Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Political Analyst Entrepreneur Business Advisor Chicago Illinois Review

SEIFFE:  The Logic of Chief Illiniwek

Thursday, February 8, 2007

By Ralf Seiffe

The esteemed leader of the Illinois Senate, Democrat Emil Jones, wants to speed the process of jettisoning the University of Illinois’s long-time mascot, Chief Illiniwek.  The Sage of the Senate is apparently offended by the vivified symbol the University has used since the beginning of big-time college football in the Roaring Twenties.  Despite his bluster, is Senator Jones entitled to be offended?  If so, his feelings may be the first evidence of a much bigger problem than the fate of an imaginary, Native American logo. 

Eighty years ago, University boosters invented the Chief (there is no Illini tribe) to take on the mythical strength and nobility of Native Americans.  Through this device, one suspects that the University of Illinois branded the Chief to establish and maintain a positive, athletically fearsome image. After all, who wants to put a loser on the label?  As a brand, it worked.  Illinois’ teams enjoy awareness far beyond what their recent athletic performance would normally justify and a big reason for that is the “Fightin’ Illini” have brand equity that’s been built over a lifetime.  Other evidence of the Chief’s veneration includes the respect his stewards pay his legend, image and regalia which verges on reverence. 

Nevertheless, the Illinois Senate President remains offended and wants the Chief gone.  One wonders why. 

Perhaps Jones is a member of that growing part of America that imagines itself the victims of calculating boors, intent on insult.  These permanently offended seem to be turning ours into a nation of thinning skin, unable to tolerate even the smallest viewpoint that isn’t congruent with our own.  A couple of Super Bowl commercials provide late evidence; the Snickers candy bar has become the pawn of humiliated homosexuals and GM has insulted the terminally depressed with clumsy, anthropomorphous robot.  Last night, the Editor of Essence Magazine appeared, offended, on Bill O’Reilly’s program, becoming “hysterical”--his description--when the host offered the notion that Barack Obama is “articulate.” 

Jones may simply be recognizing an opportunity.  As a member of the “all racism, all the time” generation, his main product is outrage and like any savvy businessman, he's aware that there’s market share available.  By inserting himself in what should be the province of Native Americans, Jones is no different than Kodak deciding that there is an opportunity in challenging Hewlett-Packard for a share of the inkjet printer business. 

But there may be a bigger reason too.  By establishing the idea that anyone can take offense at anything, our Senate President helps remove the link between cause and effect.  Generally, one has reason to be incensed only if there is a cause; the “offender” must mean some form of harm.  Without harmful intent, one can be disappointed but not offended.  If, however, the requirement for relevant cause is excised, offense is in the eye of the beholder, regardless of the “offender’s” intent.  Case in point: Joe Biden’s presidential campaign was wounded, probably fatally, when he sincerely praised Barack Obama’s rhetorical skills.  All parties agree Biden is no racist. But, without the necessity of demonstrating an intentionally harmful cause, the “offendees” are in control.  Biden probably wonders what hit him.   

Cause and effect is the handmaiden of reason and by diminishing the standards of what’s required to link the two, reason suffers.  This is exactly the desired effect for those who believe reason isn’t an important ingredient of public policy. 

Think how examples demonstrate the utility of jettisoning reason for politicians.  It’s unreasonable to take on new public initiatives when we explicitly refuse to pay our existing debts.  But, if logic isn’t required to forge public policy, why not?  It’s foolish to raise our income taxes to increase school funding when we empirically know that spending more money doesn’t improve performance.  But, without the requirement for some logical connection between cause and effect, raise away! 

Jones and other smart politicians will soon observe that without a requirement for reason, other notions that now appear idiotic can become de rigueur.  The big prize is reparations.  Reason, in its existing state, now requires that restitution be based on some connection between the offender and the offended; courts of law are established to find such nexuses.  When actual victim’s losses are caused by real villains, money is paid.  The Japanese internees and the U.S. Government fit this description.  Advocates of reparations run into difficulties meeting the same standard.  But, absent the discipline of reason, there is no impediment to coercing big payments for imaginary victims from real taxpayers. 

The actual importance of the Chief Illiniwek case is probably small but it does illustrate the battle between those who celebrate reason or others who substitute some mystic approach to confronting our world.  The worry is how many otherwise intelligent, university-educated Illini and their political leaders have been seduced by the dark side. 

Instantly, the whole controversy makes me glad I’m a Wisconsin Badger.  Probably not for long however.  Some cheese head PETA member is certainly readying a fight because she’s mystified that the University of Wisconsin could be so insensitive over the servitude of an imaginary badger with a paper-mâché head. 

© 2007 Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader and Illinois Review.

Webmaster Contact:  Alynn Patzer alynn11111@aol.com