Debate's planning under fire
Participants question University's planning of Friday's dialogue

by Angie Leventis
Daily Illini reporter

 

Watha Suteesopon The Daily Illini Chief Illiniwek performs for the crowd at halftime during an Illini basketball game against the Minnesota Golden Gophers on Feb. 2.	David Neville Daily Illini file photo Members from national organizations participate in an anti-Chief protest in front of Memorial Stadium on Oct. 16, 1999.

A day before a much-anticipated dialogue about Chief Illiniwek is to take place, opponents of the controversial symbol are questioning how the event was planned.

"We do appreciate ... the University opening a forum on this issue after so long and I believe the University spent a lot of time and money planning the event," said Cyd Crue, a prominent anti-Chief activist. "But how many Native American tribes were asked to participate? They should have had Native American people advising them during the planning stages. And why wasn't a Native American asked to moderate?"

Approximately 20 organizations and 47 speakers are scheduled to present opposing and supporting viewpoints on the University mascot, Chief Illiniwek, this Friday. Louis Garippo, a former Cook County circuit court judge, will be mediating the dialogue and compiling a three-part statement for the board of trustees.

"The final statement will be made by the board," University spokesman Bill Murphy said. "Whether they reaffirm their previous decision, get rid of the mascot or do absolutely nothing at all."

The first section of the series will be the executive summary, a compilation of quotes from various speakers at Friday's dialogue, according to Murphy. The second part will be a list of specific points and arguments representing both sides. The third portion will be an appendix where written correspondences concerning the Chief will be published.

"The board always talks about how the Chief has overwhelming support amongst the community and alumni," said Michael Haney from the American Indian Arbitration Institute. "I think it's odd that, as I understand it, not one member of alumni associations or political figure is scheduled to speak. I don't think anyone's willing to put their political careers on the line for a sinking ship."

Crue hopes the Chief will be retired after Garippo completes his statement in August - Haney feels the board will have no other choice, due to accruing legal pressure.

Chief opposer Brenda Farnell, who is slated to speak Friday, said the dialogue was "carefully designed to look like a democratic process."

"I think it's a farce set up to maintain the status quo," she said.

Farnell said she fears that the University does not realize the Chief issue is damaging the University's reputation in academia. Last July, the Linguistics Summer Institute vowed that it would not return to the University as long as the Chief symbol remained.

Mike Drish, a scheduled speaker from Students for Chief Illiniwek, however, feels the dialogue is an unbiased way to address both sides of the issue.

"I think the board has done an excellent job," Drish said. "The fact that speakers are rotated pro, con, pro, con makes it a true dialogue. This way the judge won't just hear one perspective in the morning and another in the afternoon. I think it was excellent to choose an unbiased judge. And many Native Americans are speaking at the dialogue as well."

"We hope that everybody who attends will listen to what others with a different perspective have to say," Murphy said. "The goal of the dialogue is to broaden minds. Many feel differently on the issue, but all sides hold a common ground on valuing Native Americans and Native American culture."

"I hope there will be a good discussion and some conclusion to this issue, whatever it might be," Jean Edwards, a representative from Citizens for Chief Illiniwek and scheduled speaker at Friday's rally said. "I'm pro keeping the Chief. That's my point of view right there."

A rally including various speakers and traditional American Indian