Print this

GSLIS Faculty Statement on Chief Illiniwek

The Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign is consistently ranked one of the best in the field. Our students enter a broad range of information professions, becoming systems analysts, catalogers, human factor specialists, public librarians, database administrators, academic reference librarians, webmasters, school library media specialists, information architects, children's librarians . . . the list grows longer every day. All share a common professional goal of providing access to information in all its formats.

The threefold mission of GSLIS is:

1. Teaching—to educate students to assume leadership in the various fields dedicated to making information more accessible to individuals and organizations
2. Research—to conduct research in library and information science
3. Service—to provide service to librarians and other information service providers as well as to the citizens of Illinois.

It has become increasingly clear that the continuing use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol directly hinders each aspect of the GSLIS mission.

Teaching: The use of the Chief Illiniwek symbol interferes with our primary educational mission in many ways. Not only has it made it difficult to recruit Native American students or to work with Native American communities, the continued use of a symbol now widely seen as racist creates a chilling atmosphere for all students who for whatever reason do not see themselves as in the mainstream. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to learning. Moreover, it directly contradicts much of the content of our teaching, especially when addressing the importance of providing accurate information, adopting a service perspective on providing information, and challenging stereotypes in literature.

Research: Our research in library and information science is also negatively affected. In formulating criteria for evaluating information in books, electronic media, and other sources, we stress the importance of accuracy, which is directly contradicted by the stereotypical representation of Native Americans embodied in the Chief. Moreover, we have already seen numerous professional societies declaring our campus off limits for professional meetings. Colleagues throughout the world are aware of the Chief controversy and ask us when will the University catch up with other great institutions of learning. The controversy itself drains energy that could be much better applied to substantive research.

Service: In the area of service the Chief symbol belies our professed concerns about equal access and a service orientation to information providing. How can we provide leadership to library and information professionals on strategies for serving diverse populations or looking beyond stereotypes of library user groups when our own campus promotes stereotypes of a minority population? And what answer can we give when someone asks why we choose to represent people who have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the unwanted appropriation of their culture?

While we understand that supporters of Chief Illiniwek do not intend any harm, the evidence is strong that harm is being done, specifically to Native Americans, but to every member of the University community, including those supporters. Scholars in GSLIS who have studied the representations of Native Americans, worked with Native American individuals and communities, or examined the historical and cultural uses of information all agree that the symbol, whatever the intentions behind it, is neither accurate nor appropriate.

Recognizing that reasonable people often hold diverse opinions, our School rarely speaks as a whole on issues that divide the community. But we see here a case in which the issue has a direct impact on our primary responsibilities in educating future library and information professionals. Our educational mission goes beyond skills and concepts: we teach our students the importance of holding themselves to the highest standards of professional and ethical behavior. Casual use of Native American religious and cultural symbols is at odds with the ethical standards articulated by our professional and scholarly societies: the American Library Association (ALA), the American Society for Information Science (ASIS), and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). *

Whatever one may think of the uses of the Chief Illiniwek symbol, the history or intentions behind it, or the positive feelings it obviously calls forth for many, its time has passed. The University should lead the way in demonstrating that it is an institution that serves all the citizens of the State of Illinois.

By unanimous vote of the GSLIS faculty - 5/10/2000

Notes:
a) "Treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions" (ALA Code of Ethics). But Chief Illiniwek is patently unfair and disrespectful to our Native American colleagues. We are to uphold "the values of equality, tolerance, respect for others, and the principles of equal justice" (ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct). But the continued use of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol represents injustice, disrespect, and intolerance.

b) "Not knowingly make false statements or provide erroneous or misleading information " (ASIS Professional Guidelines) and to provide "accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests" (ALA Code of Ethics). But University policy gives the false impression that the Chief is part of a "dignified tradition" that "honors Native Americans."

c) "Be ever aware of the social, economic, cultural, and political impacts of [our] actions or inaction" (ASIS Professional Guidelines). The University holds on to the Chief despite the strenuous objections of those we claim should be honored by him. In so doing, we ignore significant cultural, political, and social implications of our choices.