Links
Bismarck, N,D. (AP) — Gov. John Hoeven says he'll review a letter from some Spirit Lake Sioux tribal members who want his help in keeping the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux nickname.
The Board of Higher Education has decided to retire the nickname. The Spirit Lake tribal members want Hoeven to ask the board to take back its decision. They say the Standing Rock Sioux tribe needs more time to respond to the issue.
Hoeven wouldn't say whether he would approach board members directly on the issue. He says he'd like the board to work things out.
State Board of Higher Education President Richie Smith says he'd be surprised if Hoeven intervened.
Smith says the Standing Rock Sioux tribal council has passed on several chances to show support for the nickname.
Plains Daily; Tribe wants Hoeven to presssure Higher Ed Board
SayAnyThingBlog.com; Sioux Indians Ask Gov Hoeven To Intervene On UND Nickname, Board Says They’ll Listen If He Does
Again, the SBHE didn't ignore the Tribes; they made a decision based upon the past 1-3 years of failed, frustrated attempts to get the SR Council to give their approval, or to even reassurance that decisive action was pending. There was no promise stated or implied, as the Supreme Court stated in their recent opinion. The two Tribes were given an opportunity which the SR Tribe has squandered. The SBHE listened to SR but were clearly told that nothing was going to happen until the Board made their decision. Now the decision has been made and SR's response simply referred to a somewhat questionable referendum...and further delays. Every attempt to gain approval and/or to allow the tribal people to be heard failed at the desk of the SR Chairman, Charles W. Murphy. Get him to sign off on the approval, then the issue is worthy of reconsideration. Spirit Lake needs to focus on realistic action to resolve the root of the problem, not the symptoms. The resolution of the problem is firmly grounded with the SR Tribal Council. For Mr. Murphy to caution the Board that the referendum may not be considered in the final decision speaks to precisely as to how optimistic the Board could have been in making their decision.
ReplyDeletenot giving both tribes the entire amount of time they were told they'd get to put together a vote is the same as ignoring them.
ReplyDeleteeverybody who has a clue knows when election day is in election years. if the electoral college simply decided on the election outcomes six months before election day because they felt that they knew what was going to happen anyways, i don't think many people would support such a move.
why should this be viewed any differently?
I too believe that the SBHE made a notable error in not waiting until Nov to make their decision, free and clear. But, they didn't base upon the fact that they saw no compromising effort on the side of SR. They were told the referendum would take up to 18 months to organize....well past the Nov deadline set by the NCAA. Now, it's up to SR to give the approval so the SBHE has grounds to reconsider. When you speak of elections, you speak of a democratic society. The Tribal Government is not Democratic. Regarless of the favorable outcome of the election/referendum, the Council still decides independently and at this point has told the SBHE exactly that, and that it is not supportive. Given no reason to think the SR Council was going to approve, the decision was made with the desire to not waste any more time. It still comes down to convincing the Council to put their approval in writing. That is the only thing that will provide the basis for the SBHE to reconsider. Nothing else. Anything else sustains the controversy.
ReplyDeletei agree with you, sioux7nt. i just think had the sbohe waited until the november deadline, then nobody would have any grounds to accuse them of irresponsibly handling the situation. as it is, i think that's a fair accusation.
ReplyDeleteYes...but you see, waiting until Nov is exactly the way SR wanted it to play out. Then the Council would have gotten their "opposition" way. It was clear to everyone, the name was not going to be supported by the SR Government. Standing Rock told the SBHE that they would not respond until AFTER the SBHE made their decision. So, by deciding now, it provides a 6 month window and it puts the pressure back on SR to let their People be heard. Deciding in Nov would have been the final nail in the coffin. Now there's six months to see if SR will do the right thing, in accordance with the petitioned will of their members. In effect, it breathed life (on life support)back into the Name by deciding to retire it now. Keep in mind, it was decided to retire it a year ago. The appeals delayed the final breath but at least now there is a chance, as remote as it is, to have the Board reconsider. In the meantime, SR did NOTHING after repeated attempts by the SBHE to work with them. Unfortunately, even though they have the authority to reconsider, without the written approval of SR Council prior to Nov, they will not reconsider. It's a matter of ending the controversy. The only effective end of the controversy is for SR Council to approve the name. If they do not, it is of no consequence because the decision has been made. The best scenario today would be that the SR Council confirms with the SBHE that they will honor the petition/referendum instead of deciding independently. That would give the Board reason to reconsider given the favorable petition. At this time, they have told the Board they do not have to honor the petition or the referendum, should it ever be held. Sadly, if SR would have said this prior to last Thursday, the name would not have been retired last week.
ReplyDeleteinteresting angle. it's hard to say definitively what i'd do in their shoes, but if i were on the sbohe, i think i would have put the issue right back on standing rock.
ReplyDeletehad the sbohe simply said, "this isn't our decision to make. the ncaa is allowing until november of this year for both tribes to decide how we proceed on this issue. spirit lake has already given their approval. therefore, we'll give standing rock until november to decide how they're going to vote. if standing rock approves it's use by the deadline, then we'll vote to keep the name. if standing rock does not make a decision by the deadline or decides agasint supporting the name, then we'll drop the name."
i think that would have the same end result as their current strategy without setting the gears in motion that may very well result in retiring the name before standing rock gets a vote put together.