[Peace-discuss] Letter to the Editor - Anti-Chief

[msimon at uiuc.edu]

Folks, 

I rushed this off to the DI today (friday forum).  These letters are CRUCIAL in the next few days.  If you didn't catch the News Gazette today, a headline states: "Trustees OK with later Chief vote".  Not surprisingly, the BOT would rather wait on an Illinois Student Gov't vote on the issue than accept the responsibilities of leadership and retire the Chief!  This is not an issue of Majority Vote.  I hope my letter will be helpful to you as you formulate your own letters of protest.     

mike simon 

----------------------- 

Not an Issue of Majority Vote 

Simply stated, everybody interested in tallying votes for or against Chief Illiniwek through an ISG referendum is mistaken about the function of cultural symbols.     

A symbol serves to stand in for and define a complex body (such as our University).  As a singular image representing a complex body, a symbol functions to unify that complex body.  A symbol is successful only to the extent that it fulfills these functions of accurately defining and unifying the body for which it stands. 
   
Reading this, Chief supporters logically ask why anyone at the University of Illinois would protest being represented by a symbol of honor, courage, and spirit.  Such characteristics, they say, serve to accurately define and unify our students. 

But the answer is so simple.  Everyone agrees that a symbol of honor, courage, and spirit should be used to represent this University, but not everyone agrees that the Chief is such a symbol.  Not everyone agrees that it accurately embodies these traits. 

For over fifteen years, Native American students at this University and numerous Native nations have made clear that Chief Illiniwek is a stereotype, disrespectful of their personhood and that such a symbol is inherently divisive.   
Since the first Native American articulation of these feelings, anti-Chief sentiment has spread throughout the University to such an extent that the ISG is now calling for a vote to see which side has the majority of student support!   

But let it be clear that the ISG vote is important only in the sense that it was called for at all.  The outcome matters not. 

Whether one does or does not believe that Chief Illiniwek is an offensive and inherently divisive symbol, the fact that the ISG has called for a vote proves that the Chief is far from unifying, far from accurately defining our University.  This being the case, one must conclude that the Chief is a failure of a symbol, unable to fulfill its functions as a symbol.   

What, then, will the ISG referendum accomplish?  Knowing that both pro- and anti- Chief forces are large in number, the vote will certainly not show an ideologically unified student body!  Further, after fifteen years of struggle, it is unreasonable to believe that ISG referendum results will convert the (numerically) smaller camp!  So how will an ISG referendum make the Board of Trustees' decision any easier? 

The referendum aids the Trustees only by giving them yet another excuse to delay their decision.  In Thursday's News Gazette, Trustee Margie Sodermann explained two benefits of delaying decision on the Chief: (1) to vote on the Chief now, while the Board searches for a new President and Chancellor would be overwhelming and (2) the Chief vote will show the Board "how the students feel."   

Well, I'm sorry Margie, but being overwhelmed is no excuse to shirk your duties.  Ostensibly, you and your colleagues were selected to lead this University for your ability to address many complex issues at once.  Furthermore, if it has taken University leadership this long to assess the numerical power of pro- and anti- Chief camps, then you all are negligent.  You are bad leaders.  You and your colleges do not deserve to lead.   

Native Americans should not have to wait any longer for the abolition of the Chief because of your inteptitude! 

Mike Simon 
senior, LAS