linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
indiana.edu>> > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:21:50 -0400 > From: Trace Mansfield <tmansfieMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
umich.edu>Since the question has been raised, and since some LINGUIST readers aren't LSA members and therefore won't have received the LSA Bulletin in which the issue is explained, it might be useful to have a bit of background for the discussion about the resolution and motions that I proposed at the LSA Business Meeting in January for the consideration by the LSA membership. Any LSA member has the right to propose actions for the Society to take. Usually this happens in the "other business" section of the annual LSA Business Meeting. That's what happened this time too. I proposed these actions as an individual member, but the proposal was a follow-up to an action taken at the summer Business Meeting of SSILA (Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas), held in July 1999 at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, where "Chief Illiniwek" is the official `symbol' of the university's athletic teams. He is supposed to represent an Illinois Native American; but his name is bogus, he wears a Plains Indian chief's regalia -- a religious symbol to which he of course has no right, as he is portrayed by a UI student or other anglo young man -- and he dances in a wildly inappropriate way at football and basketball games (for instance). At our summer meeting, the SSILA members present voted unanimously to censure UI for maintaining this racist mascot in spite of ten years of protest by Native American students and in spite of votes by (for instance) over 700 UI faculty members. This action received a good deal of publicity, and the attention of the UI administration; we were told by local activists that it was the first time a national scholarly organization had spoken out against the "Chief". SSILA voted not to return to UI as long as they maintain the mascot. Motions were then presented at both the LSA and the AAA annual meetings, similar in content to the SSILA resolution. The idea, of course, is to increase the pressure on the UI administration to dump the "Chief". So that's the background. The main point I'd like to make here is that this is not a random political action, and it's certainly not meant to penalize UI linguists -- most of whom are anti-"Chief", and many or most of whom supported SSILA's action last summer. In fact, the statement *against* the resolution & motions that the LSA is now voting on was co-written by a UI linguist and recommends passage of the boycott-UI motion and against passage only of the boycott-the-whole-state motion. Here's part of the text of the supporting statement published in the March 2000 LSA Bulletin with the ballot, to show non-LSA readers what the issue is: "There are two reasons for supporting [the resolution and motions], a broad one and a more narrowly professional one. First, the "Chief", whose depiction is historically and culturally inaccurate as well as anachronistic, has a negative impact on our efforts as educators to make the public aware of the history and present situation of Native Americans.... "The second reason...is that "Chief Illiniwek", like other Native American stereotypes, harms Native American members of the LSA and also non-Native LSA members whose professional life is devoted to work with Native American and other minority communities: anything that increases the level of hostility felt by Native Americans toward insensitive Anglos makes it more difficult for linguists to carry out research and contribute to language preservation efforts in Native American communities. The "Chief" has a demonstrable negative effect on the quality of education that students at the University of Illinois receive. Non-Native LSA members who are affiliated with the university are also potential sufferers from the "Chief", given the strong negative reaction to the "Chief" by Native American students at the university. One university faculty member told of arriving on a reservation to continue her fieldwork and being asked why she was teaching at a racist institution; at the Linguistic Institute last summer, the only Native American faculty member said she would never have come to Illinois if she had known in advance about the "Chief", and one student left the Institute immediately upon hearing about the "Chief". "...As Joseph P. Gone, a Native American student at the University, noted several years ago, "Chief" supporters `routinely overlook our objections'. An example: in July 1999, at a press conference about SSILA's anti-"Chief" protest, the local television interviewer refused to permit a Native American linguist to speak, switching off his microphone when it was her turn to comment. The university has also routinely ignored the anti-"Chief" protests of its Native American students and more than 700 of its own faculty members. Outside organizations such as the LSA have a better chance of being heard. ",,,The university took SSILA's protest seriously enough to arrange a meeting with the Provost in July. The university's Board of Trustees took the vote at January's LSA meeting [the vote to submit the resolution & motions to the LSA membership, that is] seriously enough to pass a resolution on 13 January to the effect that they welcome open discussion of this issue....A vote to censure the university and not to hold future meetings either at the university or, because the university is the flagship campus of the State of Illinois university system, in the entire State of Illinois, will send a clear message to the university administration and to the Illinois State Legislature, which recently voted overwhelmingly to establish the "Chief" as a permanent symbol at the University." -- Sally ThomasonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue