Subsequent to the self-study, the Minority Opportunity and Interests Committee and the NCAA Executive Committee adopted a new policy at its August 2005, meeting to prohibit NCAA institutions from using hostile or abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, imagery, or nicknames at any of the NCAA’s national or regional championships. The University of Louisiana at Monroe was included in that policy. In essence, the NCAA rejected ULM ’s self-evaluation. 

The NCAA stated, "Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter. But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control." 

The policy takes effect February 1, 2006. At that time, institutions with student-athletes wearing uniforms or having paraphernalia with hostile or abusive references must ensure that those uniforms or paraphernalia are not worn or displayed at NCAA championship competitions; nor will such institutions be permitted to host any NCAA championship competition. The committee also strongly suggested that institutions follow the practice of not scheduling athletic competitions with schools that use Native American nicknames, imagery or mascots. 

The NCAA did state that institutions could appeal the NCAA’s decision if a “namesake” tribe formally approved use of a university’s mascot, name and imagery. The mascot adopted by the university in 1931 did not reflect any specific indigenous tribe of northeast Louisiana or south Arkansas, but rather was generic in nature, inculcating the quality characteristics of the entire Native American culture.

After being notified by the NCAA of ULM’s placement in the rejected category, the University, following the directives stipulated by the association, embarked on an effort to obtain support from the three tribes that are recognized federally in our part of
Louisiana the Tunica-Biloxi, the Chitimacha, and the Coushatta. This sojourn has been an uncomfortable one because, as stated previously, the ULM mascot is and has always been generic in form. Additionally, it is impossible to make a statement of prior association with a tribe in the case of the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Nevertheless, ULM contacted the three identified tribes, explained ULM ’s efforts and, provided a copy of the ULM/NCAA Self Study. ULM respectfully requested an endorsement of the efforts to maintain the mascot. ULM received support from only one of the three local tribes. 

Recognizing the importance of prior “namesake” tribal support in any appeal decision by the NCAA, we asked the NCAA if they would reconsider our formal appeal to continue using the Indian mascot if a local Louisiana Native American tribe supports that use. In a letter dated December 15, 2005, Dr. Bernard Franklin, Senior Vice President for Governance and Membership, stated that “ . . .the use of a generic Native American reference like ‘Indians’ or ‘Braves’ cannot be mitigated by the concurrence of any Native American tribe.” He further added, “. . .while the support of the Coushatta Tribe would likely be sufficient to endorse the university’s use of the official tribal name (Coushatta), it does not suffice as an endorsement of the use of the generic term “Indian.”  

Due to the importance of this issue, I asked George Luffey, long-time supporter of ULM , to chair a Mascot Committee. The committee is comprised of representatives from each of the university’s constituencies, including students, faculty, alumni, ULM Foundation, L Club, Indian Athletic Foundation, Alumni Association,  coaches and student-athletes. It is our intention to provide the committee all of the information regarding this issue and ask that they make a recommendation to the ULM administration concerning the future of our mascot. It is an extremely delicate task that we ask of George, and we already owe him a debt of gratitude for accepting the challenge.

In addition, we are maintaining contact with Arkansas State University and sharing information on a regular basis on the mascot issue. I am confident that our Mascot Committee will review material and strategies of our Sunbelt Conference colleague. 

The University of Louisiana at Monroe is on the move academically and athletically. I believe it is important to communicate fully with you about this issue. That is why we are establishing a Mascot website that will include a copy of the Institutional Self-Study, letters to and from the NCAA, information on area mascots, and up-to-date information on the committee and its recommendations. The link to the website will be available January 2, 2006, on the ULM homepage at www.ulm.edu.  It is our intention to continue to involve all of the university’s many constituencies in this process. ULM values your opinions and input, and we promise decisions that reflect the exciting future of our institution, its students, faculty, staff, community, and region. 

James E. Cofer, Sr.

February 3, 2006

Dear Alumni and Friends:

When I wrote to you last, ULM faced three options related to the NCAA’s decision to restrict the use of Native American mascots and imagery. I responded by appointing a committee chaired by George Luffey and composed of students, student-athletes, "L" Club members, Indian Athletic Foundation members, faculty, staff, alumni, the ULM Alumni Association, the ULM Foundation, and friends. Their charge was to gather advice and input from their constituencies and to make a recommendation as to how the university should proceed. To facilitate openness and cast as wide a net as possible, the committee members held meetings and open forums with their groups. On campus, for example, we hosted two forums for students, one for faculty, and one for staff members. The committee also created a mailing address, web page, and email address so alumni and friends who are far away could still make their voices heard.

After nearly a month of meetings, over 23,000 visits to the website, and hundreds of emails, the committee met again on January 25th to report their constituents’ opinions. They have worked hard and are to be commended for embracing the challenge of seeking broad and deep public discussion of a controversial subject. Following careful deliberation, the unanimous decision of the committee was that ULM should retire the Indian mascot and enter a process to create a new one.

The consensus of the committee was that, although we value our heritage and have always tried to treat the Indian mascot with respect, adopting either of the other options jeopardized ULM Athletics and would only prolong the inevitable. The university will accept and implement the committee’s recommendation.

As we begin the process to create a new mascot for ULM, your input remains critical. On January 30th, the mascot committee began taking nominations from the public through a form available at the mascot committee’s web page. In addition, you may communicate with the committee via email and regular mail. Both addresses and the mascot nomination form are easy to find from the ULM homepage (http://www.ulm.edu) by clicking on the mascot committee link.

The process going forward entails two different opportunities for you to provide the mascot committee with input. The first I have already mentioned – the mascot nomination period, which has already begun. On February 28th, the committee will conclude mascot nominations and compile a list of the leading candidates. From there, you will have a second opportunity to voice your opinion by voting for one of the "finalist" candidates. The committee will consider those votes along with advice from mascot and marketing consultants in deciding what mascot best represents the university and northeast Louisiana. Meetings will continue to be open, and the committee available by email so you can communicate with them. The entire process should be complete by June 1, 2006, which will enable us to obtain merchandise for the fall. I have every confidence that, with your help, the committee will select a mascot we can all be proud of, and begin a new tradition at ULM.

For me, for members of the committee, and for many of you, it is with sadness that we will say goodbye to the Indian mascot. But let us also remember that it is the great university represented by the mascot we feel strongly about, not the mascot itself. We have so much at ULM to be proud of: we are celebrating our 75th anniversary, our tradition of academic excellence is growing stronger, we are beautifying our campus with new buildings and renovations, and we are recruiting the region’s best students. The current challenge is a difficult one, but I am confident that with your help and participation in the process, the university will come out better and stronger.


James E. Cofer, Sr.
President