoma in the New Gazette responding to Mr. Will who claims the Peoria Tribe doesn't care to remind him that the tribe passed a resolution asking the university to stop using the Chief. The vote was close (3-2) but it's still the official position of the tribe absent a new vote arriving at a new position.
Many prochiefers have argued the move by the tribe was simply a tactic to try to coerce the university into buying them off, while that is an interesting theory, i've never seen any evidence to support it.
I can understand Mr. Dillers confusion, the Tribal Counsel is called "The Peoria Tribal Business Committee." It's the committee that handles tribal business. It's just what they call it, that doesn't mean it's a subcommittee that only handles financial arrangements or anything like that. This is the counsel that speaks for the tribe. You might notice the Chief, Second Cheif, Secretary, Treasurer, and 3 Counsilmen sit on the committee.
The resolution is available at: http://aistm.org/2000peoria.htm
If you'd like to see a friend of mine read the resolution and offer some background explanation on the resolution check here: http://www.retirethechief.org/Oct1003/SiobhanL.mov
2. Try Crue v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668. The university spent a ton litigating a case that never had a chance. It was totally irrational behavior. My guess is athletic boosters would have been really pissed if the University had "caved" to the PC police (AKA anti-chief activists) by not continuing to litigate (aka waste money on clearly losing appeal). I've heard the university counsels office advised against appealing it, but I have no way of knowing if that rumor is true, but on its face the case seems like a sure loser. You should read the opinion, it's pretty funny. Here's my favorite part:
"All this makes it quite obvious that, when considering college nicknames, one must kiss a lot of frogs to get a prince. But there are a few princes. For major universities, one would be hard pressed to beat gems like The Crimson Tide (Alabama), Razorbacks (Arkansas), Billikens (St.Louis), Horned Frogs (TCU), and Tarheels (North Carolina). But as we see it, some small schools take the cake when it comes to nickname ingenuity. Can anyone top the Anteaters of the University of California-Irvine; the Hardrockers of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City; the Humpback Whales of the University of Alaska-Southeast; the Judges (we are particularly partial to this one) of Brandeis University; the Poets of Whittier College; the Stormy Petrels of Oglethorpe University in Atlanta; the Zips of the University of Akron; or the Vixens (will this nickname be changed if the school goes coed?) of Sweet Briar College in Virginia? As wonderful as all these are, however, we give the best college nickname nod to the University of California-Santa Cruz. Imagine the fear in the hearts of opponents who travel there to face the imaginatively named "Banana Slugs"?"
And Now Mr. Ruzic:
Just because you didnt see anything about the resolution on the TVs at murphy's doesn't mean it didnt happen. ;-)
Ruzic, part of the reason you've seen few native american anti-chief advocates is you're only really familiar w/ the part of the movement on campus, and there are very few native americans on campus. Its not just suburban whitey who's antichief, there are a lot of other minority groups like the NAACP who sympathize w/ the native americans b/c they know what it's like when they say "hey this hurts us, please stop" and whitey says "we dont care, we like it!"
I dont think anyone would argue that the most important issue facing natives is the chief. You'd have to be a real asshole to think its more important than the other issues my esteemed co-president raised. The fact that this is a minor issue is irrelevant, UIUC will adopt one of two policies and the fact that there are more important policies by itself isn't much of a reason for or against keeping the mascot.
The prochiefers who go on and on about honoring the tradition of native americans aren't doing much to help native americans either. At least the anti-chiefers are trying to help them with something, even if it's not as important in the big picture.
In response to Josh's comment:
"The vote was in 2001. On Sunday there was a letter from the current chief of the Peora Tribe of Oklahoma in the New Gazette responding to Mr. Will who claims the Peoria Tribe doesn't care to remind him that the tribe passed a resolution asking the university to stop using the Chief. The vote was close (3-2) but it's still the official position of the tribe absent a new vote arriving at a new position."
This is a foolish issue for student government. On Josh's logic, as the Student Body President, he should advocate for the "official position of" the student body...
Does Josh remember the Chief vote a few years ago? Yeah, the Chief was supported by something like 69.5% of the voting student bosy...
no one cares about the chief issue anymore, when a horse has been beaten to death it ceases to be fun to continue to beat said horse, since the fun lay in killing the horse, but since the horse is now dead, it is no longer fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home