The affirmative-action officer at the University of North Dakota has warned academic departments and programs publicly opposed to the institution’s Fighting Sioux nickname that they may be creating an “unwelcome” environment for students who support the image.
In a memorandum sent on September 24 to five top administrators at the university, Sally J. Page, the affirmative-action officer, said that academic departments and university programs that publicly stated their opposition to the nickname in a recent advertisement in a local newspaper may also have put the university at risk of a federal civil-rights lawsuit.
“Should any individual or group file a complaint that he/she was denied an opportunity to participate or fully enjoy the services provided because the individual did not agree with the program’s position opposing the logo or the Sioux name, then the university easily could be in a position of trying to defend itself from a discrimination or a hostile-environment claim based on race,” Ms. Page wrote in the memo, which was provided to The Chronicle by a faculty member who opposes the nickname.
“The listing of the department or program in a newspaper ad sends an inappropriate message to students and others who may wish to participate in the educational opportunity or services and who may feel uncomfortable doing so because of the public position,” the memo continued.
A Warning Shot?
Some faculty and staff members at the university, in Grand Forks, said on Friday that they viewed the memo as an oddly timed message on a charged debate that has gone on for several years.
“It seems to be an asymmetrical warning shot to faculty,” said Sharon Carson, an associate professor of English and of philosophy and religion. Aside from the September 22 ad in the Grand Forks Herald, similar versions of which have been published over the past several years, there was nothing immediate that would have provoked such a response, she said.
The ad that prompted the memo shows an American Indian child holding a sign that reads, “I am not a logo,” superimposed over the image of the Lakota Sioux chief Sitting Bull. At the bottom of the ad is the phrase, “Let’s find a name we can all rally around.”
The picture is framed by the names of four university departments and 20 or so programs and organizations opposing the nickname, as well as national groups that oppose the use of American Indian names as logos or mascots.
Some Get Off ‘Scot-Free’
Leigh D. Jeanotte, director of the university’s American Indian Student Services program, which was the first listed in the ad, said he received a letter on September 27 from his supervisor, Robert H. Boyd, the vice president for student outreach and services. The letter directed him to avoid listing the program’s name in future ads or implying that the program had taken a position on the logo. Ms. Page’s memo was attached to the letter."Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked,” said Mr. Jeanotte, who is American Indian. “The individuals that are in opposition to the name are being reprimanded, but the ones who support the name are getting off scot-free.”
While Ms. Page’s memo stated that individual students and faculty and staff members were free to express their personal views for or against the nickname, Mr. Jeanotte said that, in his case, it did not matter.
“Even if I take a personal stance, someone could come back and associate that with our program,” he said, “so it’s really troubling to me.”
On Friday, Mr. Jeanotte sent a memo to top administrators at the university stating that the American Indian Student Services program would comply with the request that the program’s name not appear in future advertisements.
Precluding Lawsuits
In the years since a similar ad last appeared in the Grand Forks Herald, the university has gone to great lengths to preserve the Fighting Sioux logo. Last year, it sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which in 2005 barred the university from displaying its Sioux nickname and logo in postseason competition. (The NCAA ban also applied to other colleges and universities that have nicknames, logos, and mascots bearing American Indian names it deemed offensive.) The case is scheduled to go to trial in December, said Peter B. Johnson, a spokesman for the university.
Ms. Page said in a telephone interview on Friday that the memo was not associated with the litigation. Rather, she said, it was meant to maintain an accepting climate for students, regardless of their position on the Sioux nickname, and to forestall the possibility of legal action.
“I don’t want a student to walk into any environment in which they do not feel welcome,” she said. “It’s an emotional issue. It’s very, very difficult, very painful for many people. And we want to be sure that all individuals feel that when they walk into a classroom, that they have a legitimate right to be there.”
Turning ‘Intent on Its Head’
But Lucy A. Ganje, an associate professor of art, said the memo had misconstrued the role of race in the debate and stifled those who are already at odds with the administration’s public position.
“The university administration is taking an issue of race, human rights, and civil rights, and turning its intent on its head to frame the oppressors as the oppressed,” she said. Ms. Ganje is active in the Campus Committee for Human Rights, the group that paid for the ad.
Faculty and staff members opposed to the nickname whose departments were not listed in the ad and who have not even seen a copy of the memo say they still feel as though its instructions apply to them.
Sheryl O’Donnell, chair of the English department, said the memo amounted to “predatory supervision” by the administration and was an “embarrassment” to the university.
“We have a wonderful school here, we have wonderful faculty, serious, committed faculty,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “This seems to imply that university professors ... who take a stance, or departments who take a stance, aren’t capable of doing their jobs.”
