GRAND FORKS, ND – Grant Shaft, president of North Dakota’s State Board of Higher Education, says that if an effort to refer a bill repealing the state’s “Fighting Sioux” law is successful his board may have to assert its constitutional authority.
In regular session earlier this year the state legislature passed a law requiring that the University of North Dakota keep its controversial Fighting Sioux logo and nickname, but in a special session completed earlier this month the legislature repealed the law. Now nickname supporters say they’re going to try and refer that repeal.
Shaft said a successful referral would force his board to put on their “constitutional caps.”
“If we determined as a board that affiliating with the Big Sky Conference was more important than the nickname we would probably have to mount a constitutional challenge,” said Shaft in an interview today noting that the state constitution grants the board exclusive jurisdiction over all of the state’s universities. “If the repealer was successful we would revert back tot he prior law. From that point in time from the board’s perspective is essentially see where the Big Sky Conference would go with that.”
“What we would have to weigh is the will of the people wanting to retain the nickname and logo, does that outweigh our constitutional mandate?” asked Shaft saying that his board’s responsibility is to the university’s athletics program and its transition to Division I competition.
Nickname supporters are also launching a petition drive in support of a constitutional amendment that would mandate the Sioux nickname. Shaft says that if that effort is successful the board would have few choices. “If there was a constitutional change, I don’t thin there would be anything the board could do. The chips would have to fall where they fall,” he said.
Shaft says his board isn’t necessarily opposed to the nickname, but that they must have the best interest of the universities in mind even if that means challenging a vote of the people. “Whent he board is dealing with this issue right now we’re not dealing with whether or not we like the nickname or logo,” said Shaft. “From a board’s perspective it’s a little deeper than that. It means a lot to the institution financially.”
