OklahomaTuba
6/13/2006, 08:20 AM
This is greatness. While long, its very much worth the time to read it.
To begin with, you asserted that any use of American Indian images or nicknames was hostile and abusive. Later you changed this to hostile or abusive – as if this were meaningful in some way. Some of your initial rhetoric actually encompassed nicknames derived from any race or ethnic group. Many of us heard Myles Brand in a radio interview say that “Fighting Irish” was not a problem nickname because (his words) it was really about leprechauns and not real people. Really?
We explained that we have a beautiful logo designed by a respected American Indian artist and that we use the nickname with consummate respect – expecting and getting respect for the Sioux culture from our fans. We pointed out that we do not do tomahawk chops, we do not have white guys painted up like Indians, and our fans do not do Indian chants.
In an amazing display of organizational arrogance, Walter Harrison, in answer to the following direct question at a recent news conference:
“Are there incidents the NCAA has recorded where it (UND) appears to be hostile and abusive?” he said, obviously ducking the question entirely:
“Today’s decision was to review whether the staff’s original decision was the right one. We tried to confine ourselves to that. We believe the use of the Fighting Sioux and the mascots [he is apparently still unaware that we do not have one] and imagery [ours was designed by an American Indian] that represents (sic) are hostile and abusive and we don’t believe the University has made a case to the contrary.” [emphasis added]
Evidence? What evidence? Courts tend to dismiss hearsay and to demand and rely on real evidence.
We invited you to come and see for yourself and you refused.
We now have your letter of May 15 in which you make reference to “substantial evidence,” but nowhere in the letter is this evidence described. In lieu of evidence, you simply cite “staff review,” apparently of hearsay testimony by various local and national groups. Most of these simply assert that they are opposed to any use of nicknames anywhere by anybody at any time.
The fundamental irrationality of calling what we do hostile and abusive – on the basis of no basis at all – and then saying that a white guy in war paint, carrying a flaming spear while riding a horse into a stadium, leading fans in a tomahawk chop while singing an Indian chant is okay should be obvious to any jury. Any who try to swallow this convoluted logic will choke on it.
http://www.universityrelations.und.edu/logoappeal/openletter_6-07-06.html
To begin with, you asserted that any use of American Indian images or nicknames was hostile and abusive. Later you changed this to hostile or abusive – as if this were meaningful in some way. Some of your initial rhetoric actually encompassed nicknames derived from any race or ethnic group. Many of us heard Myles Brand in a radio interview say that “Fighting Irish” was not a problem nickname because (his words) it was really about leprechauns and not real people. Really?
We explained that we have a beautiful logo designed by a respected American Indian artist and that we use the nickname with consummate respect – expecting and getting respect for the Sioux culture from our fans. We pointed out that we do not do tomahawk chops, we do not have white guys painted up like Indians, and our fans do not do Indian chants.
In an amazing display of organizational arrogance, Walter Harrison, in answer to the following direct question at a recent news conference:
“Are there incidents the NCAA has recorded where it (UND) appears to be hostile and abusive?” he said, obviously ducking the question entirely:
“Today’s decision was to review whether the staff’s original decision was the right one. We tried to confine ourselves to that. We believe the use of the Fighting Sioux and the mascots [he is apparently still unaware that we do not have one] and imagery [ours was designed by an American Indian] that represents (sic) are hostile and abusive and we don’t believe the University has made a case to the contrary.” [emphasis added]
Evidence? What evidence? Courts tend to dismiss hearsay and to demand and rely on real evidence.
We invited you to come and see for yourself and you refused.
We now have your letter of May 15 in which you make reference to “substantial evidence,” but nowhere in the letter is this evidence described. In lieu of evidence, you simply cite “staff review,” apparently of hearsay testimony by various local and national groups. Most of these simply assert that they are opposed to any use of nicknames anywhere by anybody at any time.
The fundamental irrationality of calling what we do hostile and abusive – on the basis of no basis at all – and then saying that a white guy in war paint, carrying a flaming spear while riding a horse into a stadium, leading fans in a tomahawk chop while singing an Indian chant is okay should be obvious to any jury. Any who try to swallow this convoluted logic will choke on it.
http://www.universityrelations.und.edu/logoappeal/openletter_6-07-06.html