Sorry to interrupt the regular posting by Opinions Staff, but wanted to see what people thought about this. The 2001 incident of a comic strip character winning a seat in student government was a vote of no confidence. Would a Chief victory mean the same against the Board of Trustees, a vote of protest for the retirement, or something else?

The Illinois Student Senate and I-Vote have organized a debate between the five candidates vying for the position of Student Trustee. It will be held at 8:00PM-10:00PM Thursday March 1 in the Pine Lounge at the Illini Union. The Daily Illini has learned that each candidate has been given a list of questions to be asked ahead of time. They are as follows:

1. What strategies will you pursue as Trustee to lower tuition costs?

2. What will you do to improve professor retention and reduce the burden of graduate TAs at the University?

3. How do you feel about the Global Campus Partnership? If you support implementing it, what will you do to help ensure that it is implemented effectively? If not, what do you believe are its disadvantages for this campus?

4. Campus diversity has become an increasingly ubiquitous topic on campus. What steps will you do to promote diversity at the University?

5. What campus renovation or construction projects do you wish to pursue as Trustee?

6. As Trustee, how will you address the issue of energy for this campus?

After talking with the newsroom, we have a few things to throw out there.

Firstly, we find it a bit troubling that the candidates will have had several days to come up with canned answers to these questions. Granted, with five candidates and time for rebuttals it may make for a long evening no matter how this was organized. The general opinion around the newsroom is that part of what makes true debate so important is the spontaneity of the candidates. If they know what’s coming, it’s only an invitation to rehearse rehearse rehearse rather than think think think. Since, the Student Trustee (especially in light of recent events) is one of the few student representatives that hold significant influence with the administration, we think that being able to execute is preferable to being able to perform.

Unfortunately, there have been few accomplishments of recent trustees to point to. It’s because of this that we fear that the position is merely becoming a contest of the most well-connected (or popular, if you will) people on campus rather than who it should be, the most qualified. It seems that student politics in general have merely become the training ground for the red and blue politicos of tomorrow rather than a movement truly devoted to doing good.

There was a story in The Daily Illini this week about the problem of student apathy concerning ISS. The big question is “Why?” Well, the student body (like the American public) isn’t stupid. We realize that as young adults, we aren’t the system yet. Faced with a concrete adult power structure, the impact of an extremely fluid student body will of course not be great. However, if administered properly, it will not be insignificant.

The above questions, in my opinion at least, ask far too much of a student. We should not expect whomever we elect to be able to address all these problems effectively. But by asking that they be prepared to have an answer for all these enormous problems, we force them to dilute themselves in hopes of winning the race. As a student, I don’t need somebody to tell me that tuition is too high and that they’re going to do something about it. Or that it should be our goal to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Or that class sizes should be smaller and TAs should be more effective. Or that it would be great to have Lincoln Hall fixed. Or that we need more minority representation on campus. We all know this already and agree that these things would be good. The lack of original ideas or even measurable progress is why I don’t expect that the election of any one person to have even the smallest impact on my life. But, what I do expect is for the candidate to want the job for more than just a line on the resume.

But the sad reality is that the student trustee has every reason to get cozy with the other board members (can you say letter of recommendation?) rather than to keep in tune with the needs of the student body.

So, what can be done to fix this? I’m not entirely sure but I have a place where we could start: One good idea.

One idea from each candidate. One plan, one initative, one fleshed-out proposal for something that could benefit campus. No one person should be expected to solve all the problems. Just one good idea from everyone to run on. No prepackaged answers or prepared remarks, just a declaration that you have a passion for something that actually matters and have a good idea how to make it happen.

Trustee candidates shouldn’t be afraid of saying “I don’t know” (or if you rather, ” I think this is an issue which has enormous impact on the University and I will certainly do all I can to learn about it and to work towards a solution that would be beneficial to all parties” ) if they can’t solve a problem. After all, the adults in charge of running things have already proven themselves to be very good at not being able to solve problems.

The Student Trustee should explemplify what we want all student government to be, not just merely be it’s highest office. Unfortunately for now, that doesn’t seem likely to change unless one of the candidates is willing to put ego aside and start talking turkey with us.

The organizers of the debate are encouraging students to attend the debate and ask the candidates their own questions. I hope people take advantage of this opportunity, for all of our sakes.

Campaign Facebook groups:

Chime Asonye, Mike Cashman, Katie Dunne, Paul Schmitt, Pradeep Singanallur

P.S.- It’s not possible for something to be increasingly ubiquitous.

Today the DI will print my column advocating that people write-in “Chief Illiniwek” for student trustee. It is not a joke, it is not a ruse. Those who care about the Chief and want to do something about his demise have a very real choice: they can vote for someone who will futilely attempt to restart the debate and call for a vote by the full Board, or they can realize the unlikelihood of that action and vote for the Chief himself.

If elected, the Chief will send a clear statement to the college sports nation that U of I students love their mascot. It will highlight the improprieties of the Board’s process and might force a second vote. More importantly, it will loudly declare that anyone attempting to deep-six the “Fighting Illini” ain’t seen nothin’ yet. They may have taken the Chief from us, and they may keep him from us, but if anyone tries to declare the Fighting Illinois racist or demeaning, there will be a battle.

Personally, the Chief is not my cup of tea. I don’t care about him either way, but I think it is a corruption of democracy for three people to make a binding, consequential decision of this magnitude without even a majority of the voting body present! When Congress attempts such underhanded tactics as this the other party screams foul. Here, however, those who support the Chief, or those who at least do not oppose him, on the board are afraid to make their dissatisfaction with the process known, lest they receive the label of “Pro-Chief.”

Today the battle to save the Chief takes a new approach. The U of I campus can either roll over and play dead, or it can draw on its political mettle and shout to all the Illini past, present, and future: you cannot ignore us and you cannot beat us by cheating. Vote for Chief Illiniwek and make the voice of campus heard!

From a 2/23/07 staff editorial in the Indiana Daily Student:

The University of Illinois ended the reign of its mascot Chief Illiniwek, and, to many fans, an integral part of its sporting experience. The removal of the Chief will allow the university to host postseason sporting events, something it has been banned from doing by the NCAA since 2005 because of the Chief’s presence and his inaccurate portrayal of American Indians. Illiniwek danced his last dance at Illinois’ men’s basketball home victory over Michigan on Wednesday, ending a tradition that spanned more than 80 years. Illinois will retain the nickname Fighting Illini.

We get it. Political correctness is important, especially on a national level and at a time when an inappropriate representation could reach thousands of people. It is unfair to the American Indian population of Illinois and the United States.

But more importantly, if Chief Illiniwek has been fired as the mascot of Illinois, does that mean he’s a free agent? We aren’t sure if everyone else has noticed, but IU doesn’t have a mascot!

Somebody talk to Kelvin Sampson. Whip out that cell phone and start texting the Chief like crazy! You think getting Eric Gordon was big? It will be nothing compared to fan reaction to the Chief. Get coach Hoeppner to point that “We want you” finger at the Chief and his garb. The editorial board is considering calling Illiniwek every hour, on the hour, until he sees that cream and crimson are a better combination than orange and blue any day. It doesn’t matter how it happens. Just get that dancin’ man into our Assembly Hall.

If the Chief refuses to come over to the Indiana, could we at least get any mascot? The eerie emptiness of animals and people in ridiculous looking outfits along the sidelines of Assembly Hall and Memorial Stadium is becoming disheartening. Satellite campuses of IUB have mascots. IU-Purdue University at Indianapolis, for example, have the Jaguars. It’s high time we had a image to go with “Hoosiers.” We have a few suggestions.

For starters, how about a Gene Hackman look-a-like. He led Hickory High School to the state championship in the classic movie “Hoosiers” (based on the amazing run by Milan High School in 1954). It seems like he may get the crowd fired up.

Or maybe we could get a big ear of corn. Nothing incites fear into opposing squads like Orville Redenbacher’s capitalist gold mine. Know that saying “You’re walking like you have a corn cob up your butt?” Well when you come to IU, we’ll make sure you leave walking funny.

But our greatest idea captures the single most memorable event in IU sports history, with all of the rage that comes with being a Hoosier: a giant aluminum chair. Every time the referee makes a bad call, the chair mascot can run into the middle of the court or field and fall on its side, planting itself there in protest.

However, the best bet is to keep calling Chief Illiniwek. We’re already good at stealing players from Illinois. Why not their traditions too?

I feel very conflicted here. On the one hand, I’m not exactly shedding a tear that the Chief is gone. But on the other hand, I can appreciate the extremely strong and heartfelt sentiments Chief supporters feel towards him and the University.

Columnist Dan Mollison wrote on Friday about how this campus needs to come together so we can move on. Pro-Chief or anti-Chief, I think we can all agree that Indiana University smells.

As for their need to find a mascot for their school, I find this:

 

 

True to its motto, “Cross Roads of America” Indiana has more miles of Interstate Highway per square mile than any other state. The Indiana state Motto, can be traced back to the early 1800s. In the early years river traffic, especially along the Ohio, was a major means of transportation. The National Road, a major westward route, and the north-south Michigan Road crossed in Indianapolis. Today more major highways intersect in Indiana than in any other state.

I think they should be henceforth known as the “Asphalters.” The Indiana University Asphalters. Yeah, that has a good ring to it.

Post your thoughts here and if you feel so compelled, send your letters to letters@idsnews.com and opinions@dailyillini.com

(Thanks to Lee Feder for bringing this to our attention)

Normally this desk doesn’t address sports. Every once in awhile though, something happens that sparks an issue of broader social concern. Unfortunately, this looks like something that is going to get a whole lot bigger.

Jamar Smith is coincidently (?) represented by Attorney Mark Lipton who is *also* defending Jamar’s fellow teammate Rich McBride who is *also* charged with DUI. McBride was punished by the athletic department in October and according to The Daily Illini, his next court date is set for March 1. McBride was previously involved in a burglary with 2 other former Illini players in 2003 but no charges were filed.

So, is there a pattern emerging? Perhaps. Are there bigger problems with Illinois basketball than the prospect of being stuck in the NIT? Most likely.

But the story is going to get a lot deeper. Here’s why:

“When we appear in court, we will tender pleas of not guilty and demand a jury trial,” Lipton said. “Jamar and I are confident that this matter can be appropriately resolved in due course.”

According to this and this Smith’s actions were pretty well-documented by authorities. I was quite shocked to see that even after suffering a concussion, Smith actually drove back to his apartment while presumably still under the influence. Even worse, he didn’t even bother to call 911 even after he mistakenly assumed teammate Brian Carlwell was dead. Even WORSE was that other team members were at his apartment and none of them called the authorities either. It’s impossible to know his state of mind at the time but is it really possible that Smith called team members first? Who else would he have called before the police (or an ambulance)?

So, why would someone who had all this against him along with a blood alcohol level of .176 (which is more than twice the legal limit. Which is roughly .176 above the legal limit because Smith is only 19 years old) plead ‘not guilty’ to all these charges? Leverage.

The decisions to plead ‘not guilty’ and to request a jury trial spell trouble for the University. In the first place, since Smith is an athlete, there will be accusations that he is receiving preferential treatment (being on the bench at Wednesday’s game while out on $10,000 bond for one thing). More importantly though, this case has the potential to involve many prominent University athletic figures up to and including Bruce Weber and other basketball players.

If I was a prosecutor, I would like to know who knew about the accident before police arrived. I’d like to know what the players were doing drinking beer and tequila in the middle of the season even after a senior member of the squad got suspended for DUI. And I’d really like to know if something could’ve been done to prevent the accident from happening in the first place.

From a U of I perspective, it would be in it’s best interests to see Smith take a plea (which, despite the legal gamesmanship, he probably wants anyway) rather than to air the athletic program’s dirty laundry in a very messy and public trial that could poison two different basketball seasons not to mention the University’s already damaged (See: Chief) image.

Plea or not, something’s broken here and it needs to be fixed. If it takes a trial for everybody to get the message that this kind of behavior is not acceptable and shouldn’t be openly or tacitly condoned, then maybe that’s what we need.

Clinton supporters would like to see former President Bill Clinton appointed to fill wife Hilary’s vacant Senate seat should she win the 2008 Presidential election.  While this scenario is unlikely due to Hilary’s likely use of her husband in foreign policy matters and Eliot Spitzer’s desire to take the spotlight of New York politics, it does pose an interesting scenario.  Could Bill Clinton finally get his chance to get something done in American politcs besides be a politician?  He sure didn’t get anything done as President.

 Two large policy advances came about during the Clinton Presidency…welfare reform and a balanced budget.  Clinton supporters blindly applaud the President for spearheading these policy initiatives.  However, both of these reforms were the sole result of a Republican Congress and the influence of then Speaker Newt Gingrich. 

 In his bid for the White House, Bill Clinton proposed welfare reform.  He saw a system in shambles and used his reform rhetoric to win over moderate voters.  While Clinton likely believed strongly in reforming the system, he caved in to political pressures once in office and never pushed for welfare reform.  Republican Congressmen took the initiative in drafting and passing legislation.  Clinton responded with two vetoes.  However, three months before his re-election, Clinton conveniently signed the third version of welfare reform and touted its benefits to potential voters.   

In similar fashion, Clinton likes to take credit for balancing the budget.  He’s quick to forget that in 1995 it took the President five budgets to come up with one that fit the Republican’s balanced budget requirements.  Republicans had a balanced budget four years after taking control of Congress.  If the President controlled the budget we’d never have had one and we’d have only seen more tax hikes (like Clinton’s in 1993). 

 I would enjoy seeing Bill Clinton in the Senate to see how he votes on tough issues.  Would he play the same political games he played in the White House?  Will he be more successful at passing Hilary’s initiatives than she was at getting Health Care Reform passed?  I think a brain-dead marmaset could do better than she did with that one…although I’m glad she failed miserably.

Maybe it’s time the man who was responsible for the budget and policy reform of the Clinton era run for President.  Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest men I’ve ever seen.  While interning in Washington I watched him make a panel of Congresspeople look like second graders.  His vision for a responsible government with minimal bureaucracy and more emphasis on private business practices would make him more of a “progressive” than any candidate on either side of the aisle.  But, an Obama, Clinton, or Edwards presidency scare me enough to hold off on supporting any candidate.  I agree Newt would be polarizing and Giulliani might just get my vote anyway in an effort to keep others out.

It’s too early to tell what will happen in 2008, but whatever does Bill Clinton will be influential in getting there.  It would be interesting to give him a chance to actually make some policy changes.  

I’m more or less obsessed with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman. While he’s not exactly a fine man, his political commentary does read like an engaging narrative, and in this day and age of widespread undiagnosed ADHD, I think that’s an important skill to possess. His column for next week’s issue tackles a delightful subject for political junkies: couples in the 2008 presidential race.

As Fineman points out, all three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination–Clinton, Obama, and Edwards–are just one half of a politically formidable tag team. Although Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama cannot boast a record of having served as elected officials-distinguishing them from former President and potential First Gentleman Bill Clinton-Fineman makes it clear that they are forces to be reckoned with in a presidential campaign:

“Sen. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a hospital administrator with deep political ties to Chicago’s South Side—and a Harvard Law degree to match her husband’s. John Edwards met his wife, Elizabeth, at the University of North Carolina’s law school, and she is an attorney and author with her own devoted following on the campaign trail.”

And while Bill and Hill are living proof that political spouses can be a liability at times, Bill Clinton is a rock star who will serve as an enormous asset for his wife in her race for the nomination, and Michelle and Elizabeth aren’t too far behind:

“Michelle Obama’s charm and connections helped bring together the families of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Jesse Jackson in support of her husband’s candidacy. In Iowa… focus groups show that Elizabeth Edwards is perhaps the most popular public figure in the state. A dogged campaigner, she connects with her patient, sympathetic manner—and with tales of loss and pain in her life (the death of a son, her battle with breast cancer) recounted in a recent book.”

So, here’s the big question: Which partnership should be crowned the official Democratic power couple in 2008? Do we stick with the Clintons and bank on Bill’s classic charm (and voters’ nostalgia for the prosperous 90s)? Or is it time to pass the torch? As is so often the case, I’m torn. From a strategic perspective, I’m most comfortable with Bill on the stump, but Elizabeth has it in her to be nearly as popular as Laura Bush with a hell of a lot more political substance and policy perspective. And just about any photograph of the Obama family leaves me shuddering with excitement with the message of progression and opportunity we’d be projecting as a country.

I’m going with the Clintons, but it’s a very tough decision. What say you, blog community?

In all the hoopla over the Chief, I hope today’s column by Jon Monteith doesn’t get overlooked. It’s about the problem of homophobia in the black community and is a sad reminder of the complex and overlapping forms of prejudice and hypocrisy in this country. Check it out and let us know what you think.

Since the DI first started reporting that Chief Illiniwek is going to be retired, I’ve received dozens of letters. This is not surprising and frankly, I was expecting it. The Opinions page normally prints around 2000 words a day so quite obviously I will not have space for everything.

That being said, I intend to publish as many letters about the Chief issue as I possibly can. I don’t know how many that will end up being and I don’t know when I will be able to get the physical space in the newspaper. Until then though, I just want to let you readers know that I am reading *all* of your letters. If you would like to send a letter to me, please adhere to the policy below.

Letters Policy

Letters to the editor may be sent via e-mail to opinions@dailyillini.com with the subject “Letter to the Editor” or via mail to Opinions, The Daily Illini, 512 E. Green St., Champaign, IL 61820.Any letter submitted via regular mail must be typed, and all letters must include the author’s name, address and phone number to allow for verification. University students must note their year in school and which college they are in.
No letter may exceed 300 words during the regular school year and 200 words during the summer, and The Daily Illini reserves the right to edit or reject any contributions.

UPDATE: Look for almost 20 letters to appear in the DI tomorrow regarding Chief Illiniwek. Keep sending them in and they will either appear in the print or online edition. There’s a distinct possibility that I will use this blog for overflow in the coming days as “CHIEF ILLINIWEEK” unfolds.

Will there be a rush on Chief merchandise? Will there be protests and counter-protests? What will replace the Chief?

If you’ve heard anything about developments regarding the aftermath of this controversey, post your thoughts.

Anonymous posting is allowed…