[Imc] whoever will be at the chief reporting tomorrow should read this:

[Sascha Meinrath]

                     ******************

		Support the Anti-"Chief" Movement
			Wed, November 8
		1:15 pm, Foellenger Auditorium

Join the PRC at Foellenger Auditorium for the UI Board of Trustees' (BOT) 
Q & A session on Judge Garippo's report for the "Dialogue on Chief
Illinwek." We will gather at the auditorium to pass out leaflets (see
below), anti-"Chief" buttons, and challenge Judge Garippo for his
poorly-written report on the "Chief" and his disturbing proposal for a
compromise on this issue of racism. 

              _________________________________________

DIALOGUE OR STALLING TACTIC?

Speak up! Tell the UI Board of Trustees (BOT) that their racist tradition
does not represent us! 

                        ****************

The Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek was a waste of time and University
resources which served only as a superficial response to the criticisms of
the North Central Association (NCA) and national and international
organizations.

-The UI BOT paid Judge Garippo $250 an hour to gather and compile
information for the Dialogue on Chief Illiniwek, for which Garippo
produced a watered down report that misrepresents and trivializes
anti-Chief arguments and rehashes arguments which have been made for 11
years. It adds nothing new to the Chief debate. At $250 an hour, Garippo
would have gotten paid $10,000 a week, or $40,000 a month to produce this
report! 

-The NCA report (9/99) was critical of the hostile environment created by
the Chief. If the UI truly cares about diversity on this campus as
required in their public charter and for NCA accreditation, they would
respect the voices of the hundreds of national Native organizations that
have called for an immediate end to the use of Chief Illiniwek. 

-The recently released report by Judge Garippo would have received a
failing grade from any professor on this campus. No new analysis was
made; pro-Chief arguments were simply repeated; and many anti-Chief
arguments submitted were not mentioned in the report. The statistics cited
in the report were not representative or scientifically collected or
analyzed. The compromise on the Chief suggested  in Chapter 10 was offered
only by Garippo himself, not in any of the submissions or speakers
presentations.  Thus it was not a compromise reached by open discussion
with Dialogue participants.

Those tens of thousands of dollars could have been better spent on: 
-hiring a Native American dean   
-recruiting Native American students
-starting Native American studies and cultural programs  
-establishing an Asian American cultural program  
-increased funding for the Asian American Studies Program  
-providing better funding for current cultural houses 
-more resources for women on campus  
-better child care services for employees and students  
-recognition for the Graduate Employees Organization and more resources
for graduate employees 

The University's message is clear:
They would rather waste taxpayer and student money on a poorly-written
report than work toward ending racism on this campus. 

THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE.
Judge Garippo proposed a compromise in which the Chief remains while the
University establishes a Native American studies program. No Native
American organization has accepted this compromise, because Chief
Illiniwek insults them and creates a racially hostile environment in this
community. The first step toward increased diversity on this campus must
be the elimination of the Chief. 

Contact the BOT and tell them to that we are tired of their racist
tradition. 
The Chief is an embarrassment and a violation of human rights. Even if the
BOT claims their Dialogue to be legitimate, we will not accept the
continued use of the  Chief under any circumstances. 

Stand up and join the struggle for justice! 
Come to the PRC anti-Chief march on March 21, 2001!


                *************************************

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF JUDGE GARIPPO & THE BOT AT THE PRESENTATION

-Why was there no public input on how the Dialogue process took place? Who
decided the format and process?

-How much money was wasted on the Dialogue?  What fraction of that was
paid to Judge Garippo? His staff?

-Does Judge Garippo consider the Chief an issue of human rights? Minority
rights?

-Abolition of slavery, womens right to vote, and civil rights for
minorities would have never happened by a vote. Does the Judge consider
minority rights a matter of popularity? In his legal opinion, does a
public institution like the UI have any legal obligation to respect
minority rights?

-Why did the BOT refuse to discuss the Chief issue for over ten years, but
then agree to hold a dialogue only after the NCA's critical report?

-Why was so much space in the report wasted on a semantic game - the
distinction between whether the Chief is a mascot a symbol or a
performance? Amos and Andy was a performance, but it was still racist.  

-How can Judge Garippo propose a compromise on an issue of racism?

-How could Judge Garippo quote the pro-Chief movie, "The Chief," in his
report when it was made public more than three months after the Dialogue
submissions deadline?

-The statistics used in the report were not scientifically gathered nor
analyzed. Submissions from groups with thousands of members (NAACP,
Amnesty International, etc) were counted as a single vote, equal to one
person.  Why did Judge Garippo then say, The vast majority of people
familiar with the Chief admire him (Chap. 8)?

-Why were only pro-Chief volunteers solicited to help ?

The Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative is a multi-issue,
multi-tactical organization working for peace with justice. The PRC is a
program of the Illinois Disciples Foundation (IDF). We meet every
Wednesday at 7:30pm at the IDF. You can reach us at (217) 352- 8721,
prc at prairienet.org, or www.prairienet.org/prc.