Regarding your comment that the NCAA might consider a private Chief foundation “hostile”, and attempt to compell the University to police such things…

My thought is “Who cares?”

Look, even if the private Chief foundation was overtly derogatory of native Americans — this is hypothetical, of course — the University cannot limit what is essentially a constitutional right of free citizens: to peaceably assemble. As a private citizen, if I assemble a group of my acquaintances into a club, and we decide to create an icon that we revere, and that icon is a native American, is the University going to police the meetings on my own private property? I would like for them to try, because I would summon the police to have them removed, with force of arms if necessary.

If the University wants to forbid meetings of my hypothetical club in the Illini Union, that’s one thing. On University property, the University can be arbitrary to their heart’s delight. But they have no power over what private citizens do on their own time, with their own money, and on their own property. If the private Chief Foundation meets at Marketplace Mall, they need the Mall’s permission. But they certainly don’t need the University’s!

That’s the key: as private citizens, we don’t need the University’s permission to create icons for study and reverence, as long as no trademark infringement occurs.

Let the University go their own way. We’ll go ours.

I don’t know who Emil Jones is, but the private Chief Foundation doesn’t need his permission, either. This illuminates an important characteristic for whomever may lead the movement to create the private Foundation. The leader must understand that he need not seek permission or approval from our adversaries, the anti-Chief constituency. The sooner everybody understands this, the better it will be.

I don’t need their permission if I want to revere the Chief. Likewise, they don’t need my permission if they want to be self-absorbed busybodies, and a general drag on society.

—Tom Nally, New Orleans

The private sector might be appropriate, Tom, but I imagine the NCAA would say the University was still maintaining a “hostile environment”.

There has been talk of the UI returning the copyright of the Chief symbol to Jack Davis, the graphics artist who created it back in the early 80s and was paid just under $300 for his work. If they do, I’m pretty sure he would license it for use on merchandise — he basically said as much in a recent TV interview.

As far as the Emil Jones angle — he seems to have a definite bias against the Urbana campus. This article was reportedly from Ebony magazine, but I have not verified that fact:

“Jones also believes the state should do more to help impoverished and disenfranchised minority communities, even to the point of using funds from legalized gambling to fund education and promote economic development. Despite strong opposition, Jones pushed through legislation to provide a percentage of revenues from a new gaming license in Illinois to go to inner-city Chicago State University rather than the more prestigious University of Illinois downstate.

He is also responsible for targeting enviable funding to Chicago State for capital improvements, scholarships and technology programs, including a new library. The school is also building a convocation center, named for Jones and his late wife, Patricia Jones.”

Perhaps this is just part of his legacy-building… who knows?

All I know is that in the last 5 years, the U of I has had to cut more than 25% of their Administrative staff budgets and those cuts AREN’T being made in the high-end salary region of the organizational chart! Secretarial staff and technical professionals are not being replaced and people are retiring early because of the stress.

Furthermore,a much smaller group of (generally) non-Illinois-graduates are making the decisions. This used to be a place where excellence was promoted and outstanding individuals rose through the ranks to become Provost, Chancellor or the President. I can think of one good leader (George Russell) who left as the Dean of the Graduate College to become the President of the U of Missouri system. Now, we bring in Michigan grads and Purdue grads and they stay for 4-5 years and move on — meanwhile, our talented faculty leave for greener pastures because we don’t promote from within anymore… and we can’t attract some of the greatest faculty because they don’t get promoted here anymore!

Joe

For the Chief-in-the-private-sector idea to succeed, what it needs most is a dynamic personality leading the movement. I’m definitely not that guy. I’m 54, I live in New Orleans, and I ain’t dynamic. (I’m a curmudgeon.) This leader is even more important than funds. If the leader emerges, then the funds will follow. If I was casting the role of leader, I would pick someone in his/her late 20’s or early 30’s, an entrepreneur in the Champaign-urbana area, and a U of I graduate, of course.

The first objective of the leader would be to use public statements and appearances to change the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is that the Chief can only exist within the arms of the U of I. The leader needs to make this point: The Chief doesn’t need the U of I, he only needs Fighting Illini fans. And there are millions of the latter.

The second objective would be to recruit businesses who would donate to the private foundation, which I call “The Chief Reverence Foundation”. I fully believe that area businesses would do this. Once funding begins to arrive, a lot of other things will come easily.

The third objective would be to work the trademark issues. My idea is that if the trademark issues cannot be worked out with the University, then the Foundation should merely refer to their icon as “The Chief” in formal foundation communications. I think that’s generic enough that it couldn’t be forbidden by legal orders. In private conversations, fighting Illini fans should continue to call him “Chief Illiniwek” or “Chief Illini”. After all, in our private conversations, we can call our icons whatever the hell we want. Then, after several years, I think the legal staff of the University will get weary of battling over subtle nuances in names, and find that they have better things to do. At that point, the foundation may be able to refer to their icon as “Chief Illini” in in formal foundation communication.

But before all that happens, the movement would need a leader most of all.

Oops! I almost forgot the most critical characteristic that the leader must possess: the ability to ignore and dismiss those people who are unhappy with the Chief. I would spend as little energy as possible responding to them.

—Tom Nally, New Orleans

Good luck!

I’ve been arguing for some time that THE CHIEF SHOULD GO INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. That is, the Chief — both the person and the symbol — needs to exist apart from the athletic department, and apart from the formal University of Illinois.

The Chief should be supported and maintained by a “club”, or some other private sector entity that doesn’t rely on the University of Illinois for support. There will be hundreds of businesses and individuals who would gladly provide private sector support for the Chief. Of course, he will longer do his dance at the athletic venue. Instead, he has to dance before the athletic event at a nearby location, such as Hessel Park.

I imagine a pregame party with food and bands, and all Illini fans getting fired up. Then, at a critical pregame moment, the crowd goes silent awaiting the entrance of the Chief. It is a holy moment, almost sacred. The Chief does his dance amidst a crowd of Illini fans while a band plays the Chief’s dance song.

At the conclusion, the fans can march together to the stadium or assembly Hall, if the weather is good.

How the Chief trademarks work into all of this, I don’t know. I’m not sure what the ownership issues are. But certainly, the private organization supporting the Chief should attempt to lease or purchase rights from the University, if the University indeed controls such rights.

The main point is this: it’s a mistake to think that the Chief can no longer exist. On the contrary, he CAN exist, and he can be just as powerful as he ever was. It’s just that he now has to exist in the private sector, instead of with the sponsorship of the University of Illinois. The decision by the Board of Regents to kill the Chief is binding on the University, but it’s not binding on free citizens. In our role as free citizens, we can create and revere whatever symbols we want.

I doubt if this arrangement will come to pass, but I think it’s an idea worth exploring. I would definitely contribute money to create a startup, private-sector group to keep the Chief alive. My suggestion for a name would be “The Chief Reverence Foundation”.

Let the University go their own way if they wish. Meanwhile, Illini fans can go THEIR own way. That path is reverence for the Chief in a private sector organization.

—Tom Nally, New Orleans