Another round of controversy has sparked involving Chief Illiniwek, the University’s former official mascot and symbol. However, this time it is not a dispute for whether there should be a Chief symbol, but whether to adopt a new University symbol entirely.

On Jan. 9, the Illinois Student Senate and the RSO Campus Spirit Revival sent a mass email calling for students to respond with new mascot ideas for a contest. On the same day, Illinois alumnus Bryce Dirks created a Facebook page titled “Stop Campus Spirit Revival.”

“Technically we’ve already lost the Chief. But in a lack of a new symbol, we hold on to the Chief still,” said Josh Good, graduate student in Veterinary Medicine.

He and Dirks manage the website together.

Good said he understands how hard it would be to bring back the Chief, so instead, their current mission is trying to keep the status quo, which is no symbol.

“I don’t agree with having a symbol for symbol’s sake. So our stance is Chief or nothing,” Good said. “We are not completely content with what’s going on, but certainly more content than having a new symbol.”

In an attempt to raise awareness, Stop Campus Spirit Revival met with ISS on Wednesday.

To be eligible to host postseason NCAA tournaments, the University’s board of trustees announced Chief Illiniwek’s official retirement in 2007. However, the Chief continues to make unofficial appearances through events such as the Chief’s “Next Dance,” typically performed at Assembly Hall during Homecoming season.

Ivan Dozier, senior in ACES, is the current “unofficial Chief,” handpicked by the Council of Chiefs, a group comprising former official Chief portrayers.

“This campus doesn’t need a spirit revival. It has tons of spirit,” he said. “As for the revival movement, I am honestly not worried about it. Since I’ve been here, I’ve seen about four different movements to create a new mascot, but none of them ever panned out.”

Dozier said the greatest difference that set the Chief apart from other universities’ mascots is that the Chief was created to be respectful, and that’s why he would deem the Chief more as a symbol than a mascot.

“When I do the performances, I am not supposed have any facial expressions. No high-fives, no chest bumps, no running around interacting with the fans,” Dozier said. “All is done to keep the image respectful.”

Nevertheless, not all people would agree.

In 1997, Jay Rosenstein, professor in Media, made the documentary “In Whose Honor?” to look at the controversies about the Chief in the late 1980s. This period was the height of debate on whether to have the Chief as a symbol.

“Symbol, mascot, whatever you would call him,” Rosenstein said, “it really just came down to a group of people from a certain culture saying, ‘This offends us. Stop doing it. Half-court stunt is not what a Chief does.’”

Dozier however, said he took his role of Chief as an opportunity to inform people about the real Native American culture.

“Not a lot of people who support the Chief know much about the Native American culture,” he said. “I am half Cherokee, and I really want to reach out to people about something that’s personally important to me.”

Good said Native Americans are entitled to their own opinions and that the status quo is the best compromise currently for everyone.

“For the supporters, there is no new symbol, and they hold on to the Chief by themselves,” Good said. “Those who thought him as disrespected or irreverent, the Chief is no longer the official symbol of the University.”

The Native American House at the University declined comment. A statement on its website says the House supports “the March 2007 decision by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to retire the University’s former mascot in name, performance, and symbol.”

Xing can be reached at [email protected].