<< HOME

Table of Contents

VIII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. Tradition

The Chief's value as a tradition outweighs other factors; he is not racist, he is a nostalgic link for alumni of the University and a focal point for school pride and spirit, both laudable emotions.  

Many anti-Chief protestors concede that the people supporting the Chief have good intentions. What were and are those intentions? At the time of the creation of the Chief football coach Bob Zuppke referred to Illiniwek as exemplifying "the complete human being-the strong, agile human body, the unfettered human intellect, the indomitable human spirit. "Surely, the initial concept of Chief Illiniwek was nothing but highly honorable and respectful. Whether or not Zuppke's image was accurate, or the character and performance selected to convey that image was authentic, makes little difference to the Chief's supporters because the desired honorable message and intention have been delivered successfully for so many years until this relatively recent challenge.

While the performance of the Chief has remained somewhat constant, the University has made an effort to remove those practices that might be viewed as disrespectful or abusive of that initial image and intention. Thus, through the years, a tradition of the Chief has developed that deserves its own history and respect. Many alums and fans have taken this performance with its tradition as a bond to the University and a reminder of their positive experiences on campus. The performance has existed for the better part of a century, most of which has been without controversy.

This year the Chief Illiniwek Educational Foundation produced a movie entitled, The Chief. The history and tradition of the Chief are told primarily by the use of old film clips and statements from former students who have portrayed the Chief through the years. While most of the factual accounts have been set forth in this report previously, the theme of the production sets forth how the Chief Illiniwek tradition is regarded by his great number of followers:

The Chief represents everything good about the University of Illinois;

He is a link to our great past;

He is a tangible symbol of an intangible spirit filled with qualities a person of any background can aspire to: goodness, strength, bravery, truthfulness, courage, and dignity;

He is all men;

He is every man.

 

The pro-Chief supporters insist that the above elements of the Chief tradition are not racist. Webster's Dictionary defines racism as:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2. racial prejudice or discrimination.

 

Under the first definition of racism, the Chief is racist only to the extent that the Indian is perceived as a higher quality of human than others. Thus, it is argued that the Indians should be proud that the University seeks to honor those perceived traits. Additionally, under the second definition, the elevation of the Indian does not show a prejudice against him nor a discrimination.

Those people who through these many years have experienced the chills, goose bumps and tears during the Chief's performances, argue that the tradition itself should be respected. They feel that suddenly we are not to revisit those decades of tradition and somehow re-label as dishonorable the intentions of those who have portrayed the Chief and those who have celebrated the performance.

The vast majority of people familiar with the Chief admire him and they demonstrate this admiration by standing when he performs. His performance is combined with the singing of the University's alma mater.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Enjoy it and appreciate it.

Seeing Chief is like a religious experience.

I get chills up and down my spine.

I get goose bumps.

I get a tear in my eye.

Not racist when people view it in respect.

Inspires me to be involved in Indian affairs.

 

Native Americans and those familiar with Native American culture can best determine whether a depiction of Native American culture is offensive or insulting; others cannot fully appreciate the significance and effects caused by the Chief.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Listen to us when we say "ouch. "

There is no respect for the Indian when you do not listen.

If you have respect for a person and you do something that hurts that person, and you are asked to stop, then you stop. Continued use after protest is humiliating.

To have anyone else (non-native people) make the decision would give the message that we still believe Native Americans to be an inferior people whose opinion is unimportant and unnecessary.

The Chief was created as a personification of the name ÒIllinois.Ó The ÒIllinoisÓ (or the ÒIlliniÓ) were a confederacy of Native American peoples that inhabited southern Wisconsin, northern Illinois and parts of eastern Iowa and Missouri; that intent continues, and to ensure this, the University has attempted to restrict the uses of the Chief to avoid disrespectful uses, such as placing the Chief's emblem on toilet paper; the University will continue to be diligent in this effort.

SELECTED COMMENTS

He draws me closer to other cultures

He is peaceful

He is dignified

It is respectful

The existence/non-existence of a sports symbol lies within the discretion of the University, which should not be subject to the outspoken views of a few detractors.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Organized objections are relatively recent and appear to be learned responses.

Objections are motivated only by political correctness.

Attitudes about the Chief should be changed by education rather than protest.

 

ÒSymbolsÓ and ÒmascotsÓ should unite and not divide people; encouraging them to support common goals, etc. The Chief fails in this. His presence is divisive, not unifying, and that divisiveness has grown over time.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Action by Board of Trustees in 1990 did not end controversy.

 

Recognizing the problems associated with the use of Native American designations, logos and mascots, many other institutions long ago ceased using them. The trend of elimination of these items continues.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Pro-Chief people will lose nothing if Chief is retired.

Pain of losing Chief is not as lasting as pain of racism.

B. Stereotype

The Chief is based on a racist and stereotypical image of American Indians; moreover, the fact that it is a static portrayal of that group creates and fosters a one-dimensional image of all of its members.

Webster's defines "stereotype" as it relates to this issue as "a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, effective attitude or uncritical judgment. "

To the critics of the Chief, he is a one-dimensional creation depicting an Illini chief as a centuries-old, Sioux-outfitted, dancing, plains Indian. This corresponds to the image that comes to mind for most Americans who have gained their knowledge of Indian lore through Hollywood westerns.

Critics of the Chief argue that the European Americans idealized the simple and, what they regarded as, noble life of the American Indian in this fertile American paradise. Once the Europeans sought the land that the Indians occupied, the image of the native changed to that of the savage Indian who attacked the peaceful settlers. After the Indian was conquered, the brave, noble and resourceful image of the Indian was restored.

The image did not remain that simple. The treatment of the American Indians and how the newcomers dealt with the natives' customs contributed to the present image to which many Indians object. During the nineteenth century, the policy of the U. S. government was to remove the Indians from the desirable lands and then by converting them to Christianity, the Indians' religions and customs, perceived by the government to be heathen and immoral, would be eliminated. The Civilization Act of 1819 called for the active destruction of Indian religions. Every effort was made to discourage their use of their language and to end their cultural practices, especially their dances, which were considered heathen, warlike or immoral. In 1885, an Indian convicted of participating in certain traditional dances could have his rations withheld for up to ten days for a first offense and for a subsequent offense, he could be imprisoned for 30 days.

In 1890, Indians, at various Sioux reservations in the Dakotas, were observed performing the Ghost Dance. That dance, performed at a frenzied beat, was a cult dance with an anti-white theme that prayed for a return of the Indians' land so that they could live in their old way. Agents for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, fearing for their lives, called upon the U. S. Army for protection.

After the army arrived, soldiers attempted a capture of then-Chief Sitting Bull who was killed during that attempt. Chief Big Foot, who was thought to be the next target, sought refuge at the Pine Ridge reservation. A battle ensued wherein hundreds of men, women and children were killed at the battle of Wounded Knee, said to be the last battle of the Indian wars. The victorious army captured thirty "ringleaders" and confined them at Fort Sheridan, Illinois. This imprisonment was meant to keep these men removed from the reservation to prevent the resumption of the Ghost Dances and any conflict that might thereby result.

At the same time, Buffalo Bill Cody was conducting his popular Wild West Shows worldwide. He came to various reservations recruiting Indians to join his troupe. This practice was received with mixed reaction both in and out of the Indian community. Some Indians regarded those who signed on to be traitors who would be corrupted by the white man's habits. Some white settlers opposed the plan because it helped to perpetuate Indian customs that they were attempting to eradicate. Other Indians and settlers saw the employment as an opportunity for the Indians to rise from poverty.

When Buffalo Bill visited Chicago, he and the army general in charge of the prisoners struck a deal whereby prisoners were given an option of signing on with Buffalo Bill to become show Indians in exchange for their release from custody. Twenty-three prisoners opted for release and employment as show Indians traveling and performing world wide with Buffalo Bill.

Anti-Chief proponents point out that while it was illegal for Indians to perform their rituals on the reservations, it was deemed proper to engage in those very practices for the profit of the Wild West shows. In addition, at the time of the creation of Chief Illiniwek in 1926,forms of Indian dancing still remained banned on the reservations. It was not until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 that those restrictions were abolished. Thus, the dance of Chief Illiniwek being performed by a white man is said to be a reminder to American Indians that in the past, their own tribal dancing by their ancestors had led to their imprisonment and even their death.

The Wild West shows leaned heavily on the portrayal of the plains Indian, mainly the Sioux. The popularity of the Wild West shows stamped that image in the minds of the non-Indian public. The Hollywood western quickly and easily adopted that same Sioux Indian image perpetuated by Buffalo Bill. Thus, for the majority of Americans, that image remains today. The anti-Chief advocates assert that the popular image that is held by the majority of the public meets the definition of a stereotype. That stereotype is often referred to by non-Indians when they encounter Indians for the first time leading to insulting comments about Indians whooping and dancing. Indian children are said to be particularly singled out for ridicule by other children in this regard.

Anti-Chief advocates lament the fact that many Indians themselves have contributed to the very image that the protesters wish to be eliminated. Today, it is not uncommon for Indians, for profit, to perform their dances for the entertainment of the general public. Additionally, Indian gambling casinos often are advertised with Indians in tribal dress and sometimes even advertised with unflattering Indian caricatures.

Native American protestors of Chief Illiniwek urge that they do not wish to be stereotyped even if that stereotype is intended to be a positive one. Their position is that world class universities have a responsibility to foster accurate perceptions of cultural minorities rather than perpetuating fallacies. They assert that every Asian should not be viewed as being a math whiz; every African-American should not be viewed as an athlete; and every American Indian should not be viewed as a proud, brave, noble, dancing and whooping plainsman.

Native Americans find the Chief to be offensive and insulting; his existence trivializes their struggles and dehumanizes them.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Ridicules our race

Leads to derogatory statements and gestures

U. S. policy of removal of Indians in 19^th Century and early 20^th Century would be considered ethnic cleansing today.

 

Elimination of Indian names and symbols from modern American culture will not serve to remedy the wrongs perpetrated in the past.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Anti Chief movement seeks to make victims of present day Indians and foster guilt for past grievances.

Retiring a positive stereotype of an American Indian will worsen plight, Only negative stereotypes of Indians may remain.

 

This decision should not be made on basis of group claiming to be insulted; rather it should be on the basis of whether anyone should be insulted.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Feeling of the members of the borrowed culture should not be the norm of morality for the borrowing culture.

It seems oddly inappropriate to assign a moral value to a cultural influence.

 

The Chief is an unauthorized and inappropriate use of sacred, religious items:

Ð dance

Ð headdress

Ð face paint.

In addition, the costume is an inaccurate depiction of the Illini since it is Ogala Sioux, not Illini.

SELECTED COMMENTS

The right to wear eagle feathers had to be earned by the warriors.

"Hollywood Indian" -- referring to the music at halftime

Indian music is like a heartbeat.

Chiefs with long feather bonnets did not dance.

False solemn occasion

Inaccurate sacred dance

Authenticate or abolish.

 

Chief Illiniwek's dance and costume are not sacrilegious because they are akin to Native-American fancy dancing at pow-wows.

SELECTED COMMENTS

White people often dance at pow-wows.

American Indians travel and compete in fancy dancing contests and their routines may include back flips, high kicks, and splits.

 

Chief Illiniwek is a symbol taken from Native American cultures by predominantly Anglo people; there has been a clear appropriation.

SELECTED COMMENTS

To misuse the Chief primarily for athletic and entertainment purposes dishonors the cultures from which he has been appropriated.

The Chief's performance, not necessarily meant to be authentic, is an art form protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.

SELECTED COMMENTS

(One speaker in criticizing the Anti-Chief resolution passed by the Department of English):

One would think that the very first to step forward in defending a form of expression would be the English department of a university. Other expressions of art said to be racist or sexist: Mein Kamp; Huckleberry Finn; To Kill a Mockingbird; Tom Sawyer; The Grapes of Wrath. Some groups seeking to remove Chief seek to remove these other works.

 

The group most closely linked to the Illini tribe, the Peoria Tribe, have urged the University to retire the Chief.

C. Effect on Campus

The Chief has a negative impact on the reputation, educational mission, and financial well-being of the University:

-the University is viewed by many as insensitive to the rights of Native Americans;

-various departments have found it difficult to recruit faculty (e.g.; Anthropology, History);

Ð some members of the Big Ten conference, such as the Universities of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, have resolved not to compete in athletic events against teams with ÒmascotsÓ like the Chief, and do so against Illinois only because it is a member of the conference;

Ð several organizations have refused to hold or attend meetings at the Urbana campus or the University's other campuses, and have advised others not to attend any such meetings;

Ð several national organizations have taken a stand against the Chief.

SELECTED COMMENTS

See the submission by Prof. Brenda Farnell in Trustees' Appendix @ No. 9.

Both sides are resorting to extortion: alumni supporters who say that they will not contribute if the Chief goes; and opponents who will boycott the University if he stays.

 

The presence of the Chief presents a racially hostile environment.

Or

It has not been shown that the Chief creates a racially hostile environment. (See 11/30/95 decision of the U.S. Dept. of Ed. Office of Civil Rights, which, after a 20-month investigation, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show a racially hostile environment.)

 

The term "racially hostile environment" is a legal concept used to determine whether there has been a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As noted in Section V, no attempt will be made to set forth the legal authority in support of these two conflicting arguments.

The presence of the Chief has led to the ÒChief controversy,Ó which distracts the Urbana campus and the University from pursuing other, more important goals.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Does not achieve goal of a teaching and learning environment

Does not achieve goal of sensitivity to diverse groups and individuals

No learning involved-just entertainment

 

For the present day students of the University, The Chief provides the beginning of that link with the institution that a great majority of the alumni associate with school pride and spirit.

D. General Arguments

The General Assembly of the State strongly supports the Chief; the University of Illinois Act (110 ILCS 305/lf) states that Òthe General Assembly hereby declares that Chief Illiniwek is, and may remain, the honored symbol of a great university, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Ó (eff. 6/1/96) Retiring the Chief could have adverse consequences in terms of funding and future legislation affecting the University.

Retiring the Chief could have adverse financial consequences for the University in terms of reductions in gifts to the University and lost royalties.

 

SELECTED COMMENTS

Both sides are resorting to extortion: alumni supporters who say that they will not contribute if the Chief goes; and opponents who will boycott the University if he stays.

 

Since the U of I is the flagship public university in the state, the opinions of state residents should determine the outcome; most Illinois residents favor retaining the Chief.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Sun-Times poll-86% favor retention of Chief

90% of Dad's Association approve

86% of Mom's Association approve

 

As seen in this country and elsewhere, on many social and moral issues, the majority is not always correct; thus, the fact that a majority of people do not find the Chief offensive should not determine whether the Chief is offensive; the University should take a leadership role on this issue.

SELECTED COMMENTS

This is an ethical question.

Slavery and male-only voting were traditions.

 

The continued presence of the Chief leads and contributes to:

Ð an unrealistic view of Native Americans;

Ð a hostile environment for Native Americans and other people of color;

-discrimination against Native Americans and others in the University, local communities, and elsewhere.

SELECTED COMMENTS

Chief does not pass the Rotary test:

1. Is it the TRUTH?

2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?

3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER UNDERSTANDING?

4. Will it be BENEFICIAL TO ALL?

Real issue is money.

 

The use of Native American words and identities is pervasive throughout our culture; these uses range from the names of states and cities to automobiles and other commercial products; indeed, the names of the State and University reflect that practice.

SELECTED COMMENTS

If I was a Native American, I would be proud to be represented by the Chief.

This is a slippery slope; if the University retires the Chief, then the use of ÒFighting IlliniÓ and ÒIlliniÓ would be challenged next.

The next thing we would have to change is the name of the state.