The Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools recently issued its UND evaluation report. The report urges UND to end the use of the "Fighting Sioux" name and logo stating that its continued use is "manifestly inconsistent with the university?s goal of being the foremost university in the nation in the programs it offers for and about American Indians...."

The report also states that the negative consequences of the name and logo "cast a shadow on the considerable institutional efforts and successes to advance excellence through diversity in the learning environment."

This seems an opportune time for the UND Administration to request the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education reconsider its 2000 decision to retain the name and logo. It would be important for the administration to have faculty support in this effort. For those of you new to campus, this decision by the SBHE was made despite formal requests by tribal governments, the National Indian Education Association, the National Congress of American Indians and many other American Indian national, regional and campus organizations and programs to end the use of the name and logo.

The text of the report that references the logo follows this note.

Lucy Ganje, Assoc. Professor
UND School of Communication
for the Campus Committee for Human Rights

ASSURANCE SECTION

Criterion Four, "The institution can continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness."

Salient Evidence of Fulfillment of Criterion
2. Evidence that demonstrates the criterion needs institutional attention:

d. It is the considered judgment of the visiting team that continued use of the Indianhead logo and the "Fighting Sioux" nickname reduces the university's ability to accomplish its purposes and diminishes its educational effectiveness.

Before and during the visit, team members studied the long history of this issue and learned of the deep campus divisions on the subject and of the President's and the campus's deep commitment to assure that the use of logo and nickname were proper and respectful. At the outset, team members were prepared to conclude that the issue was not significant enough to be given attention in the team's report, did not wish to intrude into a campus matter, and were prepared to consider it closed by the decision of the State Board of Higher Education in December 2000. By the end of the visit, however, the team unanimously came to a different conclusion for compelling reasons. The issue was clearly not at rest. It continues to be raised by those who consider it a moral issue as well as by those who do not object to the symbols but who deplore what is happening to the campus. It is clear that it will simmer on, until it boils over again openly, while in the meantime diminishing collegiality and learning for many in the campus community. It will not go away.

The team has the following comments to offer the institution and its board:

i. This persistent controversy has a negative impact on the learning environment at the University of North Dakota. It adversely affects student participation in the classroom and the laboratory. It adversely affects student relationships in residence halls and in sports and other recreational activities. It encourages disrespectful treatment of some students by other students and by some faculty and staff. Team members also hear that it adversely affects student recruitment and retention. It is an issue which distracts students, faculty, staff, and administration from the very important business of higher education.

ii. Continued use of the logo is manifestly inconsistent with the university's goal of being the foremost university in the nation in the programs it offers for and about American Indians, a goal as important to the state and university as it is to those served by it.

iii. It is particularly awkward for an American university, which endeavors to teach and model respect for others and sensitivity to their perspectives, to widely and prominently employ a logo and nickname that a substantial number of American Indians and their organizations have said and continue to say is offensive and demeaning.

iv. Times change. Values and practices change. As the nation has moved over the last century to de-legitimize and reduce discrimination against minorities, it has become less tolerant of the use of stereotypes and language regarded as offensive by minorities and many others. There was a reason to change the nickname from Flickertails in 1930. There is reason to change the nickname from "Fighting Sioux" today. If UND continues on course, it will be increasingly out of step with the times.

v. In the short run, there is no win-win resolution to this controversy. In the long run, if use of the logo and nickname were discontinued, everyone would win. In the long run, if use of the logo and nickname is not discontinued, everyone loses.

vi. Ultimately, the University of North Dakota is too good an institution, and its leadership is too important to the State of North Dakota, to let this issue continue to weaken its performance and impede its full development. The state board should revisit its earlier decision and direct the campus to develop and implement an orderly plan for discontinuing use of the Indianhead logo and the "Fighting Sioux" nickname.

ADVANCEMENT SECTION

REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT

II. CONSULTATIONS OF THE TEAM

B. Athletic Teams' Logo and Nickname

The team strongly recommends appropriate action by the State Board of Higher Education to support the campus unequivocally in providing honorable retirement for the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo and appropriate replacements. The team also recommends that, with such support, UND strenuously seek to achieve resolution and reconciliation throughout campus and state constituencies regarding the logo and nickname. The team encountered such strong disagreement and negative feelings among students, faculty, staff, and regional community about the "Fighting Sioux" name and logo in its interactions throughout the visit that it strongly believes resolution of the matter is necessary to move the campus forward. The controversy clearly has a negative impact on the campus climate for majority and minority students, faculty, and staff. The negative consequences cast a shadow on the considerable institutional efforts and successes to advance excellence through diversity in the learning environment.

There is clear evidence that there are strong views on both sides of the issue, and neither point of view seems to be content with the current University system decision about the logo and nickname. While these are critical matters, it may be the case that these positions are also symptomatic of basic social issues in our society. The controversy did not begin with the name and the logo and it will not be resolved through administrative fiat.

A long time member of the University community stated the belief that there needs to be a reconciliation between the Indian and White communities in order to begin to build bridges of understanding among all in the majority and minority communities in the University and regional communities. A proposal to begin the reconciliation process might begin by requesting the State Board to invest trust in the institution to bring together people of good will on both sides of the issue to begin a dialog to address the historic basis for their feelings.

The basic premise would be that the citizens and the Board would agree to live with whatever outcome resulted from a thoughtful, considerate, and compassionate exploration of the issues in a spirit of reconciliation similar to the South African Reconciliation Process. All would have to agree that there may be no perfect solution and that the solution is a continual process of introspection, trust, and compromise to create an inclusive community that understands and appreciates the historic continuity of the symbols in the seal of the University of North Dakota and how they relate to the cultures that inhabited the territory at the founding of the institution. The process would be arduous but should not be interminable. Both sides would have to agree at the outset that in the final analysis all would have to reconcile.