Agreed, political correctness does get silly. Fighting Irish or Seminoles isn't the issue: it is a case by case scenario, whereby, certain tribe members had a beef w/ the nickname. This is a flagship state institution of higher learning, therefore, you have to respect these citizens who are offended and change the nickname--even if it's only a perceived small number of malcontents. Again, big picture, this is a nickname/logo at issue here--meaningless in the whole scope of things micro or macro.
If I'm not mistaken the Native American tribes don't pay taxes so they have little say in deciding the nickname of a public institution, that honor falls to the people elected to represent the public, who said they want to keep the nickname. Do you really believe a handful of people should be able to override an entire state? That sounds idiotic, what if the environmentalist decide that the Lumberjacks is an offensive nickname, or the Greeks deem the Spartans and Trojans offensive? You can't give in to tiny minorities for PC reasons or it will never stop. It's extremely ironic that the NCAA is coming down on UND while Auburn, Oregon, UNC, and Ohio St are getting away with bloody murder...or should I rephrase that last part because it may be offensive to families or murder victims?
What is idiotic is fractured logic. First off, Native Americans, Sioux or otherwise are US CITIZENS, and whether they pay taxes or not is irrelevant. And what exactly is the stand here on not "giving in" to minorities, however "tiny" you deem them to be?
So let me get this straight: by your logic, because this group of Sioux are "tiny" in population, don't pay taxes, and are not affiliated with the university in question, they should just be okay with an elected group of state politicians--also unaffiliated [officially] with UND--requiring the university by law to keep its nickname "honoring" this group of Sioux, even though it is against the explicit wishes of certain Sioux members and the university administration; this, all in the name of simultaneously honoring and not giving in to the wishes of the very group in question? That is either insane, malicious, controlling, or a combo of all three.
Additionally--and for our purposes on this board--the NCAA, the governing body for UND athletic teams, deems the nickname offensive and wants it removed. It was agreed upon by UND to be resolved. End of story. However, external political grandstanding has decided that since they themselves don't like it, they will send a delegation to convince the NCAA that their state university didn't really mean to agree to the regulations imposed regarding the nickname/logo issue and 'would you please reconsider.' Wow, all this for a nickname/logo? Insane. Not to mention a colossal waste of time, moeny and energy. You want to play in the NCAA, here are the rules to abide by. If you don't like them, don't join. It's freedom of choice.
As for your other examples, they are unworthy of comment.
First I was attempting to point out that UND is a public STATE institutions, the tribes are governed by FEDERAL LAWS and only pay (from what I've read on other boards since I'm no expert on Native American affairs) FEDERAL TAXES, so yeah it matters since the school is funded by the STATE.
certain tribe members had a beef w/ the nickname. This is a flagship state institution of higher learning, therefore, you have to respect these citizens who are offended and change the nickname
I was simply stating that UND being a flagship institution of the state has no bearing on the issue, NOT that the Soiux shouldn't have a say.
--even if it's only a perceived small number of malcontents.
If you have read any of these articles (which I don't think you have) you would know that 2 of the three Sioux tribes in North Dakota have said it was okay, the third tribe is holding out and refuses to allow its members to vote on the matter (like the others did) and instead the leadership has unilaterally said that it is offensive to them. THAT is a small minority in the leadership of one specific tribe AND a small minority of the North Dakota Sioux in general. My point is not to not give in to the Sioux people if they all said that it was offensive, it was not to give into a minority of the Sioux people (NOT ETHNIC MINORITY) who have come out against the nickname.
the NCAA, the governing body for UND athletic teams, deems the nickname offensive and wants it removed. It was agreed upon by UND to be resolved. End of story.
not quite, the state funds the institution and has the most say in all things concerning the university, you can't simply dismiss their opinions, while I agree with you that this is an extreme waste of time, money, and energy it still brings up a very important issue, when it comes to athletics does the NCAA have more control than the state? At a glance the answer is no, and if I was a lawyer for UND I would sue the NCAA for threatening them to break a state law. I would assume that the NCAA would simply respond by stating that UND's athletics could join any of the many other collegiate organizations like the NAIA if they do not want to abide by their rules, to which UND could respond by claiming that the NCAA has a monopoly over the elite tier of collegiate athletics and is abusing its power in violation of many anti-trust acts, which could start a sequence of hearings that eventually setup a system of oversight like they have in professional sports. I have no dog in this fight but I find this very interesting.
And finally how are my examples unworthy? If I was an ancestor of a Trojan or Spartan and formed a group in order to protests USC/Troy/Mich St, would those institution be required to change their nicknames despite having a majority of other Trojans/Spartans ancestors in favor of their use?
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...