I. INTRODUCTION

On January 13, 2000, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois passed a resolution concerning the issue of the continuation of the Chief Illiniwek performances at its athletic events. The resolution acknowledged the existence of a controversy, and the resolution (found in the Trustees' Appendix @ No.1) provides in part:

4. The Board resolves to ensure that processes are in place which are designed to address the differences within the University community regarding the use of the Chief as a symbol and its alleged negative impact.

On February 15, 2000, the Board, pursuant to the earlier resolution, issued the following press release:

CHAMPAIGN, Ill.--A plan for renewed dialogue on Chief Illiniwek was announced today by William D. Engelbrecht, Chairman of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees.

The Board of Trustees reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue on January 13, and today s announcement is a tangible expression of that commitment, he said.

Engelbrecht said that the University would retain a senior legal professional to help gather opinion on Chief Illiniwek, symbol of the Urbana campus s athletic teams, and present it to the Board in a form that would allow the Board to respond to particular points in an organized way.

The first step, he said, will be opinion solicitation. Students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the general public will be invited to submit their opinions in writing.

Submissions may be sent to Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek, P.O. Box 5052, Champaign, Illinois 61825 or to The deadline for submissions will be May 31.

The Board will hold a Special Intake Session on the Urbana campus April 14. Interested people of all shades of opinion will be welcome to present their views.

The University will retain a senior legal professional to compile all the communications received, including a transcript of the Special Intake Session as well as the letters and e-mails.

The senior legal professional will prepare a three-part report consisting of 1) an executive summary of the various arguments made about this issue from all points of view, 2) a distillation of these arguments into particular points to which the Board will reply, and 3) an appendix consisting of the transcript of the Special Intake Session and all communications received. All members of the Board of Trustees will receive this report on August 1, and it will be available to the press and general public.

Engelbrecht said that the Board will hold a Special Response Session on the Urbana campus in the fall at which it will respond to the various issues as presented by the senior legal professional. The Board may also choose to issue general statements or adopt resolutions at that or a later time.

"This plan should allow all opinions to be heard and allow the Board to respond to all of the issues raised during the process. I urge everyone interested in this issue to offer his or her opinion. We'll be listening," he said.

Engelbrecht said that further details about the Special Intake Session would be announced soon. E-mail:

On March 30, 2000, the Board named the undersigned to be the senior legal professional to preside over the Intake Session and compile the report to the Board of Trustees. The press release issued that day, which in addition sets out the procedures for the Dialogue, can be found at Trustees' Appendix @ No.2. The role of the senior legal professional was meant to be and remains limited:

Garippo may advise the Board on procedural questions but will not make a recommendation on the status of Chief Illiniwek. His task will be to convey respondents' opinions to the board.

[March 30, 2000 - Press Release by Board] This report is being submitted to the Board pursuant to the above directions.

As discussed in Section IV of this report, this controversy has been debated at great length and with great passion for eleven years. On numerous occasions participants and close observers of the discussions have heard various forms of the many arguments during that time period. To those persons this report will present no significantly new arguments.

One might question, then, whether the Dialogue and this report are beneficial. Clearly, they are. First, they give all persons affected or interested in the issue an opportunity to express their views and have those opinions reviewed. Secondly, at the Intake Session the Board had the opportunity to see and hear over 120 persons voice their opinions with great passion either in person or on video. Thirdly, and most importantly, the report presents both sides of the Dialogue from their historical perspectives. This is not only helpful to those readers who know little or even nothing about the controversy, but just as importantly, perhaps even the contributors to the Dialogue might better appreciate the position from which opposing opinions arise.

This issue frequently polarizes those who express opinions. As the moderator of this Dialogue, the most difficult goal was to carry out the designated duties in such a manner that attendees at the Dialogue and readers of this report would feel that all views had been considered and fairly reported, and at the same time, no bias would be ascribed to the actions or statements of the moderator. Every effort was made to achieve that goal; hopefully those efforts were successful.