Addressing the controversy surrounding the Chief in the Aug. 25 University news release, Lawrence C. Eppley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, declared: “Our goal remains, as we have said before, a solution that best serves the University rather than particular interest groups.”

But should we believe him?

According to the report of the North Central Association, which accredits the University, the Chief is such a divisive issue on campus that it undermines the educational efforts of the University. Rather than protecting the best interests of the University, the Board sacrifices them by retaining the traditional but offensive mascot. As the NCA report observed: “In the absence of decisive action, the Board is, in effect, saying that it prefers to face the consequences of eroding damage to the effectiveness, governance, and reputation of the institution than the consequences of retiring the Chief.”

Furthermore Eppley’s statement implicitly attacks the legitimacy of anti “Chief” activists by characterizing them as “particular interest groups” and pretending that supporters of the Chief are not themselves a “particular interest group.” Unfortunately, the Board seems inclined to dismiss the substantial case against the Chief by marginalizing the voices of American Indians and others who have spoken out against the offensive mascot.

Regardless of Eppley’s claim, the Board’s failure to change the University’s mascot, despite its negative educational impact, makes it abundantly clear that some “particular interest group,” rather than the good of the University, is being served.

Bryan Alkemeyer

senior in LAS