There are also other, cheaper alternatives for retrofit that provide fresh outside air heated 'for free' on sunny days -- www.solarwall.com. It's a black box/airchamber on a roof or southern/western wall that ties into the central air system. It sucks in fresh outside air, the sun warms it, and then it blows it into the building. Supplimental in nature, and doesn't work well during grey days and when the temp is sub-zero, but can dramatically reduce the length of the heating season.

Posted by Caliente on March 7, 2006 at 10:19 AM

For detailed information about the Unit 4 school bond referendum, visit www.u4excellence.org

Posted by u4excellence on March 8, 2006 at 11:15 PM

$66,000,000. Yes, let's just throw more money at the schools. It's worked so well in the past.

Posted by whome on March 9, 2006 at 8:16 AM

The principal at Dr. Howard has made an effort to make things ban enough at that school to get a new school. Time to do works towards education instead of toward hand outs.

Posted by wilsona on March 9, 2006 at 1:31 PM

The Champaign School's proposal to spend $66 million has concerned and frustrated. I'll admit, I am no longer a resident of Champaign, so my voice may be less valid than one from in district. However, I was a resident for the majority of my life, and my 2 school aged kids were pupils at Garden Hills for K-5 and K-2, respectively.

I have experience with the school district and the way it operates. There's a lot of talk about facilities, new schools and improvements. Air conditioning, remodeling, expansion, parking lots. What happened to books? Teacher's raises? Increases in salary or benefits for aides, enrichment specialists, support staff and the myriad other people that touch children's lives on a daily basis in a school setting- those are things I want money allocated for.

Give students the support they really need- strong teachers and well funded classrooms. Quit asking teachers to pay for their own supplies, copies and snacks. Basic needs- like books, teachers, aides and support staff are under funded. "Extras" like ESL, gifted, foreign language, art, music, band, choir and other exploratory learning classes are barely holding steady, or being slashed at an alarming rate. With the focus on No Child Left Behind, the approach to the whole child has drastically diminished.

Kids are no longer "Jane" and "Billy"- they are white, black, Hispanic, male or female. Kids have become statistics. Administrating teaching has become a numbers game. It's no longer about the well rounded student at the end- it's about how well a kid can spout certain piles of information at certain times when it comes to funding issues.

I have serious reservations about millions of dollars of spending on capital improvements after last year' extended contract negotiations with support staff last winter and with teachers this past fall as well.

There were repeated comments from the Champaign School Board concerning budgetary constrictions disallowing even modest cost of living adjustments for the most important assets the schools offer- personnel. It is seriously upsetting that the school board was willing to spend $25,000 per DAY for temporary staff to replace support staff members like bus drivers, lunch room servers and janitors, but not willing to spend $150,000 over 3 years to offer these critical personnel a raise. At $25,000 per day, the cost of temporary staff would overtake the $150,000 cost of raises in less than one week. 260 non salaried employees in the school district averaged $192 per year in raises with the negotiated contract. These employees are worth far more than $192 more a year.

There were many instances in negotiations when the management appeared to be callous, uncaring, and dismissive of the concerns and complaints of the people that directly serve our children. If the goal of educating our children is excellence, every single person involved in their lives need to be valued and treated with dignity. A culture of respect and success for the adults participating in teaching, feeding, transporting and cleaning after our kids can help strengthen and encourage everyone. At least twice I have seen reports that there are seats for an extra strand of children at Garden Hills. My question is quite seriously: Where? The janitor's closet has been transformed into an office for a part time principal/student services director. Three people share a small closet like room for social services.

Storage rooms have been transformed into settings for language therapists, remedial reading instructors and other enrichment staff. Many of the classrooms I saw last year had 25 kids or more. I'll admit that I noticed a very serious drop in the number of students in classrooms for the older grades. 5th grade classrooms were either very well managed or had far fewer students than lower levels. I seriously wonder what implications that has for the middle school Garden Hills is "pooled" to; especially when I heard anecdotal comments of overcrowding in the same grades at other schools that pool to different middle schools. Middle schools and their needs have been almost entirely overlooked in the proposal. How does that serve our kids?

The middle schools are currently overpopulated and overcrowded. There are repeated stories of violence- both among students and escalating against teachers. Several teachers left our middle schools rather than face the very real dangers of instructing at that level. For many children, the middle school years are the most critical in who they become as adults. This age group needs better services- not drastically reduced opportunities to learn new things. I understand "funding" is an issue. Yet again, I take offense at the proposal that teacher's aren't worth it. I appreciate the need for improved facilities. I seriously agree that smaller, older schools need a lot of well designed changes to accommodate today's students and staff.

Dr. Howard and Southside are both overcrowded and need updating. Central is a landlocked school, and there have been more students than room there for 15-20 years. I very much agree that Savoy needs its own grade school. Taking the Savoy demand out of the students vying for seats for South Champaign schools will increase spaces for Champaign children in those schools. Savoy parents have certainly made it clear they don't want busing (who does?) and want a school near them designated as a "priority". Savoy parents have (for the most part) convinced the school board that they have a right to a service that many other students do not get- a neighborhood school. A Savoy school does not serve Unit 4 best- it serves Savoy best. I don't think Champaign should pay for Savoy's needs. I believe that Savoy would be far better served to start its own school district- to assure that Savoy children attend Savoy schools, and to avoid the consent decree issues Champaign faces. Convincing Savoy of that issue may be a difficult thing- but to serve its residents, I believe Savoy needs to provide its own services.

The reservations I have stem mostly from the needs I see children in Unit 4 schools as having. Yes, they need updated schools and modern facilities. Yes, they deserve comfortable settings and equitable environments. Yes, they are entitled to better than they are currently getting. At the same time, these students deserve well funded staff. They deserve teachers, aides, support staff, office personnel, lunch room workers, bus drivers and other vital members of their school environment that are fairly paid and given strong backing by the administration. The parents of these students deserve the knowledge that Unit 4 administrators are being mindful of expenditures.

Parents deserve to know that fee increases for required services (like books and drivers' education) are a reflection of budgetary concerns, and that more spending is not always the answer. I sincerely support better services and facilities for students. I do not do so at the expense of teachers or staff. Unit 4 administrators have done a lot of legwork trying to convince parents that this referendum was put together with a consensus- but building sites have already been set with no local input (until after the fact) and much of this proposal is being treated as a done deal.

Unit 4 deserves more openness and more than just shiny buildings.

Posted by Hoov on March 16, 2006 at 2:58 PM

Are you kidding? Cancel the school and do what? It's pathetic that parents that live on the north end of town don't want their kids going to Stratoon because it's in an unsafe neighborhood. Now the school district proposes putting a new school on the north end of town in a safe neighborhood and parents complain about it. Maybe we should builf 6 empty schools on Market St in order to fulfill the requirements of this ridiculous consent decree that never should have been entered into anyway.

Posted by wilsona on March 16, 2006 at 3:12 PM

Wait a minute, we are to vote on Tuesday for something that they haven't settled the details on as of the Friday before? Ridiculous! And yes, Stratton is half empty and that's north of University. Fill that up first then come talk to me.

Posted by whome on March 16, 2006 at 4:11 PM

"White people are going to have to change their minds about going into the black community, about their children going to school on the north end," he said.

Mr. Culver seeks "equality." Rather than doing anything to help the black community, he has chosen to drag whites down to whatever extent he is able. The result will be "equality" but will not be good for either the white or the black commmunities of Champaign. When he is done, and moves on to a larger better paying district, we wiill be the ones stuck with greater racial animosity AND worse schools for everybody.

Posted by willie06 on March 16, 2006 at 4:23 PM

It is troubling that Unit 4 is being held accountable in a manner of direct cause, for statistics that repeat themselves in communities throughout this country. And the implicit portrayal of this community as racist through statements like: if only we could embrace the idea that ALL children are capable of learning, has become insulting given the effort, money and years spent thus far trying to satisfy the consent decree. Unit 4 is being held hostage and irrepairably drained financially for things it did not directly cause. Sure it is the right thing to do, to try and do as much as can be done to help all children have a positive outcome in education and life. But, there needs to be some fudiciary responsibility here and a healthy balance between what the schools should be expected to do and be held accountable for, AND the role parentS play in their child's education and outcome. There really is only so much that schools and this community can do, given that money doesn't grow on trees! Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Maybe from misperceptions regarding how people achieve positive outcomes in life (and, yes, despite obstacles). Very few kids grow up with unlimited resources and money to assure their success in life. For not readily apparent reasons, the expectation of some seems to be that the sky's the limit when it comes to the Unit 4 School District in Champaign Illinois. The district and community 'owes' more than there is to possibly give. And unfortunately much of the lip service paid to the spirit of the consent decree comes across as somewhat disingenuous. There is little equality (for ALL children) in a School Choice system where kids run the risk of being rejected from their choice schools because they are of the wrong race. Another lawsuit waiting to happen. Fighting alleged discrimination with blatant discrimination. How far we have not come since the visionary dreams of Martin Luther King.

Posted by Lotte on March 16, 2006 at 10:29 PM

It is important to clear up a widespread misperception about current student capacity in Unit 4 schools.

Stratton has 26 classrooms that are limited to 20 students per class. This yields a total seating capacity of around 520 students. As of January, there were 330 students enrolled at Stratton, which at first glance suggests that nearly 200 seats must be sitting empty. However, this is not the case. According to the Family Information Center, there are currently just 60 seats available in the entire school.

People who claim there are over 200 empty seats at Stratton are considering only designated classroom capacity rather than the way the rooms are already being used. Here is how Stratton is currently allocating the nearly 200 seats of empty space:

* Three classrooms are being used every day for early childhood intervention programs with pre-kindergarten students.

* One classroom is being used every day as a computer lab.

* One classroom is being used every day as an art room.

* Other areas in Stratton house a reading recovery lab for training teachers.

There are no empty classrooms at Stratton, because Unit 4 is using the space to house a range of educational programs that enrich the experience of district students.

Posted by u4excellence on March 17, 2006 at 10:20 AM

By law, referendum money of this sort can only be spent on construction, not staffing. So while the staffing and fee issues you mention are important, solutions to those problems come through the school board and cannot be directly addressed by the referendum.

However, the referendum does indirectly address these issues in an important way. Currently, the Unit 4 district is required by the terms of the Consent Decree to spend between $1.5 million and $2 million per year to cover all legal and consulting fees

related to the decree. That's $2 million per year that isn't going to staffing and other important district priorities.

Until the Consent Decree is lifted, the district will have to continue diverting this money to legal fees instead of spending it on educating our children.

The Consent Decree cannot be lifted until 2 sets of new K-5th classrooms are built north of University Avenue. The referendum, if it passes, would do precisely this. If the referendum does not pass, the district will be forced to continue spending those millions on lawyer's fees.

The district has made substanial progress on all areas of the Consent Decree but one. Test scores are up, and the achievement gap is down. The main impediment that remains before the Decree can be lifted is the construction of new classroom space.

Please vote yes on the referendum this Tuesday. For more information, visit www.u4excellence.org

Posted by u4excellence on March 17, 2006 at 10:48 AM

As a Unit 4 teacher, I am appalled. Once again, people in the community are doing their level best to discredit the district in the eyes of the community. And what great timing, just days before the referendum vote.

At the board meeting earlier this week, site options were presented. The amount of land needed to build a new school defines potential sites. The consent decree mandates that it be north of University. These two criteria left only 3 options: declaring emminent domain and displacing 60 families that the new building is designed to serve; placing a new school between a railroad track and asphalt company (major safety issues); or the suggested location off Bradley. Now there are those who say that this location does not meet the "spririt" of the decree.

Where were those voices way back at the beginning when the district initially suggested the changes to BTW and Garden Hills in lieu of a new building? At that time the complaint was that just refurbishing those schools didn't meet the spirit of the decree because the addressed population should have a new school.

I fail to see how it can be both ways. To me, this delay merely serves to provide opponents with another "see, the district can't be trusted" weapon, when in fact, the district has been operating in good faith and it is the opponents who block every turn. My greatest fear, besides a failed referendum, which as a teacher I can assure you is desperately needed for ALL Champaign students whether they be black, white, green, or purple, is that the this will be a factor in extending the consent decree, which several prominent opponents have recently suggested. Ask any teacher in the district and you will find that we all would prefer the $2,000,000 in annual legal fees be used to provide for our students, not lawyers. How anyone can, in good conscience, railroad this referendum in such a manner, and seek to extend the decree is beyond me. It continues to appear that these people are seeking personal gain and attention, not the best interests of the district students. The fact that a number of these opponents are parents of district students is even more astonishing. Shame on you!

I urge all voters to please continue to support the referendum. This schol is just one issue of many, and it is not fair to penalize the remaining schools because of a few people who cannot seem to seek a common good over their own. In the end, referendum money is strictly monitored, and the public can rest assured that, despite area naysayers, the money raised will be spent appropriately and honestly to support ALL Unit 4 students.

Posted by teacher on March 17, 2006 at 11:02 AM

I second the comments of "teacher". Many people are unaware of the poor conditions in many of our elementary buildings. We are having to teach kids in closets and hallways, because our 50-year-old schools (older still in the cases of Dr. Howard and Southside) were built before the era of computer labs, English as a Second Language, counselling, learning enrichment, and special education.

Full details of the referendum, including floor plans for school-by-school renovations, are available at www.u4excellence.org

Whether you plan to support or oppose the referendum, I would hope that you take the time to get informed about the conditions of our schools, what the referendum would do, and why proponents say it is so badly needed.

Posted by u4excellence on March 17, 2006 at 11:52 AM

I have a great idea! If the existing schools are too cramped, we should build 2 new schools and lift the burden. Maybe we should just do that and maintenance and save ourselves millions of dollars. As for clearing up this widespread misconception about Stratton...You are correct...The classrooms aren't filled, so the district is becoming creative and utilizing the space for other programs. Th ta doesn't change the fact that families don't want to send their children over there and won't want to send them to Market or Bradley either. We as a community all know(even if we won't say it) that nobody prefers to live on the North end of town and anyone that can afford it would move to the South side of town. How many people that live on the North end would prefer to live in Cherry Hills and attend Barkstall? I'm sick of hearing people say that people are going to have to get over their problems and become willing to send their kids into those communities. Not even the people in those communities want to send their children to those communities.

Posted by wilsona on March 17, 2006 at 5:15 PM

According to the Unit 4 administration, the comparison made in this article between 1999 and 2005 enrollments contains a serious error. The 1999 numbers show higher enrollments at several schools because at that time, students in the pre-kindergarten intervention programs were counted as part of the kindergarten enrollment in each host school. By 2005, the pre-kindergarten enrollment was considered separate from kindergarten enrollment each of these schools. Once those pre-k students are taken out of the 1999 count, the administration says there is no decline in enrollment numbers between 1999 and 2005.

For more information on the referendum and the reasons why it has been proposed, visit www.u4excellence.org

Posted by u4excellence on March 17, 2006 at 10:51 PM

There already IS a new state of the art school in the heart of a black community...Stratton. Why is Imani Bazzell saying that other children will be getting two such schools while the black community essentially goes without? Stratton is like a Barkstall north of University Avenue. MOST children in this district don't have a Stratton in their neighborhood! Go ahead and take more legal action, despite the fact that the Boulder Ridge site satisfies the consent decree AND considers the financial logistics of a district that is under dire financial constraints from trying to satisfy the consent decree. Spending is not unlimited just because there is a consent decree in place. It has reached the point of having to go to tax payers for more money. Launching more legal action against Unit4 will serve ALL children of this district most well, won't it. Continue to drain this community financially and watch people leave with the very tax dollars you're after. It's already happening.

Posted by Lotte on March 18, 2006 at 11:57 AM

I think that it is interesting that there is now opposition from both the extreme right, opposed to any taxation to 'invest in the community' AND the group which feels slighted by the location of Boulder Ridge, practically in Mahomet.

If the referendum does not pass, it will be a VERY bleak day for the school district which should be one of the pillars of our community. As extremists on both ends of the political spectrum up in arms over the issue of the size of the budget, the electorate will not have an opportunity to vote on what is MOST needed out of the referendum-- critical maintenance that needs to be done on the schools that the community already has. I do not feel that the Boulder Ridge location was very well considered and the lack of dialogue on such a sensitive subject is very alarming. At the same time, it is a VERY logical location given the fact that land in C-U is available in every direction, outside of town.

ALL of the schools should be looked upon as an asset of the whole community and it is our responsibility to maintain them together. If we the electorate fail to act responsibly and support maintaining those community assets we already have, the 'cost' in the long run will be far higher and we will all share the costs of abandoning this responsibility as the schools go down the tubes which will likely have negative, long-term consequences for property values all over town.

Posted by MrHappy23 on March 18, 2006 at 3:37 PM

I wish he media would quit refering to Imani Bazzell and her compatriots as community activists (although this story actually just said "activist"). She is not speaking for the community, she is speaking for a special interest group. The members of the school board are the true community activists--they ran for and were elected to their positions. They look at issues from all sides before making a decision tht is good for the WHOLE community. Ms. Bazzell's push to extend the referendum is further evidence of her lac of concern for the entire Unit 4 community. As a Unit 4 parent, she should be as sickened as the rest of us to think tht $2,000,000/yr is being spent on legal fees instead of our children. Asking for an extension is irresponsible and reprehnsible. When Ms. Bazzell becomes a member of the board, then she will have the right to be considered a "community activist". Let's hope she learns the meaning of the word community first.

Posted by teacher on March 18, 2006 at 9:35 PM

People in Champaign need not look beyond our state borders to see the problems that can arise from mismanaged planning and community relations in the school district. Perhaps the News-Gazette can remind us all of what happened in Rockford and what the outcome has been. It might be sobering and broaden the perspective. Aren't factors such as the quality of education, student:teacher ration, collegiate placing, and extracurricular activies more important than physical location? Champaign is still small enough (unlike Rockford) that even the longest trek across town only takes a few minutes. Let's not forget how close we are here and that we are all connected in this community. Let's keep the focus on the most important issues.

Posted by Seykick on March 20, 2006 at 11:11 AM

Isn't it ironic that Savoy would like to keep the buses of MTD out (for reasons that are probably a little more sinister than what is claimed) yet more than welcomes the tax dollars of the neighboring community to build a new school there ?

Posted by NoSchool4U on March 22, 2006 at 8:50 AM

Isn't it interesting that Savoy would like to keep the buses of MTD out (for reasons that are probably a little more sinister than what is claimed) yet more than welcomes the tax dollars of the neighboring community to build a new school there ? No new schools in Savoy with outside tax money until it can resolve if it wants to be part of the larger community.

Posted by NoSchool4U on March 22, 2006 at 8:54 AM

Thankfully this thing was soundly defeated. So what's the deal with Stratton? I keep hearing that school is only half to two thirds filled. Maybe now the district will actually go about filling that school.

Posted by whome on March 22, 2006 at 10:26 AM

You can take an underperforming black school, and move the gifted program into it. The school will perform better, and Mr. Culver will record the achievement onto his resume. But, will is help the black kids? Will it help the gifted kids? No! It is one example of the harm that this superintendent is causing to Champaign through his gaming of our system.

I did not vote against a school funding program, I voted against more busing for Champaign students. I voted against Arthur Culver and his racially divisive policies and attitude. When Mr. Culver is long gone to a bigger job at a large urban district, we will have to deal with the consequences of his actions. Greater racial animosity is bad for Champaign, even if it is good for superintendent Culver's career.

With 6 unused classrooms at Stratton, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to find room for more north side students.

Posted by willie06 on March 22, 2006 at 10:55 AM

Does "noschool4u" think that Savoy residents don't pay taxes to the school district? This referendum was doomed from the beginning, but I hope other voters were more well-informed than this.

Posted by brad on March 22, 2006 at 1:32 PM

Space isn't the only issue. Quality is also an issue. Champaign is well on its way to having 'inner-city' quality schools/busing because people aren't willing to adequately fund the school district. The state's system is broken, but locales can at least fund their schools through property taxes. But, no, the people have spoken and said, "we don't care about the children." What makes it worse is that the school district brought it on itself by totally screwing up the referendum by proposing totally awful ideas, then wavering on it. Who would support such a huge price tag without more information on where/what was going to be done!? Maybe some planning will be done and a solid proposal will be in place for November... "School of choice" should be available to every gradeschooler in an urban area, it is a shame that Champaign can't figure out a way to make it happen.

Posted by TimIL on March 22, 2006 at 2:23 PM

We voted no because of the Staley Road School and the associated busing. And because the District did not seem ready for prime time. If necessary, give up the A/C and use the money to buy a nice intown piece of school property, or redo Washington. Let's hold to the spirit of the consent decree and stay in town, not out in the country.

Posted by RL on March 22, 2006 at 2:26 PM

yes brad, the issue is more complicated than that.....the taxes Savoy pays now does go to the education of its children presently, whichever school they attend, but building a school in Savoy and the related educational and economic benefits will mean that the taxes will be disproportionately distributed. Frankly I think we should be building schools and taking care of our children but I simply wanted to point out the irony with the MTD issue. It is almost always better to sacrifice for the greater good of our communities.

Posted by NoSchool4U on March 22, 2006 at 5:10 PM

When the county/city starts putting an explanation of why I have to pay 3% per year in property taxes (exponential growth), then perhaps I might be willing to pay more. Until then, I will vote down all ballot measures to raise taxes.

Posted by nomoney on March 22, 2006 at 5:23 PM

There are no empty classrooms at Stratton. I've been there. Check NCLB, you can't pad scores by adding gifted kids. If gifted kids do well, but low-income kids don't do well, the school is labeled failing. Champaign schools are improving, but if this community doesn't support them, we will all lose.

Posted by savymom on March 22, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Why would the Board support a proposal that does little to even out bussing disparities between white and black students? A school in Savoy that white kids could walk to, another school in the midst of a white subdivision, two more opportunities for black families to be disenfranchised. Does anyone ever think of the disproportionately negative impact these policies will have on black families? Does anyone even care? The opposite of love is not hate, its indifference. This proposed referendum was asbout as indifferent as you can get. Surely, we can do better.

Posted by Truth on March 22, 2006 at 9:53 PM

The referendum would have really helped BTW, Garden Hills and Dr. Howard. BTW and Garden Hills have plenty of space for neighborhood students. To put another school near those schools would be crazy when the neighborhood can't fill them now. It is insulting to assume that no one cares about black students. I voted to spend millions to improve schools in the northeast and build a new school in the northwest that the school district said would give 150 African American kids a proximity A. Sounded like a good deal for black kids and white kids. Right now, I am considering private school for my daughter because I'm sick of the way the adults fight in Unit 4. I really like the diversity in the schools, but I don't like name calling and accusations like I've seen lately.

Posted by savymom on March 22, 2006 at 10:50 PM

Thank you, RL. Let's redevelop property in the heart of the north side of Champaign, giving the residents there a high quality facility IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. The land will cost more than a comparable parcel on the fringe of the city, but that is the price we all have to pay for making the easy choice (fringe expansion) in the past.

Hopefully we send the consultants home and have some heart to heart discussion with the people who have to vote 'yes' on the next referendum.

Open note to Unit 4: Let's build 1 new school for $15 million which is actually in the city, and earmark another $10 - $20 million to take care of aging infrastructure needs which are pressing.

Posted by BigE on March 23, 2006 at 7:20 AM

If we really cared about black kids would we have consent decree ordering us to treat them equitably? Would we sit quietly as the Board fails to meet the terms of this consent decree? Would we ignore the disproportionate numbers of black students that are suspended, expelled, and dropout every year? I graduated from Champaign schools and readily admit that it is a system filled with hardworking, loving educators that care about ALL students, regardless of race, class, or color. However, we cannot continue to ignore and make exscuese for a history of systemic discrimination against black families in our city. We need a referendum that addresses this issue first. Savoy can wait--black kids have been bussed for decades, they can hold out for a few more years. AC can wait--we've sweated through August and September for over 100 years, five more won't kill us. More strands on the northside, that minimize the need for bussing within the black community, cannot wait--we have court orders to rectify this, and other equity issues, with all deliberate speed. Currently, we are woefully behind schedule. Let's do what we are supposed to do now, and work on the things we want to do later.

Posted by Truth on March 23, 2006 at 8:39 AM

I agree with Truth, BigE, and RL. You all make very cogent points. To savymom, I would like to say that if we put a quality educational program in a school, the children will come. Do you remember when BTW was a magnet school? Parents would have (figuratively) killed to get their children in BTW. They had a waiting list. No one seemed to mind, at that time, sending their children to a school on the north side of town.

Also, some people feel like Stratton has more than enough space to house north side students. If we have an understanding of the consent decree then we would know that we are under racial fairness guidelines. If every north side student went to Stratton, the school would be racially identifiable. The whole reason we bus kids all over is so that schools are integrated and cannot be racially identifiable. That's why Stratton is not fully enrolled.

Our children deserve quality schools providing a quality education with quality staff and quality leadership. I think there were a multitude of reasons this referendum failed, but I believe that the idea that students who attend certain schools are still not getting the same education as others (in say, Barkstall) as well as the fact that black students would still end up being bused to unfamiliar far-away neighborhoods played a large role.

Hopefully the Board and the administration will learn some lessons from this failure and come back to the public with a fairer, more equitable, more informative referendum package that we can pass.

Posted by anothermom on March 23, 2006 at 10:59 AM

Another mom also misses my point. I want good schools for all children. I just think the demand for another school very close to BTW, Garden Hills and Stratton is ridiculous. No one will vote for it. I base that assumption on the fact that those schools, Garden Hills and BTW in particular are underenrolled. I understand racial fairness guidelines. I went to the web site and read the materials. But one thing that I'm thinking may be wrong. I assume that most African American children get their first choice of schools and that they are able to go to their neighborhood schools if they want to. If a large percentage of African American kids don't get their first choice school or can't get into their neighborhood school, then I agree with you. If not, we missed a great opportunity to help everyone. Maybe some of that vile stuff that I saw on tv is true. I will call the school about kids getting into neighborhood schoools and report back.

Posted by savymom on March 23, 2006 at 12:01 PM

"Something needs to be done to improve our aging schools."

Really!? I think something needs to be done to improve the discipline problem our schools face. How about a referendum that allows our teachers to teach? Is that too far out of our grasp? I would fully support a referendum for improving our schools if I felt my child would receive a good education within those schools. Why am I going to let my tax dollars go to improving public schools when I'm going to have to pay for a private education so my kid can GET an education!?

Posted by scaredparent on March 23, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Truth writes:

'If we really cared about black kids would we have consent decree ordering us to treat them equitably? Would we sit quietly as the Board fails to meet the terms of this consent decree? Would we ignore the disproportionate numbers of black students that are suspended, expelled, and dropout every year?'

Would boarding school work for your concerns? It is perplexing that you think it is the job of schools to ultimately be responsible for a child's behavior. My kid goes to school READY TO LEARN. Disrespectful behavior is NOT tolerated at home or anywhere else. There are consequences for it. I take personal responsibiility for my child so that teachers can spend their time TEACHING. And if this is such a horrifyingly racist city, why not move to, say, Urbana. It's the same community, just a different outcome when it came to the courts.

Posted by Lotte on March 24, 2006 at 12:22 PM

Amen, brother. Couldn't say it better myself. But remember that the real responsibility lies at the feet of the voting for having given him access. Until that shoulder of responsibility is taken ahold of no change will occur. Voters will continue over and over voting the wrong way...as votes for Ryan, Blagojevuich, Daley Jr and the late Daley Sr have now proven to be. Responsibility in voting is a rarely covered subject in our culture of "get everyone no matter how ignorant of the issues they are in the booth to punch a ballot." Someday we will have to realize we don't need ignorant lazy uninformed voters. They only create the mess Illinois's been in for multiple decades now!

Posted by randyandjoy1 on April 19, 2006 at 2:04 PM

Does it matter? No, but it gives the talking (and writing) heads something to talk or write about. The first sentence in your last paragraph said it all. Drum roll please. "The economy is humming along." During Clinton's impeachment and subsequent trial in the Senate all the media could talk about was HOW GREAT THE ECONOMY WAS DOING. Well, the economy is doing as well or better now and it rates one very short sentence in your last paragraph. The rest of the media doesn't mention it at all. I'm not a Republican and have never voted for one of their ilk but doesn't the lack of coverage of our "humming" economy in comparison to the coverage given to Clinton's "humming" economy clearly show a wee bit of bias toward one political bent. If it doesn't you are blind! Of course it does! Think people Think. Tip: Always read most carefully of all the last two paragraphs in any written story or listen to the last 10 seconds in an audio news report. That's where the real news is hidden purposely and will clearly show the bias (if any) of the reporter.

Posted by randyandjoy1 on April 19, 2006 at 2:12 PM

> sometimes barely passable and

> the site of all kinds of unsafe and

> sometimes illegal behavior.

Huh. Could be campustown on Friday/Saturday night (or unofficial). Or downtown Champaign on a summer night. Too many people standing on the sidewalk, not walking on the sidewalk. Maybe we should have a law for that too, as it is painfully obvious that one should WALK on a sidewalk, not stand around talking. Maybe the homeless just need to learn to sleep standing up.

Sounds like this particular editor is in favor of kicking 'em when they're down, while not even bothering to proffer a solution.

And hey, why shouldn't the homeless sleep there, it's not like American's use the sidewalks much. Everybody drives everywhere, especially in LA.

What a troll.

Posted by HomelessJoe on April 21, 2006 at 4:38 PM

Old wine, new skins. Just pathetic. When Republicans controlled the legislature the names were different but the actions were the same. Democrats offer nothing new here. Makes you wonder why you should even bother to vote since the result is the same.

Posted by DEB on April 28, 2006 at 2:09 PM

I am unsure as to the current status of the state budget, and I place the blame squarely on the News-Gazette. Over the past several months, I have read about how tuition hikes at UIUC are getting out of hand, we are unable to cover public aid expenses to ensure the health of those who are not capable, school construction grants from the state are constantly underpaid, and a myriad of other financial woes afflicting our great state. Then I read this editorial telling us to forget all of that, the state is now in the span of a few months going to be rolling in so much cash that we should suspend the gas tax.

At a time when the state budget is already stretched thin because of all the services the citizens of Illinois demand but are unwilling to properly fund, Rep. Blacks suggestion to suspend the gas tax is incredibly shortsighted. It may lower prices for a short time, but waiving a tax every time something supposedly gets too expensive is going to leave Illinois in a much worse financial situation. Home values are on the rise, but nobody is clamoring to suspend property taxes.

It disheartens me that our elected officials would choose to give the appearance of doing something about gas prices to ensure their re-election, rather than be true leaders of society and do what is right rather than what is popular. It disgusts me that the News-Gazette would go along with this notion after how many times we have been told the state is sinking into debt.

Suspending the gas tax (along with the diversion of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) instead of investing into alternative fuel research is yet another case of selling off our future to pay for the present. All this will succeed in doing is bankrupting the state and avoid the reality of the situation: oil is a finite resource, production is on a bell curve, and we are quickly approaching the wrong side of the curve.

Posted by justinm on May 1, 2006 at 8:29 AM

Dear News-Gazette editors:

There appears to be a contradiction and a few other issues within this editorial.

You write, "state laws and local ordinances often are used to rightly prosecute the offenders," the key word being "rightly."

In other words, you think that it is right and just to prosecute those who desecrate the flag.

Then you say, however, "But to criminalize flag-burning as an act of free expression is wrong and contrary to those ideals expressed in the Bill of Rights." This contradicts your earlier statement.

There is also the issue of whether flag burning is widespread. You seem to be implying that if it were widespread, then an amendment to the Constitution may be in order.

Yet if this is a free-speech issue, the frequency of flag burning irrelevant. It is protected whether one person does it or a million do.

Your penultimate paragraph has a worrisome thrust to it as well, namely, that because other activities are not being prosecuted on the basis of offensiveness, then flag burning likewise should be immune from prosecution.

This does not defend free speech--rather it leaves open the possibility of criminalizing more activities that are deemed offensive. Do you think that protesting as stated or wearing a coarse t-shirt *should* be illegal?

It would be far better to point out that "offensiveness" is not at all an issue when it comes to freedom of expression. If speech is important and takes an affirmative stance on some issue, it almost certainly will offend someone.

As Salman Rushdie has rightly said, "Democracy is not a tea party...."

Sincerely,

Ben Wilson

Posted by bwilson on May 15, 2006 at 10:18 AM

Not everyone agreed that passage of the "Smoking Ban" was a wise thing to do. Some objected because they consider it to be a matter of personal choice. But the reality is that No Smoking in Public Places is mandatory and violators are subject to fine.

(So when will the NG write an editorial like that?)

Whether people resent government intrusion or have not gotten in the habit of buckling up, everyone has a responsibility to comply with this requirement of vehicle safety  both as a matter of personal safety and financial prudence.

Posted by mattvarbl on May 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Just testing

Posted by sirthomas on June 8, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Just testing

Posted by sirthomas on June 8, 2006 at 10:05 AM

the fear of the added 292.5 thousand or so might stifle creativity and interesting programming, though. ps- I'm thankful the 1st Ammendment "iremains" in place, as well.

Posted by jstrauss15 on June 9, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Nice dig there on Giraldo, I would expect nothing less from the Gazette. Let's all stick our heads in the sand and ignore modern technology. Why is it the NG waits until now to criticize this practice that was incidentally started by REPUBLICAN City Council Member Heather Stevenson of Urbana? But instead, true to form the News-Gazette hyperventilates about what Giraldo Rosales or Danielle Chynoweth is doing (even though Danielle has participated electronically far less than Stevenson). Your bias is very clear.

Posted by mattvarbl on June 16, 2006 at 1:13 PM

Ok let's think about this for a minute, so now you're upset she supossedly didn't get enough pork for this area, and yet you also run editorials screeching about the ridiculous pork barrel out of control spending at the state level? So which position do you actually agree wtih, lawmakers getting pork barrel spending for our area or no pork and "fiscal responsibility"? A little consistency once in awhile in your editorial columns would be nice. Your editorial's lack of consistency is so funy it almost makes the rest of us want to cry.

Posted by mattvarbl on June 23, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Naomi Jakobsson should answer Matt's question. We generate tax dollars locally and an equitable distribution of all state spending should be required by law.

Posted by ericbussell on June 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM

However, her insistence that Urbana's ban start at the same time as Champaign's ban provides unwitting confirmation of claims from bar and restaurant owners that the ban will hurt their businesses.

That is total nonsense and their are studies that prove otherwise. The main culprit here is the "perception" or fear of impact. Here's a recent study from El Paso Texas which shows there was no adverse economic impact:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

Also when will John Foreman publicly admit he is a smoker? Haven't seen it yet.

Posted by mattvarbl on June 26, 2006 at 3:29 PM

"Mr. Foreman: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Smoker's Party?"

Is that the concept we're getting at here, Varble?

What does it matter whether or not the publisher is a smoker? Why do you word your comments like being a smoker is akin to being a terrorist?

This war of yours is not, and has never been, about public health or the public good. This is about your crusade against what you find to be an annoying habit, under the pretense of doing something good for the community.

When will Varble publicly admit that he is using the government to impose his will against a large contingent of the community, and to heck with the opinions and lifestyles of smokers. Haven't seen it yet.

Posted by JamesMortland on June 27, 2006 at 12:05 PM

I am so happy to see such a racist and insensitive tradition expiring. I'm glad the NCAA had the guts to do what the Board of Trustees refused to do. I hate that this article is filled with rebel rhetoric, but as a U of I alum I have grown quite numb to it. I still don't get how people don't understand how egregiously offensive the Chief is to other people. I'm glad to see this chapter of our University close.

Posted by Truth on July 4, 2006 at 9:48 AM

I grew up in Champaign County, with Illinois football, the Chief, with the mystery and awe of the American Indian. Keeping the Illiniwek tradition is, in my opinion, a positive and national supportive event for exposure and preservation of tribal pride and history. Call me sentimental at age 64; autumn must include the Chief. JH in Houston

Posted by johnheimburger on July 5, 2006 at 4:57 PM

WHy do native americans get special treatment? Isn't the "nickname" for Notre Dame the "fighting Irish?" Why are the Irish americans not protected from this "racism?" ANd what about the Nebraska "corn huskers?" Arent the depicted as a "country bumpkinish white guy wearing nothing but a pair of overalls?" What about the european americans (white people)? If we are going to stop these "mascots" depicting Native Americans, then why not the Irish and the caucasins? And as far as saying pro-chief supporters as being racist, that is completely absurd. The Illini nation is gone, all the natural Illini are dead and gone, extinct if you would prefer to say. I could go on in more detail, but I think you might get the idea by now.

Posted by Daxndata on July 5, 2006 at 10:18 PM

I hope that the Chief will be retired soon. Volunteering at Native American reservations in both South Dakota and Michigan made me realize that the Chief needs to go. The residents of both locations were aware of UIUC's Chief and found it abhorrent--they found the costume inauthentic for the Illini, sacred for another tribe, and a caricature of their ritual dances. It was embarrassing to admit that I went to UIUC because the residents would turn cold and immediately lecture me about why the Chief offended them. I should be proud of my school, not ashamed. The comparisons to Notre Dame are infuriating--the US did not decimate and destroy Irish American civilizations. Irish Americans founded the school and, if they do have a problem with the mascot, have the ability to speak out against the symbol. The Illini do not have such a chance because their culture was destroyed by white settlers.

Posted by reasonwins on July 6, 2006 at 1:07 PM

I would suggest that reasonwins transfer elsewhere - there is nothing racist about the Chief, only a symbol of honor and a very positive tradition.

Posted by MBilyew on July 6, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Just as a correction to reasonwins, the Illini tribe was not destroyed by "white settlers". Illinois history teaches us that the Illini were "destroyed" by a rival native american tribe. Check the history of Starved Rock. However, I suppose you are one of those that will say the history books are wrong too.

Posted by readone on July 6, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Actually, readone, if you had read about the Illini, you would know that although the Iroquois did hurt the group, a truce was called between the two tribes in the mid-1700s. Also, part of the reason the Iroquois waged war with the Illini was that they needed new territory because white settlers were pushing them out of the east coast. The Illini population was decimated through a combination of other Indian tribes, smallpox (brought by the Europeans) and treaties with the US government (forcing them out of Illinois). A small number of descendents of the Illini still exist, but no one hears their voices. http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/Heritage/NativeAmericans/NativeAmericanInfluence.htm [From the National Park Service].

The costume is that of the Sioux (a rival of the Illini Indians) and the dance is not authentic. Further, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (the descendents of the Illini) have asked for the removal of the Chief and says that it does not honor them. How can you say you "honor" people when you do not respect their wishes? The University is a great university, and it does not need an archaic, insensitive symbol to prove that. I have graduated from this university, but I believe that if you love something (your country, your school), you fight to make it the best it can be, even if that means changing the status quo, MBilyew.

Posted by reasonwins on July 6, 2006 at 4:53 PM

By definition, John Foreman and all you chief lovers, your symbol and tradition is institutional racism. Institutional racism is embedded within public bodies such as universities. It does not require "intent." Rather, it can be perpetuated by seemingly benign policies, practices, behaviors, traditions, and structures, which is why it usually goes unchallenged. It also goes unchallenged because it invests white people with unearned privileges and advantages, including the "right" to speak for and otherwise represent Indian people.

Institutional racism results in oppression. According to ERASE Racism, "[o]ppression results when (1) racism is a part of the dominant culture's national consciousness; (2) it is reinforced through its social institutions; and (3) there is an imbalance of social and economic power within the culture" (www.eraseracismny.org).

Foreman and the rest of you chief lovers: your "chief" IS oppressive. It functions in a way that enables non-Indians to speak for and otherwise represent the citizens of Indian nations. And it does so with the power and influence of the state of Illinois' flagship university. Its authority is grounded in white privilege and in fantasies about Indians manufactured in the Boy Scouts and the Y-Indian Guides and in motion pictures such as PETER PAN, NOT in the cultures of Indian nations.

What do REAL Indians say:

Citizens of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma today are among the descendants of those Indian peoples forced out of their homelands in what later became the state of Illinois. In 2000, the government of the Peoria Tribe issued a resolution that states the following: "[T]he image portrayed by Chief Illiniwek does not accurately represent or honor the heritage of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma and is a degrading racial stereotype that reflects negatively on all American Indian people."

In a 2001 survey by Indian Country Today (www.indiancountry.com), 81 percent of Indians stated they find the use of American Indian names, symbols, and mascots in athletics deeply disparaging. In an informal poll among tribally-connected Native professionals in 2003, 88 percent indicated that they object to Chief Illiniwek. The Native American House at the University (www.nah.uiuc.edu) is unambiguous in its position on the matter, last year characterizing Chief Illiniwek as "a racist symbol that undermines the Universitys goals as an educational institution and mis-educates the campus and community."

In addition to ignoring real Indian perspectives, Foreman misinforms readers about findings in polls of the non-Indian public. For example, NewsTalk WDWS AM 1400 in Urbana-Champaign asked listeners in 2003 if the University should retire Chief Illiniwek. According to the station, 63 percent of respondents believed the symbol should be changed while 37 percent said no.

Posted by Wetasewa on July 7, 2006 at 10:01 AM

The fact that the NCAA has taken this stance is the real issue here. The fact that the NCAA has played favorites with this policy is the real issue. The NCAA has waived the rule for certain protected organizations (FSU), and stood fast against those institutions that it has always pounded, (UIUC). If the NCAA applied this policy universally I would not have a problem.

Now the chief is not racist. Anyone that thinks this is close-minded. He represents the honor of the State of Illinois. What is next do we have to change the name of our state because it represents those that came before us?

Posted by karlyn1219 on July 7, 2006 at 10:08 AM

I'm so pissed.

Posted by chiefilliniwek on July 7, 2006 at 12:04 PM

Some of you all are in serious denial. Your "chief" is BOTH racist AND it represents the so-called "honor" of the state of Illinois. Further, it IS an example of institutional racism. And your love for it is a possessive investment in whiteness -- in white privilege. Unfortunately, it does not exist in a vacuum. It circulates among MANY other similar markings, symbols, words, bodies, representations, depictions, and characterizations in popular culture that are immediately recognized as Indian. When the Indian sign moves through commodities and imaginations and musings -- through visual imagery, stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations -- from its points of production to consumers, it does so across borders and checkpoints and within the global marketplace. It creates a MISunderstanding of actual Indian peoples, the citizens of Indian nations.

After 1818, when Illinois became a state and sent representatives to the U.S. Congress, members of Congress authorized the forced removal of Indian nations from the state. This is the sort of memory your "chief" honors, even when your love for it functions to make you forget.

Your "chief" is a tragic hero, a defeated "warrior" and spiritual guide who offers you a cathartic reproof of your ancestors' past injustices from which you have so clearly benefited and in which you are so emotionally invested. Your chief is an example of imperialist nostalgia, a widespread tactic used by colonial powers like Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand to cover up your domination and transform those responsible for both the history of genocide against and ongoing oppression of American Indian peoples to act as innocent bystanders.

Posted by Wetasewa on July 7, 2006 at 12:36 PM

Chief Illiniwek is as racist as the Indian Head penny (minted 1859-1909) or the new Buffalo Head gold coin (with an Indian bust on its face). In typical fashion the PC police and the others who want to save me from myself will protest with louder voices than the majority and will actually destroy what these individuals wanted to achieve. Instead of using Chief Illiniwek, albeit not perfect, as a positive to enhance the dialogue about Native-Americans and the true plight of many on reservations, as promulgated by the NCAA czar Myles Brand himself, they will end it. Is anyone really na￯ve enough to believe that when the Chief is retired (hopefully never), that anyone (the vast majority of Illini alumni, contributors, students, etc.) will really care that the U of I has a Native-American House? In fact, the opposite will occur and the U of I will receive less support (certainly from me). As for Native-Americans being against the Chief, obviously a sizeable number are, but it is far from being a majority. I, too, have spoken with many of Native-American heritage and on the reservations, who are either neutral or supportive of the Chief. The website of the Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma features its Buffalo Run Casino and Peoria Ridge golf course (not quite the topics our pure of spirit wish to tout). Further, their infamous resolution against the Chief was three in favor and two opposed, after intense lobbying by the anti-Chief contingent. If we are truly Fighting Illini then we must continue the fight for what we believe. For me, that is Chief Illiniwek.

Posted by illinijd76 on July 7, 2006 at 3:58 PM

I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is what makes the world go round. But lately it seems like everything has to be so politically correct and have mercy on you if you happen to "step on someone's toes" or "hurt someone's feelings". The world is not a fair place...and this also is what makes it go round. The Chief has been a part of the U of I for so long and for people to stick their noses in & say they are "upset" or "offended" actually offends me. Why is it only in the last few years when everything has become "PC" is this now being brought to the forefront. I agree with Daxndata that if the NCAA is going to take a stand on this issue then they need to start looking at other schools that have supposed "offensive" mascots. I've been to Illini games & feel nothing but great pride when the Chief is on the field. And I have also been there when people have started booing during the performance. I remember something called sportsmanship...you may not like the other team, but you still had respect for them. You did not yell degrading things at them or make a spectacle of yourself. Its a little thing called RESPECT.

Granted I did not attend the U of I, but I did attend Western Illinois University, home of the "Fighting Leathernecks." Maybe those who are offended by the Chief should also think about being offended by anything with "fighting" in front of it. That could be offensive to those who are peace loving. WIU also has a veterans alum group called the "Peach Blossoms". Before every home football game they put on their cutoff fatigues, paint their faces in purple & gold, put a red mop on their head, grab their noisemakers and get the student body & any attending the game ready to cheer on the team. The last year I was there a big to do was made over the Peach Blossoms being offensive to women as they put balloons under their shirts. But keep in mind that the women Peach Blossoms did this too! As a woman I was never offended by them. I was and still am proud of them, not only for being a veteran but for rallying school spirit. Maybe those who are anti-Chief should start looking at him not as a deragatory or offensive symbol but a symbol of pride! Also, I feel that all the PC of the world is eventually going to lead to where no one can express their opinions freely without someone jumping their case. This is the USA the last time I checked and we have the freedom of speech. If someone wants to complain about the Chief, have at it, but also allow for those who support him to not be degraded when they show their support.One last note before I wrap this up as I dont want to ramble...I am 1/2 American Indian. In no way am I offended by the Chief or his actions. If the suit he wears is not one native of the Illini than maybe they should find one for him that is native to the Illini. And if we do retire the Chief because he is no longer PC, than what's next? Is the state of Illinois to change its name because it could be offensive to someone somewhere. Again, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and though you may not like mine & I may not like yours I will still listen to it with the utmost respect. You will hear no boos coming from me when you tell me the reasons why you think the Chief should be gone. But some traditions should be left alone, otherwise we will wind up in a world with no traditions because someone might get offended.

Posted by Alphasig on July 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM

I say Let the Chief go. Iam sure there are other mascots we could find that would be ready, willing and able to take the Chiefs place. I don't understand why native americans think the Chief is bad. I do think that it is time for us to let go of this symbol and choose another one. I have one in mind but won't express it at this time.

I wish the University of Illinois the best of luck finding a new mascot.

Posted by Charles7 on July 8, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Missouri, Illinois, Cherokee, Comanche, Erie, Delaware,Huron, Kickapoo, Massachusett, Miami, Niantic, Ottawa, and Winnebago. Native Americans? OR are they something else? Cars? States? Lakes? Cities? Campgrounds even? How can you tell? and another question I ask is Why were the names selected in the first place? Many assumptions are being stated as fact in this Chief issue. UNless I have been misinformed, there are only 3 races oh humans: mongoloid, negroid, and caucasion ( this is how they were described to me, so if there are more descript names then use those). So I dont think the native AMericans could be considered negroid or mongoloid, therefore they must be caucasin. So I would think the term "racist" as used in this issue to be completely absurd. the Illini and other native americans are merely different nationalities, similiar to the French, or the Swiss.

If we are to retire the Chief, then where do we stop? Sure I realize that many of the anti-Chief folks would say that there is no effort for anything like that. I would like to believe that they are forthcoming with their "agenda", but I am just not that certain. Perhaps in 20 years from now me wont remember the names of the great lakes by remembering " HOMES", since we cant use Huron or Erie. We wont be driving our Jeep Comanchee to any state park named "kickapoo." The arch across the river wont be in St. Louis or even the state of missouri. And if you want to go RVing to Florida to see a Rocket launch, you better not plan on driving a winnebago or even seeing the Heat play some basketball in Miami.

One last item. The idea of institutional racism. sounds like the Natives Americans OTHER that the Illini are opposing the Chief. And the idea of white priveledge is non-existant on ANY reservation. Special priveledge? I think not.

p.s. I am not some blond bubba kinda guy that you might think...I KNOW you saw the mascot for the nebraska cornhuskers...

Posted by Daxndata on July 8, 2006 at 10:25 PM

Reading through these posts points out the depth and breadth of misinformation about American Indians, from our tribal histories to our present day issues. Some will be resistent to learning about us, indeed they may dismiss what we offer as revisionist history or politically corrrect nonsense. For those who do want to learn more than what was offered in textbooks of old, consider taking a course from one of our professors in American Indian Studies at UIUC. Or, attend a lecture or event we sponsor. Here's our website:

http://www.nah.uiuc.edu.

And, if you're interested in gaining a different perspective on the ways that American Indians are presented in children's books, consider reading my blog. Several times a week, I post comments about American Indians in children's books, but I also designed the blog to be a resource for teachers, librarians, parents, and others interested in the topic. I link to on-line articles, book reviews, sites and blogs maintained by Native writers, and an extensive list of books I recommend. The address for the blog is:

http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com

Sincerely,

Debbie Reese

Assistant Professor

American Indian Studies

UIUC

Posted by DebbieReese on July 10, 2006 at 7:28 AM

I still hope that the U. of I. gets a little backbone and takes the NCAA to court over this. They have no legal right to impose their political correctness inspired ideology upon an entire state. This is an opportunity to fight political correctness and expose the hypocritical mindset of those who try to shove this nonsense down everyone else's throat under the guise of "sensitivity." I'd even contribute to fund the attorney's fees. The real issue is how relevant is the NCAA in this day and age - it certainly is doing a lousy job ensuring graduation rates for athletes.

It is also too bad that the REAL basis for this whole controversy has never been revealed. The Board of Trustees website used to carry the testimony from Judge Garippo's hearings on the Chief controversy. The comments were most illuminating because they revealed the real motivation behind the anti-Chief crowd. Those people fell into two catagories:

1. An even dozen Native American activists and protestors whose testimony revealed that what they were really after was money - lots of money - for a separate Native American residence, for dedicated (and academically bogus) ethnic studies programs, and other goodies - of course, with no supervision. Some of these "hurt" souls weren't even Illinois residents let alone students at the university.

2. A collection of aging faculty members who saw this as an opportunity to flex their muscles, relive the heady days of the 1969 and 1970 protests down at Urbana-Champaign when they had everyone kowtowing to them, and forcing their political correctness down the throats of another generation of students and alumni.

It is more than fascinating that even an overwhelming majority of Native americans polled find nothing offensive in the Chief. Clearly, if he was a red Stepin Fetchit, these are the people who'd say so.

But there is a solution - and you keep the Chief. Rather than have him arrayed as a member of a plains tribe - which is what he is - make him outfitted in the costume of an eastern woodlands tribe - yes, the Illini confederation. There is enough data out there that an accurate "Illini" costume could be created - he'd look magnificent with the scalp lock - and rather than a war dance, have him conduct a victory prayer to the Great Spirit while the Three-in-One is played. Dignified - honors their beliefs - and isn't a mascot. And then shove this down the throats of the NCAA and all the other whining PC advocates.

A final comment. Since when do losing cultures dictate to the winners? The Native American culture was a stone age culture when the Europeans arrived - it was doomed because it refused to adapt. The activists who have so much time whining about their insulted dignity should spend some more time with their own people and work on reducing the alcoholism rates, the school drop-out rates and the unemployment rates before they try to lay guilt trips on the rest of us.

Posted by Wolfgang on July 14, 2006 at 12:18 PM

As an alumnus of the U of I (graduated 1999), I am currently embarrassed and ashamed of myself and for the university. During my time in Champaign-Urbana, the sense I received was that the vast majority of the student and local populations were in support of the Chief. At the same time, there was always a vocal and passionate minority who opposed the Chief and all that he stood for. The general sentiment of support for the Chief, though, was continuously validated through various formal and informal polls conducted by local news outlets and even by agents of the university.

My support of the Chief stems not from the visual representation of the mascot or from the made up dance at the halftime of a football game, but from the ideals that the Chief is mean to embody: Loyalty, Tradition and Pride. The cowardice and timidity that Chief supporters have shown (myself included) when voicing their opposition of the minority view is, in my opinion, the most unfortunate outcome of the issue. We should have done more to validate the importance and standing of the Chief before the issue came to where it is today.

Posted by tjnorth on July 20, 2006 at 11:46 AM

The illogic of Judge Robert S. Smith rationale becomes apparent when reflecting on Judge Leon Bazile's excuse in Loving v. Virginia in 1968 arguing for anti-miscegenation:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Further, Justice Smith need merely visit Wikipedia to educate himself on the fallaciousness of his arguement regarding the recentness of the same-sex marriage idea -- Native Americans celebrated 'Two-Spirit' men as powerful shamens and were afforded full marital status, and in the 19th century America brought along the concept of a 'Boston Marriage'.

No, not everyone who currently holds this belief is irrational, ignorant or bigoted... well at least not any more so than Judge Leon Bazile was thirty odd years ago.

Posted by dw on July 24, 2006 at 3:59 PM

Do you suppose that the problem might not be overspending but under taxing?

Just a thought.

Regards,

John E Terwilliger

Posted by johntwig on August 2, 2006 at 3:38 PM

Well, not really.

The only ones who pay the $500 fee for repair and maintenence are those who are freshmen at UIUC this year.

Freshmen, do not get the $500 grant. It goes to the sophomores, juniors, and seniors who do not have to pay the maintenence fee.

The ones hurt by the fee are the ones excluded from relief.

Posted by DEB on August 8, 2006 at 1:32 PM

Your editorial on Delta's service was accurate but incomplete, as was the article that was written several months ago to first announce Deltas arrival. Yes, the issue is economics, but it has nothing to do with the price of a ticket. It cost no more to fly an airplane from ATL to CMI than it cost to fly from ATL to BMI. The difference is not in the flying, but in the landing. Isn't it time someone begin to compare landing fees, terminal fees, and parking fees between the two airports? Maybe the Champaign-Urbana-U of I community will find the real reason CMI can't keep airlines. Incidentally, when American Eagle discontinued service between STL and CMI recently, it was the first time in over 50 years there was no air service between the two airports.

Posted by dleecol on August 16, 2006 at 5:10 PM

You forgot to mention that on June 27, 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General (A Bush appointee) also recently released a report verifying the negative health effects of second hand smoke. The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought, said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. He said

The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.

When will John Foreman take back his "junk science" claims about the health effects of second hand smoke?

Posted by mattvarbl on August 21, 2006 at 2:14 PM

American Connection discontinued service to Champaign from STL. American Eagle still has service to Chicago and Dallas. Eagle however would most likely not be here if it weren't for the Flight Star FBO which is a maintainance base for Eagle. There aircraft are stored there and undergo cleaning and maintainence every night. Chicago is a short flight away (13-20minutes) so it's not a big fuel burn for Eagle. Not to mention a great %age of University students are from Chicago. It cost an airline 3x as much to fly to Champaign than into Bloomington not to mention the free parking and better selections of food a and actual restaraunts inside the airport. The University has refused to budge on the costly fees for airlines, costly parking at $5/day for passengers and the terminal is just now under improvement. CU may have a lot of the blame for not supporting Delta and assisting with marketing but Delta shares it for not providing the requested services and times when passengers asked for it in CMI. It cost a lot to get an airline "rolling" in a new city (for a 2nd time especially).I would prefer to drive to Bloomington with half the city to avoid the fees, parking cost, and higher cost to fly out of Willard. e.g. You can save upwards of $300 b flying out of BMI.

Posted by pilot23 on September 2, 2006 at 8:39 AM

Since none of the boys is going to play professional football, lessons about honesty and integrity will serve them well in whatever they do choose to do.

Posted by joesuburbs on September 5, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Please note that according to this News Week article Valerie Plume had done undercover operations within the past five years and the CIA was concealing her idenity. The article also states that apparently Libby was not charged with "outing" Plume since there was no proof Libby was aware of her status as a covert operative.

Posted by wmb on September 7, 2006 at 4:22 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

Posted by wmb on September 7, 2006 at 4:22 PM

cool comments

Posted by richlk on September 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM

I would hope the team is not worried about an off week when they have only played 2 games. Maybe, if the team was 6 or 7 games into the season, I could understand the talk...but after 2 games?????

Posted by jjrepp on September 14, 2006 at 6:01 PM

Hello Mr. Tate,

You have mentioned several times that Illinois football historically has not been a sucessful program. Therefore Illini fans should accept mediocrity(sp?) as the norm.

Do you not think Illinois can do what Wisconsin did when Barry Alverz arrived? What about Mike Kruzeski(sp?) at Duke. Both were historically unsucessful programs that were turned into winners.

thank you...

Ashu

Posted by aratnakar on September 15, 2006 at 1:17 PM

You have to wonder about your coaching staff when you see a funeral procession like the one we glimpsed at Rutgers a week ago. Perhaps the current staff can recruit better than Turner and company, but the Illinois team at Rutgers was an ill-prepared,disheveled and hapless bunch at best. Don't kid yourself -- talent was the only thing missing on the Illinois sideline in New Jersey.

Posted by vreato on September 15, 2006 at 2:50 PM

Yes, Mr. Tate. I would just like to go on record by saying that Ron Guenther is the best AD we have ever had.

Posted by mbeesley on September 15, 2006 at 11:15 PM

I am glad to see that someone covered the stupid elbow by Ron Zook. The moment wasn't reported by any other news agency I saw, including WAND or WCIA, not the Decatur Herald-Tribune. I am glad that someone found it to be news worthy. Zook shouldn't let his frustration allow him to hit the players. He is lucky it didn't make an ESPN highlight and bring more negative attention to the program. If I were Russ Weil's dad, I would find Zook and elbow him in the chest, as well as demand a public apology. Zook mentioned that Russ knows "he can't do that"???? What the hell? Does Zook know "HE can't do that"?

Posted by ranthony on September 17, 2006 at 1:15 PM

I don't understand how the seniors continue to make mistake after mistake, Brasic, Hasley, Weil(maybe a junior). Simply inexecusable. They owe an apology to the fan base, (not much left after their inept play). Hasley acts like he is afraid to return a punt, Brasic either fumbles or overshoots receivers and Weil well after the play is over incurs a personal foul. The Pop Warner boys play a better brand of football than this team. If this were professional sports, I would demand a refund of the ticket price

Posted by scarlson on September 17, 2006 at 1:58 PM

hey buddy, get off of Zook's case. he is simply frustrated, and if not physically, Weil deserved to get his butt chewed big time. He should know better.

Posted by scarlson on September 17, 2006 at 2:02 PM

This is football. It was not covered because it is not news worthy, unless someone is trying to stir up trouble.

Posted by jjrepp on September 17, 2006 at 2:03 PM

I think the rhythm of the game is being dictated by Locksley. The quarterback, whether it be Brasic or Williams starts his count at the line, looks over at Locksley looks back at the line starts his count again looks over to the sidelines again before the ball is finally snapped. All of this takes from 8 to 13 seconds; that is way too much time. When a play is run, the next play should be run in from the sidelines or it should be in the quarterback's mind, if he is given that freedom. Also, he should be able to checkoff on a play on his own, these are college kids, they should be able to read a defensive line formation for themselves.

Posted by MLACER on September 17, 2006 at 3:54 PM

While I left Rutgers stadium in almost total dismay, that was not my feeling when I left Memorial Stadium, and I do not think I am being a Polyanna. First, let's recognize that for the second consecutive game, the defensive line showed dramatic improvement over the past few years. If it had not been for two significant pass defense lapses, one I think by a linebacker, the other apparently by a freshman corner back, Syracuse would not have scored a meaningful touchdown against the defense -- the recovered fumble being a fluke.

But relatedly, the offense provided no first quarter support for the defense. We know football is emotional, and it is hard to believe that the offensive failures in the first half did not affect the defense.

And the offense is a puzzlement. Gutsy and tough runner though he may be, Chris Pazan's passing shortcomings were the reason for the failure of the first two possessions, and the left side of the offensive line must have set a record for penalties.

Coaching deserves both credit and blame, and a continuation of penalties will show they are coming up short, but 14 games into the Zook era, I can see some hint of light at the end of a tunnel that will be longer than any optimist wants it to be. John Johnson, Chicago

Posted by jjohnson on September 17, 2006 at 3:59 PM

We should be thankful that a football guy like Ron Guenther leads the athletic department. Otherwise, our football program could be a real mess.

Posted by mbeesley on September 17, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Our players' heads were down? Well, isn't that great.

Posted by mbeesley on September 17, 2006 at 4:17 PM

I think Zook meant to hit Locksley for his play calling. Instead of running the ball, Locks gets pass happy with a QB in Brasic that struggles to throw the ball 8 yards down field.

Posted by mbeesley on September 17, 2006 at 4:19 PM

what a humilating ordeal; to be forced to watch perhaps the worst football program in the country. Talk about making Saturday's a big disapointment. I've been going to Illinois games since the days of Gary Moeller and it never seems to get any better. This year's disaster of a team should give back their scholoarships in mass. It is time for me to rethink buying season tickets ever again and so should the rest of the Illini fan base. No heart! But then again, what would you expect from a university that caved into special interest groups and will get rid of the only thing worth watching on that field; the chief.

Posted by dguire on September 17, 2006 at 4:21 PM

Good grief, no wonder illini football is the mess it is; fans don't even know who was playing. Chris Pazan wasn't the quarterback, that was Tim Brasic (although he played as bad as Chris so that might be where the confusion lies).

Posted by dguire on September 17, 2006 at 4:27 PM

Don't worry about negative attention coming toward this progam, nobody is watching or cares anyway.

Posted by dguire on September 17, 2006 at 4:29 PM

Illinois is looking towards the future...go with Williams and let him get the experience. It will be good for recrutung as potential recruits will see this is some one that is going to around for awhile and can be the "center piece" for a great team!

Posted by dallen on September 17, 2006 at 4:33 PM

I am a grad and a 50 year ticket holder, so I have seen some good and a lot of bad, but I will say Ron Zook deserves time to put his program in place. It takes 2-3 classes to do this, but it will happen. Iwatched as much as I could of saturdays game and the one thing I saw was a more confident attitude by the team when Williams was on the field. So I think we go with the young guys {and they will be good} and learn on the job.

mike3308

Posted by mschultz on September 17, 2006 at 6:28 PM

I agree with MLACER - the uncertainty at the line by the QB, backs and receivers, is not only annoying it's rediculous. I haven't seen another college team in America require their skill position players to start calling the play at the line, then stop and all look over to the sidelines for what, an audible call or ??? What happened to the no-huddle fast-paced offense we were promised when Zook was hired?

Posted by hpaulh on September 18, 2006 at 11:06 AM

Yes, for sure. I'm flying 2,000 miles to C-U for the game against Iowa Saturday. I would like a win, but what I wish for the most is at least some courage, guts, and effort, from the coaches and the players. Start the Juice against Iowa, Coach Zook, and let's start building some excitement and hope for the future.

Posted by hpaulh on September 18, 2006 at 11:19 AM

It appears the season for Illini football is over. If we are going to show up each week, I believe that the focus should be developing existing talent for future years. It is clear our upperclassmen are not providing leadership; reasons for that are unclear from such a far vantage point. If it is coaching, lets admit it and start looking interms of what coaching talent is needed and set out to secure it. If it is player talent, level with the fans and solicit their support and backing to encourage future talent to sign-up even though we as a team are awful.

Posted by pevans on September 18, 2006 at 12:08 PM

hey Loren, is Ron Guenther still a great AD?

Posted by mbeesley on September 18, 2006 at 12:14 PM

don't throw Williams to the dogs at this early stage. If you're going to lose, you might as well lose with Brasic and keep Williams' confidence from being destroyed. You're not going to beat Iowa anyway.

Posted by vreato on September 18, 2006 at 2:32 PM

Here is a comment bodering on the absurd. As ridiculous as it sounds, this match-up has all the ingredients for an upset. Iowa plays 'The Ohio State University' the following week. The potential for a let down is very real. No way does Iowa take this game seriously. Is Illinois really as bad as they look? Sooner or later something is going to give. The things that I see going wrong with the team are very correctable. I'm at a loss for the offensive scheme though. Concentration and discipline will be the key to execution. Go ahead and start Brasic. Does it really matter? Let I.W. play every 3rd and 4th series. See if this doesn't confuse the Iowa defense. Zook is right on the money for not naming a starter. This necessatates the Iowa coaches spending more time in preparation. Should the Illini expect to win this one? They should expect to win them all, otherwise, mail it in and send everyone home.

Posted by Frcook on September 18, 2006 at 3:10 PM

Zook doesn't want to see things "go to heck in a

handbasket". Excuse me coach...some of us already

think we're there !

Posted by walker on September 18, 2006 at 3:55 PM

I think our team needs a real psychological lift. I believe that "Juice" can provide that spark. Perhaps a reversal of the roles to allow Tim Brasic to go in at certain times would be a good way to keep too much pressure off Juice. This appears to be another rebuilding year, but we need something to raise us to a higher level. We certainly need some immediate successes.

Posted by Lanse on September 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Loren, is Ron Guenther still Illinois' most indispensible man of the 20th century? How on earth is the DIA going to pay for the bonds to renovate Memorial Stadium with the dropoff in attendance?

Posted by mbeesley on September 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM

It's very unfortunate to say the least, to see the

Eric Gordon situation slowly slipping away. I was

certain that he was solid with us, but now it seems clear that he will go to Indiana. Even worse, the liklihood that he and Rose might in fact, play together.

Posted by walker on September 20, 2006 at 1:08 PM

When the offensive line is responsible for a good percentage of 12 penalties in one game, your people are simply not ready to play. That is a coaching issue and not a matter of inferior talent. Although I wish Ron Zook the best in C-U, I can't help thinking that there was a reason why "fireroonzook.com" was a reality in Florida.

Posted by vreato on September 20, 2006 at 2:27 PM

The immediate successor to Steve Spurrier stood no chance to gain a foothold with the Gator nation. Zook was the 3rd choice in a coaching search that was botched by Jeremy Foley from the outset. Zook recruited well and had just started to see the fruition of his recruiting classes when he was let go. Trust me, living in Florida, I have become accustomed to Gator fan whining about their football program nonstop. If Erben Meyer had not won at Tennessee this past weekend, you would have already heard the drone of

"fire meyer". Give Zook time to develop his players, i.e. Juice Williams, and then decide whether he is a good fit at Illinois. In the mean-time, see if Ron Guenther can persuade Ron Turner to return his last year's salary, for as Mike Gottfried proclaimed during the Rutgers broadcast, "He forgot to recruit".

Posted by kellytm on September 20, 2006 at 3:01 PM

If Illinois looses Gordon means the Illini program can't compete in the open market place! Now the question is...WHY?

Posted by dallen on September 20, 2006 at 6:34 PM

Great comments about Mike White, from Loren who hit the nail on the head.

He is and remains a true Illini hero in my heart and the hearts of fans. He alone captured the imagination of the ILLINI NATION like no one since. I still remember my picture with him after the Minnesota game in 1984 in the locker room. He seemed geniunely happy fans like myself and my wife would stick around just for a photo with him. Our hero forever !!!

Posted by scarlson on September 20, 2006 at 6:45 PM

I'm one of the few people in the country that are fans of the Illini and Stanford. Don't ask me why. It's along story. Your comment about Stanford and maybe it wasn't Buddy Teeven's fault is simply wrong. While being an extremely good person he was not a good selection to replace Coach Willingham when he left for Notre Dame. Primarily his relationship with the Stanford athletic director at the time was the reason he was hired. The talent level at Stanford is far inferior to what you need to compete in the Pac 10. While Stanford is a difficult university to recruit players to because of high academic requirements it can and has been done with the right leadership. The truth is that Walt Harris is working with the players that were recruited by Teevens. They had 3 consecutive bad recruiting years. That adds up to the results that you are seeing now. The new stadium is phenomenal but Stanford needs to put a better product on the field to change the attitude of the fans and make it a great place to watch college football once again. I think my dream Rose Bowl match up of the Illini and the Cardinal is still a few years away!!

Posted by thornyton on September 20, 2006 at 8:00 PM

Walla Walla College!! Incredible. No comment from Guenther. Shocking!

Posted by mbeesley on September 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM

Ah, the destructive nature of self-rigthteous people.

Posted by dgcrow on September 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM

It's a shame that these supposedly learned men can't just do what the university is paying them to do instead of trying to sabotage the community and the fans. This revered symbol was celebrated long before they joined the university.If they are qualified to teach the students, then they shouldn't have a problem understanding the dignified presentation and what the symbol stands for. Can you even believe they would stick their nose in the olympic effort and attempt to hurt the state financially? Wow, get a life folks. The great majority still enjoy the celebration that is the Chief!!

Posted by mustwhiz on September 21, 2006 at 12:34 PM

The professors should stick to what they were hired to do and that is teach and publish books. They shouldn't be interfering with the Athletic department and the Chief. I'm sure they wouldn't want other people interfering with how they teach or the subject matter of their educational treatises. They shouldn't be dictating to the Athletic department. Obviously, they have never been to a football or basketball game and seen the honor and reverence the Chief receives from the fans. It is truly a unique experience and not derogatory in any way. Go back to your ivory tower where you belong.

Posted by lconroyl on September 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM

The chief is a symbol of solumn respect for everyman. The anti-chief movement is the antithesis of respect and tolerance. Without uttering a word, the chief's message has been indelibly imprinted on personal values of generations of alumni. Tolerance and respect for the chief's tradition has united generations of alumni. Perhaps that is why the symbol of the chief has such power and attacks against the tradition generate such profound feeling of personal loss and contempt for a movement based on intolerance.

Posted by dbullard on September 21, 2006 at 1:34 PM

Gasbags on all sides of the issue.

Posted by rmitchell on September 21, 2006 at 1:40 PM

It is certainly interesting to follow this group, as a subgroup of a larger effort to erradicate any semblance of knowledge about the heritage of the american indian. The dream that all american indians lived in some romanticized dream world in which they simply fished and harvested is as wrong as the issues that they have with Chief Illiniwek. The path that this group is following will lead to our grandchildrn remembering the american indians as nothing more than casino owners. Is the way the american indian wishes to be remembered? It would seem to me that they have bigger issues to face than this "hot button" issue.

Posted by waddeji on September 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM

It is way past time for the Chief to go. If the board would have put him into retirement when Stanford and the others removed their Indian names, this would be a forgotten issue by now.

Posted by furlan on September 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Kaufman and his band of self-appointed morality police represent the lowest form of life. Fortunately, the prospective student-athletes whom they hope to influence surely understand this and won't be swayed by this moronic behavior. Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

Posted by dthonn on September 21, 2006 at 4:04 PM

Kaufman and his ilk are pathetic do gooders who want to want to tell you what to think, say, eat. Modern day facists. Send them to Iraq. They are no better than the Islamic Fasicts we are fighting. I am surprised Kaufman and friends are not down in Gitmo appeasing the terrorists.

Posted by scarlson on September 21, 2006 at 7:15 PM

Kaufman continues to appear to be a narcissistic hypocrit who has no problem harassing 17 and 18 year olds to do what he is not willing to do - not come to the University of Illinois.

If he feels so strongly; why did he choose to work fo the U of I? Why does he stay? It's easy for him to harass kids to do what he is not willing to do. He is shameless

Posted by jgiuliani on September 21, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Mr. Kaufman, move to the Cherokee nation, hold your quarters in a teepee, and wake up every morning singing, "Cherokee people...............................Cherokee PRIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Honestly, get over yourself. If life is so bad for you in Urbana/Champaign, find a new school and a new home. You are not that wanted.

Posted by mbeesley on September 21, 2006 at 11:18 PM

I can't believe that the administration permits employees to actively discourage prospective students from attending the U of I. These subversive activites certainly can't be protected by tenure. I hope someone in the Champaign-Urbana community can ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT OF THEIR CLASSES. If students would indeed boycott these idiot's classes, then maybe they could be fired or they would finally leave.

Posted by sclark on September 21, 2006 at 11:53 PM

Were I to organize and implement a program to cause harm to some facet of my Employer's business, I would find myself on the street in two seconds. I appreciate the right to free speech- let them say what they want. But, undermining the efforts of their employer, the U of I, should be an offense worthy of termination. Then, they can talk all they like.

Posted by Acunningham on September 22, 2006 at 11:45 AM

What a joke!!!! He's earning more than the president & chancellor and the football team still stink! High integrity program? We're on probation!! Thanks Marcus Mason!

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 11:52 AM

Loren, you are a fool.

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 11:52 AM

The defense had nowhere to go but up. I am tired of J Leman getting a free pass. He can't cover a TE. Why is he playing? Is it because he's from Champaign?

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 12:30 PM

Discounted tickets!! There is an idea for Ron Guenther. Too bad he won't do it.

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 12:31 PM

The only thing missing from this article is, "The Illini are bigger, faster, and stronger."

*** BOGGLE ***

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 2:01 PM

"I am tired of J Leman getting a free pass."??? He is second in the league in tackles.

Posted by lroller on September 22, 2006 at 2:52 PM

Take away Miller's getting beat by the Rutgers and Syracuse tight ends and the defense looks even better. I'm with Loren on this one!

Posted by jjohnson on September 22, 2006 at 3:18 PM

"Discounted tickets!! There is an idea for Ron Guenther. Too bad he won't do it."

Well, except when he gave away thousands of free tickets to faculty and staff a couple years ago.

Posted by ralexander on September 22, 2006 at 4:17 PM

Yeah, past tense!!!

Posted by mbeesley on September 22, 2006 at 9:47 PM

A big round of applause to the wide receivers that dropped at least 6, arguably up to 9 passes yesterday!

Also, the coaching decisions late in the 2nd quarter were beyond horrendous.

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 2:11 PM

"Derrick has got to catch that one," Zook said. "I didn't say anything to him. He feels bad enough already."

What?

For a guy that entered the program in 2005 as someone that was 'special' (per Zook himself), what has this guy done?

He finally has the chance for a TD, and he drops it? Last time I checked, wide receivers are typically asked to catch the balls thrown their way.

Zook does not wany to say anything to him? Why? Fine. Don't say anything. Speak with silence by putting him on the scout team for a week.

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Again Mr. Kaufman, if life is so bad, take your fully tenured butt out of this 'racist' university that pays your fat salary and find a more 'friendly' place to waste precious payroll dollars.

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 2:19 PM

In looking at Juice's less-than-awe-inspiring stats, don't neglect to consider that his yardage and completions would have been higher save two pass interference calls that helped the team (though the last might have cost a touchdown) but didn't do justice to the Juice's stats. The improvement over Rutgers was very noticeable; I hope he can be more relaxed throwing earlier in the game, though.

Posted by jjohnson on September 24, 2006 at 4:42 PM

kaufman's actions will hasten the exit of the controversial indian

Posted by rmitchell on September 24, 2006 at 4:46 PM

Mr. Kauffman is a disgrace and should be censured. His tenure notwithstanding, there is no place in the University family for one who is intent on hurting the university, while in its employ. Especially, since his objective is already a fait accompli, much to my displeasure.

Posted by skarras on September 24, 2006 at 5:23 PM

I was deeply distressed to find that a professor from my old department, physics, is one of the prime movers of this letter writing project. Physicists are expected to think before they make fools of themselves with emotionally absurd charges that cannot be backed up with experimental data.

Posted by jjohnson on September 24, 2006 at 5:41 PM

What does it say when Jacob Willis gets more playing time than Bryant Creamer?

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 6:01 PM

The coaching decisions were definitely questionable and led to two Iowa touchdowns in the last six minutes of the second quarter. Why switch punters when Yelton was doing fine and why substitute Brasic. The coaches should stick with Juice from now on as it doesn't look like they will be going to a bowl game. Let Juice develop for the rest of the season. Also, it was nice to see an Illinois team playing defense again. I don' think I've seen that in four years.

Posted by lconroyl on September 24, 2006 at 6:02 PM

63-99-2. The attendance woes have nothing to do with the world's greatest AD, Ron Guenther.

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 6:02 PM

Good luck to Coach Mike Hebert, fighting Parkinson's Disease. And thanks to Coach Guenther for hiring Theresa Grentz for big money, insulting Coach Hebert and hastening his move to Minnesota. Illinois volleyball has not recovered.

Posted by mbeesley on September 24, 2006 at 6:06 PM

Why would the scoreboard be moved permanently to the South. Wouldn't having it in the South, block the view of the AH and make it harder to view the scoreboard looking South rather than the North?

Posted by lroller on September 24, 2006 at 6:59 PM

I was very impressed with the play of the defense on Saturday. They are starting to play with some real inspiration and that's encouraging; that is something to cheer about. On the other hand there is a glaring weakness on offense as everyone is pointing out. There is no doubt that Williams has a slingshot for an arm and as he learns to play within himself Illinois will be in these games not just showing flashes at the end. The receivers, however, are an embarrassment. If I were Zook I would threaten to cut their hands off if they don't start using them. These guys aren't showing speed, intelligence (running the wrong routes), or guts. They're afraid of being hit, and they are quitting on plays not to mention their hands of stone. Just a sidenote; I think I would try McPhearson on defense (if he's tough enough) psychologically it might be easier for him to intercept the ball.

Posted by MLACER on September 24, 2006 at 7:28 PM

No one should forget that there was a penalty against Illinois during the play where Derrick dropped the ball. TD would not have counted so discussing the the dropped TD pass is moot.

Posted by jjrepp on September 24, 2006 at 7:31 PM

It's really too bad they couldn't lower the field, allowing the addition of seats closer to the field. That would have reduced the number of lost seats and made crowd noise tougher on opponents. I know the reason why -- it would foul up the site lines of too many other seats. But it's too bad just the same.

Posted by dgcrow on September 24, 2006 at 8:44 PM

I can't believe these individuals would go to the extremes that they have. It sure makes you wonder whether you want your kids taught by these near sighted misguided people. The celebration that is the Chief has been here long before these people found the U. of I. The great majority still enjoy the Chief and look forward to his arrival. It's time to mention names.... so the supporters of the Chief can see what a small group of yoyos is creating such a disturbance

Posted by mustwhiz on September 24, 2006 at 10:04 PM

Who can ever forget the time Johhny hit Jimmie Klein in the end zone up in Ann Arbor for the win!!

Posted by mustwhiz on September 24, 2006 at 10:31 PM

that's good news. Now please no more rugby punts!

Posted by mbeesley on September 26, 2006 at 11:13 AM

OK I am for Wiallms but who is this third string quaterback that is so young...will he ever get a chance?

Posted by dallen on September 26, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Jacob has certainly been a nice find. Now, if the others that are actually on scholarship could actually catch a football that hits them in the hands, perhaps Juice's throwing percentage would be where it should be.

Posted by mbeesley on September 27, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Loren,

I've enjoyed your columns since Bob Blackman was coach, and your article on Jacob Willis was excellent. But it also highlights the problem with this team. We have the two best running backs I've seen at Illinois in the last 35 years (Thomas and Mendenhall) and Zook only gives them the ball less than ten times a game - combined. If he would run the ball 40+ times a game (with the running backs, not the QBs) instead of trying to make stars out of guys who aren't ready, the Illini would win some meaningful games. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Jim K.

Posted by jkezerle on September 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM

Sadly, Ron Guenther's hands were tied... the state legislature won't pay the DIA any operating subsidies... and so he _had_ to balance his budget. He thought Coach Grentz could create a third revenue sport... and he was right. No one could have reasonably expected to make women's volleyball a revenue sport at Illinois.

That being said, I was never enthusiastic about Coach Grentz. I remember Dave Loane trying to sell me on her program and my telling him that I'd be sold when she earned a #1 seed in a regional (i.e., where Mike's program was at its height). It never happened.

Posted by jgrout on September 27, 2006 at 11:55 PM

If the faculty members stooped to calling the Council of Chiefs a "Klan", as the Post-Dispatch recently claimed, their heads are stuck in the ozone. Too bad tenure only allows misbehaving _departments_ to be shut down...

Posted by jgrout on September 28, 2006 at 12:02 AM

Dan Rutherford's full statement on White's employees' contributions can be found here:

http://www.danrutherford.org/PR_rutherford_not_hiring_his_family.asp

Posted by RutherfordCampaign on September 28, 2006 at 10:19 PM

Considering the state of Illinois football, I would to LOVE to have the instability that MSU has- especially considering the fact that they are going to thump our beloved on Saturday.

Posted by mbeesley on September 29, 2006 at 1:18 PM

I guess I agree....we would gladly exchange our

"instability" for theirs.

Posted by walker on September 29, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Would it be too much to ask not to use a blatant Notre Dame shill as the subject for interviews in the Champaign News-Gazette?

Apparently, people forgot quickly the garbage he pulled with Myron Rolle (now at Florida State).

Posted by dpetersen on September 29, 2006 at 3:57 PM

Purdue isn't that strong this year and I firmly believe Illinois will have three victories in the Big Ten vs. Indiana, Purdue, and @ Northwestern. That's a 3-5 record. I'm hoping they can beat Ohio. So a 5-7 record isnt out of the question. I've seen much improvement from last year on defense which is a wonderful sight to see. The only reason Purdue is so good is because they played a weak non-conference schedule. They are going down on Saturday.

Posted by scarlson on September 29, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Lemming not playing favorites for the Army game? Give me a break, Tom. Lemming is behind the times and always will be...good thing Notre Dame pays him the big bucks to pump up that program.

Posted by jjrepp on September 29, 2006 at 5:53 PM

Tom Lemming = shill for ND. How sad.

Posted by scarlson on September 29, 2006 at 10:40 PM

Michigan State's 10 most bizarre losses of the past decade? How about Illinois' 10 worst losses of the Guenther Era? 63-99-2.

Posted by mbeesley on September 30, 2006 at 8:58 AM

The really shameful part is because the justices had never written the rules a girl of any age could get an abortion in Illinois. Absolutley irresponsible.