Tattoos?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one.

I don't follow.

[Adam]

I think what M&M means is that the NCAA isn't all that interested in the moral issue if it's too hard on their bottom line. See also the University of Minnesota's half-azz stance on the issue (canceling all non-hockey contests against the University of North Dakota) for further evidence of this.
The NCAA is only interested, with this issue anyway, of appeasing a vocal minority of native american descendants.

[HawkeyeCubP]

A good discourse on the topic (including a statement that there actually are descendents of the Illiniwek, and that they do object to the U of I's mascot use): http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ive_americans/

A decent, fairly unbiased article on the topic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...cots_8-25.html

The NCAA's original release:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p..._comm_rls.html

Incidentally, I still don't understand how the NCAA's position can be characterized as one of money. I haven't read through/into anything in their releases or official policy that leads me to think that.


Edited to include:

I think that if the NCAA were concerned that much about its bottom line and profit margins (especially at its Championships, where it makes much of its money), they would've/could've avoided this issue (as it is an extremely controversial one that would invoke much resistance from its member institutions), and kept it out of the public eye for the most part, and, instead, chose not to put policies into place regarding alcohol at its Championships (see bottom section of the last linked article on the NCAA's website).

I'm not suggesting that the NCAA is perfect, all-knowing, always in the right, not at all concerned with monetary issues, etc., etc.,, but I'm not convinced this one is a financial issue, yet.

[Adam]

Maybe it's better said that money has a way of mitigating the NCAA's moral stance.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

A decent, fairly unbiased article on the topic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...cots_8-25.html.

PMJI...

PBS has never done anything that was unbiased.

The NCAA has hypocrisy as an organizational creed.

As to the NCAA's motives in granting exceptions from this policy not being about money... in whose universe? This was a product of the internal NCAA Executive Committee Subcommittee On Gender And Diversity Issues, which, since it was created HAD to do something to justify its existance.

Once the NCAA bans the little lepraucaun and the nickname "Fighting Irish", then I'll know they are serious about ethnic slurs in college mascots. After all, which is more offensive: a mascot associating an ethnic group with drunken brawls, or a mascot (e.g. "Fighting Sioux") based on an honorable warrior?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Once the NCAA bans the little lepraucaun and the nickname "Fighting Irish", then I'll know they are serious about ethnic slurs in college mascots. After all, which is more offensive: a mascot associating an ethnic group with drunken brawls, or a mascot (e.g. "Fighting Sioux") based on an honorable warrior?

The Irish, as an ethnic group, weren't systematically and deceptively annihilated, nor subject to anything close to the type of racism and bigotry native americans have been subjected to in this country since its inception. You cannot adequately compare the two for purposes of deciding what is acceptable in today's culture.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Dakota

PBS has never done anything that was unbiased.

I don't see how this piece could be any more unbiased than it is. It's a discussion involving people's comments from both sides of the debate - and they're not actually debating, but simply laying out their comments for the reader to make of them what he/she wishes. It's a purely informative piece, not a persuasive one.