at Urbana-Champaign
Department of Anthropology
109 Davenport Hall, MC-148
607 South Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801
February 17th, 1998
Dear Members of the Board of Trustees:
We, the undersigned faculty members of the department of Anthropology, wish to commend the Board of Trustees for agreeing to implement a series of significant, positive steps toward achieving a climate conducive to cultural diversity on the UIUC campus. We note, for example, the important addition of new faculty positions in areas of study such as non-Western and US minority cultures. These developments will enable the University of Illinois to build strength through diversity and will allow the Department of Anthropology to maintain its prominent position in national rankings.
Alongside these positive gains, we note with concern that all the recommendations on inclusivity made to the Board of Trustees have been duly implemented except one: the retirement of the Chief Illiniwek symbol. We understand that the primary reason given for this omission was that the Chief is not a subject of academic concern. We strongly disagree and respectfully request that the Board consider a number of adverse academic effects on the Department of Anthropology that are directly attributable to the ongoing presence of the Chief Illiniwek symbol.
These effects extend into all aspects of our scholarly lives: teaching, service and research. Several critical areas deserve attention. The Chief: (i) promotes inaccurate conceptions of the Native peoples of Illinois, past and present; (ii) undermines the effectiveness of our teaching and is deeply problematic for the academic environment both in and outside of the classroom; (iii) creates a negative climate in our professional relationships with Native American communities that directly affects our ability to conduct research with and among Native American peoples; and, (iv) adversely affects the recruitment of Native American students and faculty into our university and department.
(i) The presence of the Chief promotes inaccurate conceptions of the Native peoples of Illinois.
It is our duty as teachers at an outstanding, world-class, national educational institution to provide our students with accurate information. As anthropologists we are particularly responsible for providing accurate information regarding cultural identities, symbolic representations, and social processes. Unfortunately, the image of Chief Illiniwek completely misrepresents the American Indian peoples who lived in what is now the state of Illinois. Historical and archaeological records inform us that the Illini were primarily farmers and people of trade and commerce who lived in settled villages within a loose political confederacy of twelve tribes. The men did not wear war bonnets, nor were they "warriors" in the sense of having military societies like the Plains tribes. To represent the Illini with a Plains Indian war bonnet, to name them the "fighting Illini," and to dress the mascot in the military regalia of a Sioux warrior, is therefore totally inaccurate. It is the direct equivalent of representing Italians or Germans with someone dressed in a Scottish kilt and playing the bagpipes.
In addition, it is frequently claimed that the person portraying the Chief is knowledgeable about Native American cultures, dances and music. The faculty members in our department whose areas of research and teaching focus specifically upon the music and dances of Native North America find this claim untenable. In marked contrast to indigenous dance forms, the choreographed movements performed by the Chief are a combination of stereotyped gestures and steps taken from the Boy Scout movement and Wild West Shows of the 1920s and 30s, supplemented by acrobatic display. The musical accompaniment is likewise a stereotypic misrepresentation derived from early Hollywood movies.
As an educational institution we do not promote the teaching of "flat earth" theory in geology; why then are we in the business of promoting inaccurate knowledge about Native Americans. As serious scholars and teachers, charged by the State of Illinois to educate its citizens, we find such an inaccurate portrayal embarrassing and opposed to our educational mission of providing students with knowledge that is accurate and true. Armed with accurate information our students would know that, from the Native perspective, the young man portraying the Chief has not earned the right to wear Lakota Sioux military regalia, just as he has not earned the right to wear a US Marine's uniform and a Purple Heart. They would know that Native American dancing and the wearing of traditional regalia are always connected with spiritual beliefs and practices and so would understand why the Chief's performance as entertainment at a sporting event violates the religious sensibilities of many American Indian people. They would know that American Indians are the only recognized ethnic minority in the US who are still subjected to public stereotyping, and that ethnic stereotyping, however well-intentioned, always misrepresents, and so dishonors, those it portrays.
(ii) The presence of the Chief undermines our teaching effectiveness and is deeply problematic for the academic environment both in and outside of the classroom
Although it is frequently claimed that the presence of the Chief encourages students to learn about Native American cultures, we find the contrary to be true. The unexamined, sentimental attachment many students hold for the Chief frequently precludes any desire for accurate understanding and thus undermines our teaching effectiveness.
For instance, one unintended consequence of the Chief Illiniwek symbol is that it romanticizes and sentimentalizes indigenous peoples and freezes them in a stereotyped past. It thus ignores the historical record which shows that European intrusions into the Northeast and Midwest resulted in more than two centuries of social turmoil that fueled inter-tribal conflicts as well as conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples. Under government pressure to cede large tracts of land to European settlers in the early 19th century, the indigenous people of this region were forcibly removed from their homes and relocated west of the Mississippi River. They were subject to arrest and execution if they attempted to remain in their homelands. The romantic symbol of the Chief betrays a lack of awareness of this history of oppression. This, in turn, provides compelling reasons why most contemporary American Indian people strongly object to the suggestion that they are being "honored" by the Chief.
These historical facts are uncomfortable for many students to contemplate. They contradict core values of this nation as a land of "liberty, freedom and justice for all." American Indian peoples were excluded from the embrace of these founding principles in the past and are frequently excluded today in ongoing struggles over treaty rights, and economic, educational, and political resources. As educators, we believe that our students are best served by being taught to understand the complexities of all sides of this history, not by being encouraged to ignore it. The image of the Chief actively discourages such inquiry.
We also find that the emotional attachment to the inaccurate and ahistorical image of Native Americans perpetuated by the Chief makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the voices and concerns of contemporary Native peoples to be heard. It is precisely this fact that leads to the truly ironic situation in which those who insist that they are "honoring" American Indians by their use of this symbol steadfastly deny legitimacy to the strenuous objections being voiced by individuals, by tribal groups, and by major national American Indian institutions. The 1990 census shows that there are over 24,000 American Indians living in Illinois today. There are many thousands more in Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin who are descendants of the former residents of this region. We think that it is incumbent upon this great institution to instigate changes that would make Native American people feel welcome on this campus, and better prepare our students to be responsible and informed citizens of a culturally and historically complex nation.
Anthropology is distinctive as a discipline because, from its very inception, it has confronted the problem of how best to teach people to understand the many and diverse cultures of the world. Several of our students have expressed to us directly their dismay and disappointment that the symbol of their school contradicts what they learn in classes about the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and cultural misrepresentation.
In addition, developing an anthropological understanding involves a capacity for critical self-knowledge. We find that the attachment some students hold for the Chief frequently overrides critical reflection and undercuts our goals as educators to foster cross-cultural understanding. For example, one of our faculty members was verbally attacked and called "an anti-white racist" for citing the example of the Chief in a lecture on racial stereotyping. Another reports that he no longer feels able to bring up the subject in the classroom because it is so divisive. Our teaching assistants have reported similar negative experiences. This is one of the ways in which the Chief Illiniwek symbol negatively affects the very heart of the University community, both inside and outside the classroom. A university, by its very nature, entails a commitment to, and respect for, rational thought. In the present context of institutional reluctance to acknowledge the real harm done by such symbols, we find that the presence of the Chief has become a genuine obstacle to learning for significant numbers of our students and creates an academic environment that is resistant to and dismissive of anthropological understanding.
(iii) The presence of the Chief creates a negative climate in our professional relations with Native Americans.
Not only is the symbol of Chief Illiniwek inaccurate for the Illini, it is also loaded with educational, racial, political, and intellectual implications. Its use has important consequences, both intended and unintended. Among the unintended consequences is the tendency among some Native Americans to dismiss our anthropological research or question our motives simply because we remain part of an institution at which Native American culture is stereotypically displayed in public. We have archaeologists, cultural, linguistic, and biological anthropologists who conduct nationally recognized research on the peoples of the Americas. The presence of the Chief has become a very real impediment to continuing research in Native communities in the US, and thus threatens to compromise our ability to enrich our classroom teaching through original research. In turn, this imperils the demanding research and publication record that faculty members are expected to attain to remain in nationally ranked department.
A related and very serious difficulty concerns our efforts to comply with recent civil rights legislation mandating consultation with Native Americans regarding the accessioning and curation of Native American human remains and archaeological materials at the University of Illinois. Specifically, our department must adhere to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-601). Compliance ultimately involves consideration with Native Americans of responsibilities for maintaining archaeological collections and the potential for repatriation of materials that are integral to our educational mission. The process of compliance requires extensive and continuous consultation with Native Americans, and we are finding that the Chief can precipitate negative attitudes on the part of such Native American consultants towards these extremely sensitive negotiations. Retiring the Chief will significantly enhance our chances of reaching mutually positive outcomes in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
(iv) The Chief adversely affects the recruitment of Native Americans into our department and our university
Our faculty member whose teaching and research directly involves contemporary Native peoples reports that the Chief Illiniwek symbol is well known in many Native American communities across the country. For example, at a Native American college recruitment event last year, several young Native persons who were well qualified as potential UIUC students expressed their reluctance to consider applying to UIUC . When asked why, they said they expected to find an "anti-Indian," racist climate on this campus to which they were not willing to subject themselves. These potential students reasoned, quite correctly, that an institution cannot use a symbol such as Chief Illiniwek as its sports mascot and at the same time sincerely support a policy of ethnic inclusivity and cultural diversity. As a result of the Chief, such talented individuals have been recruited elsewhere.
Concluding Statement
We have demonstrated how the symbol of Chief Illiniwek affects us academically: it promotes inaccurate knowledge; undermines the effectiveness of our teaching; creates an academic environment dismissive of anthropological understanding and cultural diversity; threatens our professional relationships with Native American peoples; and adversely affects recruitment. The symbol that once created a sense of unity and pride for earlier generations now works in the opposite direction: the Chief has become a focus of division and escalating tension within the campus community and is a source of shame and embarrassment for many students and faculty.
As anthropologists we understand and appreciate the strong attachment many alumni have to the Chief as a symbol of the good times they wish to remember; as a symbol that expresses their desire to feel connected to this landscape and its history; and as a symbol that signifies pride in the tradition of a great educational institution. However, we also believe that our alumni can recognize the significance of social and cultural change and that traditions in and of themselves are not always honorable when times and moral sensibilities change.
Symbols are powerful icons that convey complex messages with lasting impact. It is therefore important to choose symbols with full understanding of the many meanings they may hold. Prior to the civil rights era of the 1960s the use of cultural symbols that harmfully stereotyped ethnic minorities was perceived as unproblematic by people sharing mainstream culture. Our nation's commitment to civil rights during the 1960s revealed the fundamental constitutional flaws of this view. Today, we believe that to acknowledge, understand and celebrate cultural diversity is not a threat to a unified nation. It is instead the very means by which a vibrant, creative, multi-ethnic society can develop with pride and confidence in the 21st century. The citizens of Illinois have the highest possible standards to attain in meeting this goal; standards defined and embodied by Lincoln himself that obligate us to pursue a more inclusive society with vigor. We are confident those standards are within reach. We are equally certain that courageous leadership from the State's leading academic institution will be necessary to achieve them.
Yours sincerely,
Professors:
Janet Dixon Keller (Chair)
Brenda Farnell
Olga Soffer
Nancy Abelmann
Bill Kelleher
Andrew Orta
F.K. Lehman
Stephen Leigh
Mahir Saul
Bruno Nettl
Helaine Silverman
Norman Whitten
Arlene Torres
David Grove
Alma Gottlieb
Linda Klepinger
Paul Garber
Alejandro Lugo