This below is garbage to me because it makes an assumption that is not
true, and is the same mistake the NCAA is making. It has nothing to do
with empathy, either. What is below is the NCAA's position, emotional and
gushy as it is. It is not logical, correct, or rational. Why? Because when
in the world did the Native Americans in the Dakota region appropriate,
own, possess or purchase the name Sioux?
It is a French word or name given to a group of Native Americans by
Europeans. It is not something which is their creation or something they
can claim a right to, but given the twisted logic of the NCAA, the NCAA
has said it is theirs and now is a possession which must be purchased by
the University. The two or three tribes who have been given standing to
sue are making a claim that the price paid by the state is not sufficient
for purchasing the name Sioux. They want a greater payout (free tuition,
more financial aid, license fee or other cash transfer, etc.) of the
benefits from the school's use of the name.

The courts ultimately determine property rights, and in this case the
property right is in the hands of the selected Native American tribes in
North Dakota. We just have a Coasean (Ronald Coase) solution that is
messy. A Coasean bargaining solution works only when the value to one in
possession of a right is less than the value to another who wants to
purchase it. Bargaining does not work when the value to the one in
possession of the right is greater than the one who wants to purchase it
-- the one with the greater value and who has the right will simply hold
on to it and refuse to sell. (This a type of Posner (Richard Posner)
outcome because his solution was to give rights to the one who valued them
the most so that the expense of bargaining would be avoided).

Nathan

On 6/4/13 10:51 AM, "J. Michael Neal" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>All right, I'll give it a try . . .
>
>There really is something very different between "Fighting Irish" and
>"Fighting Sioux".  The University of Notre Dame, while founded by French
>Jesuits, has had an Irish Catholic president since about 1860, well
>before they adopted the name.  That is an entirely different context for
>the adoption of the name than is a situation in which you have conquered
>people, stolen their lands, and then appropriated their names, symbols,
>and images for your own use.  If you don't understand why the
>distinction between "us" and "them" is important, I can't explain it to
>you but I think that not getting it betrays a woeful lack of empathy.
>It's that distinction that makes the issue of using Native American
>mascots important.  They really should only be used with the permission
>of the peoples themselves.
>
>Now, on to North Dakota and why this particular case turned into such a
>mess.  When the NCAA finally woke up to the fact that this was a serious
>issue that needed to be addressed, various member institutions reacted
>in different ways.  At one end of the spectrum you had Florida State;
>FSU had always recognized the importance of the issue and not only had
>gotten permission from the Seminole tribe to use the name, they paid the
>tribe a licensing fee all along.  So they had no problem keeping the
>name.  Then you had schools that either changed their name without
>making it much of an issue or tried to find a path through which they
>secured permission from the tribe whose name they were using.  With this
>in mind, the NCAA set forth a rule that said that if a school could get
>a tribe to pass a referendum okaying the use of a tribal name, it was
>okay to use it.
>
>Then there was North Dakota, which threw a temper tantrum about the very
>idea that this was an important issue.  They fought the NCAA at every
>step of the way and turned it into the biggest possible pain in the
>ass.  They finally, after immense foot dragging, submitted to the new
>NCAA rule.  There were three bands of Sioux whose permission they
>needed.  Two of them passed the resolution.  The third said that their
>band had no legal procedure for taking a referendum and that they had no
>intention of creating a special procedure just for this matter.  So UND
>was unable to secure the required permissions to keep the name "Sioux".
>
>It's my belief that had UND acted in a cooperative manner instead of
>causing as much trouble for the NCAA as they could then the NCAA would
>have been willing to find a workaround given the odd circumstances.
>However, since UND had been uncooperative to the point of filing
>lawsuits and stirring up the North Dakota legislature (which, I think,
>they eventually wished they hadn't), the NCAA dropped the hammer on them
>and refused to consider any alternatives.  UND has no one to blame but
>itself for the way this played out and the fact that the NCAA was
>unwilling to compromise at all.  Then you had the legislature deciding
>to pass a law forbidding the university from changing its name, which
>only made UND's situation worse.
>
>So now they are without a nickname until 2015 because the legislators
>they agitated told them they can't.
>
>On 6/4/2013 8:59 AM, Tom wrote:
>> Are they really planning on calling themselves the Coyotes?  Why not
>> the fighting Coyotes?  Could they get away with calling themselves the
>> Sioux?
>>
>> The one thing in this whole, long process I never understood was why
>> "Fighting Sioux" was an abusive nickname.  You have all kinds of
>> nicknames for sports teams (including the "Fighting Irish") and some
>> of them use abusive logos (Chief Wahoo of Cleveland) but this one got
>> all the press.  I guess I'm just dense because I still don't get it.
>>
>> Tom Rowe
>>
>> Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
>>
>> On 6/4/2013 7:23 AM, John Edwards wrote:
>>> The last line was the best one:
>>> "UND now uses the nickname Coyotes."
>>>
>>> I don't know who would be more surprised by this bit of news: UND
>>> (who is banned from having a nickname until 2015) or USD (who
>>> actually *are* the Coyotes).
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 2013-06-04, at 7:36 AM, Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Two groups of Native Americans do not have standing to keep the
>>>>> University of North Dakota from retiring its use of the
>>>>> controversial "Fighting Sioux" nickname, the 8th Circuit ruled.
>>>> Full story:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/31/58118.htm
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>> -- 
>>>> Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
>>>> http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
>>>> http://makowiec.org/
>>