In 2005 the NCAA applied penalties to the University of Illinois which prevented the university from having any postseason sporting events. The ban was due to public groups protesting that the use of the Indian Chief was racist and demeaning when he performed his mascot dance. The NCAA sanctioned the University of Illinois and stated the mascot was, “hostile or abusive” when used on public display. The ban went on long enough and in February of 2007, university officials decided they would retire the well known Indian Chief mascot from all sporting and promotional events.
Past trends have led many colleges, high schools and junior high schools to remove or replace their Native Indian mascots, images and displays. Standford was one well known case and has laid the problem to rest and went in a new direction. University of Illinois has decided this year that they’d like to test the boundaries.
Just recently, the same university officials that instated the ban, decided to alter their ruling on banning the Chief Illiniwek Mascots image. While the officials still are not allowing a public performance of dancing and chanting by the mascot, they are allowing the display of images of Chief Illiniwek 
on homecoming floats. The Illinois chancellor Richard Herman said, “The University values free speech and free expression and considers Homecoming floats, decorations, costumes and related signage all representations of such personal expression.”
When the rubber meets the road, the real reason the University reinstated the display of the once retired mascot was to protect the U.S. constitutional rights. Most people commenting on the situation felt the students deserve to have their free speech rights exercised. What remains to be seen is whether any lawsuits will be brought to the table due to the wobbling decisions of university officials. The NCAA has not released any statement saying the would reinstate a ban on the University of Illinois for hosting postseason sporting events.
There are still objections by student groups and other organizations. Some groups claims that they see no difference in being able to promote public nudity on their floats or promotion of drug use in their signage at school events. The arguments say that it is all free speech and shouldn’t be considered any differently. As others stretch the claims in their favor, most seem pleased with the spirit of the Chief Illiniwek being involved in the homecoming parade floats.
BUSINESS SHRINK REACTION:
This is the Business Shrink weighing in with his comments on the reinstatement of the ban of Chief Illiniwek as a mascot for the University of Illinois for sporting events. I’d like to start by saying, I’m a little confused…some of this mocks of white mans burden, colonialism and a patronizing form of liberalism.
For me, I tend not to be on the extreme right or the extreme left, whether it’s democrat, republican, blue state or yellow state. I tend to be a centrist and I look at the facts and circumstance one case at a time. In this situation though, I can’t help but to smack the left wing of society, as opposed where I smack the right wing for a number of their infractions including being involved in religion too much and pairing it with politics way too much.
I think the whole premise is demeaning for our history and our heritage that a mascot for a sporting event should be an Indian. I think the real issue is this is about heritage in our country and some of the Indians were the ones that founded our country and supported the colonies and were there before the British were here.
Why do we feel we have to cut ourselves off from our heritage and put Indians in the corner and treat them like specimens and a freak show, as opposed to celebrate our heritage simply because our blood doesn’t often flow from Indian blood doesn’t mean that our soil doesn’t flow from Indian blood and Indian culture.
Perhaps we ought to take a very controversial upside down look at this and say why do we want them as a mascot at all? Why don’t we agree that this is a state that celebrates the history of the Indians who toiled to live here and coped with the land and survived. Maybe this state of Illinois should be changed to the state of Illiniwek. Maybe there should be no mascot and perhaps, or if there is one, it should be a white frat boy from Lake Forest because basically this is an Indian state and an Indian University.
What’s wrong with that? Who says there is something wrong with Indians? Who says they need to be put in a box somewhere in a museum? I’m wondering why the fuss and I’m thinking the more some of these people go to protect the “right for a mascot” tied to free speech all they’re doing is being more patronizing to their Indian heritage.
I think we need to hear from more Indians and say hey lets turn this thing right side up and look at it for what it is and say maybe we need a mascot from a suburban location who goes to fraternities and let’s make the school an Indian school and have the state have the proud Indian heritage and perhaps, the name should be an Indian name.
So I’d like to hear from people that would like to take this issue on from top to bottom and look at the premises around which these things are being argued because I think a number of them are red herrings. That’s my comment.
Do you think that the University of Illinois made the right decision in allowing students to use the image of Chief Illiniwek? What is the difference with free speech in displaying drug messages, public nudity and other racist statements? Are you of Indian heritage and you’re offended by the Indian mascots and the decision made here? If you are we’d like to hear from you and hear how it has effected you.
Share This
Do I think that a white guy mocking Native Americans by pretending to know their culture better than they do is both disgusting and stupid in the 21st century? What do YOU think?
An actual native american tribe created the head dress for the school back in the early 1900s for the mascot, If they are cool with the mascot why should white people be offended?
Just like with Florida State, if the tribe the school maascot represents does not mind or protest than EVERYONE else should keep their mouths shut. It is then obviously none of their business.
As a recent alumni of the University of Illinois, the only thing the NCAA required us to do was end the tradition of the Chief’s dance during halftime at sporting events. They have no jurisdiction on what the University does outside of sporting events. As long as the Chief’s dance continued, UIUC was not allowed to host any championship events which bring in a lot of money for the University as well as the Champaign-Urbana area, so it was in the best interest of UIUC to end that performance. The Chief has been a much-loved symbol of UIUC for many years and many of the students believe it is not being used in a racist way. The administration cannot stop students from displaying what has been a large piece of their school’s heritage, and yes, to do so would be in violation of the students’ right to free speech.
The symbol is not meant to stereotype or prejudice against any Native Americans, but to honor them as well as our school. The symbol is not even based on a real person or tribe, therefore there is no tribe to get pissed about it.
If people are angry about the usage of Chief Illiniwek then they should be equally angry about the usage of “Illinois” and change the name of the state!
i’m sure the tribe was 100% behind the exploitation of their heritage when they created the head dress in the 1900s. i’m a former student and thought is was ridiculous for a student to perform a native american routine dressed in the tribes original clothing. if they are respecting the tribe why doesn’t illinois request the tribe to come perform the routine at halftime rather than getting a student? is the original tribe still around? i don’t know.
still less offensive than the cleveland indians logo. thats just terrible.
@Stephanie “The Chief has been a much-loved symbol of UIUC for many years and many of the students believe it is not being used in a racist way.” — what does the students belief of whether they believe its racist mean? who cares if the students don’t think its offensive.
@UIUC Alum it doesn’t matter what was meant, its what is perceived.
I’ve had it with the goddamn morons in this country. This has NOTHING to do with racism. Racism is prejudice, discrimination or antagonism based on race. This is NONE of those things. Mascots represent, honor, and are a matter of pride for schools. They do not not degrade anyone or anything. Jesus America, quit being so god damn whiney and grow some balls.
If Chief Illiniwek is bad, then all the major sports teams need to revamp their images. The Washington Redskins is offensive as hell, and the Cleveland Indians logo is even worse. Make these changes and then we can talk about the Chief.
So I as a part of the Native American community and student at the U of I, I find it ridiculous that the Chief was ever retired. Not only was the representation of Native Americans displayed by the Chief not racist, it actually glorified the ways of our people. The Chief stood for honor, bravery, and all of the goos aspects of our people. Hell, a requirement to becoming the Chief, was that you must be an Eagle Scout to do so, and maintain a certain GPA. For those of you who don’t know, Less than 2% of Boy Scouts ever make the rank of Eagle, and all of them have to study the ways and culture of Native American life. So how is a person with deep knowledge and respect for Native American beliefs and values portraying the last fragment of honor we in the Native community have left racist? As far as getting the tribe members to perform, that is impossible. The tribe the Chief was part representative of was wiped out ages ago; besides, the Native Americans who wanted to put an end to the Chief were members of a tribe that despised the tribe of the Chief. I guess they finished the job.
First of all, “random”, there was no tribe to be exploited or to come perform the routine. The name Illini designates the group of tribes which lived in the midwest/plains area. The term was adoped in the early 1900s to denote the brotherhood (sorry better be PC- sisterhood - even though I’m a woman and don’t find that offensive) that U of I students shared. The dance is based on the “fancy dance” of the boy scouts organization. The headdress and outfit were VOLUNTARILY made for the University of Illinois by a local tribe, not at the request of the University.
I completely agree with Stephanie. I feel that Chief Illiniwek, though he no longer dances at sporting events, represents an important part of the University’s heritage. It represents something that over 500,000 alumni can share. Sitting in a stadium that holds 80,000 people when most of them have their arms around each other and are singing their alma mater is a unifying and sobering experience. So much more was added by Chief Illiniwek being there to lead us. However, I understand (but don’t agree with) the University getting rid of the chief in the hopes of holding post-season events, the use of his symbol on the floats is free speech. The makers of those floats are private actors (for the most part). Not allowing the Chief symbol to be used would be analogous to the University not allowing anyone to protest on the quad for causes they support - like breast cancer awareness or legalization of marijuana.
History may be in the past, but that does not mean it should be forgotten. Whether you are for or against the Chief, the tradition is an important part of the history of one of the greatest institutions in the country, and should be remembered.
And, lest we forget, getting rid of the Chief (from the University standpoint) - was all about money in the first place. The school worried that Illinois’ mens basketball team would not make the NCAA tournament and would be relegated to the NIT. NIT games are hosted at participating schools and would bring in great revenue. Hence the quick departure of the Chief before post-season basketball began. HOWEVER, homecoming is about making money too. Many alumni (especially those who come back for a football game) will be sending checks to the University and are also pro-Chief. Why would the administration alienate them further by censoring floats? It just doesn’t make good business sense, especially since they probably already took a huge hit for getting rid of Chief Illiniwek in the first place.
I am offended and ashamed of our country. This is just as raciest and offensive as having a dancing student dressed in black face paint. Can’t you people see that you are one of the few Universities who treats a Race as a spots mascot!
I went to a school out in PA that had an Indian as their mascot. We were called the warriors. Well, people complaned and we had to change it to a stupid mascot. My friend, who was Indian, said that it was retarded. The fact that Indians were called warriors was an honor to them. I think that white people should butt out of the idea of deciding whether Indian mascots are offensive or not. Let the people that it represents decide. If they are OK with it, then let it continue. Why do we white people think we are the supreme beings and the ones who get to decide on everything?
I’m offended and find it to be anti-white racism when people say that the Chief should not be allowed to endure. So there, now we have offense and racist feelings on both sides of the debate. Now what?
this is just dumb. if the native indians do get offended then simply don’t use the indian chief ffs
use something else … that simple.
“…but to honor them as well as our school”
maybe they don’t like to be honored like that?
…
[…] read more | digg story […]
Well placed contents. I love it!
me like THAT!:)