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.

North Central Association for Accreditation came here with the mission of accrediting the University and its educational mission. They deviated from what their role was and went off on a tangent, were given some very one-sided perspectives on the Chief. And instead of just talking about the accreditation of the University, they spent a good portion of their report talking about the Chief and suggesting, and the Board of Trustees took their suggestion, that the University create a dialogue.

The problem with the term dialogue is that it implies that there is give and take on both sides. The term dialogue implies that people will be willing to compromise, that if you start out with one group at point A and the other group at point Z, that somewhere along the line you are going to meet at point M.

That isn't what is happening in this debate. The debate is one-sided and one side will not compromise. I have been at forums, and I have argued with the anti-Chief people on several occasions, publicly and privately. And every time I have asked them if there is any compromise, any compromise whatsoever that they would agree to that would allow the University to keep the Chief as its honored symbol, the answer is always no.

So there is no compromise, there is no point to a dialogue, because one side is not willing to give at all. The University needs to, in my opinion, put this behind us. We need to get on with the business of teaching. We need to get on with the business of the University. We need to get on with the University of what this is all about.

The University has to, the Board of Trustees that is, has to make a decision. They have to base that decision on whatever they want to base it on, base it on the thoughts of alumni, students, faculty, and friends of the University. Quite frankly a lot of people who come to this University and enjoy the Chief never went to school here and are not part of this University other than they are a friend of the University.

The Board of Trustees has to once and for all distill all of this information, decide whether the Chief is, as I believe, a revered and honored symbol, or whether as the opponents say the Chief is something that needs to be retired.

The Board of Trustees has to make a decision in my opinion, stick to that decision and just say enough is enough, let's put this behind us and let's get on with things once and for all.

I believe that the purpose of a dialogue is not being served here today. Because one of the sides is not willing to change at all. The pro-Chief people have long had a history of willing to say, we will make it more authentic, we will do whatever you think is correct so that the Chief is not demeaning. The opponents of the Chief will have none of it.

So I say to you, don't waste any more time, don't waste any more effort and certainly don't waste any more money on a dialogue that is meaningless and useless and is not going to accomplish a thing. Let's get this behind us and get on with the mission of the University. Thank you for your time.

MODERATOR GARIPPO: Well, Mr. Silverman, you weren't here earlier today when actually two groups did propose some sort of compromise. So you know, maybe the dialogue might prove fruitful in that regard.

MR. SILVERMAN: If they are willing to compromise, I will glad to be proven wrong.

MODERATOR GARIPPO: Vanessa Casillas.

See the U.I. Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek page for more transcripts and information.