A summary of the pros and cons of the Chief - and arguments from both sides

While the University of Illinois has become one of the most respected public universities in the nation since its inception in 1867, the Chief Illiniwek saga has been an ugly scar upon this institution’s reputation.  The controversy surrounding the Chief has created a firestorm of debate not only on campus, but across the state of Illinois.  The Chief debate had even found its way into the halls of the Illinois General Assembly, where lawmakers were pushing to legitimize the Chief’s existence. 

But with the NCAA has stepping in to rule on the issue, claiming that the University of Illinois, along with 18 other universities using “hostile and abusive mascots, nicknames or imagery,” the Universities hands were tied.  After several appeals the NCAA did not change their decision and the University eventually voted to retire the mascot.

Despite the seemingly official and final word from the University, many students still resist the decision. Halftime traditions still continue despite the Chief’s absence at football and basketball games. The issue even made its way into a spring 2008 ballot as a student referendum. Still a hot topic, every student should take the time to understand Chief Illiniwek.

Loyalty, honor, tradition. Supporters of Chief Illiniwek, the symbol of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, hold strong to these three words. To them, they mean a lifetime of emotions associated with the Chief.

The term ‘Illini’ was first used in 1874 by the student newspaper, which changed its name from “The Student” to “The Illini.” Illini was thought to be the French translation for Illinois (Daily Illini, 9/2/05). The term ‘fighting Illini’ only appeared after the University began fielding athletic teams in the later 1800s. It only applied to the men who fought for the win (Honor the Chief Society). Neither of these terms origins were directly related to Chief Illiniwek.

“Those who used it were aware that Illinois as the name of an Indian people, and they drew on that association when they referred to Illinois or to Illini, but they clearly meant to echo the name of the state,” according to the Honor the Chief Society web page.

These terms grew out of a loyalty to the school and the state of Illinois. They were never intended to draw direct reference to the Native-American people which the state was named after.

After years of using these names to describe the students and the athletic teams, the Marching Illini director, Raymond Dvorak, came up with the idea of Chief Illiniwek for a football game against the Penn State. This was the first appearance of the Chief. The purpose was to have a symbol that represented our state’s heritage. Penn State brought a Quaker and Illinois had its Chief Illiniwek. According to the Honor the Chief Society website, the Chief is “a symbol to represent both honor and tradition at the University of Illinois.”

The tradition grew with the adoption of the Three in One, a combination of three pieces of music: “March of the Illini,” “Pride of the Illini” and “Hail to the Orange.” This tradition has remained intact since 1928. According to the Honor the Chief Society, the tradition goes deeper than the happenings on the football field. Chief Illiniwek is representative of the values held by alumni and students alike.

“The tradition of the Chief is a link to our great past, a tangible symbol of an intangible spirit, filled with qualities to which a person of any background can aspire: goodness, strength, bravery, truthfulness, courage, and dignity” (Honor the Chief Society web-site).

But in the past few decades the Chief tradition has come under fire. To those who oppose the Chief, his supporters offer scientific studies in support.

A poll, which was commissioned by Sports Illustrated and conducted by the Peter Harris Research Group, showed 81 percent of Native Americans in support of Indian nicknames in high school and college sports. A commentary included in the poll said the “poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently.”

A second survey carried out by the University of Pennsylvania asked Native Americans is they found the Washington Redskins professional football team offensive. In this survey, 90 percent of Native Americans overwhelmingly said that they were not offended by it.

According to Greg Meves, a member of University of Illinois student organization Students for Chief Illiniwek, Chief opponents cite polls as well. But these polls were conducted online in which you can vote as many times as you want. v “Obviously, those results are going to be skewed and not scientific,” he said.

He added that the Native Americans that he spoke to said they would like the Chief to raise awareness for the real issues their people are dealing with, such as job discrimination, alcoholism, and teenage suicide.

The University administration has another side issue that makes removing the Chief a bad decision: donations. Currently, approximately 75 percent of the University budget is composed of donations. Many University administrators feel that a large portion of their donations will be lost if they retire the Chief. However, the Students for Chief feel that this should be ignored.

“The big argument is that the chief is not disrespectful,” said Meves. “The money issue is just a side issue.”

It could be viewed as the only issue though. The Chief could be a symbol of the tradition of oppression. Simply put, Chief Illiniwek could be a racist symbol. 

While pro-Chief advocates claim that the Chief is part of the University of Illinois’s tradition and a symbol of pride for Native Americans, these advocates are most certainly not Native Americans themselves.  Nearly every national Native American organization has spoke out against the Chief, including the American Indian Council of Illinois, the American Indian Education Association, the American Indian Movement, the Cherokee Nation, the Peoria Tribe, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Indian Education Association. 

These groups are offended by Chief Illiniwek’s misrepresentation of sacred Native American traditions and customs.  While the fight has arrived on a national stage, local anti-Chief groups such as the Progressive Resource/Action Committee have been active for years.  They argue that the Chief was created strictly for halftime entertainment, and that it exploits Native Americans further by gaining profits for non-Native people.  This is argument is historically accurate as the Chief was first envisioned has a marching band gimmick in 1926 by head football coach Bob Zupke and assistant director of bands, Ray Dvorak. 

Since its creation, Chief Illiniwek has continued to mock Native American culture during the halftime of various collegiate athletic events under a shroud of “tradition” and “honor.”  In fact, the Chief is not even an authentic representation of Native American culture.  The Chief’s dance was originally created at Boy Scout retreats in the 1920’s, and it has evolved into its more flamboyant and entertaining incarnation over the years.  In fact, the only authentic thing about the Chief is his buckskin outfit, which is modeled after the Sioux tradition and not the Illinois tribe or any other tribe that was native to Illinois.  This false authenticity that is presented as Native American tradition is hardly a respectful tradition to uphold.

Proponents of Chief Illiniwek constantly refer to the “honor” and “tradition” that this mascot represents.  While it is true that Chief as been apart of his university for almost 80 years, this is not valid reason to maintain a legacy of racism.  This claim of “tradition” is comparable to slavemasters arguing to retain slavery because it was a part of their Southern culture and tradition. 

Does the fact that slavery thrived on American soil for 250 years make it any less racist and objectionable?  Does the fact that the symbol of Chief Illiniwek has thrived on our campus for the past 80 years make it any less racist and objectionable? 

Cleary not, and the fact that Native Americans have been silenced in the case of the Chief is further prove of its dishonor.  Pro-Chief activists claim that the Chief “honors” Native Americans culture by embodying the spirit, courage and pride of Natives.  It has been repeatedly shown over the past 15 years that the Chief is not seen as “honorable” to Native Americans.  In fact, the University is dishonoring Native Americans by silencing their voice on the issue. 

The film Chief Illiniwek: A Historical Documentary shows the history of the Chief’s creation, his evolution and his current status as the official symbol of the University of Illinois.  However, it does not make a single mention of the controversy that surrounds the Chief.  There are no interviews of Native Americans describing the honor and pride they feel every time they see the Chief prance around at halftime.  

If the University of Illinois were to truly “honor” Native American culture and tradition, they would listen to the demands of these people, instead of dishonoring them with a stereotypical symbol.  If the Board of Trustees would listen to Native Americans, they would retire the Chief, encourage more Native American students to attend the University, require all incoming freshmen to enroll in a Native American history course, and increase the funding for Native American scholarships.  But, the University is not interested in honoring the people that they exploit.  Instead they argue for the Chief’s prolongation because of “honor” and “tradition,” when the real reason is the funding they fear they would lose. 

In all actuality, by keeping the Chief, the University was losing funding already because of the NCAA’s new regulations concerning Native American mascots.  Effective on February 1, 2006, the University of Illinois was no longer be eligible to host any NCAA championships.  While this may not have been a big deal for men’s basketball and football, it is detrimental to “less prestigious” sports like volleyball, softball, gymnastics and women’s soccer.  These sports rely on hosting NCAA championships to not only gain revenue, but to promote their sport and program on a national level.  Furthermore, schools across the nation were drafting athletic policies saying that they will not schedule games with schools with Native American mascots.