The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

The Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois system is expected to decide this week whether to keep Chief Illiniwek, the 78-year-old mascot at the Urbana-Champaign campus. Opponents of the chief say he is a racist mascot and a divisive image on an increasingly diverse campus. Supporters call him an honored symbol. Should Illinois and the 57 other colleges that have American Indian mascots retire them, given that most institutions with such mascots have gotten rid of them in the last two decades? How can colleges with American Indian mascots honor their traditions while eliminating their official mascot? Trustees at U. of Illinois Delay a Decision on Fate of Chief Illiniwek (6/18/2004)

Are the great African-American or west Pennsylvania Croatians and Poles who play for Notre Dame really fighting Irishmen? Uh . . . no. Does this keep us awake at night, worrying over improper designators or slurs on former occupants of Saturday night 'paddy wagons'? No. Why? Because most of us perceive that the names that have been attached to athletic teams over the years are part of a fantasy life and not literal history. Is it a good or a bad thing to be a 'golden gopher'? Is it a good or a bad thing to be a 'Hoya'? (Wait a minute, there's no such thing as a Hoya; it's a Latin word from an old cheer.) Are the UC-Irvine students diminished by their anteater mascot? Or the UC-Santa Cruz banana slugs? Oh, wait a minute, we're being fey and having a little fun. How can we do that without breaking the hearts and shattering the feelings of the people there? Because we know that there is a difference between athletic mascots and living, breathing human beings.

Let's consider tradition and context. If you walk up to a person on the street and call him a demon he probably won't be pleased. 'Demonizing' an opponent is considered terribly unfair. However, if you walk up to a high school basketball player and say, "I think you play like a blue demon," the response is likely to be favorable. And what's a demon deacon? That seems like a contradiction in terms. How is it supposed to make you feel? It's supposed to make you feel proud, and because most of us can distinguish the difference between real epithets and the wacky mascot terms that have emerged over the years we don't lose sleep about it.

I'm worried about the fact that the Illinois president has left the university after a very brief term in office. I don't know why she did that--perhaps because she was not the right person for the job and should not have been hired, perhaps because key promises made to her were broken, perhaps because of the erosion of state funding, perhaps because our college presidents have become too careerist, job jumping from position to position. I really don't know why; I wasn't there. What I do know is that the University of Illinois is a great university on which the state, the united states, and the world depends and a sudden, unexpected loss of leadership such as this is a serious issue, far more serious than Chief Illiniwek and his silly dance.

So why do we focus on the 'Chief' rather than the chief? Read Russell Jacoby's DOGMATIC WISDOM.

This issue arose as a topic of conversation in an interdisciplinary humanities course I team taught several years ago. What struck me at the time, and I've heard it expressed ever since, is the spectacularly jaded position assumed by so many of our students that "native Americans shouldn't be offended by such matters" . . . that they are somehow being thin-skinned about it.

It is so difficult to make people understand that it does not fall within the moral purview of any individual to determine for another human being what should or shouldn't offend him/her. I'm rarely more frustrated than when somebody summarily dismisses something to which I take and voice great umbrage.

The fact of the matter is that native Americans ARE offended by it. They've always been offended by it and they've made it known loud and long that they are offended by it. Simple human decency would mandate that such offense cease.

And yet, the native American population has been singled out for exclusion from this most common of courtesies. There is little question that if Deep South University adopted the team name of "Spearchuckers," the hue and cry would effect immediate change. Still the insipid FSU Seminole tomahawk chop and chant still drone on.

The defense of using such symbols has always been twofold: (a) tradition, and (b) the use of such imagery honors native Americans. Well, they don't feel honored by it, and simply want it to stop. I'm sure they would prefer to have their wishes honored rather than some rich, white, old men's twisted versions of their culture. And while it may alienate the schools donors, any tradition based on racial insensitivity and stereotyping is hardly worth passing down.

Now about the Vikings . . . and the Fighting Irish . . .

Dear Mr. Punches,

How did you feel when you saw Jane Fonda sitting at Atlanta Braves' games doing the tomahawk chop?

re: your statement:

It is so difficult to make people understand that it does not fall within the moral purview of any individual to determine for another human being what should or shouldn't offend him/her. I'm rarely more frustrated than when somebody summarily dismisses something to which I take and voice great umbrage.

I'd be interested to hear your reaction to the experience of the University of Wisconsin Shakespeare professor whose student was offended by the word 'niggardly' in a Shakespeare play. The professor took an entire class out to explain to the student why she shouldn't be offended, since, etymologically, the word 'niggardly' has no relationship with the racial slur 'n' word. That bothered her also and the issue eventually came before the faculty senate. If a person is offended and upset and you can explain to the person why the person need not be offended and upset, that would seem to be an act of kindness. In the case of the student at Wisconsin the professor was attempting to counter ignorance with knowledge; is that not within the moral purview of teachers? Is that not a teacher's fundamental responsibility? When people have hurt feelings because of ignorance, what are we to do--reinforce that ignorance by permitting 'feelings' to trump knowledge?

I happen to be offended by the constant references to women as bitches and whores in hip hop music. I am offended when I am sitting or walking in public places with my 4 and 6 year-old daughters and people use the 'f' word ( or worse) in our presence. Are you prepared to join a crusade against such crudeness and incivility?

Just an anecdotal comment here, for what it's worth:

I've been known to show my undergrad ethics classes a film called "In Whose Honor?", a documentary piece about the Chief battle at Illinois. It's well worth watching for anyone interested in this debate, in part because it gives both sides a hearing and provides a decent capsule history of the Chief at Illinois (although it is plainly more sympathetic to the Chief's opponents -- it begins to frame the problem by looking specifically at the story of Charlene Teters, who essentially started the ball rolling against the Chief in recent years). (Note: I am a UIUC alum -- that's where I got my graduate degrees -- I watched the protests and the arguments on this first-hand for several years). It also illustrates the class and power differences (above and beyond the racial issues) that are also a part of this particular problem. If you ever rent and watch it, make note of who the Chief's supporters are (and have a Chicagoland suburbanite and/or a long-time Chicagoan sitting next to you to tell you all about some of the wealthier alumni on screen).

One of the most interesting pieces of this film is Teters' description of the first time she took her children to a basketball game at UIUC (she was a grad student in art there at the time -- note, too, that she is a Native American from what she characterizes as a fairly "traditional" background, Spokane, I think). Her description of how humiliating that experience was for her and for her children is juxtaposed against the common alum/admin/Chief performer claim that the Chief is intended to be "respectful". He is outfitted in what Teters herself calls a"beautiful" buckskin and what are intended to be eagle feathers (which in certain native cultural contexts have a highly specific use and meaning). The costume is often touted for its "authenticity", and the various dancers who have performed the role in most recent history seem to have made some effort to incorporate what they understand to be "traditional" gestures and movements into the Chief's performance. These things, they say, are gestures of respect, and the whole performance (they believe) is dignified and honorable.

Ms. Teters and her children went to the game (as she tells it) prepared for a goofy mascot (big head, foam costume, stupid stuff), which could be dismissed as something silly and ignorant. What they encountered was a bizarre, demi-religious representation of important elements of their own culture, taken radically out of context and (essentially) mis-represented by virtue of the removal. Why was she offended? Why were her children (as she tells the interviewer) shrinking in their seats and trying to go unnoticed in the face of this "respectful" (mis)representation? Teters is nearly in tears, on camera, describing how this "beautiful", out-of-context buckskin hurt more than a foam charicature ever could have. Why? Here were important symbols, out of context, being honored in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, trivialized and (in this context) mocked, even if unintentionally.

Was she just being thin-skinned? I'm inclined to say "no". Next to a Daily Illini newspaper editorial during one round of the Chief debate, a student newspaper artist (and the editorial author, IIRC) compared this use of the "authentic" chief representation to making a mascot of "Rabbi Goldberg", complete with traditional dance, traditional dress, and religious gestures and behaviors. Would this be an appropriate comparison? Would Jewish people be offended to see a (non-Jewish) man purporting to be a "rabbi", sporting a prayer shawl and tefillin, dancing around on the field in this way? Would they be right or wrong to be offended, if they were? These are some of the questions my students are required to discuss in class. I leave them here as an exercise for the reader. ;)

Another fascinating moment: Teters also protests against professional sporting team mascots. There's a moment in the film where she's standing outside (I believe -- memory's a bit fuzzy at the moment) a Redskins or a Chiefs game. Nearby is an African-American man actively and energetically hawking team wares (hats, shirts, foam fingers, etc.). When confronted by her, he tells her that he's got nothing against "you people" (sound familiar?), he's got nothing but respect, but (and this is how he leaves it) "it's all about the money". The multiple ironies and disturbing elements built into this relatively short sequence often *really* hit my students (white midwesterners from rural communities, by an overwhelming majority) very hard.

So, they eventually ask: what about the Fighting Irish?

Well? What about them? What are the obvious differences between one mascot (a goofy charicature) and another (a figure of unintentionally mocking "respect")?

Something the article failed to note was the presence/absence of Native American students at UIUC. In the early 1990s, there were 15 or so tribally enrolled or tribally connected students. Now there are about five. Since the late 1980s, there has been a Native American student organization. Without fail, the organizations have issued statements that they wish to see the chief retired, and that the university, as the flagship of the University of Illinois, must take steps to provide UIUC students and Illinois citizens with the opportunity to learn substantive information about Native Americans. At a minimum, that meant developing a Native American Studies Program, and recruiting Native professors, staff, and students.

I should note that I am from a small Pueblo in New Mexico and moved to Champaign Urbana to work on a doctorate in education in 1993. I've lived here now for over ten years. Under Chancellor Cantor, we have made great progress. We now have the Native American House. We now have the beginnings of an American Indian Studies Program. We are actively recruiting Native professors, staff, and students. With this infrastructure, we should be in a position to grow. However, the chief issue is well known in Native American communities across the country, and recruits at any level invariably view the chief as a significant negative in terms of their consideration of moving to work or study here.

The article noted that some people think the chief, logo, and nickname all should be retired. Those people happen to be the Native American students, staff, and faculty at UIUC, and Native Americans from the Chicago area, including those at NAES College and the American Indian Center.

I believe that the university will only prolong its struggle over this issue if they keep the name. At present, those interested in such a compromise contend that they will remove any references to Native Americans from the way that the nickname is presented and used by the university.
However, the university cannot control how rival teams and others will use "Illini." Many administrators are infuriated with UIUC plays Michigan and students wear "Muck Fichigan" t-shirts. Students are clever and love of team prompts them to do all manner of things with a rival team's name. Thus, it seems the struggle doesn't end if the name is kept.

Many people who support the chief say that it honors Native Americans because it isn't a savage representation of Native American culture. It is the case that Native Americans predominantly appear in pop culture as savage Indians or romantic heroes whose courage is meant to inspire us. Some argue that the romantic image is good and should not be treated the same as the negative one. However, the reality at UIUC and elsewhere, is that romantic stereotypes make people think that Native Americans lives are much like those stereotypes. They are surprised to learn that we are living our lives with the modern conveniences mainstream Americans enjoy. Moreover, the power of the stereotype prompts people to say things like "you're not REALLY an Indian" if you drive a car (instead of a horse), use power boats (instead of a canoe)....

America loves to love its Indians. Not the real ones, just those of the imagination, those who fought valiantly, and those who lived in perfect harmony with the earth. To love America, Americans have to cast us as bad and thereby undeserving of this vast land, or good but vanished, so they don't have to think about the issues involved in the history of conflict of this land.

UIUC is no different from any other place. It loves its Indians in the abstract, in the distant past. But UIUC should be different. It isn't a Hollywood stage. It is an educational institution. A public one. As such, it should divest itself of this issue.

Debbie Reese
Post Doc
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

All students at St. Cloud State University are required to take a racial issues core course, and one of the topics we cover for all first-year students in the courses are the American Indian sports mascot problem. After viewing the film "In Whose Honor?" about the Chief Illiniwek controversy, the majority of students ask how a university can continue to use a symbol for its campus that insults the native peoples of our country. As a faculty member with a background in Anthropology, History and Sociology, I believe the use of such symbols as "Chief Illiniwek" contradicts the educational mission of our state universities because they create a distortion of cultural and historical understanding.

Margaret A. Villanueva
Associate Professor of Community Studies
St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud, MN 56303

If it is "just a name" as the proponents for keeping such symbols often claim - then what is the problem with changing it? There are clearly more important issues they need to worry about rather than telling someone who is offended that they shouldn't be or that this a a sign of respect, or tradition of some other blather to justify the continuing existence of a divisive symbol.

Just change the name, I promise the UI will still be standing, and perhaps they may be better for it. They certainly will not be any worse.

There is no way that a colonizing nation can respectfully represent those that it has deracinated in the act of colonization. To represent the Illini accurately as an essentially peaceful plains tribe is to beg the question of why we felt the need--or felt we had the authority--to drive them from their ancestral lands. And to represent them as a bizarre caricature of Native Americans is to disrespect the sorrowful history that we compiled.

The continuing use of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol of Illinois-UC sports should only be allowed if it is possible to find a living descendant of the tribe willing to play the part, which would no longer be dancing or cheerleading, but merely bearing witness to the lands and way of life destroyed to validate America's manifest destiny. Alternatively, the figure could be a living person or a representation, so long as the latter was rendered by Native American artists. With all respect, retaining the name without the symbol has the effect of emptying the name of its historicity, sort of like having a cricket team named the Slugging Sepoy in the days of the British Raj.

If you want to honour american indians, why not give them their land back and apologise for masacaring them instead of getting worked up about stupid mascots?

Dear Bystander;

Thank you for your response. You raise some interesting points, and I agree completely that "the attempt to counter ignorance with knowledge" falls well within the purview of the teacher. The moral purview? . . . I'm not sure, but certainly within the teacher's professional purview, and to the extent that we teach students to analyze and develop their own values, perhaps even moral.

Having myself stumbled into some language in literature that may not have given offense in Elizabethan times but certainly does now, I feel for the Wisconsin instructor you mentioned. I really do. I would HOPE that an explanation would help allay, assuage or dilute offense, but it is arrogant to suggest to somebody that they SHOULDN'T be offended. Arrogant and out of line. Our job as instructors is not to prescribe feelings, no matter how we attempt to intellectualize them. To be honest, as with the student, I would find the attempt to explain away my offense to be as offensive as the original offense! The first offense is given unwittingly by Shakespeare. The second by the instructor. Pretty poor judgment . . . and perhaps not the best use of class time.

You write: "When people have hurt feelings because of ignorance, what are we to do--reinforce that ignorance by permitting 'feelings' to trump knowledge?" I agree entirely, IF the hurt feelings stem from ignorance.

I don't suggest that you are implying that they are but I've heard this observation before. I assure you that Native Americans are not ignorant about this issue at all. To bastardize the sacred (in some cases) elements of another people's culture for the sake of the "team" is bad enough. To trivialize their objections is worse still. To marginalize their objections as based on ignorance is reprehensible.

By the way: shame on Jane! I expected better!

Bystander wrote:

> Dear Mr. Punches,
>
> How did you feel when you saw Jane Fonda sitting at Atlanta
> Braves' games doing the tomahawk chop?
>
> re: your statement:
>
>
> It is so difficult to make people understand that it does not
> fall within the moral purview of any individual to determine
> for another human being what should or shouldn't offend
> him/her. I'm rarely more frustrated than when somebody
> summarily dismisses something to which I take and voice great
> umbrage.
>
>
> I'd be interested to hear your reaction to the experience of
> the University of Wisconsin Shakespeare professor whose student
> was offended by the word 'niggardly' in a Shakespeare play.
> The professor took an entire class out to explain to the
> student why she shouldn't be offended, since, etymologically,
> the word 'niggardly' has no relationship with the racial slur
> 'n' word. That bothered her also and the issue eventually came
> before the faculty senate. If a person is offended and upset
> and you can explain to the person why the person need not be
> offended and upset, that would seem to be an act of kindness.
> In the case of the student at Wisconsin the professor was
> attempting to counter ignorance with knowledge; is that not
> within the moral purview of teachers? Is that not a teacher's
> fundamental responsibility? When people have hurt feelings
> because of ignorance, what are we to do--reinforce that
> ignorance by permitting 'feelings' to trump knowledge?
>
> I happen to be offended by the constant references to women
> as bitches and whores in hip hop music. I am offended when I
> am sitting or walking in public places with my 4 and 6 year-old
> daughters and people use the 'f' word ( or worse) in our
> presence. Are you prepared to join a crusade against such
> crudeness and incivility?

Hum, let me see, UIUC has a white student dressed up as the chief of an native American tribe doing a quasi-ceremonial dance. Maybe an interesting alternative would be having a white student dressed up as the chief of an African tribe doing a quais-ceremonial dance. How would that go over out there?

The controversy over Chief Illiniwek presents the University of Illinois with a golden opportunity to update its image and strike a positive blow for diversity. Instead of “honoring” the heritage of American Indians in Illinois, of whom there are precious few, the University should focus on the much larger African American minority in the state. My modest proposal is to retire the Chief and honor African Americans instead. Replace the Indian mascot and halftime dance with an African American mascot who would perform a tap dance, a break dance and maybe finish with a rap routine. Dip into history for some zoot suits and conk hair treatment, or go native with some aboriginal garments and bone jewelry from early colonial days. Or combine several historical and sartorial elements from various tribes into one costume, as the Chief has done. If the best dancer recruited for this role is a white student, then blackface cosmetics would replace today’s war paint. Wouldn’t the African Americans of Illinois welcome their heritage being recognized with such an “honor”? Minority recruitment would soar!

Of course my proposal is outrageous and I expect would be viewed as such by 99.9% of today’s UIUC fans and supporters, not to mention the African American community. Therefore, supporters of the Chief should be called upon to explain why American Indians should not regard the Chief as every bit as offensive as African Americans would regard a dancing black or blackface mascot.

Steve Marquardt
Dean of libraries
South Dakota State University

[same as previous "post" but with a new "Subject"]

The controversy over Chief Illiniwek presents the University of Illinois with a golden opportunity to update its image and strike a positive blow for diversity. Instead of “honoring” the heritage of American Indians in Illinois, of whom there are precious few, the University should focus on the much larger African American minority in the state. My modest proposal is to retire the Chief and honor African Americans instead. Replace the Indian mascot and halftime dance with an African American mascot who would perform a tap dance, a break dance and maybe finish with a rap routine. Dip into history for some zoot suits and conk hair treatment, or go native with some aboriginal garments and bone jewelry from early colonial days. Or combine several historical and sartorial elements from various tribes into one costume, as the Chief has done. If the best dancer recruited for this role is a white student, then blackface cosmetics would replace today’s war paint. Wouldn’t the African Americans of Illinois welcome their heritage being recognized with such an “honor”? Minority recruitment would soar!

Of course my proposal is outrageous and I expect would be viewed as such by 99.9% of today’s UIUC fans and supporters, not to mention the African American community. Therefore, supporters of the Chief should be called upon to explain why American Indians should not regard the Chief as every bit as offensive as African Americans would regard a dancing black or blackface mascot.

Steve Marquardt
Dean of Libraries
South Dakota State University

How about we talk about the polarizing effect of special identifiers used to single out various groups that make up the whole of American society? You know, terms like Native American, African American, etc.

I was born here - that makes me native regardless of my ethnicity. And I don't know a more than five African Americans who actually have first hand knowledge of Africa.

I frankly don't care what you call me, but please settle this nonsense and move on to something of real importance.

The article states the BOT is going to vote to keep or retire the chief on Thursday. However, late yesterday, the BOT issued a press release that they will vote on a new resolution that seeks "concensus conclusion" on the issue.

The text of the resolution can be read at retirethechief.org. This is only another delaying tactic, putting off resolution to this situation.

Debbie Reese

I am originally from the Deep South, but I've lived in the St. Louis area for about three years. Not long ago, at a social function after work, I made the mistake of mentioning to my colleagues, all die-hard fans of the St. Louis Cardinals, that I am an Atlanta Braves fan. I made no mention of the controversial tomahawk chop, but immediately several of my colleagues (all white and politically left of center) informed me that they were "offended" by the racist gesture. I said nothing further, but the conversation continued without my input. One person in the group defended me by saying, "Being a fan of the Braves doesn't make her a racist." Another one commented, "You can be a racist and not know it."

If Native American groups oppose Chief Illiniwek and gestures like the Braves' tomahawk chop, then I respect their position. What disturbs me is how many of my white colleagues in academia seem to feel that they've done their part for racial justice by simply announcing that they are "offended" by such things. Afterwards, they return to their predominantly white, middle class neighborhoods, attend their wine and cheese parties with people as white as themselves, send their children to predominantly white suburban schools, and think no more about the matter until another public occasion arises when they can pat themselves on the back for embracing diversity. Although they will express disdain for the Chief, it would never occur to them to purchase a home in a minority neighborhood, enroll their children in a predominantly African-American or Hispanic school, or alter their personal lives in any significant way to illustrate that they truly practiced what they preached.

Amazingly, the most diverse places I have been to are not the hallowed halls of American universities. They are the factories, warehouses, and other venues that provide employment for the working class. For years, my mother de-boned chicken side by side with African-American and Mexican-American women at Tyson Foods. Perhaps the fact that they wielded large, sharp knives impressed upon them the necessity of getting along. I have no doubt that their opinions about the Chief or the tomahawk chop would be diverse. But I also suspect they might think these matters trivial compared to far more serious concerns, such as access to education, decent retirement benefits and working conditions. Are the faculty at the University of Illinois who oppose the Chief also concerned that the children of my mother's co-workers probably have little chance of even being admitted to the University of Illinois because it is prohibitively expensive? At what point are the universities going to grapple with the issue of segregation based on economic class?

In Alabama, my home state, the Confederate flag has, I believe, been removed from the dome of the state capitol. Yet as far as I can tell, this gesture has been merely a symbolic bone thrown to the African American population. Poverty and inferior schools are still a terrible problem in many minority communities. But the gesture has allowed a lot of politicians and other moral crusaders to champion their stand on civil rights. Likewise, I fear the elimination of Chief Illinwek will turn out to be just another meaningless photo op for white liberals who want to feel good about themselves.

I worked at UIUC for nine years in student affairs and experienced first hand the divisiveness the Illinois mascot causes. No person I worked with wanted the mascot to continue, but there was universal fear of speaking out against it. And these are the staff charged generally with promoting issues of diversity and inclusiveness! Some things to keep in mind, the Native American tribes originally in Illinois were primarilly farmers, not fighters (although more historically accurate, I am not suggesting a new name be the "Farming Illini"). The Illinois tribes lived in great fear of the Sioux (Lakota) tribes to the north. The Illinois mascot looks nothing like an Illinois Native American, but rather like a Lakota Chief. Native Americans themselves do not wear the Chieftains feathers unless they have earned the right to do so. Having a undeserving white kid dressed up in such a manner and then jump around like an idiot (the dance routine is absolutely nothing close to being authentic), inlcuding doing the splits, is patently offensive and has no place at any academic institution, much less a high quality university as UIUC. Last summer I moved to the University of Wisconsin with it's Bucky Badger mascot. Like the mascot at many institutions, Bucky has no real deep meaning, but effectively serves as a unifiying factor, not only for the University but the entire state as well. Illinois would do well to find something similarly fun and harmless that everyone can enjoy and rally around. Hopefully the Trustees will make the right decision later this week and begin the process of finding something else. Ervin "Kipp" Cox

Mr. Cox,

As a card-carying member of PETA, I am outraged and offended that you support the "Bucky the Badger" mascot at Wisconsin. Employing the figure of sentient mammal whose ecosystem has been systematically destroyed by (predominantly white male) American civilization is deplorable and shows an utter disregard for the well-being of badgers everywhere. The depiction of Bucky, as rendered by the (I have no idea, but probably white male) occupant of the mascot suit, is in no way representative of authentic badger behavior - which I assure you is a way of peace and harmony with nature.

Shame, Mr. Cox, shame on you!

Dear PETA person, One of the biggest problems facing higher education (and society) is alcohol abuse. Yet you belong to an organization infamous for it's "Got Beer" campaign and also formally requested Wisconsin to change its official beverage from milk to beer (Even going so far as to claim milk as a state beverage is racist because certain minorities are more lactose intolerant). PETA also has compared livestock kept on farms to the suffering of Jews during the holocaust. The list of absurdities from your organization goes on and on. The shame is clearly on you and your ilk. If you knew anything at all about wild badgers, you might recosider your "peace and harmony with nature" statement. Despite being reclusive, they do dine on other animals (like rabbits, birds and squirrels) and are quite fierce hunters and fighters. In nature, animals are killed and eaten, often quite violently. Don't bring your inane philosphy to a foum on the important topic of racist mascots. Next time sign you name so we all know who you are. Ervin "Kipp" Cox

Zounds. There go the St. Louis Cardinals, since birds don't generally perch on baseball bats. And God only knows what has happened to the habitat of the poor things after the white males have despoiled it (although in all honesty there were a goodly number of them at my feeder this morning).

Earth to PETA person:

if you are 'outraged and offended' about Bucky Badger you need to take serious steps to get a life. You aren't helping environmentalism by exhibiting hysteria; you're only reinforcing stereotypes. In the eighteenth century they baited badgers; give civilization a little credit for moving beyond that. Many of us love the little sentient mammals and still wish Bucky well.

Wow, you guys really think "Peta person" is serious? I think his/her posting has to be a parody, as it is just too absurd to read in any other way. I laughed out loud. If s/he is serious, I would suggest intensive therapy, if not institutionailzation.

Cox, I was playing with you. The fact that you and the Cardinals fan took my ad absurdum posting as anything other than parady shows how ridiculous this colloquoy has become.

I work in academia in a non-educator role but have spent a majority of my years in the private sector, and let me tell you that the issues academics latch onto as essential are completely alien to the rest of society. Academia is so insulated and self-referential and so conformist in its political opinions that I marvel at your delusions of intellectual independence. Still, quality higher education is a noble goal and I feel fortunate to assist in its pursuit.

And no disrespect to you, Cox, personally, I'm sure you're a fine person and my intention was not to poke fun at you. Still, c'mon man, white male mascots oppressing badgers?!?!

Dear PETA person,

Thanks for revealing yourself. Unfortunately, the parodic position you took is close enough to reality to be taken as such. The politically correct in the academic world have totally lost it. I suggest that we all offer a true anecdote to illustrate the fact. I'll start. I know an academic whose former spouse sued for name-change fees as part of the divorce settlement. She was concerned that her given name was too masculine. He countered that she should ask her parents for the money, since they named her, not him. She pled that he was complicit, because as a male he participated in the hegemonic, male-dominated culture that resulted in her receiving the name that she received from her parents.

I'll throw in a second anecdote for free. This one was non-academic, but something that might warm the heart of a real PETA person. My next-door neighbors planted a tree in their yard. Their neighbors demanded that they cut it down, because it obstructed the view that would have still existed if the land had not been developed. Note, these homes were built in an urban area in the late 1930's; we're not talking about ticky-tacky boxes being built in Yosemite. In other words, the tree obstructed what could have been remembered if you had been around at that time. When my neighbors refused to cut it down, the other neighbors sued them (and, of course, a lawyer agreed to take the case).

You neglected to mention the blatant sexism (those darn white males, again, no doubt) of the mascot of Oregan State University -- the beaver.

Ward,

Don't you think that you are being a little hard on the Beaver?

The PETA Person parody is delicious. It has succeeded in turning this farcical discussion into genuine, visible farce. The problem is simple: the evil of identity politics and identity academics. Academe made a terrible error in allowing self-proclaimed spokesmen to speak for blacks, Latinos, Jews, women, and other groups, and to censor our speech and our classroom practice.
People should not be categorized according to one, single, artifical marker, such as ethnicity. The ethnic identity should not be fetishized. It is a mere accident of birth that one can overcome. If people claim that they are offended, fine, perhaps they are. That is their neurosis, not ours. However, our speech and behavior should not be effected in any way.
Go Illini!

I note that there has been a student referendum on this issue and that the vote on the chief showed 69% for keeping him and 31% for dumping him. These are student voters, not alums.

Now the trustees have voted (unanimously except for the student trustee, who can vote) to try to seek some sort of consensus on the matter, rather than just keeping the chief or giving him the boot.

The opponents of the chief are apparently in a state of high dudgeon. One would have thought that, having lost at the polls, they would welcome a compromise. The team could, e.g., still be the Fighting Illini, but they could lose the chief or perhaps end his dancing career.

The left criticizes the president for an unwillingness to compromise; let's see how much of the spirit of compromise they exhibit.

Those who claim using indians as mascots are the real racists here. They are radical leftists whose agenda is to cause as much havoc as possible.

The use of indian names as mascots was never intended to denigrate anyone. Don't think so? Well then please tell me how many sports teams (college or otherwise) use team names of

1. the morons
2. the idiots
3. the jerks
4. the fools
5. the imbiciles

Gee, I'm not aware of a single one. Maybe that's because no one picks a sports team name that is ultimately going to be a source of ridicule.

The worst kind of racist is the one who adopts a sense of altruism when all they are really after is hustling the man for money. I find these people so concerned about using indian names to be precisely that type of person.

They are disgusting and should themselves be ridiculed...

With respect to the issue a vocal agenda-driven minority take with Chief Illiniwek, some observations:

1. So the person portraying the Chief is usually not an American Indian? Henry Fonda wasnt a real admiral when he acted in the role of ADM Chester W Nimitz. In this case, the actor portraying the Chief is acting in a symbolic role, and when his arms are outstretched and Hail to the Orange sounds, it is the most dignified and solemn regular event in all college athletics. And he may not be an American Indian, but I'll bet he -- or she -- is more often than not a native American.

2. The people taking issue with these things are highly selective -- which leads one to suspect an underlying hustle. We hear virtually no complaints directed at the University of Notre Dame du Lac against their use of "The Fighting Irish". All Irish-descent Americans I know are proud to be associated with Notre Dame.

3. Many of our states have Indian names. Are we supposed to change all of them? Or are we supposed to pay a "fee" for their use -- and is money what this is really mostly about?

4. So Syracuse has just snuck -- or been snookered into -- changing their name from "Orangemen" to "Orange". This is political correctness and historical ignoramosity run amok. Well, at least the U S Naval Academy havent yet changed "Midshipmen" to "Midship".

5. As to the North Central (accrediting) Association-- it's none of their business. The NCA has largely been taken over by an "educationist process" rather than a substance mentality and shows increasing tendency to envolve itself in nonacademic things. They fear controversy on campuses when one side is politically incorrect, showing how much they really believe in the "diversity" they prattle about. Maybe it's time real colleges and universities seceeded from the NCA and left it to regulate grades 9 through 14 of high school.

Joseph F Foster, Ph D (U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Assoc. Professor of Anthropology
U of Cincinnati

Gee,

If this discussion sounded vaguely familiar it is because we have had a similar one before.

http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/logo/re.htm

The most interesting response in that discussion that I found may be viewed here

http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/logo/74.htm

May I suggest a new mascot called "THE LIBERAL WINER". This mascot would look and behave in the following manner. They would wear a grey curly wig similar to Molly Ivan's hairdo, a white greasepaint makeup job complete with with black eyesockets and their yell trademark would be a winey scream everytime their team fails to score a point or everytime something does not go their way.

Kudos to John Garner for his suggested 'Liberal Whiner' mascot. Might I suggest a friendly amendment. You need some adjectives to capture the messianic side of the personality type. They are always right, despite the fact that the vast majority hold other views. Hence the majority has to be stupid, for how else could they possibly disagree with them? The self-righteous liberal whiner? The arrogant liberal whiner? Or would they prefer "whinger" with its soupcon of pedantry reinforcing their superior intelligence?

For the past few months I've been mentoring some Native American students at U of I concerning the Chief issue. Now that the gutless Board has once again hidden under
the house while it is burning down, the students I am working with are going to provide them with the fig leaf
they need in order to get rid of all things "Chief." This leaf will be provided by a pretty good legal strategy that the students have worked out. If it is successful, and I think it
will be, the U of I will have the option of dropping all things
"Chief," or they can kiss their accredidation and federal
funding goodbye. Stay tuned! Things are about to get
very interesting!

Dr. Randall Norris, Ph.D.
Professor
American Culture Studies
Sauk Valley Community College
Dixon, ILsparkey wrote:

> If you want to honour american indians, why not give them
> their land back and apologise for masacaring them instead of
> getting worked up about stupid mascots?

Now let’s see if I have this straight. If the University decides to retire the Chief, a substantial number of alumni, faculty, and students will be unhappy. If the University decides to keep the Chief, a somewhat smaller number of alumni, faculty, and students will be equally unhappy. As nearly as I can tell that pretty well summarizes the outcomes. A quick check of my outrage-o-meter shows --- no reading. Surely I have missed something. Will debate on this issue result in a cure for AIDS or cancer? Perhaps someone in the humanities will point out how this debate has given a deeper insight into humankind, and that with this new knowledge utopia is now at hand. Can someone explain how devoting so much time, energy and money into this debate improves the teaching and scholarship at the University? Perhaps the administration can provide figures on how many scholarships could have been given to increasingly needy students with the money spent keeping staff and lawyers occupied with this issue.

I am amazed that such large groups of highly educated people invest so much time debating the content of a half-time show. I can only conclude that they have a great deal of free time and believe endless debating is a good use of it. I submit that the smallest service to one’s community in the form of actual volunteer work does much more good than the long, self righteous emotional debates that some find so enjoyable.

The University of Illinois is a great institution. It is one that I, as a former student, am exceedingly fond of. If the Chief is retired, I am sure life on the planet will somehow survive. Because enthusiasm comes so naturally to new students, they will find ways of becoming excited about a new symbol or mascot even if a large rock is chosen. It doesn’t matter much to me personally whether or not the Chief is kept. As a primary breadwinner who is struggling to pay outrageous tuition bills to another university, I have no time to worry about the entertainment program at sporting events. Moreover, I will always have my own memories of my time on campus regardless of what changes are made. However, it matters a great deal to me that scarce resources, both money and time, are being wasted on this issue. The hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent could have done a great deal of good elsewhere.

I understand and expect those who have adopted the religion of political correctness to whine about the Chief, but I truly don’t understand why reasonable Native Americans would want the symbol completely removed rather than modified in some way. Is there no legitimate Native American ceremony that could be respectfully adapted without giving offense? Is it really the case that the largest collection of highly educated adults in the state cannot find a compromise?

Given the tiny population of Native Americans on campus, if the Chief is “retired” they and their issues will become truly invisible. If they win, they lose. Will there be more scholarships, better teaching, lower tuition, or more appreciation of Native American culture? I doubt it. The majority of students and alumni, who want the Chief retained, will resent the decision and will be far less sympathetic to any related issue, no matter how legitimate. For a few, this resentment may last a lifetime. This seems to me to be a high price to pay for forcing a change in a half-time show.

However, the administration and/or board of trustees should stop sitting on the fence and make a clear decision. That is the function of management. Then, once a decision is made, someone has to have the guts to tell the hard-liners on both sides that the debate within the administration is over, that there will be no further administration time or resources wasted on the issue, and that those who are still unhappy will simply have to deal with it themselves. If a few worthy students never make it to the U of I because thousands of dollars were wasted, donations dropped and tuition had to rise, then I guess they should be proud to be casualties in the great struggle that finally resolved the issue of how to celebrate half-time at a basketball game.

M.D. Meadows

I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that the vast majority, of which you seem to be a card-carrying member, is not stupid; but alas, the reality is that the vast majority is stupid. Real intelligence is and always has been a trait of a minority of the human race.

Friendly Amender wrote:
> They are always right, despite the fact that the vast
> majority hold other views. Hence the majority has to be
> stupid, for how else could they possibly disagree with them?

Dear Amos'n'Tonto,

I agree that intelligence and judgment are often in short supply. My point concerned arrogance and the belief that the liberal side is always right and that those who disagree are stupid. Sometimes the liberal view is the majority view (as with handgun control). Sometimes the majority view (as with affirmative action) conflicts with the liberal view. Sometimes the majority view splits (pro choice but not pro partial-birth abortions), while the liberal view is monolithic. Appropriating the adjective 'progressive' casts the opposition as backward-looking when, in fact, the old ways may be the best ways. Certainly liberals are conservative with regard to such things as genetically-modified food or urban planning. Does that mean that they are suddenly no longer 'progressive'?

Michael Meadows expresses true wisdom in his contribution to this discussion. Perhaps someone should forward his posting to the UI Board of Trustees as they grapple with how to handle this issue.

This whole argument shows the depths to which American education has sunk. What should happen is that collegiate sport should be abolished and money spent on actual education. The overall literacy level in this country is abysmally low. What would really help matters is mandatory teaching of Attic Greek and Latin from K to 12.
American higher education is dominated by leftists who are more interested in pushing their liberal agenda than in actually educating anyone. We'd be much better off if we returned to the standards of the 1880s. American education, through its low admission standards and emphasis on diversity over quality, has been systematically destroyed. Let us return to the days when education was limited to that small group which could actually benefit from it and those in the other lower classes knew their place.

With respect to Mr. Anonymous' last comment, why does he want us to require us to study Greek? And in the attic, of all places?

Joseph F Foster
Asso. Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics
U of Cincinnati,
Ph D, U of Ill at Urbana-Champaign, 1969

I do hope that anonymous is writing in jest. But it appears that s/he is not.

Let me address a couple of the points, knowing full well that anonymous has probably made up his/her mind.

1 - that college athletics should be abolished in favor of returning the money to education.
Excellent idea, but far from practical. The amount of money that division 1 athletic teams bring in to their institutions is far from small in some cases. Additionally, alumni and sponsors don't exactly root for the philosophy club to hold a debate, now do they?
Actually, I proposed this idea when I was an undergraduate at a mid-size state institution in the midwest, and it was rapidly shot down. It's simply a pipe dream.

2 - that literacy is abysmally low and that teaching students Greek and Latin would help. This may be true, but I don't see any statistics or research on the matter. What would actually help is for our schools to teach two languages to students, Spanish or French or ..., and English, in order to more broadly educate the students and get them interested in other cultures. Literacy is low, but it begins in grade school. Surely you are not suggesting that college sports are to blame.

3 - that, most disturbingly, education should be given to the lucky few and not be "democratized" or "diversified". This is nonsense, and is starkly contrasted with the view that a democracy is about expanding rights and opportunities. The true brilliance of America is its middle class, which was essentially the first of its kind. Relegating education to the lucky few sounds like (a) a page out of George W. Bush's play book, and (b) completely counter to American progress in an era when we need more skilled workers, not less. Don't like outsourcing? Creating a huge, permanent underclass by getting rid of educational opportunities will lead to just that.

Really, I don't know how someone can hold such a view that is counter to all the known facts. Research has shown that diversity in education is a benefit to all students (Hans Kogler, University of North Florida), both inside and outside the classroom. Ask any professor of education, ask any student affairs practitioner, ask any person who is dedicated to expanding opportunities and they will tell you the same thing. What we need are more educational opportunities, not less.

No Dale. I was actually serious about everything I said.

1) Athletics is a waste of time and money. The students should be in their rooms studying. Sports are a distraction from academics and have no place on the university campus. in addition, given the resuced amount of funding available for education money should be spent on library books and labs -- not on higher salaries for coaches.

2) We need to focus on traditional academic disciplines. Classics is a good example of what should be emphasized. If we get rid of the pseudo-disciplines forced on us in the name of political correctness -- black studies, women's studies, gay studies, sociology, and most of the left-wingers in political science there should be more than enough money.

3) College should be for the elites. What is the point of wasting time, money, and resources on these kids from the hood who only come to college to drink, do drugs, and drop out after two years? What good does it do to educate the lily-white suburbanite who is only in college because his parents can afford to send him/her? What we should be doing is screening children at age 8 or 9 and those who we determine at that time are not college material can be directed into vocational programs.

Somehow we've gotten far afield from the mascot issue into other realms.

No one will argue that money ought to be spent on educating students. If you look at Richard Vedder (Ohio U) and his new book _Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much_, the solution is to slash and burn most everything that isn't about teaching. But that would mean that research would mostly go too, and I don't think most academics would like that too much. We can argue about X college or Y college spending "too much" on athletics, but the truth is that this is a way to expand the pool of underrepresented students in college, and for the most part, many schools keep them until graduation (mostly smaller D-1 through D-3). So I think we mostly agree that athletics isn't a cash cow, but that it has some place (the amount of emphasis can be debated). Alumni often give to their alma maters to support athletics, and institutions are often known and respected due to their various success in sports (i.e. Notre Dame, Duke, UNC, etc) - all fine schools, but known more widely for their athletic teams than for their x, y, or z programs.

Regarding your second point: I also would encourage work in the classics. In fact, my undergraduate preparation is in philosophy. However, the academy is about expanding knowledge, not contracting it. Thus, it would seem pretty antithetical to suggest erasing some disciplines and attempting to deny new avenues of knowledge. No doubt metaphysics was considered a bit out there for its time. To suggest that we should throw out the "left-wingers" indicates that you only wish for students to be exposed to ideas that you agree with or think are orthodox enough to be passed on. Surely you will agree that such power ought not be given to anyone to decide what is the correct way to think. I can imagine a time when all "right-wing" ideas are censored and not given any channels to be distributed. I am not sure you would be so quick to advance this notion, although it's simply the other side of the same coin. Conservative political views have many outlets, including but not limited to Campus Crusade, College Republicans, much of talk radio, Fox News Channel (come on, can anyone really believe that it's not slanted), and newspapers, including the New York Post.

Lastly, you make some specious claims about the worth of college for non-elites. Believing that elites are "owed" college, or that they "deserve" to go because they are elites is antithetical to the democratic leanings of this country that I cited in my earlier post. If you want to go to a place where there's no democracy, try Cuba. I have not been convinced that college should just be for those who are elites, however "elite" is measured, by dollar signs or IQ/standardized test score. What you suggest is creating a permanent underclass that lives essentially at a subsistence level. I do not believe this is what the Framers intended, because America's middle class is what makes it interesting and strong - because people can make it there. Of course, your children won't be members of the underclass, they'll be elites just like you. Well, how nice for you then. But if you care about people (apparently, you do not), you'll want access for those who can succeed in college, which does not exclude those lilly white suburbanites or the under-represented student, thankfully.

Also, ad hominem attacks against conveniently absent students are unwelcome and harmful to a debate. It is true that not all of the students who start college finish, and that attrition seems to be higher among non-white/asian students. However, this does not indicate that all of those stop-outs are caused by drinking, partying, or drugs. To say so is patently ridiculous and shows an ignorance of the true causes of attrition.

Besides, if you're so unhappy with the quality of students at your college, why not leave? Surely you can find something better to do with your astounding talents than waste them on so-called drugged-out partying students.

As an educator and scholar, and as a citizen of the Sac and Fox First Nations from near Tama, Iowa, and descendent of the Potawatomi First Nations near Shawnee, Oklahoma, I support all efforts to retire Chief Illiniwek and the "Fighting Illini" name.

Interested readers might consider these two distinguishing terms: American Indians/Native Americans and Indigenous Peoples/First Nations.

Two points. First, I use the term "American Indian/Native American" here to distinguish that category of people invented by the racial politics of (1) government (or apparatuses of the state) and (2) culture. Americans use schools and their love of athletic mascots--and countless other forms of coercion masked as "freedom"--to drum into all of our heads that there is at least one unassailable truth, a "common sense": Races are real; bound by law, American society is made up of races and ethnicities that all are the same.

Yet, categorized as a race and/or as an ethnic group, a part of "American society," to borrow a term from Rod, non-Indians do a better job of speaking for real Indians who either have vanished or are rendered childlike and unable to speak for themselves. For Indigenous Peoples, these racial politics of speech are "racism" or "racist"; thus while for some they enable sites of pleasure, for us they are sites of resistance rather than identity (although, in our resistance, we may refer to ourselves as "Pro-Native" rather than Anti-_____ (fill in the blank) Mascot").

Second, Indigenous Peoples/First Nations are two terms I use synonymously here to distinguish (1) those political and cultural entities NOT represented by elected members of the United States Congress (citizens residing in districts and entire states elect representatives to Congress, citizens of First Nations--so far--do not) and (2) those cultural entities whose uninterrupted intellectual presence on this land pre-dates the arrival of peoples from the east (sometimes named Europeans and Africans) and from the west (sometimes named Asians).

Although intellectually satisfying and deeply pleasurable for those persons who subscribe to the "common sense" I identify above, the idea that "we all are the same" has not yet achieved the status of universal reality. Indigenous Peoples/First Nations may or may not be part of "American society"--or may or may not do so on their terms. Indeed, "we" (always a slippery signifier of wished-for homogeneity) are not all the same. For Indigenous Peoples/First Nations, the real effects of being forced out of desired locations and into unwanted territory--physical and intellectual--are both lingering and ongoing.

Thus understood, the intellectual matter of so-called "Indian" mascots is a matter of power--who has the power to name and thus categorize and who has the power to "give" voice and meaning to diverse peoples named and who sometimes name themselves "Indian."

I must say I don't fully understand the offense that Chief Illiniwek causes. I am a graduate of the school, and always felt proud when the Chief emerged. He brought dignity and spirt, the American way to the University in a way that I have never seen any other school's symbol do. The CHief is revered, not mocked. Why is this revolting? Native Americans founded this country, why is it offensive to honor their spirit and symbolism? Are those of us who are not Native American not entitled to take pride in the Native American spirit? To say that would be to cancel Columbus day for all but the Italians.

I am of Irish decent. I am not offended by the FIghting Irish of NOtre Dame. And their symbol is a silly lepruchan. I can not figure out why those who attend Notre Dame, and the Irish, adore the "Fighting Irish" and yet the "FIghting Illini" is the subject of such debate. What fundanmental difference am I missing. Can you imagine NOtre Dame having this debate? SO why are we?

Illinois's chief problem