Dr. Brand is correct that this is a very complex issue, and he demonstrates his limited understanding of it when he says, ??????Redmen??? as a single word is a derogatory term. It refers to the scalp ??? Native American bleeding ??? and that???s very derogatory.???

Sitting Bull is quoted as saying, ???Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is it wicked for me because my skin is red????

Was this famous Sioux Indian chief being derogatory toward his own race when he spoke of his red skin? Or was he merely speaking of himself as others of his era spoke?

According to an article in the Oct. 3, 2005, Washington Post, the use of "red" in reference to Native Americans had nothing to do with scalping or bleeding. It says:

???Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that 'redskin' was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white ???other??? encroaching on their lands and culture.

???When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, ???it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level,??? Goddard said in an interview. ???These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.???"

The article goes on to say that University of Connecticut historian Nancy Shoemaker agrees with Goddard:

"Like Goddard, Shoemaker said that by the end of the 18th century, Native Americans were using 'red' to describe themselves and to assert their pride of being North America's original inhabitants."

Brand, however, chooses to use the interpretation of "redmen" preferred by those who agree with his position.

This perfectly illustrates the NCAA's approach to dealing with American Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery. The organization treats all evidence supporting its position as sacrosanct while discounting or totally ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Dr. Brand says that one of the NCAA's goals was to start a discourse on this issue. However, it is certainly a most one-sided discourse. I find it extremely discouraging that the NCAA has ignored the University of North Dakota's invitations to visit the campus and see for itself whether the ???hostile and abusive??? atmosphere that Brand and others claim exists at UND sporting events is really there.

Having leveled the serious charge of racism against some of its member institutions, the very least the NCAA can do is make certain that its position is based on truth and facts, not deceit and misinformation.