 |
U.I. Dialogue Intake Session |
RetireTheChief
The following transcript is from the 4/14/00 Chief Illiniwek dialogue "intake session". It is an unedited excerpt from the original U.I. document.
MS. LISA JOHNSON: My name is Lisa Johnson and I am representing the Social Justice Committee of the School of Social Work here at UIUC. We are here to voice our opposition to the use of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. If we accept the pro-Chief argument that Chief Illiniwek should remain as the symbol of UIUC because it is a great tradition of the University, are we then accepting that slavery, which was also a great tradition of the US, should have remained? Are we saying that civil rights for minorities should have been denied? Are we saying that restricting women from voting should have continued? Was the use of black faces in theatrical presentations a tradition that should not have ceased?Today few would claim that slavery, denying minorities their civil rights, women's restriction from voting, or the use of black faces in entertainment are great traditions of our past. Society has taken great strides to eliminate the seemingly great traditions. Why should these efforts end with Native Americans. In 50 years, will people be wondering why there was a need to have this discussion today? Indeed it simply should not be an issue.
We know that great tradition does not mean that it is right to ignore the negative impacts it has on the minority group that has been and continues to be oppressed by the majority. Thus, we want to demonstrate that merely because something is or was a tradition, it does not speak at all to the righteousness of the effect and impact of such traditions.
Supporters of Chief Illiniwek have proudly claimed that the real issue here is intent. That they mean no harm in maintaining the Chief. Rather they claim that the Chief is meant to honor and respect Native Americans. The problem is that intentions are not what determines the degree to which something is acceptable. Regardless of what they hope will be the effect of their actions, the reality of the situation is quite different. For as we understand the Chief does not honor, it is not respectful, it is derogatory. It plainly does not achieve what it is intended to do.
Keeping the Chief would set a harmful precedent which would explain to the world that it does not matter how an institution's actions affect a group of people. It would say that intent is sufficient to justify these actions.
We conclude by quoting from the University's nondiscrimination statement which states, "The commitment of the University to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from invidious discrimination in all its forms."
Retaining the Chief as a mascot of the U of I is in direct violation of this statement. Thus, we call for the immediate and unconditional removal of Chief Illiniwek from the U of I. Doing so would be to take a step towards closing the gap between words and actions. Thank you.
See the U.I. Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek page for more transcripts and information.