I have admired and respected the history and tradition of Chief Illiniwek since my parents first took me a to a football game in 1955 when I was 8 years old. The image of the Chief standing before 70,000 people with arms raised before the Alma Mater is one of unity and loyalty I will never forget. I hope Chief Illiniwek will face the Assembly Hall crowd after his last performance with the traditional arms raised salute to what I am sure will be an enthusiastic thank you from all present.

Posted by rbriscoe on February 18, 2007 at 10:55 AM Suggest Removal

Get over it folks. The decision is finally.

Time to move on.

Posted by gdkgeo on February 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM Suggest Removal

I love the Chief and the honor, loyalty, and tradition that he stands for. For me he was the University of Illinois and made me proud to be a part of that community. I am saddened beyond words at this decision. The University has now lowered itself to the level of all other universities in the nation by given up a proud heritage.

Posted by bfair on February 18, 2007 at 12:17 PM Suggest Removal

I want the tradition back, and I mean the real tradition, not the version put in place over the last 16 years. This really started down-hill when Terry Shepard (Mort Weir's "hitter on Indian questions") and Gary Smith supposedly fixed some shortcomings in the Chief Illiniwek Tradition, a written description of the tradition handed out to applicants for the role of Chief. That was all in the name of accuracy and sensitivity. Horse you-kow-what! We need to call it what it was back then and still is: Illinois' "redskin tradition". What's wrong with that? And speaking of horses, I want the homecoming parades back with the Chief on a horse. I think Dan Maloney would look just fine on the back of a horse. Goodness, but havent we become so proper and correct that we cant even play Indian.

Posted by opinions on February 18, 2007 at 1:18 PM Suggest Removal

I am ashamed of the University of Illinois. The Chief is much more than a "mascot". He is a respected and honored tradition who has spanned generations. Do they really think that will end just because he won't be allowed to perform during halftime anymore? I will continue to watch his old performances on the internet. I will continue to purchase more and more Chief merchandise and apparel, and I will continue to display and wear it proudly as I'm sure other Chief supporters will. I'd like to see someone try to stop me from doing that! The legacy, spirit, and tradition of Chief Illiniwek will go on through all of us who have held him in such high regard for so many years, and he will forever be the honored symbol of the University of Illinois no matter what.

Posted by alicat on February 18, 2007 at 3:26 PM Suggest Removal

I graduated LAS 1960. I am really sorry that the U of I bowed to pressure. The tradition of the Chief never demeaned or put down Native-Americans. I believe it promoted them, exalted them, made us proud to be from a state that used the Chief to urge us to higher standards off the field of athletics as well.

The NCAA is full of hypocrites. How can Florida State have a mascot ride out on the field and throw a spear into the ground and still get a free ride?

The Chief was not a mascot but a symbol of greatness, strength, courage, desire.

I am so sad!

I was born, lived, taught and grew up in Illinois. I know the Chief!

Larry Rauch

St Augustine, FL

Posted by lrauch on February 18, 2007 at 4:26 PM Suggest Removal

I am a current student at the U of I. I am not from Illinois, but I understand the depth of feeling for the Chief. He is a symbol of the University to many. I come from a town named after an Iroquois tribe, and from a university that formerly had an American Indian as its symbol. We now have a new mascot, and while it is not as stoic or strong as our former Warrior, our school is acceptable to the NCAA, and more importantly, to our Native American community.

Unfortunately, having an American Indian symbol is no longer acceptable in this day and age, and leaves the University open to derision. Coming from outside the C-U area, I heard many negative comments about the Chief when I made my decision to attend the U of I. This is detrimental to the overall standing of the University of Illinois. Despite the feeling of support for the Chief, people should put aside their personal feelings and realize that supporting the University means recognizing the Chief for his history, and embracing the new future with a positive attitude.

Posted by illinifan27 on February 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM Suggest Removal

Common sense did prevail. You should be sad that you don't recognize what a hurtful thing in which you've participated. ALL THAT MATTERS is that Native Americans find the Chief offensive. You may as well be going on court in blackface. Take the extra time you'll have now that the racist symbol of the chief has been banned, and examine your ethics, and how this whole ordeal has actually affected people besides white suburban kids who think they're doing Native Americans a favor by honoring a tradition they find offensive.

Posted by isaacarms on February 18, 2007 at 7:05 PM Suggest Removal

The NCAA has eliminated a physical portrayal of Chief Illiniwek, but the Chief will remain an indelible part of our memory and heritage for those of us fortunate to have attended or been part of this great university. The reverence and respect shown by 76,000 students, alumni and friends while our Chief raised his arms to the fall sky is a memory that will never leave our minds.

Our Chief did more to raise a positive image of the American and Midwest Indian than any other Indian symbol of our generation. It is a tragedy the vocal minority and politically correct elite doesn't see it this way. Maybe they will understand when they wake up and see the only contemporary icon our children's children will associate the American Indian with will be gambling casinos and Chief Wahoo. What a shame.

I hope this University will retire Chief Illiniwek and recognize the beloved Chief is the only deserving mascot for all time for this great University. There can be no replacement--anything less would be to blaspheme the legacy of one of college's greatest symbols and institutions that meant so much to its alumni and community.

Posted by mcdchi on February 18, 2007 at 7:52 PM Suggest Removal

Why is it that groups who preach political correctness are only in favor of freedom of speech and freedom of expression when it serves their own purpose?

Rather than try to change the world, why not simply stop looking for reasons to be offended by it?

Freedom is a tricky thing, folks. In order to have the right to be free one has to acknowledge the right of others to be free. Sometimes another person's expression of this freedom is going to yield words or actions that might not be in agreement with the way we practice our own freedom. When this happens, we can choose to be offended or we can just IGNORE the words or actions that offend us.

People really need to learn how to do this or they will never be happy, and here in America people SHOULD be happy! We are generally able to live our lives without sectarian violence in the streets or widespread disease and famine. People in other parts of the world are not so fortunate to have a college mascot as the worst thing in their daily existence. If we have to actively seek things about which to be offended, then our lives must be pretty good. In other parts of the world, one would not have to be so creative in order to find ways to become offended.

Jesse Jackson once spoke of "Common Ground." We all pay the same price for gasoline, get clobbered every year by the IRS, and get parking tickets if we are anywhere NEAR campus. THIS is our "Common Ground" and THESE are the things by which we should ALL be offended. Instead, we ignore the substantive issues and focus on a

Posted by MGranse on February 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM Suggest Removal

(oops, posted before I was finished, sorry) . . .

[continued from previous post]

Instead, we ignore the substantive issues and focus on a college mascot.

In the months leading up to the decision to retire The Chief, it would seem that a college mascot in Central Illinois was to blame for all racism in North America. Now that "The Enlightened" have successfully ended racism forever, it will be interesting to watch what problem they pretend to solve next.

Posted by MGranse on February 18, 2007 at 10:22 PM Suggest Removal

Oh how the tears of regret well in my eyes at hearing about a white boys chagrin for not being able to dance a disrespectful jig for the adoration and entertainment of the masses. How will we ever move on?

While many adore the Chief, I was one of the "vocal minority" who was utterly disgusted by the Chief and all that he stood for--the outright, crass, and egregious disrespect of a group of people masked under the thin veil of an "honorable tradition". What a load of crap. If I never see the Chief perform again it will be too soon. I've tried to be sensitive to the affections of Cheif supporters, but their adamant support of the Chief proves that they refuse to be sensitive to my desire to not be humilitaed by a the foolishness of a caricature dancing for a stadium full of paying spectators. In fact, I resolved to be as cold and insensitive as the Chief's many supporters. With that I say to the Chief, "Sit down and shut the hell up once and for all. You will not be missed."

Posted by Truth on February 18, 2007 at 11:29 PM Suggest Removal

Hey Isaacarms....are you a racist or what. You used a racist epithet there. "white suburban kids"??? Are you kidding. Your stereotyping all 'white kids' as suburban is dehumanizing! The correct term is European American, and not ALL European Americans live in the suburbs. Believe or not, they also don't believe all American Indians live on a reservation and I doubt ANY would ever refer to an American Indian as a "red kid". And most ARE native american, because their ancestors came over in previous genrations. They are not naturalized Americans, but NATIVE Americans. Get your terminology straight please!

Posted by Mikki on February 18, 2007 at 11:52 PM Suggest Removal

With all the N-G articles and feedback boxes, it's hard to really process all this in a cogent matter. While I understand to some extent feelings of Chief supporters, and generally do believe the way decisions on contentious subjects are meted out in today's political atmosphere to be less than compelling, I do feel compelled to say the following:

Many intelligent people have feelings on both sides of this subject. I feel that the Chief issue has become a surrogate for many things for many people, far transcending the issue itself and representing unfulfilled hopes, dreams, aspirations, as well as a representative of that which is, by any right-thinking person's estimation, unacceptable - that is, a surrogate for oppression, and lack of tolerance and respect for others.

In my estimation, this debate has expended much money, newsprint, and man-hours debating something that is doomed to be a zero-sum game.

Now the end is here. It is within UI's authority to make the decision it made, and further litigation, threats, etc. serve no long term purpose.

To those who threaten to dissociate themselves with the UI, alumni association, donations, and the like, I am disheartened. Whether or not these people have contributed with time and money in a substantive way in the past is only part of the equation. More sad is the notion that this sort of punitive behavior will benefit anyone. It will not.

I, for one, because UI is doing what needed to be done, if not in perhaps the most carefully thought out way, can live with myself just fine. And once my doctorate is completed soon, (after 2 other UI degrees), I can look at myself in the mirror knowing that what was done is right, as I make a contribution to an institution that resisted the myopia of doing things the way things have been done for the last 80+ years.

Posted by ddf1972 on February 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM Suggest Removal

The �victim groups� and their partners, the NCAA, the national media, the feel good good liberalsand those afraid of being called �insensitive, bigots, racists� have won and the Chief is gone. For those of us who saw the good in the Chief, we will miss him. I personally live in California and haven�t seen the Chief in 20 years so it won�t be much of a physical loss. The loss is one of respect �and hope� for our legal system, for my University, for the press, for the Native Americans and for the feel good liberals involved in this politically correct decision.

It seems that the anti -Chief people are of many minds and goals. Some believe that this is really a good thing and that good will come of it, at least for Native Americans. Some of the �liberal do gooders� who feel morally superior for having supported the �politically correct� point of view are satisfied to just be able to say �yes, I fought to have that symbol of racism removed�. The true right or wrong of the issue is far less important than being found on the perceived �correct� side of the issue. Another group of anti-chiefers don�t believe and never have believed that banning Chief Illiniwek would result in a significant improvement in the lives of Native Americans. These people are more concerned with revenge and general power plays than real improvement. They will shortly be looking for their next target and the list of targeted issues will never end as their anger and bitterness towards the European Americans will never end.

So, what good, if any has come out of this? Not justice. with the victory of a minority of �offended people� over the right of �freedom of expression�? First, Chief Illiniwek was never �abusive or offensive� to anyone with normal levels of sensitivity. Many Native Americans are so full of bitterness and anger that they become hypersensitive and single minded in their determination to find insensitivity and offensiveness in every word thought or deed of the white population. For the ones who truly were offended, I once again say�..the world is full of things that offend me but I don�t feel that I have the right to intervene and take others rights away to impose on everyone my �opinion� that something is offensive. This whole concept that a person�s opinion about another person�s expression in dance, writing, art etc. should trump the artist�s right to express them or the audience�s right to be entertained is a dangerous street to go down. Since offendedness is a matter of �opinion�, not fact, and for every action and deed there is someone who is offended, there is no end to how much power and control the offended can amass. It just takes a bully like the NCAA or a misguided judge to take mine or YOUR rights away because some one else (of special status) complains that they are offended.

Maybe this whole thing would have been worth it if at least some understanding and bridge building had come out of it. This is where the battle (getting rid of the Chief) was won by the anti-chief group but the war is being lost. Consider this: Maybe we as a society are too hyper-sensitive and maybe we spend too much time looking for slights, insults especially on the basis of our �victim-group� mentalities. The energy and time would be better spent, bettering ourselves as individuals and building bridges between people based on our common attributes and history rather than our divisions. It is ironic to me that the very individuals that profess they are trying to �fix� problems and heal racial, religious, etc. hostility, are the ones that cant stop stirring the pot, dragging up old wrongs until all we can focus on is how much we cant stand each other

I hear the anti-chief crowd arguing that getting rid of Chief Illiniwek will somehow increase respect for Native Americans. In reality, this whole fight has decreased respect for Native Americans. The fact that the anti-chief crowd chose to name call, vilify their opponents, rely on cheap �victim� excuses, staged riots, and employed other unprofessional tactics such as labeling a proud and decent University as racist has not gone unnoticed by those who heretofore had a great respect for the Native American population. This was a wake up call to those of us who had a lot of respect for historical Native Americans. That wakeup call was to realize that just as we, the living descendents of those who treated the Native Americans so inhumanely, are not our ancestors, the living Native Americans are not their ancestors either. That Native American culture is gone. As much as today�s Native Americans fight to hold onto that image of dignity, self reliance, sacrifice, integrity and courage of the Native Americans of 120 years, the Native Americans of today are as far from those people as the white man is. It is perhaps this loss of their larger than life historic character that is fueling the obsession with controlling the �images� and �symbols� so that they always reflect �positively� on Native Americans (as perceived by Na�ve Americans�). I would thing that today�s Native Americans would be more concerned about the loss of the inner spiritual life and value system of their people than about some symbol that offends them. Why worry about the �white college boy� who is attempting to pay honor to Native Americans (even if he fails in THEIR eyes he was not failing in the eyes of the majority) when the whole culture is falling apart? How does �authenticity� and Indian sacred dances and religion figure into the casino life? If Chief Illiniwek is an affront to the sacred life of the Native American, what is the Indian casino that pollutes the sacred shoreline of Lake Superior in Grand Marais? No other group would have been permitted to desecrate that beautiful �sacred� area just to make a few bucks. If the great Chiefs: Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, Red Cloud, Kicking Bear, Cochise� who faced death, pain, sickness every day in their attempts preserve their way of life, were alive today, would they be proud of how the mighty Native Americans got rid of Chief Illiniwek? OR WOULD THEY BE ASHAMED to see how the courage, pride and honor and dignity of the Native Americans 120 years ago has deteriorated into the petty, whiney, victim and dependent mentality (dependent on giveaway�s and special treatment based on guilt and pity )and money grubbing behavior we see today?

As for the liberals, they have actually won something� a way to feel superior and have their �white guilt� massaged� without really sacrificing or doing.

Sometimes our egos get caught up in "helping" people and we begin to believe they can�t make it without our programs, pity and excuses. Although fighting to get rid of the Chief is a feel good thing for liberals, they are not doing Native Americans any favors by reinforcing their (Native Americans) victim mentality and by reinforcing the idea that something like a dancing historical symbol (even performed by a white college boy) is able to hurt Native Americans or affect their ability to thrive in life. Maybe the best thing we can do for people who have been vicitimized is to reinforce the thought and belief and confidence that they can overcome the past and create a good future and that they have the power, by using their abilities, character, faith, and courage to achieve those dreams, even if the whole world stands against them...

What these liberals and all of us who want to �help� can do rather than battle these paper tigers like the Chief is:� treat all people fairly and look beyond ethnicity to values and behavior. We can acknowledge past wrongs without ruminating on them and without taking or assigning responsibility for these wrongs based on our group status (unless we were personally responsible as individuals.). I intend to do these things despite my frustration and anger at this victim empowered process because I truly want to see �God crown thy good with brotherhood� from sea to shining sea.

Posted by LYN on February 19, 2007 at 12:54 AM Suggest Removal

The Chief was banned because he was perceived to be abusive and generally demeaning to the image of Native Americans (NAS). To who and how? The answer is clearer if we divide people into three groups. #1) those who heard about the issue but never saw the Chief. How can they find it demeaning if they never saw it? 2.) Actual observers who felt that the performance was demeaning. This group was largely made up, I assume, of NAs and those generally sensitive to NA issues. This group is not likely to change opinions of NAs over a performance that they deem derogatory and non authentic. If they dont like the performance they can do what most people do with things that offend them, avoid it...3.)Those who watched the performance and enjoyed it and were pro-chief. This group has overwhelming testified that the chiefs performance increased their respect and admiration for NAs. Instead of contributing to an atmosphere of intolerance towards NA the Chiefs performance had the opposite affect on this impressionable potentially racist group #3. On the other hand, the removal of the Chief definitely took away a positive symbol of Native Americans in the eyes of those in group three. Further, the undemocratic process by which the Chief was removed and the tactics used by the anti chief crowd definitely resulted in lowered respect and and increased animosity towards NAs by many in groups 3 and 1(who observed the illegitimate process even if they didnt see the Chief. So in the end hostility and intolerance have actually increased with the banning of the Chief???Do you really think you can disenfranchise 60-80% of the people and not have increased hostilities (which I personally regret)? good job NCAA and intolerant anti-Chiefers.

. I wonder if it will be worth it however since so many of the give away, special rules like casinos, special treatment like the NCAAs rulings on Chief Illiniwek and preference programs for Native Americans are fueled by guilt and pity for past wrongs. As Native Americans bring more and more victim checks to the bank to be cashed the balance in that account is diminishing. It would be wise to spend the balance on something more substantive and profitable than Chief Illiniwek

Posted by LYN on February 19, 2007 at 1:00 AM Suggest Removal

I caught a few minutes of the news highlighting the most recent Chief performance, and focusing in on the crowd reaction at the basketball game. One young girl was openly weeping. The "Chief" himself was breathing heavily through his nose and making quite the stern-looking face.

Honestly, the whole thing cracked me up. Both sides take themselves entirely too seriously. If Bucky the Beaver were to retire next year, would people weep? I doubt it. Well, maybe, since some people are just nutty like that.

But really, as someone who has unfortunately had the dubious "honor" of witnessing the Illini mascot go into what some people call a dance, but more closely resembles a protracted and painful series of uncontrollable muscle spasms, I have to say thank goodness he's being retired. Maybe someone can finally prescribe some medication to treat that problem.

Posted by Nonesuch on February 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM Suggest Removal

What a pathetic bunch of crybabies. To anyone outside of here, the chief lovers resemble the southerners who wish for a return to the "glory days" of the antebellum South. To anyone who has seen authentic Indian dances he looks ridiculous. For those who get all weepy over this dumb mascot, they need to get a life. Illinois has earned a terrible reputation because of this, and if you don't care about that, or you don't care what Native Americans want, then you have no business commenting on this subject.

Posted by Steve1us on February 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM Suggest Removal

steve, now who is the mean spiritted intolerant stereotyping insensitive Jerk??? Nothing new from the anti chief group. What is apparently above your ability to grasp intellectually is that this was bout far more than a "white kid' dressed up as an "indian " and dancing. it was about freedom verses tyranny of the few based on an alleged "vicitm" status. I am not "weepy" I have not seen the chief forover twenty years.I sm unhappy at the ignorance and self centeredness that has developed in our country over the past 30 years so that being a "victim" counts more than anything. Life is hard and we are all hurt, humiliated and discriminated against...for being to fat, for not being smart enough, for not having social intellignece, for being to tall if a female and too short if a male and on and on and on. I am 25% Black, I have Parkinsons disease and my son is part CHoctaw. SOWHAT. The native americans today are not their ancestors, they have not suffered like their ancestors did and they do not have the dignity,integrity or fierce indpendence that their ancestors did. So I will not get all wheepy about thesse poor vicims, who attempt to parlay the true suffeings of their long dead relatives into some sort of freeibes, special treatment and status today.

Posted by LYN on February 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM Suggest Removal

Are we to Dismiss Chief Illiniwek...and now the suggestion of The Fighting Illini Mascot Name,

also? I understand both sides of the issue, but personally, I always Admired The Chief, and felt that it was an Honorable and Proud Tradition. I

was very surprised when I heard that Native Americans were offended. Why wasn't all of this

Negativity, about Chief Illiniwek, brought up

long before now? Could it be, partly, for Recognition? I feel very sad, that the Chief, has

to go. Has anyone thought of NOT DISMISSING the Chief, but CHANGING THE CHIEF'S IMAGE? That should be taken under consideration, before going through with this Drastic Measure, satisfying BOTH Native Americans and Illini Fans, alike. Yes, their should be Respect, a coming together, not a One-Sided Decision.

Posted by mlck2007 on February 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM Suggest Removal

LAST DANCE:the qualities I always admired in historical Native americans, dignity, courage, fierce independence, spirituality, leadership were shown this night by a "white college kid" dressed up to honor (in his mind -and the audiences) the great people that are no more and the great University o f Illinois. If the chief haters had shown some of these qualities during the past 20 years of fighting this issue, maybe the loss of the Chief wouldnt have been so bitter. Lynne

Posted by LYN on February 22, 2007 at 2:51 AM Suggest Removal

The tradition is not in the mascot. It is in the school, the sports teams, and most of all the students. It has nothing to do with a mascot that did not represent the people of Illinois or the university. Be proud of being a U of I student or fan, not of a mascot that dances around during the halftime of sports events.

Posted by pekingsaint on February 22, 2007 at 9:50 AM Suggest Removal