PDA

View Full Version : Should UND fans wearing Fighting Sioux gear be denied admission to NCAA arenas?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 12:53 PM
This one came up over beers recently while watching the Stanley Cup playoffs at a sports bar near UNO's new arena (Baxter Arena) with some other UNO fans I ran into there. It got started after a discussion about how the Lightning ban ANY opposing team gear from their building. That conversation then morphed into what has become this thread topic.

The general consensus was that if this doesn't happen then the NCAA edict requiring UND to change the name in the first place becomes something of a mockery and would outright encourage their fans to continue to do this despite whatever name change is coming.

Another school of thought was that UND, itself, might even lead the way here and ban the practice in their own arena to lead the way. Sadly, the rationale postulated at the table for this one wasn't that UND would necessarily do this for altruistic reasons (although they would presumably say it was) but, rather, for financial ones, since such a ban would seemingly drive a bigger surge in sales of "new" North Dakota gear to their fanbase. If you can't wear banned gear you have to wear something else, obviously.

The conversation went off in this direction because it wasn't lost on any of us how much Fighting Sioux gear is still worn by North Dakota fan (albeit, I readily acknowledge I don't know the extent of their options right now since they are in limbo status). When they were here in late January, it was a rare green-glad person, indeed, that didn't have the logo or the word "Sioux" on their person, somewhere. I mean, I even saw Fighting Sioux gear at the NCAA Regional at Notre Dame while North Dakota was playing at the Fargo NCAA regional.

Since the NCAA has been so militant about eradicating Indian mascots here and at other schools (with the exception of the 5 schools that were granted waivers after approval of their nicknames by the Indians involved) the thinking was that they might subsequently attempt to make people showing up in Fighting Sioux gear in the future the functional and social equivalent of showing up in Klan gear (which literally happened at a high school hockey game played at the Ralph in February of 2013, incidentally) and unilaterally ban it from all NCAA arenas.

This would seem to me to to be a rather unique situation in all these mascot changes that have occurred since the 2005 NCAA edict on Indian mascots and the one with arguably the most acrimony involved.

Of particular interest to me is how North Dakota fans might feel about this and what they think. Has there been any discussion there on this topic, already, amongst you NoDaks/Sundogs/Fighting Hawks/North Stars/Roughriders?

purpleinnebraska
07-28-2015, 01:01 PM
In large part, the Tampa ban was a response to incidents like the near-deadly beating of the Giants fan in Dodger Stadium (In Nashville, it seemed more about maintaining a home ice edge, but in Tampa for the finals that certainly wasn't a concern). To ban Sioux apparel, on the other hand, just seems like a bunch of people getting on their moral high horse. If the NCAA wants to do that, I guess the courts say they can, since membership in the NCAA is "voluntary." But I don't know why a school would want to follow the NCAA in their sanctimoniousness.

Dirty
07-28-2015, 01:04 PM
This would be far too complicated for the pea-brains at the NCAA to implement but lets assume it does. So fans of schools like UND would not be allowed to wear their team's Native American gear, what about fans of schools like Marquette or Miami, who changed their nickname before all this hoopla began? Would they be allowed to wear their team's Native American gear? Why or why not?

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 01:23 PM
This would be far too complicated for the pea-brains at the NCAA to implement but lets assume it does. So fans of schools like UND would not be allowed to wear their team's Native American gear, what about fans of schools like Marquette or Miami, who changed their nickname before all this hoopla began? Would they be allowed to wear their team's Native American gear? Why or why not?

Is there still a large component of Marquette fans or Miami fans that still wear their "old" gear, (or want to?)? I don't know the answer to that one.

That said, my guess about North Dakota fans is that there will be a contingent that outright ignore any mascot change and don't even acknowledge that it has occurred. The mascot isn't even being totally eradicated from their own arena. Ask South Carolinian's how they felt about the Confederate flag (up until about 3 weeks ago, anyway).

I don't know what would be complex about the NCAA (or, any individual school so motivated) issuing an edict saying "Anyone presenting themselves at the gate to an NCAA event wearing Fighting Sioux monikered apparel will denied entry to the venue".

darker98
07-28-2015, 01:34 PM
I don't think the UND can make a decision on what's worn in the Ralph.

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 01:43 PM
I don't think the UND can make a decision on what's worn in the Ralph.

Sure they can.

Take a look at the small print on the back of ANY ticket you buy to any sporting event.

They are all variations on the same theme and they can deny you entry for just about anything.

The back of a UNO ticket, verbatim:

"The holder agrees to abide by all the rules, regulations, and policies established by the facility."

This isn't a First Amendment issue. You are in the venue subject to the terms and conditions established by the seller of event tickets prior to you buying them. You acquiesce by making the ticket purchase.

SJHovey
07-28-2015, 01:46 PM
Has there been any discussion there on this topic, already, amongst you NoDaks/Sundogs/Fighting Hawks/North Stars/Roughriders?No.

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 01:49 PM
No.

Before we get too far into this, for the record, I'd like to say that I haven't exactly formulated my own actual opinion on this topic.

darker98
07-28-2015, 01:52 PM
Sure they can.

Take a look at the small print on the back of ANY ticket you buy to any sporting event.

They are all variations on the same theme and they can deny you entry for just about anything.

The back of a UNO ticket, verbatim:

"The holder agrees to abide by all the rules, regulations, and policies established by the facility."

This isn't a First Amendment issue. You are in the venue subject to the terms and conditions established by the seller of event tickets prior to you buying them. You acquiesce by making the ticket purchase.
As far as I know UND doesn't own the Ralph.

Dirty
07-28-2015, 01:57 PM
Is there still a large component of Marquette fans or Miami fans that still wear their "old" gear, (or want to?)? I don't know the answer to that one.

I don't know what would be complex about the NCAA (or, any individual school so motivated) issuing an edict saying "Anyone presenting themselves at the gate to an NCAA event wearing Fighting Sioux monikered apparel will denied entry to the venue".

From what I've gathered for Marquette, there is.

It would be pretty ridiculous to say UND fans can't wear their gear but Miami fans can wear theirs. Why would the NCAA allow one school's fans to wear whatever they please but not allow another? If Native American mascots are bad, then why make exceptions? This is of course excluding the exceptions the NCAA has already made for FSU, CMU, Utah, etc.

But then again, this is the NCAA who is never consistent about anything, so whatever. It would be a great move too. UND fans literally sell out the NCAA's regional in under a minute last year and the NCAA thanks them for the money by banning the fans from wearing Sioux gear. Thankfully I think the NCAA has better things to do then worry about this. Actually, they obviously do have better things to do and I think even they realize this.

Another question, what Sioux stuff would I not be allowed to wear? I have jerseys that have the Bennet Brien logo, geometric logo and Blackhawk logo. Would these all not be allowed? What if I wore a Chicago Blackhawks jersey? Would that not be allowed either? It's not Sioux apparel.

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 02:01 PM
As far as I know UND doesn't own the Ralph.

That is correct. It is owned by the Engelstad Foundation who own the land it sits on and the arena, itself, which they lease to the university for a buck a year.

What the politics of this particular hypothetical "situation" might be between the school and the Foundation would be an interesting question, to say the very least.

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 02:09 PM
From what I've gathered for Marquette, there is.

It would be pretty ridiculous to say UND fans can't wear their gear but Miami fans can wear theirs. Why would the NCAA allow one school's fans to wear whatever they please but not allow another? If Native American mascots are bad, then why make exceptions? This is of course excluding the exceptions the NCAA has already made for FSU, CMU, Utah, etc.

But then again, this is the NCAA who is never consistent about anything, so whatever. It would be a great move too. UND fans literally sell out the NCAA's regional in under a minute last year and the NCAA thanks them for the money by banning the fans from wearing Sioux gear. Thankfully I think the NCAA has better things to do then worry about this. Actually, they obviously do have better things to do and I think even they realize this.

As I said, I don't know, definitively, to what extent other former Indian mascot schools fanbases currently do or don't wear their old gear.

However, if the NCAA has banned Indian mascots (outside the 5 exemptions they have allowed), it would seem disingenuous and hypocritical for the NCAA to then still allow those school's fans to attend NCAA events, either en masse, or, even just a fan here or a fan there, and continue to wear this old apparel. I mean, you're either "for it, or, agin' it".

Of course, hypocrisy where the NCAA is concerned is certainly nothing new.

darker98
07-28-2015, 02:12 PM
That is correct. It is owned by the Engelstad Foundation who own the land it sits on and the arena, itself, which they lease to the university for a buck a year.

What the politics of this particular hypothetical "situation" might be between the school and the Foundation would be an interesting question, to say the very least.
True. I don't like this hypothetical situation.

darker98
07-28-2015, 02:15 PM
As I said, I don't know, definitively, to what extent other former Indian mascot schools fanbases currently do or don't wear their old gear.

However, if the NCAA has banned Indian mascots (outside the 5 exemptions they have allowed), it would seem disingenuous and hypocritical for the NCAA to then still allow those school's fans to attend NCAA events, either en masse, or, even just a fan here or a fan there, and continue to wear this old apparel. I mean, you're either "for it, or, agin' it".

Of course, hypocrisy where the NCAA is concerned is certainly nothing new.
We didn't have to change the banners or take down historical pictures either.

burd
07-28-2015, 03:49 PM
That is correct. It is owned by the Engelstad Foundation who own the land it sits on and the arena, itself, which they lease to the university for a buck a year.

What the politics of this particular hypothetical "situation" might be between the school and the Foundation would be an interesting question, to say the very least.

Be careful about the assumptions you make regarding the state action requirement that is a threshold question in bill of rights issues. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority is old law and possibly not good anymore, but dealt with a relationship between the state and a private lessee in the context of a state action issue. That was a reverse situation from the Ralph situation you bring up--the state owned the building and leased part of it to a private party that refused service to black people--but it does illustrate that there is not always a simple answer to the question whether an action can be attributed to the gubmint.

Now, there are probably first amendment cases covering this issue for venues used for college sports, but I wouldn't know. Just trying to muddy things up a little.

I definitely think it was time to change the name, and I won't be upset whichever name they choose. A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

And we do smell sweet.

SJHovey
07-28-2015, 03:57 PM
The real problem with the initial question posed by this thread (aside from the fact UNO fans are really, really awful at coming up with discussion topics while gathered to drink beer and watch Stanley Cup hockey) is it presupposes the NCAA still cares about the UND nickname issue.

The NCAA never cared about the UND nickname. Instead, it reacted to a few agitators and forced UND's hand. Once the deal was signed, the NCAA moved on. They don't care what happens at UND. They're dealing with other issues now. The last thing they're going to do is come up with some sort of dress code for fans.

To think UND or REA will ban Sioux gear at UND hockey games is silly.

Split-N
07-28-2015, 05:35 PM
...To ban Sioux apparel, on the other hand, just seems like a bunch of people getting on their moral high horse. If the NCAA wants to do that, I guess the courts say they can, since membership in the NCAA is "voluntary." But I don't know why a school would want to follow the NCAA in their sanctimoniousness.

So this is what has become of free expression?

purpleinnebraska
07-28-2015, 06:41 PM
From what I've gathered for Marquette, there is.

It would be pretty ridiculous to say UND fans can't wear their gear but Miami fans can wear theirs. Why would the NCAA allow one school's fans to wear whatever they please but not allow another? If Native American mascots are bad, then why make exceptions? This is of course excluding the exceptions the NCAA has already made for FSU, CMU, Utah, etc.

But then again, this is the NCAA who is never consistent about anything, so whatever. It would be a great move too. UND fans literally sell out the NCAA's regional in under a minute last year and the NCAA thanks them for the money by banning the fans from wearing Sioux gear. Thankfully I think the NCAA has better things to do then worry about this. Actually, they obviously do have better things to do and I think even they realize this.

Another question, what Sioux stuff would I not be allowed to wear? I have jerseys that have the Bennet Brien logo, geometric logo and Blackhawk logo. Would these all not be allowed? What if I wore a Chicago Blackhawks jersey? Would that not be allowed either? It's not Sioux apparel.

A Sioux City Musketeers jersey would still be OK, right?

Red Cows
07-28-2015, 11:28 PM
The real problem with the initial question posed by this thread (aside from the fact UNO fans are really, really awful at coming up with discussion topics while gathered to drink beer and watch Stanley Cup hockey) is it presupposes the NCAA still cares about the UND nickname issue.

The NCAA never cared about the UND nickname. Instead, it reacted to a few agitators and forced UND's hand. Once the deal was signed, the NCAA moved on. They don't care what happens at UND. They're dealing with other issues now. The last thing they're going to do is come up with some sort of dress code for fans.

To think UND or REA will ban Sioux gear at UND hockey games is silly.


Thanks for acknowledging that the entire topic came up here as a pure matter of happenstance. :)

I'd be interested in knowing why you think the NCAA, paraphrasing, "doesn't still care" about this issue.

Your assertions make it sound like UND was singled out, somehow.

I don't know where, if anywhere, the question I raised as the topic of this thread might or might not be going but I would submit that the NCAA did, and still does, care about this issue.

Additionally, this issue wasn't limited to just North Dakota by any stretch of the imagination. When the NCAA issued/proclaimed its "self-evaluation" on the matter of offensive mascots, overall, in 2005, it cited 31 schools at the time on the topic. Of these, 19 teams were cited as having potentially "hostile or abusive" Indian names, mascots, or images, that would be potentially be banned and would thus eliminate them from being being displayed in any way by those schools during post-season play, and/or also prohibiting the offending schools from NCAA tourney events of any kind.

Since then, all of the 19 schools that had "offensive" Native American references in their mascot's name or likeness in some way have discontinued their use (including North Dakota).

Really, when you get right down to it, is the potential insistence by, at this moment, an unknown (probably large) quantity of North Dakota fans to continue wearing Fighting Sioux gear really any different than an element of our society (indeed, even state governments, themselves) insistence on continuing to fly Confederate flags? I don't really see a lot of difference there.

If you are the University of North Dakota, how do you explain away your compliance with the NCAA directive on this and then look the other way while your arena is full of people still wearing Fighting Sioux gear? One of the reasons this topic got a lot of discussion over beers is because the assumption was/is that North Dakota fans would shun and/or refuse to acknowledge the upcoming mascot change in any meaningful way for a very long time. Years, we guessed. I can't believe the school administration would be entirely indifferent to this, as the final sentence of your post postulates.

I have serious doubts, despite what Dirty said in earlier posts, that other schools saw anything approaching the same level of use of their old mascot by the respective fanbases involved that I fully expect to continue to see from North Dakota fans, going forward. My personal belief is that this is an entirely unique situation out of all of the other 18 schools that were affected by the 2005 NCAA directive.

FWIW, we've already been through this at UNO. For those that didn't know it, we used to be the "Indians". Until the summer of 1971, that is. In the vote here about the new new name, it might interest everyone to know that we fell just a very few votes shy of actually becoming the "Unicorns". Seriously.

My indecision about this entire question is because I don't know, specifically, why the one tribe that found the Fighting Sioux name objectionable actually did so.

To me, if I were an Indian, I'd find the name honorable. But, I'm not an Indian and I don't profess to even begin to know how Indians (who were, are, and have been at least as maligned, abused, and miss-treated as African Americans have been in our nation's history) might actually feel in their heart of hearts about this.

Put it this way. If you are member of the Sioux tribe that did find this name objectionable in any way, how would you feel about an arena full of white people in "Fighting Sioux" gear, in an arena on the campus of a school in your state where the use of the name had been supposedly "banned" by the current governing body of college athletics, despite your feelings on the topic?

To me, this IS a topic that bears some further discussion and some further thought. That's why I raised the matter.

I don't think "Fighting Sioux name aficionados" and their gear are going anywhere anytime soon, despite what the NCAA says.

The Rube
07-28-2015, 11:37 PM
Sure they can.

Take a look at the small print on the back of ANY ticket you buy to any sporting event.

They are all variations on the same theme and they can deny you entry for just about anything.

The back of a UNO ticket, verbatim:

"The holder agrees to abide by all the rules, regulations, and policies established by the facility."

This isn't a First Amendment issue. You are in the venue subject to the terms and conditions established by the seller of event tickets prior to you buying them. You acquiesce by making the ticket purchase.
Let's take a look at the small print, shall we? It also says that the ticket-buyers hold all responsibility to know what's going on in the game, and that the arena/team/etc hold no responsibility for injury from aspects of the game, like flying pucks or bats (in the case of baseball). How many nets have been put up due to lawsuits? Apparently, fine print means nothing.