I got this press release from the PRC on the U of I campus. I cna't beleive this fight has been going on since 1989 and the administrations still does not "get" it.
Calls On University of Illinois Board to Do the Right Thing
On Friday, April 28th, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ruled on the mascot appeals of four universities, including the University of Illinois and it's symbol "Chief Illiniwek." The Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative (PRC), which has worked for the elimination of "Chief Illiniwek" since 1989, commends the NCAA for ruling against U of I's appeal and keeping the university on the list of schools with "hostile and abusive" mascots. The ruling against the appeals of the University of Illinois, University of North Dakota, and Indiana University of Pennsylvania is a mile marker for the movements against race-based mascots.
The University of Illinois Board of Trustees reacted quickly to the news in their usual counterproductive method. U of I Board Chairman Lawrence Eppley was quoted in the University's press release as saying, "By branding an 80-year tradition 'hostile and abusive,' the NCAA inappropriately defames generations of Illinoisans and University of Illinois supporters." Tradition should never be used as an argument to retain something; there are many long traditions that have become outdated and inappropriate, like Black Face, Jim Crow laws, denying the right of women and people of color to vote, segregation, slavery, and much more. "I believe that Eppley's comment on the defamation of Illinoisans is ignorant and untrue. As an Illinoisan and U of
I student I feel ashamed of the "Chief" tradition and that Chairman Eppley feels it is appropriate to speak for me," commented Bess Van Asselt, co-coordinator of the PRC.
In addition, Chairman Eppley clearly feels that the University's autonomy is being violated. In the Staff Committee's Response, the NCAA wrote, "As was noted when the August 2005 policy was announced, the Executive Committee is not interfering with member institutions' right to determine what their nickname, mascots or imagery will be. Institutional autonomy continues to be a valued principle. The Executive Committee's policy applies only to the context of NCAA championships." The University cites in their 4/28/06 press release that the athletics will be hardest by the post-season restrictions. U of I spokesperson Tom Hardy wrote, "A ban on hosting NCAA championship events would put Illini athletics at a competitive disadvantage and make it hard to recruit top student athletes and coaches." Hardy goes on to cite the excellence of the athletics programs at U of I. Jen Tayabji, co-coordinator of the PRC, "The University does have an excellent athletics programs and I am a proud supporter of the teams. It's the athletes, the coaches, and the
programs that make them so great, not the presence of 'Chief Illiniwek.' And it's the University, not the NCAA, that is hurting the athletics because the Board chooses to maintain a racist mascot, instead of dealing with the issue and giving the athletics the ability to host post-season play."
The University of Illinois Board has the power to resolve the "Chief
Illiniwek" controversy as they are the ones who perpetuate it. Take heed
from organizations like the NCAA and recognize the hostile and abusive
nature of "Chief Illiniwek." In the best interest of the University, take action today and eliminate the "Chief" in its entiretythe name, dance, and logo.
It is about more than just "hurt feelings". Studies have been done on how the protrayals of Native Americans as sports mascots is damaging psychologically to children from those groups. The Chief and his dance are particulary damaging. When Charlene Teeters (I think that is her name) took her children to that basketball game and her children had to sit through the humiliation of the chief's dance, she had the cajones to stand up and say it was wrong. Her children wanted to know why they were being made fun of. And how about Native students who had to walk through rival campuses to see efigies of Native figures hanging, burning or otherwise disfigured all in the name of "fun"? A simpler and less drawn out solution would have been for the UNiversity to recognize and admit they were creating a hostile environment, and to make the change over 20 years ago, when this was brought to the forefront. Then were would have been no need for any lawsuit.
I am of CHerokee descent, and when I explained to my inlaws, who live overseas, that I was Cherokee, they were puzzled that I would be descended from a car. My history and culture had been reduced to the vehicles on a car lot. I found that sad and disturbing (commercial use is a whole 'nother ball of wax so I will let it go there.)
I think you would find "In Whose Honor" an informative film for you to watch. It does a very good job explaining this situation. You may not be so quick to just dismiss it as a bunch of babies wanting attention. It is a serious issue.
I also did a paper on this subject and did extensive research on the implications of the chief. If you want it, I will be happy to forward it to you.
I think peoples' energy should be better spent on things than agitating over sport mascot names, IMHO. Why spend money on lawsuits over something so ridiculous? No wonder our society is such a mess, no one can stand to see something that they might not like..don't look the other way, just file a lawsuit; pay lawyers big bucks to assuage your hurt feelings. And no one really wins.
I am a big busted blonde..and I laugh at blonde jokes. I would have no problem w/ a team called the 'dumb blondes'. It might sound stupid, but big deal.
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.
Agree totally with fotografe. And, I might add, naming a sports team "The Dumb Blondes" doesn't come close to this issue for dumb blondes are not a race, but is a disparaging remark.
Believe it or not, as the actual, alive and well, family of "the Chief," all we really asked was that they correct whatever that garb was that he was wearing, correct the so-called tribal dances - and stop flailing about - literally - like Big Bird on drugs. Then, he could have been not only "fun" - but something to be proud of too. They got ugly - No problem - we took em to court.
fotografe
464 Posts
It is about more than just "hurt feelings". Studies have been done on how the protrayals of Native Americans as sports mascots is damaging psychologically to children from those groups. The Chief and his dance are particulary damaging. When Charlene Teeters (I think that is her name) took her children to that basketball game and her children had to sit through the humiliation of the chief's dance, she had the cajones to stand up and say it was wrong. Her children wanted to know why they were being made fun of. And how about Native students who had to walk through rival campuses to see efigies of Native figures hanging, burning or otherwise disfigured all in the name of "fun"? A simpler and less drawn out solution would have been for the UNiversity to recognize and admit they were creating a hostile environment, and to make the change over 20 years ago, when this was brought to the forefront. Then were would have been no need for any lawsuit.
I am of CHerokee descent, and when I explained to my inlaws, who live overseas, that I was Cherokee, they were puzzled that I would be descended from a car. My history and culture had been reduced to the vehicles on a car lot. I found that sad and disturbing (commercial use is a whole 'nother ball of wax so I will let it go there.)
I think you would find "In Whose Honor" an informative film for you to watch. It does a very good job explaining this situation. You may not be so quick to just dismiss it as a bunch of babies wanting attention. It is a serious issue.
I also did a paper on this subject and did extensive research on the implications of the chief. If you want it, I will be happy to forward it to you.