Voices heard amid rising tension
Dialogue will be part of presentation to board of trustees next fall

by Cindy Gierhart and Jessica Jacko
Daily Illini reporters

Jared Peterson The Daily Illini

The Daily Illini Tina Carrington (foreground left), Urbana, and Desiree Yomtoob (right), Urbana, sit on the Quad during a break in the Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek. The tepee was set up by Bill Emmett, Leroy, Ill., who supports the removal of Chief Illiniwek. Emmett said he bought the Cheyenne-design frame in Wisconsin and had a Navajo friend, Two Feathers, paint the canvas.

The overwhelming tide of anti-Chief activists seemed eager to sway the opinion of the University board of trustees Friday at the Special Intake Session - a contrast to the confident, smaller voices of Chief supporters.

As the session progressed, audience size grew as much as the tension in Foellinger Auditorium. Words of tradition and respect were uttered by nearly all who spoke at the Intake Session, but the words meant different things to different people.

The dialogue was "one baby step in a journey of a thousand miles," said first-year graduate student and former Illini football player Dino Pollock.

Through tears, Jayne Waupanook, a sophomore at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said she never considered coming to the University because of the Chief. She thought her grades would suffer if she came here.

Alumnus J. Michael O'Byrne fondly recalled watching the Chief perform during the Red Grange Homecoming game in 1946. The feeling of pride O'Byrne felt watching the Chief for the first time continues today, he said.

"The Chief is part of the pride I have in the University," O'Byrne said. "The Chief is a symbol of the pride of the people of Illinois and our Native American heritage."

Chief supporters constantly reaffirmed that the Chief is a symbol, not a mascot.

"To me, the Chief was never a person, but a symbol of dignity, loyalty and inspiration that I have come to respect," said Roger Huddleston, of the Chief Illiniwek Support Fund. "He was different from school mascots, because he wasn't one."

Jay Rosenstein, a visiting lecturer who made a documentary about the Chief, said a symbol is supposed to bring people together.

"Does this look like unity to you?" Rosenstein asked.

Since April 4, when Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma relinquished its support of Chief Illiniwek, no tribe in the United States supports the University's symbol, said Michael Haney, executive director of the American Indian Arbitration Institute.

"I don't think it was to honor us. Hell, they ran our butts out of Illinois," Haney said, paraphrasing the words of the Peoria tribe.

Although both sides remained adamant about their positions, each offered possible compromises.

"If it's the dance you dislike, then let's modify it. If it's the likeness, then let's work with the board of trustees to license an image," said University alumna Laura Schmitt.

After Haney's speech, Judge Louis Garippo, who presided over the dialogue, gave him extra time to explain the compromise he spoke of privately to Garippo.

Haney said the Chief could stay for now, provided the University implement a more developed Native American studies program, cultural house and a plan to recruit more Native American students and faculty. Many anti-Chief speakers noticed the lack of Native American representation on campus, and pointed out that the Chief supporters were predominantly white.

"Chief Illiniwek is all the kids at school know about my people," said Wayne Crue, 12, from Edison Middle School in Champaign. It hurts him to see them wear the imitation eagle feathers that it took him so long to earn, he said.

Cyd Crue, Wayne's mother, said Wayne is often teased for his long hair and the Native American dances he performs.

"It's OK to be a fake Indian on the football field, but not OK to be a real Indian in the classroom," Cyd Crue said.

By educating students and faculty about true Native American culture, Haney felt the Chief will eventually die off.

However, not all speakers were as optimistic for a compromise.

"There is no point to a dialogue because one side is not willing to compromise," said Brian Silverman, an Urbana attorney.

Silverman said if the board made a decision, one way or the other, and stuck to it, there wouldn't be so much turmoil over the subject.

Rosenstein said the board did make a decision in 1991 when it decided to keep the Chief.