NCA REPORT OF A SPECIAL EMPHASIS VISIT

NCA REPORT OF A SPECIAL EMPHASIS VISIT
to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
September 27-29, 1999
for the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The North Central Association received over 100 letters, petitions, press releases, and newspaper articles protesting the continued use of the school symbol and mascot, Chief Illiniwek. The Commission also received a copy of Jay Rosenstein's 1997 public television documentary "In Whose Honor? American Indian Mascots in Sports," which focused extensively on the ten-year controversy surrounding The Chief. Team members subsequently received several email messages and letters from UIUC faculty, students, and others opposing The Chief. No letters in support of The Chief were received, and no letters on any other topic were received.

The team was told during its campus visit that the institution's position is that use of The Chief is not an accreditation issue, and so it omitted a discussion of the issue from its self-study. The institution informed those who requested its inclusion that the third-party process could be used instead. The team agrees that a school mascot per se is not an accreditation issue, but it does feel that educational consequences of the policy, tied to NCA criteria, are within the purview of an accreditation review.

During the site visit, team members met with opponents to the school symbol, those in favor of its continued use, the Board of Trustees, the President of the University of Illinois, and the Chancellor of UIUC. The first two groups included faculty, students, alumni, and community

1. The Chief has been the athletic and school symbol for seventy years. The graphic symbol is a stylized Chiefs face with eagle feather headdress. The Chief is also a student dressed in the buckskin outfit of a Plains Indian with a floor length "eagle" feather headdress and face paint. The student appears at athletic events and performs an improvised "Indian-style" dance. The Chief is extremely popular among some student and alumni groups, for whom he is a symbol of school loyalty and pride. See, for example, http://www.savethechief.com/, http://www.chief.uiuc.edu/ and http://www.chiefilliniwek.org.

2. About ten years ago, an American Indian student protested the use of The Chief. Her basic argument was that the Illinois tribe, which was largely destroyed by other tribes in the 18th century, were hunter-gathers and not Plains Indians; that the dance was not authentic; and, most important, that the headdress and face paint have religious and spiritual significance to Indian people. Thus, appropriating them for athletic purposes is deeply offensive to American Indians.

3. In 1990, following the protest over the continued use of The Chief as a university symbol, the Board adopted the following motion:

"The tradition of Chief Illiniwek is a rich one and has meaning for the students, alumni, and friends of the University of Illinois. For more than sixty years, the Chief has been the symbol of the spirit of a great university and of our intercollegiate athletic teams, and as such is loved by the people of Illinois. The University considers the symbol to be dignified and has treated it with respect. His ceremonial dance is done with grace and dignity. The Chief keeps the memory of the people of a great North American tribe alive for thousands of Illinoisans who otherwise would know little or nothing of them. I feel that those who view The Chief as "mascot" or a "caricature" just don't understand the Chiefs true meaning to thousands of U of I students and alumni -he is the spirit of the Fighting Illini. The tradition of Chief Illiniwek is a positive one and I move that he be retained."

The vote for adoption was 6 yes; 1 no. Two student members, who had advisory votes on the Board, both voted no.

4. Within the constraints of this Board policy, the administration of UIUC has sought to restrict the use of symbol of The Chief for advertising. In addition, The Chief appears only at football, men's and women's basketball, and women's volleyball games, and restricts his activities to the dance.

5. As the controversy continued, a legislator introduced legislation that would require the University to maintain The Chief as the official symbol. The legislation passed, but received an amendatory veto from the governor, who expressed his opinion that such matters should be settled within the University.

6. The following is found on a web site favoring The Chief http://www.chief.uiuc.edu/: on September 25, 1982, Sioux Chief Frank Fools Crow traveled to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with Sioux elders Anthony Whirlwind Horse and Joe American Horse. During a halftime ceremony at Memorial Stadium, Fools Crow presented the University with the regalia currently worn by Chief Illiniwek. The nephew of Black Elk, Fools Crow is considered by many to be the greatest Native American spiritual leader of the past century. The regalia that Fools Crow presented was his own personal regalia, hand-crafted by his wife Katie. It is said that Fools Crow was very proud to make this presentation to the University as his work would be seen by so many people. He said:

"These (sacred) ceremonies do not belong to Indians alone. They can be done by all who have the right attitude.. .and who are honest and sincere about their beliefs in Wakan Tanka (Great Spirit) and follow the rules." - Fools Crow

7. A letter from a distinguished member of the history department argues, as other writers do, that: 1) The Chief undermines the educational program of the university by distorting American Indian history; 2) The Chief seriously undermines the university's ability to recruit American Indian students; 3)The Chief undermines the learning environment of all students by humiliating American Indian students. Another letter was from the former president of another Big 10 institution, who wrote:

"I know how crucial it is for academic institutions to provide leadership in encouraging and affirming diversity. As a result, I am writing to urge the North Central Accreditation Association to review carefully the negative impact which the current Illinois mascot has on building a diverse educational community. I am a lifelong supporter of Big 10 athletics. Nevertheless, Chief Illiniwek and similar racial caricatures are symbols of discrimination and ridicule. They are an anathema to good sportsmanship and to building cultural understanding and mutual respect."

Many other letters and petitions present similar arguments about why it is time to retire The Chief.

8. Statements made by individual Trustees on the 1997 videotape followed the 1990 resolution:

1) The Chiefs dance and demeanor are dignified and inoffensive; 2) The Chief is not meant to be offensive and so therefore should not offend.

9. On March 9, 1998, the Faculty-Student Senate of UIUC passed a resolution to end the tradition of the Chief.

10. In March, 1998, the Anthropology Department wrote to the Board with these concerns:

"These effects [due to the ongoing presence of the Chief Illiniwek symbol] extend to all aspects of our scholarly lives: teaching, service, and research. Several critical areas deserve attention. The Chief: (i) Promotes inaccurate conceptions of the Native peoples of Illinois, past and present; (ii) undermines the effectiveness of our teaching and is deeply problematic for the academic environment both in and outside of the classroom; (iii) creates a negative climate in our professional relationships with North American communities that directly affects our ability to conduct research with and among Native American people; and, (iv) adversely affects the recruitment of Native American students and faculty into our university and department."

The team followed the Commission's directive on Third-Party Comments: Avoid trying to resolve the validity of individual comments; instead determine whether the comments raise substantive issues relevant to the institution 's ability to meet the GIRs and Criteria. The team wishes to emphasize at the outset, however, that it does not believe that the choice of a school symbol is an issue for accreditation. Nor is the existence of campus controversy necessarily an accreditation issue. Rather the team sought to analyze all of the issues surrounding the

controversy in relation to the General Institutional Requirements and the Criteria for Accreditation. The team has found that the comments do raise substantive issues relative to communication and governance which are explicated below.

Regarding policy, in 1978 the University of Illinois Board issued the following statement:

"Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois that it reaffirms its commitment and policy (a) to eradicate prohibited and invidious discrimination in all its forms; (b) to foster programs within the law which will ameliorate or eliminate, where possible, the effects of historical discrimination..."

Another statement is found in the Commission's 1991 Statement on Access, Equity, and Diversity:

"...regardless of specific institutional practices, the Commission expects an institution to create and maintain a teaching and learning environment that supports sensitivity to diverse individuals and groups. Further, the Commission expects an affiliated institution to ... [teach] students and faculty alike to see in proper perspective the differences that separate and the commonalities that bind all people and cultures."

Another principle is found in UIUC's strategic plan, A Framework for the Future:

"First, we invest in people: the people who constitute our campus community, at all levels, represent an increasingly diverse population, ...Diversity may challenge accepted wisdom, and may lead to the re-examination of long-held values. Such debates are welcome on this campus, for they are valuable features of intellectual life. We are committed to conducting them in ways that promote and preserve freedom and civility of action and speech...

Certainly, the institution has the right and the responsibility to establish policy, including policies about The Chief. The team notes, however, that it also has adopted a policy against invidious discrimination. "Invidious" means "tending to arouse ill will, animosity, or resentment." This has been the hallmark of the controversy over The Chief. In re-considering its policy on The Chief, the institution should take into account the fact that to be accredited means to be a member of the North Central Association, i.e. the policies of the Board should be generally consistent with the policies of the Association, including the Statement on Access, Equity, and Diversity.

Moreover, there is no doubt in the team's mind that the continued controversy is having a negative effect on the educational effectiveness of UIUC. Ample testimony was received from individual faculty and relevant academic departments about how their missions and programs were negatively affected by The Chief. The team did not find the evidence it hoped to see that the institution has plans to deal with the negative effects of The Chief on educational effectiveness.

Under its Criterion Five, the Commission speaks to institutional integrity. By "integrity", the Commission means that the institution adheres to its own ethical values as adopted through institutional policies and procedures. The Commission does not seek to prescribe any single set of principles for all institutions. As was noted above, the institution has adopted a statement of ethical principles with respect to discrimination, and to the team's knowledge, has not articulated why its policy on The Chief is in keeping with this statement.

In summary, the considerable evidence on this subject leads the team to these conclusions:

3. The institution appears not to be addressing the issue in a manner consistent with the some of the policies and principles of its Board, its own strategic plan, the Commission.

4. It is the responsibility of the leadership of the institution to create the environment that will allow for resolution of the controversy in a manner consistent with the principles of the North Central Association and the goals of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The team wishes to emphasize, however, that it is not advocating a particular outcome, nor does it believe that "resolution" means that all interested parties are satisfied with the outcome. The role of the team is to point out to the institution and to the North Central Association any discrepancies it has found between the way in which the institution is handling the controversy and the principles of accreditation. The team returns to this subject in Section VIII.

Comments or Questions: pubaff@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign