Chief Illiniwek needs to stop dancing
The University of Illinois needs to discontinue its use/sanctioning of racist imagery. Chief Illiniwek was given further life and validity by the 1st District Appellate Court in Chicago. The three judges voted 2-1 in favor of throwing out a lawsuit against the university.
Judge Shelvin Louise Hall cast the dissenting vote and is my new hero. Hall stated that the “Chief’s presence created a hostile environment, especially ‘in light of the number of prominent educational institutions that have voluntarily discontinued the use of Native American nicknames, symbols and mascots.’”
Judge Warren Wolfson and Judge Thomas Hoffman voted to throw out the lawsuit. Hoffman claimed that “he doubted the plaintiffs could prove their discrimination claim.”
Judges Wolfson and Hoffman, please refer to “Crimes Against Humanity” and this post by Blaxplanation.
The use of Native American imagery/symbols is unacceptable.
Appeals court sides with Chief Illiniwek
By Michael Higgins – Chicago Tribune
September 19, 2006, 5:57 PM CDT
Dances by Chief Illiniwek, the University of Illinois’ athletic mascot, do not violate the state’s civil rights laws, a divided state appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The Illinois Native American Bar Association filed suit last year against university officials, alleging that the Chief’s performances humiliate Native American students and create a hostile environment that dissuades them from attending games or participating in other school activities.
But a trial judge threw out the lawsuit, and in a 2-1 decision Tuesday the 1st District Appellate Court in Chicago upheld that ruling.
Writing for the majority, Judge Warren Wolfson noted that in a 1996 law, the General Assembly declared the Chief to be an “honored symbol of a great university.”
If the state’s current anti-discrimination law, passed in 2003, had been meant to overturn that “glowing exaltation of Chief Illiniwek,” the state legislature would have said so explicitly, Wolfson said in a 17-page opinion.
The court’s ruling on Tuesday was one of the few pieces of good news recently for supporters of the Chief, a barefoot student in a buckskin costume and a feather headdress who performs at some athletic events.
NCAA officials have barred the university from hosting postseason tournament contests as long as the 80-year Chief Illiniwek tradition continues. The NCAA rejected the university’s appeal of that decision in April.
University officials were pleased with the appellate court’s ruling, Thomas Hardy, executive director of university relations, said Tuesday. He said the school’s trustees are studying the predicament raised by the NCAA ruling, but “no decisions have been made.”
The bar association, which sued the university and five individual plaintiffs, plans to appeal Tuesday’s ruling, said Kenneth Dobbs, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
“Every university, college and high school, except for a handful, have abandoned the use of racist Native American imagery,” Dobbs said. “It creates a hostile atmosphere. … But people tolerate it because of a misunderstanding of Native American culture.”
Judge Shelvin Louise Hall cast the dissenting vote, arguing that the plaintiffs had the right to take their case to a trial.
Hall said reasonable jurors could conclude that the Chief’s presence created a hostile environment, especially “in light of the number of prominent educational institutions that have voluntarily discontinued the use of Native American nicknames, symbols and mascots.”
But Judge Thomas Hoffman concurred with Wolfson’s opinion and went even further, saying he doubted the plaintiffs could prove their discrimination claim.
There was no evidence that the university excluded the plaintiffs from any activities or that the Chief’s performances were aimed at them personally, Hoffman wrote. He said that merely finding the Chief’s “gestures or dress … offensive” wasn’t sufficient to support a lawsuit.
Related posts:
I have been interested in this controversy since it began gathering steam back in the ’90s. Having seen firsthand how Chief Illiniwek is portrayed, I am a bit mystified as to what is offensive about it. The Chief is not depicted as cartoonish, or stereotypical. The performances by the Chief at home games are silent, and highly athletic, and incorporate aspects of traditional native dance.
Is it the fact that the Chief is typically portrayed by a white student the aspect that is offensive? Then why not say so explicitly?
While I understand wanting to dispense of the idiot grinning Cleveland Indians mascot, and can’t defend the name of the Washington Redskins, I just can’t muster the same outrage for Chief Illiniwek. I can’t help but wonder if this is another step toward the generalization that ANY depiction of a Native North American is offensive, regardless of content or context.
PAgent
22 Sep 06 at 12:57 pm
I’ll admit some bias as a former member of the Marching Illini (U of I’s Marching Band), but the school has gone to great lengths to ensure that “chief” was always portrayed in a respectful manner. In the early 80′s one of the tribes from the Dakota’s honored the school citing the “awareness” that the chief helped promote.
The vast majority of the complaints against the chief come from non-native sources who are unfamiliar with the tradition as it is used at Illinois.
And just how far should we go to ban the “offensive” use of native symbols in the name of political correctness? Should the state of Illinois have to change its name? I fully support sensitivity to these issues and wouldn’t suggest we tolerate the “Braves” or “Redskins” any more than we’d tolerate “Crackers” or “Negroes”, but let’s keep the indignation in proportion. You’re overreacting if you find offense in Chief Illiniwek.
Michael Smith
22 Sep 06 at 1:57 pm
The court struck a blow for freedom from the tyranny of the few. No where in the constitution did it ever say we have a right not to be offended. It does say we have a right to free expression. I really don’t care if a white kid, green kid or whatever portrays the fictional character of Chief Illiniwek. I don’t care if the dance is too authentic or not authentic enough. It is entertainment, it is imagination, performance and in the world of pretend. It doesn’t have to measure up to all of these standards set by the aggrieved group. There is no proof that the Chief or the dance has caused one hate crime against Native Americans or even devalued Native Americans in the eyes of the beholders, namely fans. In fact the majority of witnesses say it has made them more admiring of Native Americans. Now if that is the way the overwhelming majority of people who have actually watched Chief Illiniwek dance feel then I say he is a force for good. If some Native Americans find offense, maybe they are overly sensitive. I wonder how many things that are said and portrayed on the reservations would offend white people. I have personally seen some very offensive flyers. The greatest “offense” in this whole business has been the behavior and attitude of the anti chief crowd with their self centered lets see how much mileage we can get out of the past sufferings of our people mentality. The truth is their holier than thou mentality(conveniently denying the part Native Americans had in helping to eliminate each other, including women and children) and uncompromising attitude has done more harm to the “image of native Americans” than a thousand Chief Illiniweks can do. The idea that only the feelings of actual Native Americans should count on this issue is backassed since it is supposedly the image of Native Americans as perceived by the larger population that is at stake her. The larger population overwhelming sees the Chief as a positive figure. Let freedom of expression win.
Lyn
23 Sep 06 at 7:16 pm
This problem of groups trying to control their image in entertainment and media goes back a long way. The gays tried to get the movie “Cruising” banned, the Christians didnt like Christ portrayed as the husband of Mary magdaline and the Jews didnt like “The Passion fo the Christ”.The Islamics didnt like a book someone wrote or cartoons or what the Pope said. The English dont like the way we teach the history of the Revolutionary War and the Germans are fed up with hearing about Hitler. So why dont the Native Americans like Chief Illiniwek?They say he is not authentic in his dress or dance. Well, I guess all Indians dressed alike and danced alike. I guess there was no room for creativity among individuals. Since the Chief is a fictional character, can he not dress and dance as he wishes as long as its not obscene? These people are such purists about the Chief but not about building casinos in the pristeen wilderness. I dont hear any complaints about violations of these sacred areas like Grand Marais with trash, busloads of white boy gamblers etc. I wonder what the difference is? $$$ The NCAA needs to get back to drug inforcement and leave these sociological issues to be worked out by the University. The funny thing about all of this is that the people the anti chief group are attacking are (were) some of the most broad minded, progressive people around.I grew up in Urbana and can say I NEVER heard a racial slur spoken in my own house or in the houses of my friends all of which attend Illinois. games. the way the anti-chief crowd have conducted themselves in this battle has used up more than a little of that good will.
erik
24 Sep 06 at 12:01 am
Here is my response
Eric Dwight
25 Sep 06 at 1:21 pm
[...] Facebook: Public and Private » « Chief Illiniwek needs to stop dancing Chief Illiniwek needs to be discontinued [...]
Chief Illiniwek needs to be discontinued » Eric Stoller’s Blog
16 Sep 09 at 8:06 pm