Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

[omahasioux1]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

You hear it all. When Sioux leadership is solidly against...you hear that's not the will of the people (even though leadership is voted in regularly). When a Sioux tribe doesn't actually come out against the logo...that's what you hear about and not about the likely enormous pressure they're to support the name. No issue has 100% support...but even if this was as low as 50%...labels the communities use like derogitory and demeaning show the magnitude of the negative impact on the NAs from the issue.

I don't care whether UND changes its name or not...but its quite clear a huge number of Sioux do find it offensive.

In your world the minority wins and the majority gets screwed.

[Bakunin]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

"We're gonna have a referendum on those new prostitution laws. . .only hookers and johns can vote"

What about the pimps? Typical government always out to screw the small business owners...

[Old Pio]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

What about the pimps? Typical government always out to screw the small business owners...

Interesting (and revealing?) verb choice. My bad. Of course pimps would be able to vote.

[HarleyMC]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

For all you case law enthusiasts on USCHO, the following is a particularly interesting case which could represent a precedent for NCAA impunity in regards to the recently adopted law by the North Dakota legislature requiring UND to retain the nickname and logo, and the NCAA's right, regardless of a state law injunction, to impose sanctions on member schools. It's possible that maybe one of the main reasons for the NCAA cancelling their recent meeting with ND legislative officials had something to do with the precedent of this case or cases like it, as well as the potential for a media circus and showdown with the ND officials over the recently adopted law.

Jerry Tarkanian (Tark the Shark), the retired UNLV basketball coach currently has more collegiate wins than any men's coach in history. But allegedly Tarkanian spent most of his career as a Division I coach in a battle with the NCAA.

Here is the result:

IS THE NCAA A STATE ACTOR? : NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988)

In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the NCAA was a private entity and therefore was not required to extend constitutional due process to its members. In a footnote, however, the Supreme Court provided hope for future suits against other athletic associations by proclaiming, "The situation would, of course, be different if the membership consisted entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign."

Jerry Tarkanian was the basketball coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). The NCAA cited Tarkanian and UNLV for thirty-eight NCAA rule violations. The NCAA proposed a two-year probationary period and ordered UNLV to show cause why further penalties should not be imposed if UNLV refused to sever ties with Tarkanian. After pursuing administrative appeals, UNLV pondered its options and chose to recognize the University's delegation to the NCAA of the power to act as ultimate arbiter of these matters.

UNLV notified Tarkanian that it was going to suspend him. Tarkanian filed a Section 1983 action in Nevada state court against UNLV, alleging a due process deprivation. The state trial court permanently enjoined Tarkanian's suspension. After appeals, the addition of the NCAA as a party, and removal to federal court, the federal district court concluded that the NCAA's conduct constituted state action. The court reaffirmed an earlier injunction barring UNLV from disciplining Tarkanian, and also enjoined the NCAA from conducting any further proceedings against the university.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's injunction, again holding that the NCAA had engaged in state action and could therefore be sued under Section 1983. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which agreed that UNLV was a state actor, but reiterated that the main question was whether UNLV's adherence to NCAA rules and recommendations converted the NCAA into a state actor. The Court looked at the rulemaking relationship between the NCAA and its member institutions. Even though UNLV, acting for the State of Nevada, had some input into the NCAA rules, the Supreme Court believed that the NCAA rules were the rules of the collective NCAA membership rather than the law of one particular state. Additionally, the Court stated that Nevada was not required to adopt the rules of the NCAA and could have instead attempted to amend the NCAA rules or create its own rules. As evidence that there was no partnership between the two, the Court looked at their antagonistic legal relationship.

Tarkanian argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because UNLV had delegated investigative and enforcement powers to the NCAA. The Court recognized that under certain conditions such a delegation could convert a private actor into a public one, but did not believe that UNLV had instituted such a delegation here. The dissent, authored by Justice White, argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because it acted jointly with state officials, UNLV, who engaged in state action. As an example, in the membership agreement, the parties agreed that the NCAA would conduct investigations and hearings when violations of the NCAA rules were alleged and that UNLV would be bound to the NCAA's findings. The dissent believed that UNLV had no choice under the agreement but to comply with the NCAA's recommendation to suspend Tarkanian. Withdrawing from the NCAA was not a viable option.

The Supreme Court concluded that the NCAA was not a state actor. The decision essentially meant that future Section 1983 constitutional challenges against the NCAA policies would have very little chance of success. It insulated the actions of the NCAA from judicial review, thus leaving the constitutional rights of student-athletes, coaches, and other individuals unprotected from infringement by the NCAA.

[Old Pio]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

For all you case law enthusiasts on USCHO, the following is a particularly interesting case which could represent a precedent for NCAA impunity in regards to the recently adopted law by the North Dakota legislature requiring UND to retain the nickname and logo, and the NCAA's right, regardless of a state law injunction, to impose sanctions on member schools. It's possible that maybe one of the main reasons for the NCAA cancelling their recent meeting with ND legislative officials had something to do with the precedent of this case or cases like it, as well as the potential for a media circus and showdown with the ND officials over the recently adopted law.

Jerry Tarkanian (Tark the Shark), the retired UNLV basketball coach currently has more collegiate wins than any men's coach in history. But allegedly Tarkanian spent most of his career as a Division I coach in a battle with the NCAA.

Here is the result:

IS THE NCAA A STATE ACTOR? : NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988)

In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the NCAA was a private entity and therefore was not required to extend constitutional due process to its members. In a footnote, however, the Supreme Court provided hope for future suits against other athletic associations by proclaiming, "The situation would, of course, be different if the membership consisted entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign."

Jerry Tarkanian was the basketball coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). The NCAA cited Tarkanian and UNLV for thirty-eight NCAA rule violations. The NCAA proposed a two-year probationary period and ordered UNLV to show cause why further penalties should not be imposed if UNLV refused to sever ties with Tarkanian. After pursuing administrative appeals, UNLV pondered its options and chose to recognize the University's delegation to the NCAA of the power to act as ultimate arbiter of these matters.

UNLV notified Tarkanian that it was going to suspend him. Tarkanian filed a Section 1983 action in Nevada state court against UNLV, alleging a due process deprivation. The state trial court permanently enjoined Tarkanian's suspension. After appeals, the addition of the NCAA as a party, and removal to federal court, the federal district court concluded that the NCAA's conduct constituted state action. The court reaffirmed an earlier injunction barring UNLV from disciplining Tarkanian, and also enjoined the NCAA from conducting any further proceedings against the university.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's injunction, again holding that the NCAA had engaged in state action and could therefore be sued under Section 1983. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which agreed that UNLV was a state actor, but reiterated that the main question was whether UNLV's adherence to NCAA rules and recommendations converted the NCAA into a state actor. The Court looked at the rulemaking relationship between the NCAA and its member institutions. Even though UNLV, acting for the State of Nevada, had some input into the NCAA rules, the Supreme Court believed that the NCAA rules were the rules of the collective NCAA membership rather than the law of one particular state. Additionally, the Court stated that Nevada was not required to adopt the rules of the NCAA and could have instead attempted to amend the NCAA rules or create its own rules. As evidence that there was no partnership between the two, the Court looked at their antagonistic legal relationship.

Tarkanian argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because UNLV had delegated investigative and enforcement powers to the NCAA. The Court recognized that under certain conditions such a delegation could convert a private actor into a public one, but did not believe that UNLV had instituted such a delegation here. The dissent, authored by Justice White, argued that the NCAA engaged in state action because it acted jointly with state officials, UNLV, who engaged in state action. As an example, in the membership agreement, the parties agreed that the NCAA would conduct investigations and hearings when violations of the NCAA rules were alleged and that UNLV would be bound to the NCAA's findings. The dissent believed that UNLV had no choice under the agreement but to comply with the NCAA's recommendation to suspend Tarkanian. Withdrawing from the NCAA was not a viable option.

The Supreme Court concluded that the NCAA was not a state actor. The decision essentially meant that future Section 1983 constitutional challenges against the NCAA policies would have very little chance of success. It insulated the actions of the NCAA from judicial review, thus leaving the constitutional rights of student-athletes, coaches, and other individuals unprotected from infringement by the NCAA.

Will this be on the final?

[PCM]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

The "Fighting Sioux" apologists claim the NCAA rather than UND owns the problem. Please explain how the actions of the NCAA have displeased the Sioux?

As the referendum on the Spirit Lake reservation proved, the NCAA policy has "displeased" a large number of Sioux. If the Standing Rock Tribal Council would allow a similar referendum, we might learn that the majority of Sioux on that reservation are "displeased" as well.

Even without a vote, we know that there is an active and vocal group at Standing Rock that collected more than a thousand signatures in an effort to petition the tribal government to conduct a referendum on the Fighting Sioux nickname issue.

We also know that from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux reservation in South Dakota and North Daktoa that friends and relatives of the late Woodrow Keeble -- the only Sioux to receive the Medal of Honor -- were pleased and honored to have his name enshrined as a Sioux warrior at Ralph Engelestad Arena.

The notion that all or even most Sioux approve of the NCAA policy is a myth.

[Osorojo]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

This is a nation of law, not mob rule. If the majority wish to rewrite the law and make all names and titles public property let them do so. Until then specific (vs. generic) names can't be used to generate income by anyone without a contract.

Forget for a moment the real or imagined insult in the unauthorized use of the name "Fighting Sioux." "Sioux" is a specific name, and it is being used by the University of North Dakota to generate revenues from athletic programs and accessory sales. What percent of the gross income of UND's athletic program goes to the Sioux Nation? Has UND ever offered to bargain with the Sioux Nation to determine a mutually agreeable percentage? Suppose the Sioux don't want to bargain for the use of their name, which may well be the case. Can big government force them to sell the rights to their name?

[PCM]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

This is a nation of law, not mob rule. If the majority wish to rewrite the law and make all names and titles public property let them do so. Until then specific (vs. generic) names can't be used to generate income by anyone without a contract.

Given the fact that the word "Sioux" is in in the public domain (business names, geographical names, etc.) and isn't even derived from the Siouan languages, I'm not sure how any one group of people can legally claim ownership of the word. But I'm not a lawyer, either. My guess is that if some attorney somewhere felt there was a reasonable legal case to be made for giving the Sioux tribes a share of any money made from the use of the word "Sioux," it would have been in the courts long ago.

[bigmrg74]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

White people have been the ruling class in this country since its founding - pretty tough to be 'hostile and abusive' toward them with nicknames.

And the Irish? They're too drunk to care.

*****http://i639.***********.com/albums/uu113/AFloridian/thats_racist.gif******

[Osorojo]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Oldpi:

Jerry Tarkanian is neither a long established human culture nor a nation recognized by United States treaties. The legal similarities between Tarkanian vs. the NCAA are closer to California vs. Lindsey Lohan than UND vs. NCAA/ Sioux. Enough nonsense, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: It is illegal, unethical, or both to use the name of another discrete, long established organization of human beings for profit - without a contract. That's U.S. law, not Sioux law.

[Old Pio]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Oldpi:

Jerry Tarkanian is neither a long established human culture nor a nation recognized by United States treaties. The legal similarities between Tarkanian vs. the NCAA are closer to California vs. Lindsey Lohan than UND vs. NCAA/ Sioux. Enough nonsense, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: It is illegal, unethical, or both to use the name of another discrete, long established organization of human beings for profit - without a contract. That's U.S. law, not Sioux law.

PC nonsense. Lay off the Koolaid, will ya. Let's get busy renaming all the cities, towns, geographic feature and states that use Indian names. Let's set up a federal commission. Let's put a Czar in charge of it. Maybe Tonto's available.

In Phoenix we avoided one of those incipid arguments and renamed Sqaw Peak after Lori Piestewa, who gave her life for her country.

[Jeo]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Oldpi:

Jerry Tarkanian is neither a long established human culture nor a nation recognized by United States treaties. The legal similarities between Tarkanian vs. the NCAA are closer to California vs. Lindsey Lohan than UND vs. NCAA/ Sioux. Enough nonsense, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: It is illegal, unethical, or both to use the name of another discrete, long established organization of human beings for profit - without a contract. That's U.S. law, not Sioux law.

Oh thats why Sioux Falls gives some of their tax money to the tribes. That makes sense... Oh wait, no it doesnt, and thats why they dont.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

There has not been much mention of an interesting aspect of this situation: the limits, if any, to the power of big government.

I did...but it didn't seem to get much traction.

(As I mentioned before) If there wasn't a funding issue here, the legislation requiring UND's logo would be an absolutely unconstitutional infringment of free speech.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

And the government of North Dakota feels that the NCAA is outside its own limits of power and is fighting back. The fact that the NCAA cares more about a nickname than actually preventing the corruption that is rampant amongst those in control of these "student athletes" is absurd.

First, this is not driven by the NCAA but rather national universities. So blame the universities. Second, the NCAA is a voluntary organization which the universities by and large feel is doing a great job. Just like banks and airlines mandate that you can't patronize them while carrying handguns...and that is totally legal and appropriate.

The key here is that other universities think its inapproppriate to be playing schools they deem are taking offensive actions...and taking steps to deal with it through the NCAA.

In the end, something the NCAA does doesn't give North Dakota's government the right to limit free speech.

[Osorojo]

Re: Fighting Sioux to fight on...For one more year at least.

Oh thats why Sioux Falls gives some of their tax money to the tribes. That makes sense... Oh wait, no it doesnt, and thats why they dont.

Please read what's there: "FOR PROFIT." Sioux Falls would not be in any worse financial shape if it were named "Mudville." No profit + no defamation = no harm. UND clearly DOES profit from its use of the "Sioux" name. Even if this means nothing to the Sioux and they do not formally object it's still against United States law.