Please visit my primary blog, American Indians in Children's Literature, and search on 'mascot' for more current information about UIUC's former mascot, and mascots elsewhere, too.

See, for example, President Obama, Mascots, and Children's Literature. 

Or, WTF, Dan Snyder?!

"Next Dance 2010" Cancelled? Or not?

Late yesterday afternoon the local media reported that Roger Huddleston of the "honor the chief" society and Samantha Uher of the "students for chief illiniwek" group had called of "The Next Dance 2010." They did this, news reports says, because the university sent them a 'cease and desist' letter because they (pro-chief groups) are in violation of the university's trademark on "chief illiniwek."

Then, apparently, reps from the pro-chief groups---three in particular: Huddleston's "honor the chief society," a student group called "Students for chief illiniwek" and, a group of men (who played the role of ''chief illiniwek') called the "council of chiefs")---got together late last night via conference call and decided "the show MUST go on."

But why? Why must it go on?

On the "Education" page of the "students for chief illiniwek" website, they say:

Students for Chief Illiniwek promotes the individual respect and knowledge of Native American cultures through research, formal education, and personal discovery."

What research? What formal education? And, what personal discovery?

Does "students for chief illiniwek" tell people that research studies demonstrate that this sort of imagery is harmful to the self-esteem and self-efficacy of the very group "students for chief illiniwek" wishes to "honor" with "chief illiniwek?"

Do they tell people that the two tribes mostly closely tied to "the tradition" have both passed resolutions asking the university to stop doing this? 

I'm talking about the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma and the Oglala Sioux's. Did "students for chief illiniwek" let people know when the Peoria tribal leaders were on campus last year to give public lectures?

And does "students for chief illiniwek" tell people that the Oglala Tribal Council requested that the regalia the UI got from Fools Crow decades ago be returned to Fools Crow's family because it was not being used in the ways that he expected it would be?

Do these three groups tell people that back when they tried to give money to a Native women's shelter, in the name of a student who wrote a winning essay defending "chief illiniwek" the woman's center declined the money?

The pro chief groups say that they did the right thing by returning an eagle feather headdress to Fools Crow, but do they tell anyone that they returned that headdress after they were instructed to do so or be in violation of federal laws about who can and cannot have eagle feathers?

Reese Response to Schmitt Letter in DI

[UPDATE, OCT 1, 2009: The wrote and posted the entry below yesterday. As you read it now, you will see several lines crossed out. Explanation is at the end of the post, in red font.]

---------------------
The Daily Illini printed a letter today, written by Paul Schmitt.  My responses to his remarks are in bold.

Schmitt wrote:

"Beyond all the yelling, intimidation, and name-calling associated with the protests of Students for Chief Illiniwek's "the Next Dance", the Friday, Oct. 2nd event promises to deliver to all students one thing: an opportunity to learn about University of Illinois traditions and more importantly the restoration of a culture that is likely not their own."

Will you tell students all you know about the "tradition" you revere? 


Will you tell students that at the time during which the "tradition" started, it was illegal for American Indians to engage in their spiritual and religious practices? 


Will you tell students that Frank Fools Crow did not approve of the way the university was using the regalia it purchased from him?

Will you tell students that his family went before the Executive Committee of the Oglala Tribal Council (Fools Crow was Oglala) and asked them to request the regalia be returned?

Will you tell students that the tribe passed a resolution, delivered to the campus administrators, asking that it be returned?

Will you tell students that a few weeks after that request, the "chief" was officially retired?

Schmitt wrote:

"As an alumnus, former president of SFCI, and former, cloutless member of the Board of Trustees, I encourage all students, regardless of perspective, to attend the free event at the Assembly Hall to expand their perspectives on what once was considered a stagnant debate. The keynote speaker, Mr. Glenn Barnhill, also known as Red Knife, will be speaking on his efforts to restore his own cultural heritage through the Grand Village of the Kickapoo project."

What is this event about, Schmitt? Education? About American Indians? 

There are courses offered by which students can learn that information. Courses taught by Robert Warrior, LeAnne Howe, Jodi Byrd, Matthew Gilbert, John Lowe, and myself, all of whom are tribally enrolled in our respective tribes. Each one of us is active in our tribal nations. Each one of us has a PhD in our area of study. 

Do you, Schmitt, really think that students can learn much from a man who is trying to regain his heritage through participation in a HOBBYIST movement? Goings-on at the "Grand Village of the Kickapoo" were, a few years ago, attended by Kickapoo Indians who no longer live in Illinois. Hobbyist Indians out numbered them, and they quit coming to the Grand Village. Glenn Barnhill's intent may be good, but aligning himself with pro-chief organizations is a step in the wrong direction. How much is Barnhill being paid to attend? 

Remember the Shoshone guy who helped your groups a few years ago? Remember how his tribe sanctioned him for doing that? 




Schmitt wrote:

"If you attend this event you are not a racist, you are not a bigot, and you don't have a closed mind—quite the opposite actually. Student for Chief Illiniwek is offering the UI community an opportunity to look into a different, legitimate cultural perspective and celebrate the University's rich heritage. If you're looking for indoctrinization and closed mindedness, you're better off joining the people who will be picketing outside."

What "different, legitimate cultural perspective" is that, Schmitt? 

Students may not be racist or bigoted or close-minded, but they are definitely ignorant of the history and present-day concerns of American Indians. 
-------------------


There is a history of people looking for Indians who will validate their positions, their goals, etc. 

Mr. Barnhill may not realize who the students who've invited him are, and what their goals are. 

Government agents looking for an Indian man who would sign a treaty, and today, people looking for Indians to bring on board to projects that benefit from having a Native face. Or, in the case of mascot issues, looking for an Indian to say "this is a good thing." 

One of the former trustees, David Doris, was looking pretty hard for a Native person to validate UIUC's mascot. Doris is tied to the Kickapoo group in some way. When the Kickapoo grounds were purchased, Doris wanted students (he implied he meant Native students) to use the grounds for ceremonial purposes. He was determined, it seemed, to find a way to get UIUC an endorsement from an Indian organization.

For me to blast Barnhill is unfair. I do not know him. 
 

Deconstructing Information at "Students for Chief Illiniwek" website

The "Honor the Chief" and "Students for Chief Illiniwek" organizations are quick to say that the attire worn by students who portrayed "chief illiniwek" was authentic because they got it from Frank Fools Crow, an Oglala Sioux. Both organizations suggest that Fools Crow endorsed the mascot.

The story they tell, however, is incomplete...

In 2006, Fools Crow's family went to the Executive Committee of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council, asking for the Council's assistance in getting the regalia back. On Jan 17th, 2007, the Exec Cmte passed a resolution, asking UIUC to return the regalia.

They asked us at UIUC's Native American House to hold a press conference and read their statement and resolution. In part, the resolution reads:

"Fools Crow was disappointed at the use made of the regalia"

And,

"...the Executive Committee of the Oglala Tribal Council supports the Peoria Tribe of Indians in its request that the University of Illinois recognize the demeaning nature of the characterization of "Chief Illiniwek" and cease use of this mascot."

This resolution threw a huge wrench in the rhetoric used by the university and pro-chief groups.


In the years preceding the Oglala resolution, the university fought the NCAA and NCAA guidelines for use of Native American Mascots.

Though I've not heard anyone say so, I think the resolution was the turning point for UIUC. The resolution was delivered to UIUC administrators and the Board of Trustees on January 17th, 2007. A few weeks later, on Feb. 22nd, 2007, "chief illiniwek" did the "last dance."


Last year, pro-chief groups made a costume modeled after that regalia. A student wore it at an event they called "The Next Dance" at Assembly Hall on November 15, 2008. On October 2, 2009, the pro-chief groups are having another "Next Dance."  

Though UIUC officially ended its use of "chief illiniwek," pro-chief groups continue to pour time, money, and energy into the "chief" and they continue to mislead the public. Contrary to what they say, Fools Crow was not supportive of the mascot.

The "Students for Chief Illiniwek" website reads:

Students for Chief Illiniwek promotes the individual respect and knowledge of Native American cultures through research, formal education, and personal discovery.

How can they promote respect by going against the wishes of the Oglala's and the Peoria's? 

On their website, they say:

For most of his life he [Fools Crow] and his wife Kate lived by simple means in South Dakota on the Pine Ridge reservation.  [...] The regalia that was originally given to the University included a war bonnet with sacred eagle feathers.  Out of respect for Sioux culture, those feathers were returned to the Pine Ridge reservation before being unfortunately lost in a fire.

However, the regalia was not given to the university. It was purchased from Fools Crow. "Students for Chief Illiniwek" romanticize his life by saying he lived by "simple means." In other words, they were broke, in need of money, and, when approached by a former band director, sold the regalia. It sounds to me like exploitation.

And, it was not "out of respect" that the feathers were returned. It was, in fact, illegal for the university to have those feathers. That is why they were returned. The university returned the feathers because having them put them in violation of federal laws about who can have eagle feathers. (See info here: National Eagle Repository.)

"Students for Chief Illiniwek" says it is a progressive organization.  How do they define progressive?

The progressive "Students for Chief Illiniwek" claims to honor Indians and especially Frank Fools Crow, but what does it mean to honor someone? In their honoring, they ignore the wishes of the man at the center of their defense of "chief illiniwek" and the statements issued by two tribal nations: the Peorias and the Oglalas, and all the American Indian tribes and organizations that have issued statements calling for an end to the use of Native imagery in mascots.

The University of Illinois is an educational institution. By not stepping up to educate its students about the history of the "chief illiniwek," the university, be default, lets the pro-chief groups do all the 'educating' on the topic. This is all the more troubling (a mild word) in light of research studies that document the harm of this imagery.  

Send a letter or make a phone call to UI leaders. Addresses and information about upcoming events is at the I-Resist website.

Gems from the UIUC archives

Some of this may be in Carol Spindel's book. I found them this morning. UIUC library has a database of digitized Illio (yearbooks) and the like. It's one of those things you can access if you're on faculty/staff or a student. It's called "Illinois Digital Magazine and Yearbook Collection" and it is currently featured at the History, Philosophy & Newspaper Library page. Ray Morales, UIUC student, has done research in the archives, too, producing an outstanding video that was played at the Racism, Power and Privilege Forum.


"A Challenge to the Chief," 1974, p. 154

This page includes a photograph of Clyde Bellecourt. The caption with the photo is "Clyde Bellecourt, co-founder of Aim [sic] spoke on the problems of the American Indian at Lincoln Hall in April."

"Mike Gonzales, the current Chief, said that the only requirement in being considered for the position is an eagle spread jump. However, Gonzales felt that Illiniwek is "majestic" and a symbol of fighting spirit. "In no way does it degrade the American Indian," Gonzales said. "I think Illiniwek honors the Indian."

"John Bitzer, Illiniwek from 1970-73, also defended the role. "Other university mascots are just caricatures but Illiniwek portrays the Indians as they would want to be portrayed."

"The symbol of Chief Illiniwek was removed from University stationary this year to appease AIM."

"From Eagle Scout to Indian Chief", by Jane Karr, Illio, 1974, p. 158

"The outfit was made by 30 Sioux women under the supervision of "an old woman who spoke no English," Borchers said. According to Borchers the woman had helped mutilate General George Custer's body at the Battle of Little Birhorn."

"Borchers spent three weeks on the reservation. "I lived in an Indian tepee with an Indian family," Borchers said. "I was officially taken into the Aoglaoa clan with a sacred pipe ceremony."

"It's the most outstanding tradition at any university in the land, with no intentions of disrespect to the Indians," Borchers said.

"A Tarnished Golden Anniversary" by Steve Pokin, Illio 1974 (or 75?), p. 165.

"As Chief Illiniwek did his soft-shoe number at the bonfire, couples danced to their heart's content at the Homecoming..."

(Note: One of the football players was killed before the game; hence "tarnished" in the characterization of that year's homecoming.)



Illio, 1979, page 73

"The Chief comes alive with the rest of the stadium as he begins what he calls his "frantic dance for three minutes,"

"Chief Illiniwek, according to Gawnee, represents a symbol of the University's athletics and is not what his critics choose to call him - a mascot."

"Yet, some students throughout the year have been bothered by what they call "a media-produced and inaccurate image of native Americans as savage and frenzied hordes" when they watch the Chief exhibit his 80 yard dance."

"The woman who responsible for making the second outfit knew Custer."

"During World War II, Idele Stiths symbolized the fighting spirit as Princess Illiniwek. Although it is traditional for each person portraying the University symbol to sign the war bonnet upon graduation, Stith's name has been removed. The explanation -- in Indian culture it was customary for a woman's place to be behind the horse."

"Maybe there are some who would criticize the Chief for not riding a horse - all Indians ride horses, don't they? Wait, there's an explanation! The second Chief did ride a horse. In fact, he even trained the horse - just like other Indians do."

"Pow Wow '88" in Illio 89, story by Tanja Powers, p. 76:

"A triumphal march, may the Illini scalp Michigan State - The Homecoming Parade got off to a strong but sure start on Friday, October 22, 1988."

"Coach Mackovic offered many words of inspiration, before Tom Livingston performed what looked like a ceremonial dance as Chief Illiniwek XXVI."

"Illini Tradition." 1989 Illio, unsigned, p. 134:

"I alone was drawn there [Memorial Stadium] one weekday afternoon by this strange force, and looking down on Zuppke Field I could faintly see something. A mystical Indian form made his way out on to midfield and began a slow, rhythmic dance which progressed into a frenzy of leaps and twirls. As I felt myself drawn to him, something told me that he was from beyond the realm of the living; indeed, it was Lester Leutwiler, the first Chief Illiniwek. As I approached him he held up a single hand, palm side facing me, and uttered one word: "Sit."

"I crouched onto the astroturf surface and stared awestruck at this form from the past. "What do you wish to see?" he asked. Apparently he was giving me one chance to experience a single great moment of Illni history. My heart began to race....

Livingston then talks about some things that he'd like to see and says ""Show me Red Grange." He suddenly finds himself in the stands with fans cheering Grange. Then just as suddenly, he's alone again on the astroturf.

"Missing: Totem Pole," by Kelly Johnson, Illio 1984, p. 109

(Note: Apparently there was once a totem pole on the football field.)

"The ordeal that shook Champaign-Urbana began one warm summer night when the totem pole was stolen from Memorial Stadium. The theft shocked many University officials, who feared the worst for the football season without the pole's presence at the north end of the field."

It was a prank. The pole was found in a field in St. Joseph by a farmer, Kevin Grice. He brought it back to campus in his truck. It was 16 ft long, and weighed 300 lbs.

"The authentic American Indian totem pole was donated by Barton Cummings, class of 1935, in commenoration of Chief Illiniwek's 50th Anniversary. It was carved by Maurice Dennis, chief of the Abenaki Tribe of Canada and painted by his wife, Juliette."

(Note: I wonder where that pole is now?!)


"Illini Beer--for the spirit of it," by Sheila Doyle, Illio 1984, p. 110:

"Everything from coffee mugs to mittens bears the Illini name, with the newest arrival on the shelves being Illini Beer. This draft was contrived by Freedom Spirit, Inc. in October of 1982."

"Much confusion and misunderstanding has surrounded the beer, but Illini fans have given it a chance. The confusion centered around the approval or disapproval of the product by University of Illinois officials. According to John Burness, Public Relations Director, the University did not give its permission to use the Illini name, but at the same time could not prohibit its use (The Athletic Association has since patented Chief Illiniwek). However, the University's stand on the subject is clear, as seen on each can: "The University of Illinois disclaims all responsibility for the production, marketing, and distribution of this product." This explains why the Chief looks different on the can."

(Apparently, it didn't taste good, so didn't sell well.)

Who taught them the dance????

What's up with this???

Students for Chief Illiniwek is renting Assembly Hall in mid Nov, for a rally and "the second coming" of Chief Illiniwek.

Hmmmm..... Assembly Hall is the basketball arena. How much does it cost to rent it? This student group must be flush with cash. I wonder who is supporting them? Or co-sponsoring the event?

Click here to read details, as reported by one of the former chief's blogs.... He is a little sad, in my view. This guy loves that identity.

Vote NO - "Reinstate Chief Illiniwek" UIUC Student Referendum

UIUC's pro-Chief student groups were successful in placing a referendum on the ballot for the upcoming election. That referendum asks students to vote to have the mascot reinstated.

BE AN INFORMED VOTER. Form a study group and discuss the information provided here.

In the Daily Illini article published on Feb. 11, a student is quoted as saying that American Indians here and elsewhere support the referendum.

Since the 1980s, UIUC's Native students have organized and worked for the discontinuation of the mascot. UIUC's Native American House and American Indian Studies Program have also worked towards the end of that era, AND, the move towards one in which UIUC's students can learn about American Indians---not from a figure in a sports venue, but through courses in American Indian Studies.

Please visit the website for UIUC's Native American House and the American Indian Studies Program. Click on "Mascot Info" to read statements issued by our program, and, by individuals in our program over the past few years.

http://www.nah.uiuc.edu

The National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association are two leading organizations of American Indians. Both have issued statements calling for schools to stop using Native imagery.

The American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association have both issued statements that such imagery is harmful to both, Native and non-Native children.

The national offices of the Y-Indian Guides have decided to discontinue using Native imagery in their programs.

Liking that imagery does not mean you're a racist. Liking UIUC's mascot does not mean you're a racist.

For the most part, American society has taught its citizens to embrace romantic and/or savage imagery of American Indians.

Researchers in Education, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Political Science, Law, History, and American Studies and American Indian Studies nationwide have studied these issues and written about why using Native imagery in this way is wrong.

You are students at an outstanding educational institution. You are here to learn.

Before you vote, read up on this issue. Here are some places to start:

Here's an article that critiques the article published in Sports Illustrated a few years back.
http://www.aistm.org/fr.2002.of.polls.htm

American Psychological Association Statement
http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/justification_amindian_mascots.pdf

American Sociological Association Statement
http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/governance/issue_statements/use_of_native_american_nicknames_logos_and_mascots

National Congress of American Indians
http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/rpr.htm

Analysis of the bogus Sports Illustrated "poll"

Those who think that Native people are ok with mascots often point to a poll done by Sports Illustrated a few years ago. Many of us knew the article was flawed. Here's an actual analysis.

"Of Polls and Race Prejudice: Sports Illustrated "Errant 'Indian Wars'"

One of the authors is a friend and colleague, Cornel Pewewardy. Read the article, and send others to it, too.

NY Times, and now, Sports Illustrated (again)

I'm not a reader of Sports Illustrated, in print or on-line, but a colleague pointed me to this article. Titled "Chief Concern: After resurfacing, Chief Illiniwek should stay retired," the article was posted Tuesday, October 30th.

It includes a link to an interview Sports Illustrated did with the last student (Dan Maloney) who dressed up as "chief illiniwek." Poor Dan. Sniff, sniff. (I say with sarcasm.) He can't play Indian at halftime anymore.

I wonder if he knows that Native people across the country were persecuted for doing our dances?

I wonder just how much he knows about the peoples he says he honors?!

I wonder if he knows that Native people wear shoes (moccasins)??!!

Do read the article. Last year when the mascot was retired, I felt quite optimistic about UIUC's growth, but I am now fearful that the 'free speech' argument means we'll see the mascot back at UIUC---not on the field---but in other non-sport spaces.
.

A Teacher's Thoughts on "squaw" in 4th grade classroom

[Note: This post is here by mistake. My primary blog is called American Indians and Children's Literature. I write there two or three times a week. Obviously, the post below was meant for that blog. Rather than delete it, I'll leave it here (and post it there, too, as intended). It is my firm contention that children's books with stereotypes and bias about American Indians affirm and create the disposition in children to embrace things like "chief illiniwek."]

My post about "squaw" and "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" in historical fiction was much-discussed on YALSA (YALSA is an American Library Association listserv for young adult librarians). Most of the objections to my post were along these lines:

• It is wrong to censor books.
• That is what people said/thought at that time.
• Books with this language provide 'teachable moments' that are invaluable.

I wondered why the word 'censor' entered the discussion. I didn't ask that it be taken off the shelf. I posed the ramifications of using books with such language in an elementary school classroom and NOT engaging students in critical discussion of such words and phrases. What I'm advocating is the selective use of books like Sign of the Beaver and Little House on the Prairie and Matchlock Gun. What grade level should they be used? I think they ought to be used in high school classes that teach history, or social justice, or in college classes for teachers and librarians.

Below are the words of a classroom teacher. They were submitted as a comment to my post about "squaw" and "the only good Indian..." The teacher was responding to a previous commenter (her initials are DS) who suggested teachers at every grade level have dialog's with their students, in which they discuss these kinds of words, across race, gender, sexuality, etc.


-----------------

DS, I see what you are saying, however, I think there is a point where you don't continue to use the word, even in teaching about (improper) use of the word. By analogy, would you choose and then discuss books that called people "Kike", "Yid", "Spic", "Chink", at the 4th grade level (which is more or less the age and grade that Sign of the Beaver is for)? I can see having a discussion and comparison of that as a lesson for older kids, but I think at this level, their thinking is still too concrete for a full discussion and it is best to use other books for literature instruction. I've taught grades 3, 4 & 5 for over 10 years, so I think I have a handle on kids' thought processes. Middle or high school as a comparative study for combined literature and social studies or social psychology possibly. But not as reading instruction for elementary school. I'm not saying to avoid discussion of that sort by any means at the elementary level - saying that in my opinion reading of this book for reading instruction at the elementary level would not be the way to go.

----------------

If you're teaching in a 3rd/4th/5th grade classroom, and have used books like these, and have done significant---not cursory---work on these words and phrases and way of thinking, I'd love to hear from you!

Or, if you're in a middle, high school, or college classroom, and have used these books, I'd love to hear from you, too.

Or, if you're a teacher and want to reread Little House and write a response to it in light of my perspectives on it, I'd love to hear from you.
.

NY Times article on float fiasco

"The chief" fiasco nets us national news again...

It's the lead article on the NY Times Education page:

University Reverses Policy to Allow Mascots Return

The first line?

"Chief Illiniwek has not yet left campus."


.

Irony Abounds "Please no "mock" chiefs at Homecoming this year..."

The irony in what former "Chief" Steve Raquel says at his blog post, titled "Please no "mock chiefs at Homecoming this year" is beyond belief...

Here's some of what he says:

If you are going down to the game, what I do ask of people is that if you are drunk and happen to be wearing a goofy headdress, please do not attempt to do the dance. (or even if you aren't wearing a headdress) In our minds, it's demeaning and stupid. You look like a monkey and smell like one too. (I didn't mean to write that line, but it fit). I was there last weekend and saw it happening over and over again. I can see why the protesters thought we were being insensitive...because we were.

Your interpretation of the dance isn't fitting, it isn't respectful and it isn't helping the cause. For more than 80 years, the keepers of the tradition abide by strict rules of conduct on and off the field. We held the tradition in reverence and while the tradition is no more, it doesn't mean that your recreation is any better.

We've been on the reservation, we've seen the honor and elegance of the dance. Attempting to recreate it out of a drunken stupor is not what I or the other chiefs call respectful. It took us months of training of the body and the mind to get the dance right and it's proper place is on the field...not next to your keg.

Outrageous, eh?!

T-Shirts that 'commemorate' UIUC's mascot

A few weeks ago, I saw a family of four (parents and two children) entering a local restaurant. They wore matching orange t-shirts that had the mascot logo and the dates signifying the eighty-year period during which it was in use.

I wondered just what those parents told their children about the issue. When they bought them those shirts, what did they tell them?

Given the decision to purchase the shirt with the logo on it, I assume they don't tell them it is a race-based symbol, or that American Indians object to such imagery. Maybe they say nothing at all, but if these are fans that go to the games, how do they tell their children the mascot is over and done? What do they say?

I'd like to know. I'd really like to know.

The U of I no longer sells merchandise that has either the logo or the word "Chief" on its sports page. Given the logo is trademarked, nobody else is authorized to use it either. Course, there was a window of time when people bought everything they could, so there's plenty of stuff around for parents to buy for themselves and their children.

It seems to me they commemorate racism...
.

"Trail of Cheers" (Daily Show's segment on "Chief Illiniwek")

"Trail of Cheers" is what the Daily Show called their segment on UIUC's decision to discontinue use of "Chief Illiniwek" as its sports mascot. Here is a link to the segment.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=86244

Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" was on UIUC's campus April 24th, filming a segment about UIUC's mascot. Here are photos that ran in today's student paper.

Today, March 13, 2007, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees voted publicly to discontinue use of Chief Illiniwek.

• A resolution was put forth for a public vote.
• Trustee Carroll amended the resolution, adding text that revokes the 1990 resolution that "retained" the chief as UI's symbol. She also inserted language that says Chancellor Herman will have full responsibility for resolving the issue.
• Trustee Dorris spoke against the resolution, at length.
• Trustee Sperling acknowledged the heartfelt sentiments of pro chief people, saying he felt that way at one time, too, and is sad that it has to end, but that it is important to let it go and move on.
• Dorris continued, developing a legal argument re the by-laws, procedure, etc.
• Trustee Montgomery (newly appointed) intervened saying the legal discussion does not take precedence over a moral issue, stating this is a MORAL issue and is about doing what is right.
• The BOT then voted. Only Dorris voted against the resolution.

I've been working alongside other Native people and our allies on this issue since I came here in 1994. THIS is the closure we've been working towards.

The announcement made by BOT Chair Eppley in February was unsatisfying, because it did not acknowledge what is WRONG with the chief illiniwek. Today's BOT meeting was different. It acknowledged what is wrong.

In particular, Trustee Sperling said he did not ever (speaking emphatically) want to sit and listen to another UIUC Native student describe her/her experiences on this campus with this issue. The student who spoke today is Genevieve Tenoso (with her permission, her remarks are below).

If you want to read press on this, google "illiniwek" (then click on the 'news' tab) and you'll find a great many articles. If you want to read our local (conservative, pro-chief) paper's coverage, go here:
UI Trustees Approve Resolution to end Chief Illiniwek.


The BOT also voted NOT to join a lawsuit being brought against the NCAA, by the two students who portray chief illiniwek. I do think we're at a definitive moment today.

The school will retain the name "Fighting Illini" --- and remake "Illini" such that it does not have any Native imagery or association. Whether they will be successful or not is a question and concern, but I do think we've turned a corner. It is my preference that they get rid of "Illini" too and begin anew with an entirely new sports team name, logo, and mascot.

-----

Good morning.

My name is Genevieve Tenoso, I am a Lakota/Ojibwa graduate student in Anthropology, and I am here today in order to speak to you about courage.

In my first year here, I was asked to write an essay that said something about who I was and what I hoped to accomplish.

I wrote about my grandmother. A strong, intelligent woman who put aside her own dreams of higher education in order to raise a family, and then later, my sister and myself.

That took enormous courage. To know just how much she was giving up, but to go ahead and do it anyway, because she knew we needed her.

In that essay I said that I wanted to pick up where she left off all those years ago when she was, like me, standing on the threshold of life, with paths before her branching off in every direction. Every road lined with seemingly endless opportunities.

But I am here today, in order to tell you that because of choices you've made, or failed to make, I haven't had one, single day on this campus when something didn't remind me that there is a big difference between the “Indian” you'd prefer me to be, and the living, breathing Native person that I am.

I am here in order to let you know that I am not alone in feeling this way, that for many of us, just simply coming to school is an act of courage. That because of choices you've made, or failed to make, we know that the color of our skin, the faiths we believe in, or the people we choose to love mean the difference between a rich, rewarding academic experience, and one fraught with stress, tension and fear.

I'd like to think that I am, like my grandmother, both brave and strong, but I stand before you today in fear.

Afraid for my future, and frightened for my life. I've been taunted, maligned and threatened for nothing more than standing up and saying “you have no right to lie about who I am; about who other Native people are".

That, takes courage. but courage is more than just facing your fears.

Courage is standing up for what you know is right, not just getting away with whatever you can.

Courage is accepting responsibility for your actions, not just washing your hands of them and claiming your conscience is clear.

Courage is answering hard questions, it's showing up and being willing to listen to those who may tell you things you'd rather not hear.

You were invited to the forum on Racism, Power and Privilege at UIUC and you didn't even bother to show up. No one on this board could take the time to come and listen to the people who are most affected by the racial tensions on this campus. The people whose lives your choices have real consequences for.

You didn't show up because you didn't have to.

I was there, just like I am here, because I have to be.

When someone threatens to put a tomahawk into your face, you have to either stand your ground, or run away. When you discover that there are people who would rather butcher you like an animal than have you disagree with them, you have to react. You have no choice.

When the administration looks the other way while students of privilege commit these kinds of acts of psychic violence, none of us have a choice anymore.

And in a climate which progressively moves toward bolder and bolder acts of hate and intolerance, a time will surely come when no one at the university will be able to come away and say they have a clear conscience.

Every time you fail to show courage, we have to.

I'm no fool. I wouldn't put myself in harms way in order to satisfy some personal whim. I am here in order to speak for all of those who should be here, but couldn't be. I am here especially for all of those who we hope will be here someday, and in whose cause I am willing to risk much.

I am here to say that though I fear for myself, my hope gives me courage, because I know that with every wall I help to tear down, and every obstacle we remove, those who come after will be able to get just a little bit farther before they have to start fighting the same battles I've had to fight.

Maybe someday, through our combined efforts, we can clear that path and make this University a place of opportunity for all people. Maybe someday you will publicly acknowledge your part in creating an atmosphere where intolerance and bigotry and hate are the natural consequences of excessive school spirit.

Maybe someday you will show courage.

Until then. We will have to. I will have to.

In this place of learning, I sincerely hope you will learn from our example

Working, living, studying at UIUC: The context of working, living, and studying in a community that "honors" American Indians with "Chief Illiniwek" means that American Indians have to deal with a great deal of misinformation about our cultures. This was, in part what led my daughter, Liz Reese, to develop a program designed to meet the needs of underrepresented minority students at her high school ("Uni High" is UIUC's laboratory high school). Uni's school paper carried an editorial about Uni's climate on Feb 7th. Comments to the editorial capture the intolerance that lies beneath the surface in this community. At present, I am using this blog space to provide information and updates regarding the racial climate at her school. As part of UIUC's American Indian community, we view the discontinuation of "Chief Illiniwek" as only a small step in addressing racial climate at UIUC and in the Urbana-Champaign community.

Below are:

1) Letter #1: An Open Letter from my daughter to the Uni Community (sent 1:00 AM, 2/10/2007)

2) Letter #2: Immediately following it is a hurtful, uncaring response to Liz from a Uni parent [Note: Earlier, I included this parent's name along with her remarks, but I have decided it is not helpful to reveal her name. Her remarks are important, so they remain visible here.] (received at 11:33 AM, 2/10/2007)

3) Letter #3: A letter from a Uni parent, submitted as a comment at 11:56 AM, 2/10/2007. This parent anticipated the uncaring response in "Letter #2"

4) Letter #4: A letter from a Uni alum, submitted as a comment at 12:16 PM, 2/10/2007.

5) Letter #5: A letter, submitted as a comment, that contains the analysis that Letter #3 asked for.

6) Letter #6: A letter I (Debbie Reese, Liz's mother) wrote and circulated at 7:11 AM on 2/11/2007.

7) Letter #7: Letter to Uni Community from UIUC Provost Katehi and Uni Director Patton, sent at 2:42 PM on 2/15/2007.

NOTE: UIUC HAS A WEBSITE DESIGNED TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTS OF INTOLERANCE LOOK LIKE, AND WHAT A HATE CRIME IS.

---------------------------------------
(1) Liz's letter

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:31:38 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Racist attacks on Uni Native Student

Uni High Community,

The controversy surrounding the Gargoyle Editorial Tolerance at Uni is now infamous. The MSA program and senior editors of the Gargoyle have been criticized harshly by our community, at times crossing the boundary of respect, a boundary that this email concerns.

I created the MSA program because I have felt victimized and uncomfortable because of my ethnicity at Uni, in my time here I have had students drum "Indian" chants when I walk into a classroom, I have even had people print out racially offensive materials and tape them throughout my locker, and then I have been told that it was my fault. I don't want others to feel that same pain I have and have it dismissed by their peers. While initially I concentrated my program on specific minorities, I have realized there is more pain to be addressed at Uni, and for months now I have extended the invitation to include all those who feel oppressed, and still I am alled exclusive and intolerant.

People are angry, that much is clear, but there is still a line of respect for other people that has been crossed.

That line was crossed on this evening, besides the still visible attacks on my family, several posts attacking my identity were deleted at the request of the administration. I choose to make these statements public because the anger, and cruelty displayed towards who I am and what I fight for should be made public. So that hopefully the community has something to say about what is and is not ok to do to its members.

Regardless of how well I executed my intentions, they have been and will be because I care about Uni, and I want to make it better.

Below are pieces of the deleted comments, from several different posts:

"Nobody commenting here is racist, Jude. In fact, most of us are from extremely diverse backgrounds (more so than Liz, who—shockingly—is only HALF Native American)."

"The MSA has met disagreeing viewpoints because the people who run it (i.e. Liz) fail to see that there are other people who have problems out there, and that they might even be feeling more pain. The people here who are the most uncomfortable are the editors, who have been verbally abused and still haven’t backed down—they’re 16- and 17-year-olds who do not run a professional publication, and yet you’re calling them arrogant and ignorant racists. Unlike Liz, they are not privileged enough to comment back—they’ll only be accused of being white supremacists once more. The irony is that, as Andrea Park pointed out early on in this onslaught, most of them could be seen as less privileged than Liz: out of the 10 of them, 8 are from non-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant origins, and of those 8, none of them are less than 1/2 ethnic."

"If Liz and the gang were truly so underprivileged and mistreated, they wouldn’t be able to carry on this ideological battle, and Liz wouldn’t be getting paid for causing unnecessary dissent; if you all represent an underprivileged culture that’s been so suppressed by the mainstream, then how come you’re employed by a highly-regarded university, such as the U of I? How is it that you all are members of middle class America? If you were truly so underprivileged, you’d be living in the inner city in the slums, or in a hovel on a reservation somewhere (and to those people who do live in such terrible conditions, I extend my warmest sentiments, as well as my hand for aid—I realize that there’s such a thing as racism, but I don’t see that The Chief trumps an example of genocide such as the Holocaust)."

"And in case you were wondering, one of the students leading the MSA group is much better off than my family financially, and is also lighter skinned (which to me is not a big deal, but to you, skin color seems to be very important)."

"is Liz Reese darker skinned than Arabs? I don’t about you, but my eyes tell me no. Is she darker than other races (i.e. Some asians, Indians, etc.)? No. So is she being mistreated because of her skin color? Not as far as I know. If the MSA program comes down to skin color, then there is no excuse for it excluding so many groups. And ultimately, skin color is what its coming down to. Liz Reese is Native American. Or 1/4 Native American rather. I respect that, I truly do. But she is just as privileged as any other person at Uni. There are people MUCH less well off than her. And her skin color is not darker than a white person with a tan. So where is her mistreatment coming in?"

Elizabeth (Liz) Reese

Yunpovi

Uni High Minority Student Advocate

-----------------------------------------
(Letter #2)

LETTER FROM UNI PARENT

Subject: RE: [UNI] Racist attacks on Uni Native Student
From:    
Date:    Sat, February 10, 2007 11:33
To:      "Elizabeth A. Reese" 

This was a mistake, miss.  Sorry, but it does not
deserve URGENT status on my e-mail.  And by
enclosing the snippets of deleted e-mail, you
intrigued me enough to read e-mails that
weren't all that bad.  In short, I now
think you're a child throwing a tantrum.
So please, don't e-mail me again.

-------------------------------------------------------

(Letter #3)

Letter from Uni parent that anticipated the letter directly above:

I'm a Uni parent, and I'm so sorry that your family has suffered these attacks. I think Liz is doing wonderful work and I thank her for it. I also hope this whole uproar brings about some constructive, recuperative discussion at Uni.

I worry that her email to all Uni folks this morning will further fan some flames against her, by not explaining just what was wrong with the deleted comments. What is offensive and repugnant about them won't be self-evident to some of the people who directly or even vaguely oppose or resent Liz's work.

I think it was a good idea to document the comments by reprinting them for all to see, but a more direct explanation of just what's wrong with them seems more helpful. Otherwise, some people will think or say, "'Racist Attacks on a Native American Student'? What racist attacks? These commenters were censored simply for stating what they think, while Liz and then her mother are allowed to stay on their soapbox and make their exaggerated claims of victimhood."

Maybe Debbie could add another post to this blog that directly analyzes what's racist and dangerous about the deleted Gargoyle comments? Again, I understand that, but I think some still don't. At any rate, it is good to get those comments out in public in another sense--doing so will probably stop the even more hateful and threatening direction they were headed towards.

-------------------------------------------
Letter #4

Letter from Uni alum, submitted as a comment at 12:16 PM, 2/10/2007.

As a Uni alum, I was disappointed to read the editorial and comments from people who feel that Uni's environment is adequate in addressing diversity issues (not just race but economic class and sexual orientation as well).

Uni has made some progress over the years-They ended the "slave sales" after my subbie year, they added a Spanish language program after I graduated (imagine, a high school that offers Japanese and Russian language studies but no Spanish). However, these changes only came about because people *spoke out* about them.

However, for every step forward, there were still things that Uni made little progress on. My subbie year a fellow subbie recieved a note informing her that "niggers" don't belong at Uni. She decided to leave Uni, we had an assembley, and that was that. Actions from one student-yes-but the school's response to that note sets the tone for how racial issues are to be dealt at the school.

When should we as a community be content? Shouldn't we always be stiving to make Uni (and the greater UI community) a better place?

-------------------------------------------
Letter #5, submitted as a comment on 2/10/2007

I don't interact with people in high school often enough to have a good idea of what they should know or understand at that age (Liz herself excepted because I have a hard time remembering that she's even in high school. Something which I suspect says more about her intellectual abilities than it does about my poor memory). But I can say that the comments you've posted here demonstrate a kind of thinking that lies at the heart of what I'd call 'neo-racism'.

I call it that because unlike the kind of racism I grew up with -- which didn't really bother itself much with excuses or explanations -- this new version is chock full of half truths, sophisms and twisted logic, and is inordinately fond of justifying itself.

The primary component of this type of racism though, is that it sincerely, even passionately believes that it is nothing of the sort.

And there's the rub.

It's easy enough to refute overt racist thinking, but it's terribly difficult to fight neo-racism because it's so confused and self deluded. If you want to make a change, you have to attack the thinking that lies behind these kinds of arguments, because the arguments themselves are entirely specious.

Therefore education is the key, and the academy will be the battleground.

It's just sad that in this war, as in all wars, it's mainly the young people who end up having to fight them.


---------------------
Letter #6, by Debbie Reese, circulated at 7:11 AM on 2/11/07, posted here at 7:51 on 2/11/07.

As you know, Liz's letter was approved for distribution by the Director/Principal at Uni. We are all receiving an outpouring of support from parents, teachers, our colleagues, and Liz is also getting some support from peers at Uni.

I did not think her letter would be released for distribution. I thought the Director would feel a need to protect Uni. Releasing it was, I think, risky for her, but I think it also signals to us that she sees the value in exposing this stuff to the broader community. Only by exposure will our communities be able to acknowledge the depth of ignorance that must be tended to, and only with exposure can we see the depth of resistance that we are all up against.

This has been difficult. From a very hurt place yesterday, I sent all of you the letter from a parent who wrote to Liz, telling Liz that she is only "throwing a tantrum." Last night, the woman wrote to ask that I retract that email from public email lists. I don't know how to retract an email. I don't know how she knew I had shared her letter. Perhaps one (or more) of you wrote to her.

Yesterday afternoon (prior to receiving her email asking me to retract it), I considered the ramifications for the public broadcast of her name. Might she have allies that would further dump on Liz? How will her daughter and her daughter's friends respond to Liz? With that in mind, I removed her name from the blog where I posted Liz's letter, and the woman's letter and three other responses (http://nativeperspectiveonchiefilliniwek.blogspot.com/).

There have been other letters submitted, but I'm not sure if it is necessary for me to paste them above. (Update, 8:18 AM, 2/11/07: These additional letters can be read in the "Comments" portion of the blog.) The four that are above capture the substance of the others, and rather than demonstrate a show of support, I want this page to reflect the situation in its totality. That parent's sentiments must remain visible. Who she is is not important. What is important is that we know what resistance to change looks like.

Last night, a Uni student who writes for the paper came to visit with Liz. This student supports Liz, and did so publicly on the comments to the editorial. They both see the need for further engagement with this topic and situation. They plan to have a dialogue between the two of them that will be published in the paper.

Uni students will keep working to increase understanding, respect, and change. Faculty and administration at Uni will, too, but they're going to need support.

Uni is a small place, underfunded, always in need of donations. In fact, they need parent donations to run the school. This isn't like a gifted school in Chicago [Note: an individual associated with a Chicago gifted school has pointed out that not all Chicago gifted schools are affluent; hers is much like Uni.]. Uni limps along. It is the University's "laboratory high school," where innovative sorts of educational efforts can be implemented. Right now, with this situation, I think it imperative that a significant chunk of UIUC's budget be directed towards Uni to deal with these issues. UIUC itself is massive, but Uni is not. UIUC is struggling with how to effect change and respect for difference. Uni is, too. Can UIUC's money, and the expertise of its faculty, be put to work at Uni?

We are grateful to all of you for your letters and support.

Debbie

(Please note that I am copying UIUC administrators on this message. Uni's home is in the Office of the Provost.)

----------------------------

Letter #7: Letter to Uni Community from UIUC Provost Katehi and Uni Director Patton, sent at 2:42 PM on 2/15/2007.

To Members of the Uni High Community:

A recent editorial about the Minority Student Advocacy Program in the Online Gargoyle has sparked debate about the program and comments about its founders. While the arguments put forth in the editorial are open to debate, the tone and content of the some comments attached to the editorial suggest there is work to be done to make the Uni community truly inclusive and supportive.

Uni High is a wonderful asset to the University, the community and the students it serves. However, Uni High's goals for building and serving a diverse student population have not yet been achieved. The Minority Student Advocacy Program, along with programs like Uni Summer camp and the multi-cultural parent work group, are important and positive steps toward achieving those goals.

Maintaining civility and collegiality in times of disagreement is the hallmark of civil society. Chancellor Herman recently stated that the campus must work together to build a campus climate with zero tolerance for racism and hate. The bar must be set even higher at Uni High because high school students must not be the targets of personal attacks or rumor mongering.

We call upon the entire Uni community to think seriously about the ways we interact with each other. We will be convening meetings in the coming weeks to discuss Uni's goals for a diverse student body and an inclusive climate, and the means by which we can achieve those goals. Open, civil and constructive dialogue on these topics will be critical to ensure that Uni continues to be the place we've all come to cherish.

Thank you.

Linda Katehi, Provost

Kathleen Patton, Principal/Director

Below are two posts made by students at University High School, attacking my daughter, who is American Indian. They are attacks due to a program she started last fall, to advocate for African American, Latino/a, and American Indian Students. It is the Minority Advocacy Program, or MSA. The posts are anonymous.

They appeared on the school's newspaper website, and have been taken down by school administration. I am posting them here so that others can read them in their entirety.

Until it is taken down, too, the entire conversation during which these two posts occurred is available here: http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/gargoyle/2007/02/editorial.htm


(1)

Judith Estrada is yet another shining example of a seemingly illiterate commenter. Nobody commenting here is racist, Jude. In fact, most of us are from extremely diverse backgrounds (more so than Liz, who—shockingly—is only HALF Native American). Our ancestors were killed too.

For instance, Jono commented on his Jewish heritage—the Holocaust happened much more recently than the initial European colonization of the Americas. I’ve been told by various Muslim students at Uni that they’ve come across violence, just because of their origins.

These students have come across a much more tangible intolerance, from meeting remaining survivors, or even being treated violently themselves.

And yet, unlike the MSA founders, they haven’t used this (EXTERNAL) intolerance as a crutch. The MSA has met disagreeing viewpoints because the people who run it (i.e. Liz) fail to see that there are other people who have problems out there, and that they might even be feeling more pain.

The people here who are the most uncomfortable are the editors, who have been verbally abused and still haven’t backed down—they’re 16- and 17-year-olds who do not run a professional publication, and yet you’re calling them arrogant and ignorant racists.

Unlike Liz, they are not privileged enough to comment back—they’ll only be accused of being white supremacists once more. The irony is that, as Andrea Park pointed out early on in this onslaught, most of them could be seen as less privileged than Liz: out of the 10 of them, 8 are from non-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant origins, and of those 8, none of them are less than 1/2 ethnic.

Of the Uni High students, I’m sure Ms. Patton or Sue Kovacs could give you an accurate number of economically underprivileged children, and most of them would probably be white (especially considering the previous implications that Uni is comprised of all whites—I suppose the massive percentage of Asian, Indian, and Arab kids doesn’t count for anything else).

If Liz and the gang were truly so underprivileged and mistreated, they wouldn’t be able to carry on this ideological battle, and Liz wouldn’t be getting paid for causing unnecessary dissent; if you all represent an underprivileged culture that’s been so suppressed by the mainstream, then how come you’re employed by a highly-regarded university, such as the U of I? How is it that you all are members of middle class America? If you were truly so underprivileged, you’d be living in the inner city in the slums, or in a hovel on a reservation somewhere (and to those people who do live in such terrible conditions, I extend my warmest sentiments, as well as my hand for aid—I realize that there’s such a thing as racism, but I don’t see that The Chief trumps an example of genocide such as the Holocaust).

Disagreeing with you and pointing out the flaws in your argument isn’t racism—painting a picture of Uni as a breeding ground for racism and intolerance…that’s another story.

And one more thing: Latina/Latino only refers to a certain demographic; Hispanic is a broader term that applies also to Spanish-speaking Europeans—you obviously know what you’re talking about, Judith.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 9:59 PM |

(2)

Ok. Well let me ask you something. You say:

“Some people are mistreated because their skin pigment is darker (an otherwise irrelevant trait, thus proven by biology).”

I agree. Now I ask you, is Liz Reese darker skinned than Arabs? I don’t about you, but my eyes tell me no. Is she darker than other races (i.e. Some asians, Indians, etc.)? No. So is she being mistreated because of her skin color? Not as far as I know.

If the MSA program comes down to skin color, then there is no excuse for it excluding so many groups. And ultimately, skin color is what its coming down to.

Liz Reese is Native American. Or 1/4 Native American rather. I respect that, I truly do. But she is just as privileged as any other person at Uni. There are people MUCH less well off than her. And her skin color is not darker than a white person with a tan. So where is her mistreatment coming in?

Posted, in reply to *'s comment, by: Anonymous | February 9, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply

(3)

Yesterday's Forum, "Racism, Power, and Privilege at UIUC"

The largest auditorium on the UIUC campus filled quickly for yesterday's forum, "Racism, Power, and Privilege at UIUC." Two other buildings on campus were set up for overflow, where they could view the webcast.

There is a link to the archived webcast at http://www.iresist.org.

News coverage of the forum:

Washington Post
"School Hears Calls to End Mascot's Act"
Friday, Feb. 2, 2007, Page A02

UIUC's Daily Illini
STOP forum lets students voice concerns
Posted 2/2/07