Anti-"Chief" Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, October 17, 2005
U of I Board Appeals
NCAA Decision
Anti-“Chief” Supporters Call For
Elimination of “Chief Illiniwek”
On Friday, October 14, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees
(BOT) announced its appeal of the NCAA ban on “Chief Illiniwek”
and the term “Fighting Illini,” both of which the NCAA has
deemed to be examples of “hostile and abusive” Native American
imagery. In his letter to the NCAA, BOT Chairman Lawrence C. Eppley
bases the appeal upon the following four arguments—all of which
are seriously flawed: 1) Eppley claims that the NCAA ban violates the
University’s autonomy, 2) that the term “Fighting Illini”
does not refer to Native Americans, 3) that the “Chief”
is a respectful and honorable tradition of the university, and 4) that
NCAA followed an illegitimate process in instituting the ban.
Although Eppley claims that the NCAA policy interferes
with the University’s ability to resolve the “Chief Illiniwek”
controversy, the BOT has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to make
any progress on the issue. In their 2004 report on the “Chief,”
the North Central Association, the organization with accredits the U
of I, wrote, “The real issue here is a troubling failure of enlightened
leadership and shared governance by the board of a major world-class
research university.” Since the NCA report, the BOT has passed
some resolutions on the “Chief,” including their oft-cited
“consensus conclusion,” but all of their resolutions amount
to nothing more than stalling tactics designed to delay concrete progress
on the issue.
Given this context, Eppley’s accusation that the
NCAA has violated the University’s ability to resolve the “Chief”
controversy autonomously seems ridiculous. Moreover, the NCAA should
be able to control the environment of its events. As NCAA President
Myles Brand wrote in the USA Today on Aug. 10, 2005, “The NCAA
has no authority to force its member institutions to change their mascots
or nicknames. Even so the NCAA can and has determined that within the
environment of NCAA national championships, behaviors that inappropriately
characterize a group of people will not be welcomed.”
Secondly, Eppley’s attempt to dissociate the term
“Fighting Illini” from Native American imagery is misleading.
He claims that “Illini” refers to the state’s name
and that “fighting” refers to the WWI veterans to whom Memorial
Stadium was dedicated in 1924. However, the terms “Illini”
and “fighting” were strongly associated with Native Americans
even before the “Chief” was created in 1926. For example,
the 1921 Illio uses the following words in association with the U of
I football team: “Illini tribesmen,” “old hunting
ground,” “war whoops,” “stout hearted young
braves,” and “massacre.” Similarly, the 1923 Illio
refers to Coach Zuppke’s “fighting Illini” as “eleven
Orange and Blue Indians.”
Although Eppley cites a 1995 statement by the U.S. Dept.
of Education Office of Civil Rights as evidence that the “Chief”
is an honorable representation, the statement did not vindicate the
U of I’s use of the “Chief” but rather pointed out
that not enough evidence had been gathered to prove that the “Chief”
violated civil rights in that instance. Meanwhile, the more recent (2001)
statement of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights urged non-Native schools
to cease use of Native American imagery because such offensive stereotypes
“block genuine understanding of contemporary Native people as
fellow Americans.”
Finally, Eppley should not be complaining about the NCAA
process because it included the University’s self-evaluation of
its use of Native American imagery—and the University of Illinois
did not take that evaluation seriously. The University did not appoint
a committee to work on the self-evaluation, nor did it seek the opinions
of members of the University community, as the NCAA had requested. Additionally,
instead of responding to the NCAA’s specific questions, the self-evaluation
merely repeated over and over that the University tries to abide by
NCAA policies and is currently engaged in finding a “consensus
conclusion.”
Because of the flaws in Chairman Eppley’s baseless
appeal, the PRC calls upon the NCAA to stand by its decision that the
“Chief” and “Fighting Illini” are examples of
“hostile and abusive” Native American imagery. Furthermore,
the PRC calls on the Board of Trustees to eliminate “Fighting
Illini” and the “Chief”—name, dance, and logo—immediately.
The time is long overdue.
###
To go back to press releases, click
here.