Eric J. Burton wrote:
> I am not sure what you guys expect from my school in the law suit process? The NCAA over stepped its bounds with its policy, our school isn't going to just back down and change our logo because the NCAA wrote a policy. Other schools did that is there perogative.  Also, I am sure our lawyers will conduct their selves in a professional manner. Its been said that there are a lot of other interested parties that are supporting the school behind the scenes. I don't think the NCAA wants this case to go to court. 
>   

What I actually "expect" is a judicial contest conducted in a 
professional manner by attorneys and a court who, frankly Scarlett, 
don't give a damn, . . . at least not in the sense that they're 
emotionally tied to their preferred outcome just because some represent 
one side professionally.  In that respect, the appropriate decision 
process for a fairly significant social issue will differ from the 
various processes of those who are high on emotion or low on 
consideration for others or both, for whatever motives.  However, an out 
of court compromise would fall short of "deciding the issue."

What I'd "like" is the benefit of a written decision from a fairly high 
court, setting forth all the relevant arguments and the basis for the 
decision.  I'd expect to find things I hadn't considered and reading it 
makes for a wild Saturday evening now that Saturday Night Live turned 
mediocre.  I don't know who foots the legal bill for that.  It's 
somewhat inequitable if it falls to the people of North Dakota while we 
all benefit, though I don't see much benefit from a state court decision 
and none at all from an out of court compromise.  Don't look to me for 
dollars; I'm saving mine for my school's legal fight if we ever find 
there's actually one wolverine still living in the state and he's 
fightin' mad and won't take it any longer.

I can't cavalierly jump to the conclusion that the NCAA "over stepped 
its bounds with its policy."  There have obviously been many schools 
that voluntarily initiated such changes because they felt it was the 
morally responsible thing to do.  Presumably, some didn't really need to 
go to the length they did but considered it the better path.  Just as 
surely, there are bound to be some that should have but didn't.  I don't 
think it's unreasonable for an association providing means for increased 
visibility to its voluntarily subscribed members to contemplate the way 
it allows its resources to be used.  I can understand a leadership group 
with the highest credentials for competence deliberating the questions 
of where the line should be drawn for identifying those "who should have 
but didn't" and what moral or legal responsibility the association 
leadership has for initiating a process for getting a properly drawn 
line.  I see the court process as an expected component of the 
line-drawing process that affords the obligatory due process.  If this 
policy was actually initiated by a bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant 
stumble-bums, then that bunch of money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums 
has credit due them for stumbling into the same decision that would be 
justified for a capable leadership group.  As much as I might hate 
seeing money-grubbing, ignorant stumble-bums get credit by pure luck, 
well, . . . . . . . .  .  .  .  .  .

Bob Griebel