UI Senate resolution seeks action to stop Chief appearances

UI Senate resolution seeks action to stop Chief appearances

URBANA — A resolution calling on the campus to stop appearances by an unofficial Chief Illiniwek at University of Illinois sporting events will be taken up by the Academic Senate next week.

A second proposed resolution urges the campus to use an upcoming "critical conversation" on Native American imagery in April as a "springboard to further action putting the 'Chief' in the institution's past."

"(A)fter 10 years it is time for the University of Illinois to move on from offensive Native American imagery," the resolution states.

Co-sponsored by Professor Jay Rosenstein and 10 other students and faculty members, the first resolution says the "appearance of a person dressed in an identical costume to that of Chief Illiniwek, who walks out during the Chief's theme music and mimics many of the Chief's movements," is clearly a protest of the 2007 decision to retire the Chief.

It notes that the rules of both the State Farm Center and Memorial Stadium forbid protests inside the facilities, and directs the chancellor and athletic director to instruct employees at those facilities to enforce the policy and not allow a Chief Illiniwek character to appear.

The chancellor and provost were not at Monday's Senate Executive Committee meeting, where the resolutions were placed on the March 5 Senate agenda.

The second resolution, submitted by the senate's Equal Opportunity and Inclusion Committee, said Chancellor Robert Jones has taken welcome steps to move on from the Chief, but the repeated appearances of individuals dressed in Chief regalia at athletic events further a climate that perpetuates racism and undermines the participation of American Indian students, faculty and staff at those events.

It calls on the campus to rebuild the American Indian Studies program on campus — which suffered after the campus withdrew its job offer to Steven Salaita — and make a "robust" commitment to use research there for educational programs about American Indian history and culture to help people understand "the role of Native American mascots in misrepresenting that history."

'Thinking about moving forward'

It also calls on the university to enforce its trademark rights on Chief imagery, better regulate "uses of the racist mock 'Indian' by university organizations" and remove offensive Native American imagery from university buildings.

"We need to be thinking about moving forward," said sponsor Kathryn Oberdeck.

Bill Bernhard, vice provost for academic affairs, didn't comment on the resolutions during Monday's meeting.

But earlier, Bernhard said the security precautions taken at last week's "Paint the Hall Chief" event provided an opportunity to look more carefully at policies governing protests and demonstrations, "but to also ensure that these activities do not significantly disrupt the rights of those attending these events to fully participate in them."

He said Jones has made it clear that he believes the Chief is "tearing our community apart and putting our national and international reputation at risk."

"And as chancellor, he intends to lead this university and to find a path that recognizes the history of Chief Illiniwek while building our future without it at Illinois," he said.

Employment policies get review

In related news, Bernhard said the campus will be reviewing a "gap" in its employment policies in light of the dispute over the decision to place Rosenstein on paid leave following his Jan. 22 arrest for videotaping a group assisting a Chief portrayer in a restroom at the State Farm Center. Rosenstein was not charged, and the campus last week lifted his suspension with no further penalty.

Faculty senators objected that the campus had failed to follow University Statutes that govern faculty disciplinary matters, which require senate involvement in any decision to impose sanctions such as a suspension. The chancellor argued that under the state's Administrative Code he had the right to put Rosenstein on temporary paid leave while he decided whether disciplinary action was necessary, but he later consulted with a faculty group.

A resolution submitted Monday by Professor Bruce Rosenstock says that other state rules make it clear the personnel code does not apply to faculty members because of the shared governance system on university campuses.

Until UI Statutes are changed, any such decision violates those shared governance principles, the resolution states. It will also be considered by the full senate.

Graber: Extreme circumstances

Professor Kim Graber said the senate might want to consider allowing for immediate paid leave in extreme circumstances, such as a professor accused of rape or another violent crime.

"We probably wouldn't want that person on campus" while the case is reviewed, she said.

Rosenstock said the university might want to propose that change to the statutes, and in the meantime, it has other options, such as a court restraining order to keep a professor off campus.

Bernhard said the campus would work with the Senate Executive Committee and Faculty Advisory Committee on its review.

Discussion imminent

A "critical conversation" on Chief Illiniwek, long promoted by Chancellor Robert Jones, is scheduled for April 10.

It will be led by Kevin Gover, director of the National Museum of the American Indian, and Eric Jolley, president and CEO of the Saint Paul and Minnesota Community Foundations and a scholar on Native American rights. The exact time and location have yet to be determined, according to Bill Bernhard, vice provost for academic affairs.

Jones has pushed the idea to help both sides in the divisive debate over the former UI symbol to reach some accommodation on the issue.

A second "critical conversation," on free speech on campus, is scheduled for noon April 17 at the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts. It will be moderated by Cal-Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and University of Chicago law Professor Geoffrey Stone.

"Both of these are clearly issues of significant interest to our university," Bernhard said.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GLG wrote on February 27, 2018 at 8:02 am

Rosenstein is out of control, He wants a resoultion to stop appearences of the Chief but has no problem ignoring state law by stalking and recording people in restrooms while avoiding prosecution with the help of SA Reitz. Hey Jay take your generous U of I insurance package and get the mental health treatment you desperatley need! and soon!  Many pro Chief folks have accepted the Chief is gone. Why can't you?

rsp wrote on February 27, 2018 at 8:02 am

Have you see the movie "Frozen"? Kids' movie. Has a song in it were the lead sings "Let it go, let it go" over and over.

Or you could try Taylor Swift's "Shake it Off".

You get the idea.

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 27, 2018 at 9:02 am

I'd suggest "We Can Work It Out" by the Beatles, implying compromise.

But the word 'compromise' is not in the anti-Chiefer's, and certainly not Rosie's, vocabulary.

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 10:02 am

Continually digging up the moldy old racist ex mascot and parading it around in these silly publicity stunts only digs up the bitterness of the past.

Let it go and move on...

There is no compromise to be had. There's no need for 'continuing discussion.'

The racist old ex mascot will never be the school's mascot again.

It won't be ths school's half mascot either.

It's gone. That racist and shameful chapter of the school's past has been closed for over a decade.

Deal with it and move on...

Don't keep digging up the racist old mascot for these silly stunts just so the NG can get more clicks and ad $$$...

...or, as in happening in the comments of the article about Rosenstein's reinstatement, just so the racist and bigoted righwing reactionary trolls can attack Rosenstein and Reitz for 'going to the same synagogue'...

 

reality wrote on February 27, 2018 at 10:02 am

CallSaul, how many times are you going to refer to “moldy old racist ex mascot” in this string and other strings.  You and the other dozen of people act like you have the right to change the hearts and minds of the community when, in actuality, the pro-chief group is much larger and will NEVER go away!  But, go back to your same old moldy rhetoric if you must...

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

Well, since it is a moldy old racist ex mascot, I'll keep calling it a moldy old racist ex mascot as long as the chicken feather 'chief' clingers insist on continually digging up the moldy old racist ex mascot...

How long they continue to dig it up and cause bitterness and strife --- as well as serious damage to the university's reputation and standing both nationally and internationally --- is entirely up to them...

So my use of the term moldy old racist ex mascot upsets you...?

How do you feel about your fellow 'chief' clinger attacking Rosenstein and SA Reitz for 'going to the same synagogue'...?

Does that bother you enough to even prompt you to just write a comment condemning such disgusting bigotry...?

Or will you just look the other way and pretend these types of bigots aren't a large and very loud contingent of those who very strongly support the moldy old racist ex mascot...?

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

If Dozier and Rosie attend the "critical conversation", and Ivan has to take a restroom break, can we expect a sequel from Rosie? It has been over 20 years since Rosie's last "major" accomplishment.

reality wrote on February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

Don’t you realize that calling chicken feathers ‘chief’ clingers could be considered racist too?  The thing you (and the dozen other people) are trying to squash.  

If I went into a public restroom with a phone camera and starting filming, I would be arrested and CHARGED with a crime by SA Reitz.  But, because Sir Rosenstein committed the crime, SA Rietz looked the other way.  Do you see a little connection between those two?  

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

Please explain, exactly, how calling people who still support the racist old ex mascot "chicken feathers ‘chief’ clingers" in any stretch of the imagination 'could be considered racist too.'

Seriously, help me out because that seems to be an utterly ludicrous contention completely disconnected from reality.

Please help me understand your thinking on that outlandish charge...

So you support the contention that Rietz declined to prosecute Rosenstein not for the obvious reason that there was clearly no prurient intent...?

No, you don't seem to accept that obvious explanation...

Instead, you --- though in a rather weaselly manner --- seem to support the contention that the only reason she did so was because a bigoted fellow 'chief' clinger says both Rosenstein and Reitz happen to attend the same synagogue...?

Why am I not surprised...?  

GLG wrote on February 27, 2018 at 3:02 pm

The law says nothing about " prurient intent"  Reitz has wide latitude in deciding to charge and she choose not to .

Here is the text of the law. 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0851&pr...

 

 

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 3:02 pm

So what's your point...?

Are you saying you also believe the only reason she declined to prosecute is because the bigot claims they attend the same synagogue...?

GLG wrote on February 27, 2018 at 7:02 pm

I said nothing about them going to the same synagogue, and I could care less where they go.! She declined to do anything about Rosenstein, That is her option as SA, She answers only to the voters. 

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 8:02 pm

Okay, then...I was just checking. 

I wasn't sure where you stood on this aspect of the issue but it seems we actually agree that she legitimately exercised prosecutorial discretion and that each voter can respond as they see fit...

GLG wrote on February 27, 2018 at 8:02 pm

I can't belive we agree on something. 

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 9:02 pm

Well...there are bound to be some issues we agree on...

https://youtu.be/IL2VGI44hoo

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 28, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Hey Sollie, Salaita's name came up in this article. I don't recall you polluting the comment section during that controversy.

As the sole arbiter of who is racist and bigoted, who was your horse in that race??

Tom Napier wrote on February 28, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Please explain, exactly, how calling people who still support the racist old ex mascot 'chicken feathers ‘chief’ clingers' in any stretch of the imagination could be considered racist too.''

“Seriously, help me out …”

OK. As long as YOU asked.  I’ll be specific.

“ … because that seems to be an utterly ludicrous contention completely disconnected from reality.”

You’ve already drawn your own conclusion without any of the help you’ve solicited, meaning you’re prejudging the statement. You know, prejudge … “form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information” (ref. Google dictionary, others similar). Related to prejudice, “ … an affective feeling towards a person or group member based solely on their group membership” (ref. Wikipedia). This behavior, predisposition to judgment because of identity instead of individual merit, is virtually identical to racism; stereotyping at the very least. By your stereotyping and prejudicial statements you are subject to being called racist. 

“Please help me understand your thinking on that outlandish charge...”

Again, you’ve prejudged the statement by calling it outlandish prior to receiving any of the help you solicited. See above.

“So you support the contention that Rietz declined to prosecute Rosenstein not for the obvious reason that there was clearly no prurient intent...?”

To say there was clearly no prurient intent is conjecture. You have no objective measure to say there is or isn’t prurient intent. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his objective was probably not deviant behavior. That said, his intent is irrelevant because the statute does not require prurient intent to be criminal. Filming in a toilet facility without the subject’s permission is illegal regardless of intent. Now, THAT’S obvious. If I were to drink too much, drive, and kill someone while driving, I can’t plead that didn’t intend to kill anyone. I’d have my drunk posterior dragged off to jail, as well it should.

“Instead, you --- though in a rather weaselly manner --- seem to support the contention that the only reason she did so was because a bigoted fellow 'chief' clinger says both Rosenstein and Reitz happen to attend the same synagogue...?”

a) Your language (weaseally manner, bigoted fellow Chief clinger) is prejudicial, see above. b) That they attend the same synagogue is immaterial. The issue is they have a common social and/or faith connection. They could just as well both be members of the same church or mosque, or Rotary Club, Lions Club, Daughters of the American Revolution, or Red Hat Society. It’s the same affiliation that’s the issue, not Judism.

I suspect you’ll reply to this post within an hour or so. I’ll ask one thing of you. Please address the points I've outlined  -- in response to your points. Agree or disagree as you wish.  But if your reply consists only of the typical dogma-laden inflammatory rhetoric, it will be irrelevant. So please, please stick to the points that you raised.  Surprise me!

Remember, YOU asked.

CallSaul wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

I didn't ask you, Tom. Nor would I ever...

...as I've previously explained over and over and over and over, I'm not going to get into yet more pointless exchanges with you because you peddle nothing but ham handed bad faith argumentation and, yes, very clumsily executed sea lioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning

Now feel free to whine and moan as per usual...though it would be much preferable if you just silently went away instead...

Tom Napier wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

Wow!  That was quick.  Why am I not surprised.

Actually, by entering a comment, you do invite a reply from anyone and everyone.  And, as I'm sure you've noted by now (maybe not), many people reply to your comments.  But whatever.

Have a nice day.  Over and out.

787 wrote on February 27, 2018 at 10:02 am

We have 11 people throwing a hissy fit, becuase they feel like they've been violated in some way.  Rosenstein is a bit old to be a snowflake.

Only in academia.

Objective Reporter wrote on February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

First, nobody was attacked for going to the same synogogue.  It was mentioned as a possible reason for the law breaking Jay not being charged by Reitz.  Hardly an attack.

 

Second, here are three truths in regards to the Chief issue I think we can all agree on, moving forward:

  • The Chief is not coming back.
  • Pro-Chief and Anti-Chief people will have the same tired argument for many years to come.
  • Saul will continue to twist the words of others to suit his own agenda.  Probably best to ignore his rants.
CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Ignoring my comments <--- yer doin it wrong...

Yes, that bigot most certinly did attack them because he says they attend the same synagogue.

That's the entire premise of his attack. Denying this just exposes your desperation to provde cover for his disgusting bigotry...

Here's a link for the record: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2018-02-23/updated-ui-lifts-rosensteins-suspension-after-state-farm-center-incident.html#comment-689263

Have you ever heard anyone make a similar attack on a prosecutor who attends a church rather than a synagogue...?

Of course not. And we all know why...

You providing cover for the bigot who did attack them for supposedly attending the same synagogue does not reflect well on you.

and the silence of other 'chief' clingers also shines a light on them...

The refusal to condemn --- and in fact the eagerness to defend --- such obvious bigotry by fellow 'chief' clingers sure doesn't support the position that the 'chief' clingers are opposed to all forms of racism and bigotry...

 

reality wrote on February 27, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Somebody has too much time on their hands...

Time to go and do something else...

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Meh...nice dodge...

You have time to criticize my comments. You have time to level ridiculous charges of supposed reverse racism. You have time to justify the bigotry of another 'chief' clinger. You have time to post this last comment...

...you don't have time to justify your absurd claim of reverse racism...

...you have no time to spare condemning the disgusting anti semitic bigotry of another 'chief' clinger...

Priorities, huh...?

reality wrote on February 27, 2018 at 4:02 pm

No...I don’t have the time to go through each of your bullet points and answer each one.  My time would be better served by doing other tasks.  But, I do understand that anti-chief people such as yourself would rather talk excessively about the issue.  

CallSaul wrote on February 27, 2018 at 4:02 pm

Yerp...answering --- in a single comment, no less --- two whole questions about your previous comments is a pretty insurmountable challenge...

Or, more likely, you realize that:

a) your ridiculous claim of reverse racsim somehow being emobdied in the phrase "chicken feather 'chief' clinger" is so ludicrous that you don't even want to attempt what you know would be a doomed effort to cobble together some sort of support for it; and

b) you recognize that furhter defending the claim that Rietz didn't charge Rosenstein because of the assertion that they 'attend the same synagogue' would be so disgusting that it would reflect terribly on you and on the moldy old racist ex mascot you're attempting to prop up...

So it's a much better use of your time to simply submit comments that continue to attack and dodge instead...

Tom Napier wrote on February 28, 2018 at 3:02 pm

See above.

dmlawyer wrote on February 27, 2018 at 4:02 pm

I wonder would the stalking, peeping Tom paparazzi professor would have gotten off scott free if he went in a ladies restroom taking pictures ?

rsp wrote on February 27, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Interesting. You think they are putting on the fake indian outfit in there now?

 

dmlawyer wrote on February 28, 2018 at 1:02 pm

That would certainly be a strategy for "Princess Illiniwek" to pursue.....however the point, obvisoulsy missed by you, was that the victim in the mens' room was not afforded equal protection of the law...the fact that a pervert can come an illegally videotape another man in a restroom without reprecussion, while if that same pervert were to do the same thing to women in a ladies restroom, the book would be thrown at him.

Lostinspace wrote on February 27, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Tonto very tired of this, Kemo sabe

UIUCHoopFan wrote on February 27, 2018 at 6:02 pm

Having just received my football season ticket renewal, I'm in a bit of a quandary. A person dressed in Native American regalia in possession of an event ticket will not be welcomed at Memorial Stadium, and subsequently The Assembly Hall (no one paid me a dime to refer to it as anything else), yet a tenured U of I professor with a ticket, caught in the act of operating a video recording device in a public restroom at the basketball arena, is welcomed into the same venues?

Until the Anti-Chief faction can show me what they've done to POSITIVELY impact the personal and/or educational experience of indigenous people at this or any University I must call BS. When will such energy spent hating those individuals with nothing but respect for the Chief AND Native Americans be channeled towards more positive outcomes such as scholarships, employment opportunities, cultural awareness, and preservation of history and events?

I don't believe for a moment you care for Native Americans in the same manner in which you hate those who dare to hold Chief Illiniwek, and all Native American people, in such high esteem. I believe your only real concern is the sound of your own voice and your 15 minutes of fame.
Fifteen minutes isn't very long. Tradition, respect, honor, and courage lasts for generations.

Mike wrote on February 27, 2018 at 10:02 pm

Is it lost on anyone else that two old, white Professors are encouraging white students to attack Native Americans, all in the name of respect for Native Americans? Jay and Stephen don't want to help Native Americans. They want to eradicate any imagery AND history of Native Americans from campus. Rather than celebrate the history of Native Americans, they simply want it to go away.

The University lost a great chance at a learning experience. Make all freshman take Native American Studies 101 as a requirement. Set up special scholarship programs for Native Americans.

Instead we (a very, very large marjority) have to listen to the continual complaining of a small minority WHO ALREADY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. The Chief is gone! Get over it already!

But I'll wear whatever damn shirt I want to a basketball game.

rsp wrote on February 28, 2018 at 1:02 am

It wasn't "anti-chief" people who drove the Native American Studies program out of town. That would be the "pro-chief" side. The constant harassment, intimidation, etc. People found jobs elsewhere and left, plus there was the case of that one person they hired. Surely you remember those attacks on his character, teaching ability, etc.?

Didn't happen in math, science, or any other department. The ability of every person in the department was attacked. So much for the "opportunity to teach about Native Americans", huh.

What people are complaining about is fake imagery, fake culture, fake dances, etc. I spent hours with a family at Crazy Horse, and they told lots of stories about their history, culture, and their lives. They performed several dances for us and told us the story about each one. They told us the story about the clothes on their backs, how they evolved, how they were made, etc.

Spending a few hours with them shows how shallow all this arguing about a costume and a few stunts really is. It has no tradition, other than the last guy did the same thing. What is the meaning behind it? People worship it but it's just a guy in a suit. Talk about false idols!

So if it's really gone, why is there still the arguing? Why are people still shoving it in the face with yelling "chief" at the games? "I'm not racist!" But when you get told people find the whole thing offensive and you persist, especially in front of children, what does that say about you?

I remember a family member making racist remarks in front of my kids. Until I walked out. I was surprised it never happened again. We have young people, including UI students, going to games who have no experience with the chief being taught to yell racist things. Why?

CallSaul wrote on February 28, 2018 at 2:02 pm

It's basically comes down to the fact that 'chief' clingers are being extremely selfish, inconsiderate and entitled.

They don't care in the slightest about the feelings of those who are stereotyped by their racist ex mascot, not even the kids who can suffer great damage due to these kinds of racist stereotypes. Someone in this thread mimicked the horribly racist Tonto character and no doubt chuckled to themselves about it for a good long time, not caring at all how it hurts the targets of their nasty stereotyping, especially kids.

They just don't care.

Not even a little.

To them, their enjoyment of the nasty moldy old racist ex mascot is paramount. They could care less who it hurts....

...but, selfish entitled hypocrites that they are, they then turn around and demand that everyone else tiptoe around and show the utmost concern for their tender delicate fee-fees because it just wounds them so deeply if anyone has the ill breeding to point out how disgustingly racist the chicken feather 'chief' defunct mascot is.

They whine and cry and moan and wail about how their delicate feeling are just so terribly hurt if anyone dares point out their racist ex mascot is in fact racist.

Because they think that while they are free to totally disregard the feelings of adults and children hurt by the racist dancing idiot, they really believe everyone else should put the feelings of the delicate 'chief' clinger snowflakes above every single other consideration.

That's not of course how it actually works in the real world...

The moldy old ex mascot is horribly racist. It's gone. It's never coming back.

Deal with it and move on already...

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 28, 2018 at 2:02 pm

Hey Sollie, Salaita's name came up in this article. I don't recall you polluting the comment section during that controversy.

As the sole arbiter of who is racist and bigoted, who was your horse in that race??

 

CallSaul wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

So now you're not just stalking me but also spamming the same comment multiple times, huh…?

Weird…and you're just going to keep getting weirder and weirder, aren't you…? 

But just as a mention of drooling imbecile RWNJ trolls does not obligate me to lay out all my thoughts and feelings about you, the fact that someone mentioned someone else doesn't obligate me to take part in a lengthy and pointless tangential discussion about that person.

Besides, I've sworn off getting into extended back and forths with half brain rightwing reactionary trolls barely able to force their synapses to fire who only regurgitate previously debunked and hackneyed bad faith arguments. So you'll understand of course that I therefore obviously can't get into yet another pointless extended tit for tat exchange with you…

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

So, afraid to reply? Can't muster a coherent response?

Tom Napier wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

"It wasn't 'anti-chief' people who drove the Native American Studies program out of town. That would be the 'pro-chief' side."

No, the “pro-Chief” side had no interest in driving the AIS Program out of town. No one cared whether the AIS Program offered a job to Stephen Salaita or not … until Salaita tweeted his genocidal rant against West Bank Jews. In case you forgot, he said “You may be too refined to say it, but I'm not: I wish all the f-ing West Bank settlers would go missing (explitive abbreviated).”   Steven Salaita himself (by virtue of his tweets) triggered that Program’s decline. Ironically, by supporting Saliata, the anti-Chiefers opened themsevles to the same criticism.

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on February 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm

Professor Kim Graber said the senate might want to consider allowing for immediate paid leave in extreme circumstances, such as a professor accused of rape or another violent crime.

"We probably wouldn't want that person on campus" while the case is reviewed, she said.

 

 

Uh Kim----------

 

I do  not want folks who video tape in bathrooms being allowed on campus.

 

You guys do not seem to have a problem with that however as Jay is "one of us"

 

the disconnect between you guys and the real world is unbelieveable.

 

" I know what its like to work in the private sector.. they expect results"

 

Dan Akyroid

 

Ghostbusters

 

Unlik UIUC who has manged to hire Presidents and Chancellors who get canned.

annabellissimo wrote on February 28, 2018 at 6:02 pm

After watching Illinois vs Iowa for 1-1/2 halves and being unable to take anymore of it, I am here to register some thoughts about the Chief Illiniwek ongoing debate that was resolved, and yet still simmers for many. Over the years since Nancy Cantor and the fairly small in number faction of anti-Chief agitators were successful at getting "the Chief" persona banned from performing, I have wondered about the logic of that decision. There never seemed to be any legitimate debate or data gathering, only the loud yelling back and forth of opinion and accusations ("racist" "bigot" being most common from the anti-Chief crowd, accusations that are always useful for shutting down one's opponents). While trying to keep an open mind about it and recognizing that racist ideation is not always recognized as such by its holder, I really could never reconcile the awful claims made by the anti-Chief voices with the actual Chief' and his performances. OK, I thought, well if the persona were re-developed to be more aligned with the original Indian tribes who once lived in this area, maybe that would calm the anti-Chief outrage. It has always seemed to me that the cause against racism could be better directed at the kind of mistreatment of young basketball players, and particularly African-American players who are increasingly the majority among college and professional basketball teams, by the requirement that they play a game that makes millions upon millions for everybody BUT them but they get in trouble if they accept a burger from McDonald's from a recruiter or coach! For black players in particular who quite often have been led to believe that basketball or football would be their ticket to a more affluent future it smacks of a racist system. To be anti-Chief was facile and career-enhancing for some smug academicians but hasn't really helped anybody in any other terms, not native Americans/American Indians, and not attitudes about anything significant or progressive.

I had an epiphany this evening while watching the Illinois-Iowa game: there were advertisements for products that used the ugly, stupid big-head mascot objects for product endorsements. They were all lined up there with their stupid big-heads and caricatured images of animals or a Spartan warrior. Nothing from Illinois. I finally got it. The reason that the NCAA extorted Illinois into banning the Chief and the reason that Illinois capitulated was not because of racism and respect and all the rest of those weak claims. It was money, nothing but money. The NCAA makes outrageous amounts of money from those ads and the "schools" also make money from those endorsements. There was no way that a real-live person dressed as an Indian could be placed alongside those bizarre big-head creatures to sell stuff, and yet stuff had to be sold = MONEY, MONEY for the NCAA that cares ONLY about money and money for the millionaires at the universities in their "sports" departments. It became clear. Nothing in the attacks against the Chief had to do with racism and respect, nor with honoring Indians, nor with dispatching all offensive symbols from college sports. It had nothing to do with decency or honor because if that were their motivation, University of North Carolina would not have been able to get away with actual academic FRAUD and Louisville's punishment would be a lot more severe for hiring prostitutes and strippers for basketball recruits and players!! UNC, Louisville, Arizona and who knows who else will be playing in tournaments, appearing on TV, and having their big-head monstrosities performing in product endorsements. But Illinois and its real-person Indian in buckskin doing a dance-performance similar to what movies have done for decades? All the power of the NCAA rains down on Illinois! Racism and respect? NO WAY. MONEY, nothing but MONEY! Either some anti-Chief loud voices saw an opportunity for some career- advancement for themselves or they actually swallowed the NCAA line that it was racist, but that UIUC did not stand up to NCAA and the Chief was banished speaks totally to the University's own craving for the money that the NCAA promises - if only everybody goes along. So the NCAA turns a blind eye to academic fraud, to sexual misconduct, to the mistreatment of women and young men in the hiring of prostitutes and strippers, to corruption and buying and selling of human beings (money for recruits), etc.,etc. and even turns a blind eye to the Florida shirtless Indian on a horse at their games, but the Chief? Cannot allow that! MONEY. That's all it ever was. The foul NCAA runs the show and they do it for money, for gambling interests, for advertisements, for money, money, money.

CallSaul wrote on February 28, 2018 at 7:02 pm

'...only the loud yelling back and forth of opinion and accusations ("racist" "bigot" being most common from the anti-Chief crowd, accusations that are always useful for shutting down one's opponents).'

People who want to make racist comments with impunity or support racist things like the moldy old racist ex mascot alway whine and cry about how merely accurately describing the racism in question is somehow 'silencing' those who want to make racist comments or support racist mascots with impunity.

They try to say it's so impolite, it hurts their delicate tender feeling so much and that it should just be out of bounds even just to merely correctly label the racism and bigotry as racism and bigotry.

Ironically, this is a ham handed, extremly clumsy --- as well as futile --- effort to silence those who accurately point out the racism and bigotry...

What they're saying is that they want the freedom to make their racist or bigoted comments or support their racist ex mascot without any of the consequences and revulsion that decent people feel towards those who make racist and bigoted comments or who support such racist things as the racist old ex mascot. 

They're saying that their tender delicate feelings being hurt and the social disapproval brought on by their support of racism and bigotry are worse than the actual racism and bigotry...

That is ludicrous...and just so sickeningly pathetic and entitled...

If make racist comments, you'll be known as a racist.

If you support the racist old ex mascot, you'll be known as someone who supports racist things.

That's just how it is.

If you don't want to be known as a racist, don't make racist comments or behave in a racist manner...

If you don't want to be known as a supporter of racism, then don't continue to support the racist old ex mascot...

If you do either of these things, own your decision to do so and live with the consequences like the grown adult you are. 

Don't whine and cry and snivel like a spoiled child that it's just so unfair when others accurately describe the racism and bigotry inherent in what you've said and what you support...

Illiniwek222 wrote on February 28, 2018 at 8:02 pm

More repetitive nonsense from Sollie. Take your meds. Still no response on Salaita. 

 

annabellissimo wrote on March 01, 2018 at 7:03 am

Like so many others, I too get provoked by your posts and so, violating my own promise-to-self to ignore you, I am responding.

As is typical, you missed my point(s) entirely, or ignored them, in order to focus on your own, often-repeated, relentlessly obsessive, claims about the Chief and others who post comments here. You may be sincere in your constantly posted chant about "moldy, racist, chicken feathers, etc. etc.that you oppose the Chief because it is a racist image. That is your claim. I'm not making a counter-claim about that. I am suggesting that racism and respect for American Indians is not and was not the rationale for banning, for eliminating, UIUC use of "the Chief" in imagery and in live performance.

I am suggesting that the NCAA forced rejection of that live portrayal of the UIUC symbol, "Chief Illiniwek," not because of noble or honorable motivations, but because of money, revenue. Seeing all the big-head monstrosities that are caricatures, mockeries of universities' symbols (a huge-head, muscle-bound Spartan, a huge-head wolverine, etc.) that make cartoon images for use in HUGE money-making, gambling-connected, NBA/NFL prep-enterprises where the sidelines are populated by scantily-clad females in sequins and glittery pom-poms who shimmy and shake and writhe like the LA Lakers stripper-esque "dance teams" (and what does that have to do with inter-collegiate basketball - oh, that's right - get the crowds in with cash in hand). Media cameras focus in on those scantily-clad females and on the big-head monstrosities called "mascots" and it all just looks so jolly and funny and fun, eh? Then the breaks for ads come on the TV (and the "Big Ten" is now all about the "Big Ten" TV network - even the "Big Ten" tournament is in NEW YORK for the market - no longer the midwest region, no longer "ten" and no longer having anything to do with midwest inter-collegiate sports rivalries or actual competitive fun). When those ad breaks come on, you see all the big-head monstrosities called "mascots," all lined up or dunking basketballs or shaking and coming at you in the TV camera and all the other stupid moves they make - and then they're selling products, endorsing products. So the labels on the team uniforms, the shoes, the "mascots," the TV network, and the NCAA are all about one thing and one thing only - and it has nothing to do with racism or respect - it has only to do with money. There is no way that a real live person in an Indian costume dancing at half-time could be seen alongside those big-head monstrosity "mascots" who are bizarre, absurd, cartoon figures. So there was no way the NCAA and the "Big Ten" could make money off Chief Illiniwek. How to get rid of him and force Illinois to join the big-head cartoon monstrosity ad-club? Call racism and dishonor and bigotry and attach sanctions and threats and bullying and make Illinois get in line. So what if "basketball powerhouse" University of North Carolina engages in academic fraud?!. So what if "basketball powerhouse" University of Louisville brings in prostitutes and strippers to young men considering playing basketball there? So what if Arizona pays huge sums to "buy" a recruit?! What does any of that have to do with MONEY for the NCAA? But try to hang on to a symbol that isn't a cartoonish figure that can be used to sell products so that the NCAA (and the "Big Ten" athletic members) can profit, try to hang on to a live person in a costume who only performs to music at half-time, try to hang on to something that is associated (whether misguided or not precisely authentic to regional tribal history) with some notions of competitive inspiration versus mockery and absurdity - and you will be punished because if it doesn't make the NCAA and the "Big Ten" more and more and more millions, then it will be called bad names, like racist, bigot, disrespectful. After all, it is so respectful to invite mostly African-American young men from high schools all over the country to various campuses across the U.S. and also invite prostitutes and strippers. It is so respectful to "college" athletes to have them play the game they play and entertain the "fans" while pretending that they are also "student-athletes" with fake classes, cheating, fraud. It is so respectful to cater to gamblers, big money donors, millionaire slick-actors like Pitino, Pearl, et al while punishing (often poor background) recruits for accepting a hamburger or gas money! It is so respectful to laugh and cheer for the shirtless Indian ("Seminole") with a flaming spear galloping onto the football field in Florida without one word of disdain or condemnation - and why is that? Money. Money for everybody, including the Seminole tribe who OK it.

So you, CallSaul, and Rosenstein and Cantor and Kaufmann, et al may have made various iterations of career advancements on the basis of claims of "racism and respect" but that's not what has ever been behind banning Chief Illiniwek. He was/is banned because he can't be used as an advertising/sales prop for products, the NCAA and the "Big Ten."

I'm not attached to "the Chief" but I am interested in truth and honesty and I hate seeing real problems being substituted with ersatz problems. The real problems are the actual racism, abuse, disrespect, chicanery, and corruption in college athletics; the fake problem is a guy in an Indian costume dancing for a brief performance at a half-time.

Some of us who watch Illinois basketball find the Big Ten/NCAA officiating to be so blatantly biased against Illinois (even our reliably losing teams) that it often seems we are playing against two teams, the opponents and the referees. I have come to suspect that is also part of pressure on Illinois to get in line with the NCAA and the "Big Ten" in whatever ways they demand, including adopting one of the big-head, absurd, ludicrous, annoying cartoon "mascots" that can bring in more MONEY. Dancing girls in sequins, stupid big-head cartoon figures, lots and lots of ads - and pretty soon you've got a full-fledged NBA farm team but hey let's all pretend it's college.

Think whatever you want, CallSaul/Kaufmann/Rosenstein et al: I'm going back to ignoring you and to lamenting the abandonment of logic and rationality, common sense and decency.

CallSaul wrote on March 01, 2018 at 10:03 am

You are of course free to hold any opinion you want.

If you want to breezily dismiss the obvious racism of the moldy old racist ex mascot, you're free to do so to your heart's content...

Just don't expect that doggedly repeating that blanket denial in comment after comment after comment is going to suddenly change the mind of anyone who recognizes the obvious racism of the chicken feather 'chief.'

And opposing racism is not a zero sum game. Opposing the racist old moldy ex mascot doesn't mean I and others can't also oppose other forms of racism. And you or the other rightwing reactionary supporters of the racist ex mascot certainly are in no position to dictate to us what we must do or oppose before we're allowed to voice opposition to the chicken feather 'chief' ex mascot.

Please remember also: the points I'd like to make in my comments are not subject to your approval...

And your continued accusation that I'm a sockpuppet is really just pathetic...hardly an example of the 'decency' you make such a show of crying crocodile tears for...

You hypocritically whine about the supposed 'abandonment of logic and rationality, common sense and decency' in my comments...

Look to your own comments: they're full of nasty personal attacks and bald assertions poorly supported with little or no relevant facts...

When will the disgustingly sanctimonious hypocrisy of the rightwing reactionary racist ex mascot supporting trolls ever end...?

Can you really not see your towering hypocrisy...?

It's really very tedious and honestly...it's not doing you any favors. It completely shreds any scrap of credibility you might otherwise hope to present...

Illiniwek222 wrote on March 01, 2018 at 2:03 pm

Still waiting for your views on Salaita, Rosie. I know talking on the matter would may you seem like...a hypocrite. Give it a try. Be specific.

CallSaul wrote on March 01, 2018 at 3:03 pm

I've explained repeatedly and in easy to understand language that I'm not going to get into yet more pointless extended tit for tat exchanges with bad faith rightwing reactionary trolls such as you.

But you keep spamming the same irrelevant question...

Okay, fine. Whatever keeps you off the streets and away from children...

I predicted you'd just keep getting weirder and weirder and creepier and creepier...not that such a prediction required any great insight or special ability of course...

Obsessively stalking me and spamming your weird demand that I answer your inane questions is sure to win everyone over to your side on every issue, so be sure to keep up the obsessive creepy monomaniacal stalker routine...

...I'd suggest doing it at least fifty times a day every day...that'll be sure to work...

Tom Napier wrote on March 02, 2018 at 9:03 am

"I've explained repeatedly ... that I'm not going to get into yet more pointless extended tit for tat exchanges ..."

That would be the best news we've heard all month ... if we could believe it. 

I do, however, appreciate you recognize the name calling, insulting, inflammatory rhetoric that you describe as "exchange" is indeed pointless.  Stay on topic and contribute constructive criticism and you may experience an actual exchange.

CallSaul wrote on March 02, 2018 at 1:03 pm

If only you'd follow your own advice and abandon your tedious bad faith argumention, ineffective sea lioning and hypocritically sanctimonious scolding...

...sadly, I'm not holding out much hope...so proceed with yet more scolding and sanctimony because that's just what everyone is clammoring for...

Illiniwek222 wrote on March 02, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Once again, you offer nothing but your usual repetitive, vacuous nonsense.

Why so reluctant to express your opinion on Salaita. Opinions spew forth from you on everything else.

Afraid of being logically inconsistent?

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on March 03, 2018 at 3:03 pm

Usually Jimmy rants that unless you condemn someone you are in favor of someone.

 

Since Jimmy avoids the question on Mr Salida one can then infer tht he agrees with him

 

Under Jimmys logic that he has posted about in the past.

 

Sad.