My views on the Chief
Because I’m in the Daily Illini today with a soundbite, I’m going to clarify my views on the Chief matter. My views have largely not changed since I said retire the Chief in 2003. However, I would not consider myself Anti-Chief. The Peoria, the descendants of the Illini Confederation, have asked us to retire the Chief. Since it represents them, I think they and only they have a say here. Not the Lakota, not the Sioux, not the Cherokee, or any other tribe. Hundreds of years ago they spent time kililng each other and it is stupid to lump all of those very disparate cultures under one umbrella as “Native American” and then say they are all the same. That would be like saying the Irish and Italian are of the same culture… European.
In 1995, it is true, the Chief of the Peoria said they were honored by Cheif Illiniwek and they wanted him to stay. The controversy should have died there. In 2000, they had a private vote without comment and changed their position. Regardless of their reasons, it is their heritage and they can do with it as they want. If Bertie Ahern called up Notre Dame and wanted them to drop the Fighting Irish, I think they should do it too.
That said, I am more opposed to the Anti-Chief movement than I think the Chief should be retired. It’s obvious the Peoria know they have bigger problems. I think the Chief would have been retired years ago if it weren’t for the obnoxious, stupid, and sometimes violent activities of the Pro-Chief movement. Making this a “Native American” thing is beyond stupid and exposes the absurdity of the racist claim. They don’t even know the basics about the race they are talking about. How the Chief dance metaphysically creates an oppressive environment for minorities, I have no idea. Of course, the overt hostitilty towards conservatives and Christians actually in the classroom is not only unimportant, it’s “the way things are supposed to be.” Likely, if the Anti-Chief movement would have likely approached the Board in a constructive way, I have full confidence that they would have retired the Chief awhile ago. Instead, it took the NCAA having to pay off the University. And while that is my conjecture, based on the timing and the letters, it is a reasonable conclusion that the NCAA has given the University something to do this. Which leads me to my last point.
The Open Meetings Act requires business to be done in the open. No backroom votes, no secret deals, nothing. The law is VERY clear on this point. There are only very narrow exceptions to the Open Meetings Act, and not only do none apply, but if Eppley wants to claim one he had to do it in a public announcement before the fact. If it was truly urgent, and it is hard to see why an issue that has been going on for 15 years suddenly became urgent, he could have declared an emergency meeting of the Board. The law allows for that. However, dealing with this under a shroud secrecy has clearly violated the Open Meetings Act, is apparently a Class C Misdemeanor, and the decision could be voided in a court of law by anyone who wanted to file suit.
The University, the public, and the alumni deserved for this decision to be made in public. This is the biggest decision the Board has made in decades. It deserved to be made legally.
A Tempest in a Tepee.
Comment by bird dog | February 23, 2007