Why the Chief?

by Brian Jewett, RetireTheChief.org

In every new issue of RetireTheChief.org, an essay or interview will appear in this space. In this first incarnation, I'll offer my view. The usual disclaimers apply: I speak for myself, not my employer, my minister, my friends, or anyone else.

Why must the most visible symbol of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in general, and of U.I. sports in particular, be the Chief?

The Chief has been a part of the University scene since 1926 [1]. Yet quite a lot of Native American people find Chief Illiniwek very degrading. Can we not respect a race of people enough to find another U.I. symbol?

I have lived in Champaign-Urbana since 1988. Needless to say I lived here during the University of Illinois' dialogue on Chief Illiniwek. Yet I had not really known what everyone in this Dialogue had to say, until recently (see the RetireTheChief Dialogue page for excerpts and full transcripts).

I expected to find the pro- and anti-Chief sides very far apart.
I expected to find strongly, passionately held opinions.
I did not expect how little one side seemed to understand the other.

On one hand there are those who find the Chief racist, appalling, and damaging to Native American culture and especially their children. On the other are equally passionate people who find the Chief a positive, uplifting and honorable symbol of Native American people and the University of Illinois.

It is stunning that two groups of people can look at the same thing in such radically different ways.

I'll be up front: I'm all for retiring the Chief. That's why we're here. But I want to understand those who are so strongly pro-Chief. Likewise, I would like those who favor the Chief to really appreciate the source of the anti-Chief feelings. There is more than enough anger on both sides, and I believe any real understanding comes to an immediate halt where anger is involved. Have you ever respected or really listened to someone who made you angry, or who was angry at you?

The 120 people whose statements are summarized here spoke of many things, including: symbol or mascot; honor or dishonor; unity or divisiveness; religion; racism; history; understanding; culture, and impact on the University. Where did those feelings come from?

Pro- and anti-Chief folks had very different experiences witnessing the Chief. Two voices:

"I will never forget the first time my eyes witnessed the Chief ... the whole arena watched in complete awe ... I experienced the true spirit of the University of Illinois. And it instilled in me a pride ..."[2]

"growing up for me, I learned that the Chief was something that was a part of Illinois, part of the midwest, part of American history"[3]

...and two more, a world apart:

"I went to the first basketball game and I was completely mortified when I saw the student who was playing the Chief came out prancing around"[4]

"Chief Illiniwek is painful and dehumanizing to my people. It hurts to see Illinois sports fans all over the community desecrate my religion by wearing turkey feathers that mock my sacred eagle feathers."[5]

These are sincere opinions. For those who are pro-Chief, I suspect that the Chief represents some of their best University years, wrapped up in fond memories of Memorial Stadium, Illinois football, and good friends. Who are we to say their good experiences were bad? The answer is: we aren't.

That's important. Believing that the Chief should be retired

• doesn't mean being anti-University
• doesn't mean being anti-team
• doesn't mean being anti-sports

I'm against the Chief, but I don't really know what it is like to be Native American. It is like saying to your spouse (from a safe distance) that "I really understand how you feel." Perhaps you recall the look you get. You can't fully understand being there. Native Americans mention "offensive", "pain", "dehumanizing", "anger", "humiliation", and "racism" in reaction to the Chief. As one speaker said, "Chief supporters don't see anything wrong with it, but they are not the ones being mocked every time the Chief prances.."[6]

Some have said that those offended by the Chief are "thought vigilantes"[7]. No; everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is a result of your upbringing, your experiences, and probably your race. But think about someone doing an insulting impression of your spouse, your minister, your best friend. They didn't mean anything by it, they might say, so what's the problem? Doing something that turns out to be very hurtful to someone else is reason enough to stop.

Another consequence of the Chief is the unfavorable publicity drawn to our University. For some, the University of Illinois is becoming known for its controversial symbol, rather than for its excellence as a teaching and research university that is also home to talented student athletes. The very things, the very institution that is held in such high regard - is being harmed by the Chief. Can't we find another symbol for pride in the University of Illinois?

• To those who are pro-Chief: please consider not only your own positive experiences surrounding the Chief, but the obvious harm and offense taken by Native American people, and their supporters.
  
• To those who are anti-Chief: try to understand why supporters of Chief Illiniwek feel the way they do. Perhaps by really listening, we can understand them, and help them to understand us.
  
• To those in positions of authority: consider retiring the Chief.
  Do it for the good of the University.

References

[1] See Prochaska (2001) for more history of the Chief.
[2] Ms. Dawn Neisen, U.I. Dialogue intake session.
[3] Ms. Jacqueline French, U.I. Dialogue narrative.
[4] Mr. Arvin Gee, U.I. Dialogue narrative.
[5] Mr. Wayne Crue, U.I. Dialogue intake session.
[6] Mr. Andy Erickson, U.I. Dialogue intake session.
[7] George Will, 1995, Washington Post.
See Resources for detailed references.