In all instances of this issue, there are two disturbing trends. The opposition wishes to eliminate, rather than try to compromise, fix, or otherwise workshop any concept which will allow the preservation of Native imagery. Simply put, it is an unyielding push to destroy and keep away forever.
Furthermore, the opposition must impart their will through by force through bans and new resolutions. Not only is this aggressive attitude not acceptable to diverse thought, but it also ignores the will of community members and majority opinion. All attempts that have been made to eliminate Native imagery have been pushed through means contrary to democracy.
Point: We should work towards reason, discussion, and compromise rather than elimination and bans.
Counter-Point: Native imagery is offensive and therefore deserves to be banned.
Point: Native imagery is not wholly offensive in every iteration. If certain aspects of Native culture and history are found to be offensive to some, then we should address those specific facets and continue to represent culture and tradition, especially when it has been established and respected.
Counter-Point: Discussions can present a hostile environment for students, the decision to ban has been made an cannot be reversed.
Point: These environments are still hostile to the students who support Native imagery. This is not a sustainable environment and needs to be rectified for the safety and well-being of ALL students.
Example: Chief Illiniwek & the War Chant were simply retired at the University of Illinois. No efforts were made by the University to respect the Native history of the state in a more authentic or educational way.
Example: The University of North Dakota cut ties with Native symbolism and nomenclature, despite direct support from local tribes. No effort was made to compromise between critics and supporters.