It can be very difficult to understand something from another person's perspective — especially if it involves something you believe in strongly; however, it is time for Chief proponents to really listen to what anti-Chief individuals are saying. As others effectively point out, the Chief does not represent white culture. Therefore, white culture may not be best equipped to determine if the Chief is an offensive representation of Native-American culture.

Chancellor Nancy Cantor alluded to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in her statement about the Chief in an attempt to undermine the idea that the "majority rules." Her words brought to mind the people who supported segregation. Many of these people believed segregation was right because a cultural pattern of racial discrimination made it what they were used to. The Chancellor's allusion suggested that we analyze our own reasons for supporting the Chief. The Chief tradition is not necessarily acceptable just because a majority of people in the community like things the way they are.

It is naturally uncomfortable for the pro-Chief faction to hear suggestions that supporting the Chief is a form of racism. Unfortunately, supporting a symbol that offends the group of people that it "represents" is hardly a form of tolerance. Our community is successfully taking the first step in combating this divisive symbol by actively debating the opposing points of view. Now we need to take the next step.

Both sides of this debate seem to have the same well-intentioned goal: honoring our state's Native-American heritage. It is time to recognize that the Chief is no longer an accepted representation of the Native-American culture that we wish to honor. We do not need this symbol to have pride in our university. We have Nobel Prize winners for that.