Fighting Illini Say Goodbye To The Chief
University Of Illinois Drops Controversial Native American Mascot
-
Photo
The University of Illinois announced that its mascot, Chief Illiniwek, deemed an offensive use of American Indian imagery by the NCAA in 2005, will no longer perform at athletic events at the school's main campus after the last men's home basketball game of the season. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Week In Sports
The week's biggest winners, losers and newsmakers.
The move makes the school eligible to host postseason NCAA championship events.
The NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek — portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home football and basketball games and other athletic events — to be an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events.
American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning. Supporters of the mascot say it honors the contributions of American Indians to Illinois.
Illinois still will be able to use the name Illini because it's short for Illinois and the school can use the term Fighting Illini, because it's considered a reference to the team's competitive spirit, school officials said. It is unclear if the school will get a new mascot.
"The Chief Illiniwek tradition inspired and thrilled members of the University of Illinois community for 80 years," Board of Trustees Chairman Lawrence Eppley said in a statement. "It was created, carried on and enjoyed by people with great respect for tradition, and we appreciate their dedication and commitment. It will be important now to ensure the accurate recounting and safekeeping of the tradition as an integral part of the history of the university."
The university received a letter from the NCAA dated Thursday that said the school will no longer be banned from hosting postseason events if it ends use of the mascot and related American-Indian imagery.
The NCAA's sanctions thus far have prevented Illinois from hosting only two postseason events, both in low-profile sports.
Athletic director Ron Guenther said he was disappointed in the decision, but that the NCAA's sanction hurt the school's athletes and coaches.
"This is an extremely emotional day for people on both sides of the issue, but the decision announced today ends a two-decade long struggle surrounding Chief Illiniwek on this campus ... ," Guenther said. "Personally, as an alumnus and former athlete, I am disappointed, however, as an administrator, I understand the decision that had to be made."
President Joseph B. White said he supported scrapping Chief Illiniwek.
"While I understand many people have strong feelings about this 80-year-old tradition, for the good of our student-athletes and our university it is time to come together and move on to the next chapter in the history of this distinguished institution," he said.
Basketball coach Bruce Weber said he, too, was disappointed, calling Chief Illiniwek a "tremendous tradition." But Weber also said he understood why the decision was made, pointing out that the NCAA barred the men's tennis team from hosting the first and second rounds of the NCAA tournament last May.
"They (the board of trustees) had to make the decision. It's disappointing," he said.
On Friday, a Champaign County Circuit Court judge rejected two students' request for a court order to ban the university from "capitulating to the NCAA by announcing the retirement of Chief Illiniwek."
The NCAA has said it believes its sanctions are legal.
A state district judge in North Dakota in November granted a preliminary injunction in a similar lawsuit filed over the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux nickname and use of American Indian imagery.
In the lawsuit, the students also argued that by imposing sanctions, the NCAA failed to provide due process to the students and the university.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



This is a FANTASTIC piece of news!! For many years I have been on committees, wrote/signed many a petition and peacefully participated in several protest marches/rallys against this "character!" The "Chief" certainly wasn't honoring MY heritage and ancestors by any stretch of the imagination!! What a travesty!!
My contention was that if UofI wanted to use this "figure" as a mascot, why not be politically correct and at least settle on representing just ONE of our proud (American Indian) nations to "symbolize" this mascot (not by wearing/being painted/dancing in a mish-mosh of styles/imagination!). Also, they could have recruited a GENUINE native from within their student body, provided a small scholarship/stipend for "using" him to represent "their" image?? These suggestions, along with many others, especially those supplied by the American Indian community of Chicago (some 20,000+) were put to the appropriate "Board" and were totally ignored and dismissed.
Posted by RhondaM5 at 03:18 PM : Feb 16, 2007
AMEN! Finally...someone who can call it like it is!
Can't wait to root for the Fightin' Rosebuds!!! Hahaha!!!!
Oh and no I'm not a Native American, but am rather part Native Canadian.
This is illegal........ it violates "freedom of expression"........... what's next New England having to drop the "Patriots"........
We are getting to extreme, (liberal) in America...what other rights will we have to give up next?????
Hmmm. Maybe they can replace him with a black slave mascot?
Also love how two of the crackers who put on that costume are now suing on "free speech" grounds. Well, maybe the KKK can fund their legal defense or something. I think them suing is almost as ludicrous as those guys suing "Borat" because they got drunk, signed a waiver, and got filmed talking about how great slavery was.
MITYWHITY, the point is that others ARE saying wait a minute. Just because their reasons for doing so don't match yours doesn't mean they're wrong.
Not to mention that while the Irish WERE treated like "dog squeeze" (not anymore of course), they were not enslaved, slaughtered en masse, killed off with biological weapons and forced to walk hundreds of miles from their ancestral homes and put on barren land to rot - to this day. They might be just a tad more sensitive about current portrayals of their people than you are about yours.
First of all, you ARE NOT Native American, so you have no right to state what may or may not be deemed offensive to this ethnic group! Fact of the matter is, Chief Illiniwek (although represented more accurately than other symbols) is still offensive. It is taking the name, "Illini" and the representation of the Chief, which may be SYMBOLS to you, but are just stolen culture to others.
And maybe this ethnic group doesn't want their image being publicized and exposed to the entire nation to witness. Many Nations have customs that are only supposed to be seen or discussed privately throughout their specific NATION, not in front of 50,000+ of stadium members.
Furthermore, this is a racial group of people that were and still are suppressed, and are now being marketed all while seeing none of the revenue. How is that fair? To decimate an entire group of people, then publicize them to make money! That is completely unacceptable and in my humble opinion should have been changed long ago (along with FSU, the ATL Braves, and the Cleveland Indians [as well as many others]).
So maybe you should take a less self-centered and egotistical view before attempting to defend and support a raciest argument!
Once again another liberal poster who falls back on the pathetic tactic of attacking the person not the message! You don't like what hroe2 says so you call him a racist.
He never said that Native Americans don't have a right to be offended. He said that he wouldn't be offended.
But I agree with you. Let's remove every public symbol, name, and historical reference to every Native American tribe. That way the only thing they will ever be known for is their casinos.
The fact of the matter remains that the Univesity of Illinois is going to lose the support and onations of untold thousands of alumni - right as they embark upon an expansion plan that will take millions. They'll try to get public funding, but we voters in Illinois will have to turn down funding, reminding the hoary academicians of their BAD JUDGEMENT in trying to be politically correct with a dead horse issue that cost them, ultimately, for their ignorance.
Goodbye Chief Illiniwek ? Goodbye U of I !
Two hours later, hroe2 wrote: "i am 1/16 native american"
Funny how you got Indian after a couple hours. I'm sure that little "no wait, I AM Native American!" postscript wasn't to bolster your argument, no of course not.
Good one prcdr, you've managed to defend someone you say is not racist and two sentences later manage to show off your own racism. "Only known for their casinos" - ha ha, good one, yeah, "those Indians and their casinos", huh?
It's not like contributions to American culture, lifestyle, half the state names of the United States, keeping the first settlers alive when they reached North America, sports like lacrosse, winning olympic events, fighting against the British in our War of Independence, serving in WW1, WW2, etc., should be remembered or anything, huh?
Yep, great to see crackers like prcdr and hroe2 stepping up to the plate on this issue, you really shine brightly when coopting (while simultaneously insulting) Native Americans.
It's so easy to talk about others' "*********" - try sniffing what you yourself are shoveling. It's mighty white of you to explain to the rest of us what should and shouldn't be considered racism, cheers mate.
-
by jrhr87
February 19, 2007 12:05 PM PST
- Whether you agree with the use of Chief or not, the NCAA's handling of this situation is hypocritical. If the use of Native American mascots and imagery is offensive to all Native Americans, then why is there an exception made just because a tribe grants its approval to use their name and imagery? Aren't the other Native Americans still offended? It's either offensive or it isn't. There are no remaining Illini tribe members to grant their approval to the University of Illinois. The Illini are not here to speak for themselves. If the Seminoles are not offended who is to say that the Illini would have been? Maybe the Illini would have granted their permission instead of having their name and history fade into obscurity since they were not one of the better known tribes.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 31 Comments