The clumsiness with which the University of Illinois reached and announced its "consensus" decision on Chief Illiniwek could have some interesting potential consequences.
David Dorris, a Bloomington lawyer and board member since 2005, says the decision to end the Chief Illiniwek tradition did not constitute an official board action.
That's because there was no public vote by the board. A university statement says board chairman Larry Eppley came to the decision by conferring with board members individually.
With no vote, Dorris maintains, a 1990 board resolution that retained the chief, holds.
"You cannot overturn it by the chairman simply saying in a statement that he read the tea leaves and this is the new policy,'' said Dorris, who would not have supported a resolution eliminating the chief.
A school statement claims an official vote wasn't necessary. But Dawn Clark Netsch, professor emerita of law at Northwestern and a former state senator and comptroller, wondered if the board would make future decisions without an official vote. "That's a little scary,'' she said.
Hmmmm. My assumption has always been that the none of the other Trustees would cause any problems. Now, with Dorris' quote, I wonder if that assumption was mistaken? And I wonder how much havoc he could cause by asking for an official board discussion and vote on the retirement?
How many Trustees would be forced to say, "I support the Chief, but the NCAA is forcing us to do this?"
And how would the NCAA react to that?
(Hat tip: Kiyoshi Martinez)
I wholeheartedly agree that the decision was not handled well politically. It certainly sets a dangerous precedent - I'm just happy to say I'm an Alumnus and don't have to be on campus with all of this.
However, as far as "the 1990 resolution still stands" goes, I'm of the opinion that we (Chief supporters) shouldn't start legal wrangling to try and get the Chief back in the manner that he was. That would reinstate the NCAA sanctions as if the retirement never happened, AND the anti-folks have had two decades of practice working their strategy against the pre-2/21 Chief.
Having an in-again, out-again BOT-administered Chief based on legal wranglings will simply make this worse.
FWIW, I think supporters should focus their efforts on taking as much of the Chief as possible into the semi-private local arena.
We've been routed from our trenches; if we can be routed once in X location, we can be routed again with similar results at the same location. Rather than try and take the same trenches back, we need to find a better position from which to fight.
Sounds like someone is grasping at straws. All part of the grieving process.
Maybe the heels in the sand, "if the anti-Chief people want something we have to be against it" failure to even consider how the Chief might be retired or phased out wasn't the best way to handle it.
Remember, the anti-Chief crowd was originally willing to compromise, but the pro-Chief people said "not in my lifetime, hippie not-even-an-Indian protestor type". That attitude and approach was obviously a dismal failure, and the Chief is simply gone when we could have had the Chief retired in a way we could have enjoyed and shown honor, rather than just an announcement, "The Chief will be gone in 5 days."
Now there is no compromise possible, no phasing out, no honoring, no historical display, nothing. Gone.
Shame on everyone who took the approach that it was just a few vocal hippies and they didn't deserve to be listened to. They did. They "won" because it was made into a 'them versus us" contest, and it was done so by "us", not "them".
Mmm...
I think you have your facts confused.
Look in the mirror for how this originally came about, who failed to come to the table calmly and with the possibility for consensus.
Supporters couldn't have made the first move, since we saw no reason for change. The protesters made the first moves, and it was with all guns blazing from day 1.
What's really funny is that protesters think that somehow, in their lifetime - let alone in 4 years - that the Chief wil somehow be erased from existence.
Look around town.
Look around campus.
Visit the home of any die-hard fan, of which there are thousands.
The Chief is omni-present, and he is a big part of the history of UI and the area - and those who have the Chief on display feel that it is a distinguished history.
I'd bet most of the anti-Chief people who have no problem with the chairman's decision also think that Iraq was a legal war. While the UN had one vote authorizing war, the board only had votes to preserve the Chief.
But in the end, it probably doesn't really matter. The writing was on the wall. The political situation meant that the Chief supporters could win 999 battles, but if the lost the 1000th they lost the war. It was obvious that the NCAA ruling was going to be the end. The Chief supporters should have been trying to find the best way to bring closure -- dealing with the trademark and having some official end at a football game (since a lot more people could attend). I really doubt that the anti-Chief people would have played nice (even though the Chief is gone they are still making threats) but the supporters most likely would have been able to organize the end on their own terms.
but the supporters most likely would have been able to organize the end on their own terms.
That is exactly what I meant at "10:41 pm".
And what's up with the clock thing?
"And what's up with the clock thing?"
My mistake - I had a typo in the timestamp for this post.
What baffles me is that so many people think the University of Illinois' experience with replacing its politically incorrect mascot will defy historical precedent. The experience of almost all schools that have abandoned a controversial mascot in the face of criticism is (a) that the old mascot loses importance rather quickly and (b) that donations don't decline significantly.
Now you might argue that because the Chief-supporters' devotion to their mascot was particularily slavish, they will defy the trend somewhat. I'd imagine this will be the case somewhat. Still, it's silly to think that the Chief's presence in this community will persist in perpetuity, as the above poster apparantly does.
I think there are some unusual circumstances here.
First, the University was clearly forced to get rid of Chief Illiniwek. People retain hope that the externalities can be addressed.
Second, Chief Illiniwek is clearly unlike any other Native symbol or imagry that was banished. The usage was so different that to some people it feels like a unique situation.
Third, the trademark has to go somewhere, or else through disuse by the UI it will end up in the public domain. There's hope that by transferring the tradition to a non-UIUC-affiliated group, that the tradition can somehow be extended.
Anti-Chief groups like "STOP" and the Progressive Action Committee will DEMAND that they be transferred the rights to the logoat no cost so that they can "safeguard" the logo i.e. keep it from being used. But they would continue to run into the part of trademark law which states that if a trademark is not used for a period of time it will become available for sale to the public..
I'm also very sure that even as leftist as these groups are that they will be tempted by the financial windfall that having the Chief logo to market would create. They will attempt to "rationalize" any earnings potential from the sale of Chief merchandise to put that money to other "good causes" but in the end who will hold the purse strings and who personally will benefit. If there is one sure way to break up the pity party of joint misery and oppression these groups purport to expose, it's to throw money at them and see who in those groups succombs to the evils of personal profit potential and greed.
The more people say to hell with the requirements of the law, the more I want to file a lawsuit for the violations of the Open Meetings Act just to shut up the people who claim to defend freedom, democracy, and all things good. And I think the Chief SHOULD have been retired (because the Peoria said so, and that's it).
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Save the Chief: www.DumpEppley.com