Where are we now?

The University of Illinois Board of Trustees (BOT) has adopted a new resolution on Chief Illiniwek. It would appear that we've come a long way - or have we? And would that journey be in a line, or a circle?

Here we make the case that, whether you are pro- or anti-Chief, the recent Board actions have not taken us any closer to a resolution. But first - the facts.

What was said, and Done

On Thursday, 17 June 2004, the Board approved a Resolution Concerning Chief Illiniwek by a vote of 9-1, with only student trustee Nate Allen opposed. This resolution, drafted by trustees Marjorie Sodermann and Francis Carroll, differed in important ways from the earlier Resolution proposed by Carroll (see below), which was withdrawn due to a lack of support from the Board. This highlights the importance of changes made to the resolution that resulted in its approval.

Let's take a closer look at how the March resolution was changed into one approved by the Board.

The Resolution, Old & New

The resolution on Chief Illiniwek appears below, highlighting changes from the original proposal. Text which was deleted is shown as blue strikethrough, while additions are shown in red.

Whereas, Chief Illiniwek has been a treasured symbol of the Urbana-Champaign campus University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since its introduction in 1926;

About the changes...

A cursory check of the column at left shows several clear patterns to the changes to the Resolution:

• Any indications of the controversy regarding the Chief have been watered down or eliminated entirely. The divisiveness that has lingered for so many years is carefully missing from the final text.
• The Plummer report is presented as an event, without the conclusion. See below.
• The Resolution only concludes what it "shall seek." No actual action was taken.

What was actually decided when the Board adopted this resolution?

• "these constituencies are deserving of a conclusion"
• "opportunities exist for consensus"
• "a conclusion provides an opportunity to resolve the Chief Illiniwek matter"
• "the Board shall seek a consensus conclusion"

For the most part, the Board is reiterating that a conclusion would be desirable, without actually providing a conclusion. The "opportunities for consensus" is stated without supporting arguments. The end of the Resolution states the Board "shall seek" and "shall next consider."

Opinion: This Resolution fails to provide any genuine conclusion to this issue. It reads well, but between the lines, it (by omission of earlier text) appears biased in favor of the Chief, thereby undoing some of the sought-after consensus. The Chief debate, as longstanding as it is, stops at the door of the Board; they alone are charged with the responsibility of deciding the path for the University.

"The Board is responsible ... for the administration and government of the University. As the governing body of the University, the Board exercises jurisdiction in all matters except those for which it has delegated authority to the president or other officers or bodies." (reference)

RetireTheChief believes the Board should conclusively decide in favor of, or against, the Chief. It arguably should not be a popularity contest. If the Trustees of the Board feel this tradition should remain, it should unambiguously say so now (not deferring to the earlier decision supporting the Chief, by a different Board). If, on the other hand, the Board finds the Chief is a divisive and ultimately unfavorable symbol for the University, it should promptly retire the Chief, in person, symbol and name. Trustee Roger Plummer stated in 2002 that "the board needs to make a decision and stand by it".

RetireTheChief's position on the matter is clear. The Board has not taken the University, in urgent times regarding its budget and leadership, any closer to resolving an issue that they state, and clearly would like to, have resolved. No one claims their choice is an easy one, but it is their decision to make.

What wasn't Said, or Done

• Establish a framework for achieving the desired consensus
• Establish a timetable for reaching a conclusion
• Make clear why such a consensus is possible (see below)
• Address, in any substantive way, the concerns of Native Americans who take issue with the "honorable and respectful representation" of them.

Consensus?

The Board calls for - and, after numerous protests and public comment session appeals, clearly hopes for - a resolution to the Chief issue. They have called for establishment of a consensus, though how and when is not stated. But, is such a consensus possible?

The Resolution briefly mentions the Plummer report. In March 2002, trustee Roger Plummer presented a report, available here, to the Board of Trustees. In it, Plummer took on the difficult task of assessing the Chief controversy, which remained vigorous even after the exhaustive University Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek. Plummer concluded:

"The experience of other major institutions - those that rank in prestige with the UI - that have dealt with this issue shows that ultimately the voice of the Native American community must be heard, listened to and responded to. Once it has become evident that objections are coming from thoughtful advocates from the Native American community, the university's ultimate response needs to acknowledge them, whichever alternative is chosen."

"After nine months of reviewing options presented for a 'compromise' resolution, including many unsolicited recommendations, it is abundantly clear that there is no 'compromise' available."

"It may seem to be stating the obvious but, after conducting this process, I have concluded that the Board of Trustees has but two alternatives - retain the Chief or retire him."

Remember?      March 15, 2004      Native Americans protest at the University of Illinois

Ten Reasons to Retire The Chief

1. Diversity. We do want a diverse, inclusive atmosphere welcoming of all cultures. 2. Stereotypes. The Chief perpetuates harmful, insulting stereotypes of Native people in a big way. 3. Publicity. The presence of the Chief has brought national disapproval to an outstanding University. 4. Racism. It was not the intention, and no one likes the "R" word, but Native Americans are very upset by the presence of Chief Illiniwek. 5. Children. Powerful stereotypes are particularly harmful to children - their self esteem and school performance.

6. Accuracy. Let's be honest - the Chief isn't the real thing. The dance is part of half-time entertainment. 7. Honor. Native Americans are not honored. Quite the contrary, they have made it clear they are offended by the Chief. 8. NCAA. In case you missed it, the NCAA has made it clear they are unhappy with American Indian mascots. 9. Choices. Potential faculty and students have chosen not to teach or attend the University because of the Chief. 10. Image. Call the Chief a symbol or a mascot - he is a public figure that harms the University's image.