Abstract
Wielding degrees of influence within educational organizations, university leaders are critical in determining how institutions enact their espoused missions and support severely marginalized campus communities. How do universities address and improve educational outcomes for the most severely underrepresented communities? This article presents emergent findings from an illustrative multiple-case study that examined the relationships between two public universities and local American Indian nations in California. As a preliminary step in understanding the present state of “tribal-university relationships,” I present findings on university leaders’ perceptions and knowledge regarding American Indians broadly and relationships with local Native nations specifically. Using tribal critical race theory as an analytical framework, I posit how colonization, federal recognition, and educational practices affect curricular, political, and economic relationships.
Keywords
When conducting semistructured interviews with Indigenous 1 and non-Indigenous university leaders at multiple public universities in California, I noticed an overwhelming number of university leaders reiterate the sentiment “we can do better” when describing their institution’s relationship with local American Indian nations. Interviews revealed that senior leaders knew little about American Indians generally and less about campus efforts to engage local Native nations specifically. These findings could not be ignored. While many reasons can account for this knowledge gap, including organizational bureaucracy, findings underscore systemic challenges affecting educational inequities experienced by American Indians in postsecondary institutions nationwide, and specifically in California. How can universities serve American Indian students and Native nations if they have limited knowledge about this significantly underserved populace? This article probes at the heart of this question.
U.S.-based universities have never placed a high priority on the educational attainment of American Indian students. Instead, the introduction of Western formalized schooling to Indigenous people was a mechanism used to address the “Indian problem” (Grande, 2015, p. 19). Today, the low educational attainment of American Indians nationally reflects the on-going failure of universities to meet the academic, social, and cultural needs of students and communities. Presently, American Indian students continue to comprise less than 1% of the national college-going student population (U.S. Department of Education, 2018a). Waxing and waning marginally from year-to-year, 17.9% of first-time, full-time American Indian first-year students at public institutions completed college in 4 years in 2017—nearly a 2–point drop from the preceding year (U.S. Department of Education, 2018b). This completion rate is lower than any underrepresented population, with year-to-year exceptions being with Black students (U.S. Department of Education, 2018b). Similarly, findings reported by the California Indian Cultural and Sovereignty Center (CICSC) at California State University, San Marcos (CSUSM) on the state of American Indian and Alaska Native education in California, where this study takes place, expose that American Indian students across the California State University (CSU) and University of California systems have the lowest four-year graduation rate compared with any underrepresented group—at 14% and 48%, respectively (Proudfit & San Juan, 2012). These national and state college completion rates reflect a failure by institutions to ensure the success of American Indian students, which has direct implications for Native nations. An on-going crisis, this matter warrants an earnest and thoughtful response from postsecondary institutions.
Most postsecondary institutions, however, have yet to effectively engage American Indian students and Native nations, as demonstrated through the low enrollment, retention, completion rates, lack of campus support services, and absent external relations with tribal governments and organizations. Scholars argue that the educational attainment of American Indians is associated with the failure of institutions to respond to student needs, contending that hostile campus climates, institutional racism, stereotyping and inherent bias, discrimination, hyper (in)visibility, lack of culturally relevant curriculum, and absence of faculty mentors negatively affect academic progress and completion (Brayboy, 2004; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Pewewardy & Frey, 2002, 2004; Reyes & Shotton, 2018; Yazzie-Mintz, 2010). Valuing and including Native cultural practices and worldviews have also been noted to determine students’ sense of belonging, transition, and persistence in education (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Minthorn, 2014; Windchief & Joseph, 2015), thusly affecting persistence and completion. In these ways and others, institutions continue to fall short.
Furthermore, the growing nationwide movement to address campus diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) in response to institutional inequities to remedy these issues makes the issue of American Indian educational attainment all the more apparent. In recent years, there has been a boom in hiring campus diversity officers to address campus DIE issues (Wilson, 2013). Some of these efforts have included Native student affairs personnel or tribal liaisons tasked with the sole responsibility of serving students or engaging communities (Francis-Begay, 2013). Long before this emergence, Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) cautioned universities on how they served American Indian students and communities, arguing that higher education needs to be a “system that respects them for who they are, that is relevant to their view of the world, that offers reciprocity in their relationships with others, and that helps them exercise responsibility over their own lives” (p. 2). This is to say, DIE initiatives should not be perceived as the primary avenue for addressing American Indian student and community concerns, and the practice of placing the care and tribal engagement on Native personnel grossly overlooks the responsibility of institutions to serve students and communities. Focusing efforts through DIE units also disregards how institutions as a whole perpetuate colonial beliefs and practices that negatively affect Native nations, even when it is unintentional. Furthermore, the goals of DIE initiatives are incommensurate with Native nation-building goals, and efforts should be directed toward understanding how and in what ways American Indians are accounted for within these efforts. To be effective, efforts require an assessment of how American Indian students and Native nations are included within and across such initiatives, for which this study lays a foundation.
Last, the role of higher education in Native nation-building provides the necessary context for understanding the importance of improving tribal-university relationships. Brayboy et al. (2012) contend that “nation-building cannot be fully realized or adequately pursued without some agenda of higher education” (p. 27) making educational attainment a critical component of strengthening tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Nation-building refers to “the political, legal, spiritual, educational, and economic processes by which Indigenous peoples build, create, and strengthen local capacity to address their educational, health, legal, economic, nutritional, relational, and spatial needs” (Brayboy & Huaman, 2016, p. 141). The literature on American Indian college students reiterates that Native nations implicitly, if not explicitly, expect that their students will return to their communities after college (Brayboy & Castagno, 2011). Brayboy and Castagno (2011), for example, assert, “[tribal] leaders have unique expectations when it comes to higher education for their students. They want American Indian students to soak up Western knowledge, place that knowledge within the context of their cultures and languages, and return home to better their communities” (p. 150). Although there is a clear understanding that Native students are expected, and often desire, to return to their tribes on graduation (Guillory, 2009; Salis Reyes, 2019), the low educational attainment of American Indians from public education nationally highlights how postsecondary institutions limits these possibilities—severely affecting Native nation-building. Educational attainment, institutional barriers, DIE initiatives, and nation-building reflect a disconnect between universities and Native nations, highlighting the importance of studies that examine the relationships between postsecondary institutions and Native nations.
Purpose of the Study
Contributing to the discourse on university leaders, this article presents findings that emerged from a more extensive study that examined how public institutions fulfill their missions, uphold and demonstrate their responsibility to, and understand the educational needs of American Indian students and nations. The more extensive study sought to answer the following research question: What kinds of formal and informal relationships exist between the case study postsecondary institutions and local American Indian nations? The findings presented in this article illuminate the current perspectives of Indigenous and non-Indigenous university leaders regarding American Indian students and community-campus relations with local Native nations. These findings offer a context for existing relationships, or lack thereof, with local Native nations and serve as a preliminary analysis on the present state of “tribal-university relationships.” Building on community-university partnership literature, I define tribal-university relationships as the external, economic, curricular, and cocurricular relationships existing between American Indian nations and universities that recognize, reinforce, and respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination (Ambo, 2017). Using tribal critical race theory (Tribal Crit), I posit that colonization, federal recognition, and educational practices impact institutional perspectives, as well as curricular, political, and economic relationships. More importantly, I offer final comments on how universities can move beyond their current understandings of American Indians and Native nations to better serve and address this populace’s postsecondary educational needs.
Background
While scholarship exists on the role and perspectives of university leaders in organizational decision making (Kezar & Lester, 2011), few have written about the views of Indigenous and non-Indigenous university leaders—that being senior- and mid-level leadership—regarding community-campus relationships with Native nations (Guillory & Wolverton, 2008). The purpose of this section is to contextualize this study within historical and contemporary relationships between American Indian students and Native nations and higher education institutions, focusing on an emerging area of research on external campus relations with Native nations. First, I situate this work within the historical purposes of higher education as a technology of settler colonialism. Next, I offer background on the current institutional experiences of American Indian students to illustrate on-going tensions experienced inside and outside academia. After that, I present emerging practices of a select number of universities to study their state and campus history, external relations, and environments regarding American Indian students and Native nations. Last, Tribal Crit, the theoretical framework guiding this work, is presented with an explanation for its application to this study. Each section underscores the on-going position of American Indians to and within academia and the necessity of addressing existing educational inequities.
Historical Relationship Between American Indians and Settler Colonial Education
The introduction of Western formalized schooling to the United States during the Colonial Era is intimately tied to settler colonial practices to eliminate American Indians and Native nations. Grande (2015) situates this logic, writing: Indian education was never simply about the desire to “civilize” or even deculturize a people, but rather, from its very inception, it was a project designed to colonize Indian minds as a means of gaining access to Indian labor, land, and resources. (p. 23)
Settler colonialism is best understood as a “structure rather than an event” (Wolfe, 2006, p. 390) and is distinct from “classical colonialism.” Classic colonialism “consists of an outward movement followed by interactions with exotic and colonized ‘others’ in foreign surroundings, and by a final return to an original location” (Veracini, 2011, p. 205). In contrast, settler colonialism is “different from other forms of colonialism in that settlers come with the intention of making a new home on the land, a homemaking that insists on settler sovereignty over all things in their new domain” (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p. 5). The establishment of a settler colonial society in the United States required access to territory and thusly the elimination of Indigenous peoples and recasting of land as property.
Introduced in the late 1500s and early 1600s through colonial colleges, Western formalized schooling, or settler colonial education, served as one of many technologies used against Indigenous people to replace ontological and epistemological relationships to land by replacing Indigenous lifeways with “European American thought, knowledge, and power structures dominate in present-day society in the United States” (Brayboy, 2005, p. 430). Settler colonial education also physically removed Indigenous people from their homelands through violent and coercive acts that forced students into schools or appropriated and reallocated land to states to establish universities. Many of the first postsecondary institutions in the United States, including Harvard, Williams and Mary University, and Dartmouth College, began under the auspice of “serving” American Indian students while also espousing an inherent motivation to assimilate Indigenous people into the dominant colonial culture (Carney, 1999; Wright, 1991; Wright & Tierney, 1991). According to Wright (1991), responses to formal schooling varied, with some accepting and some outright resisting and rejecting institutionalized education.
Moreover, Grande (2015, 2018) and Wilder (2013) reminds us that historical relationships between higher education and Indigenous peoples were not only rooted in the intellectual dismemberment of Indigenous people but also the exploitation of land, resources, and cultural knowledge for institutional gain, asserting: the history of American Indian education and, more broadly, the history of the relationship between the U.S. government and American Indian nations is often characterized as being one of cultural domination, a critical examination reveals the principal relationship as one of exploitation—that is, the imposed extraction of labor and natural resources for capital gain. (Grande, 2015, pp. 26–27)
Early experiences with Western formalized schooling, coupled with decades of federally mandated Indian boarding schools, failure to acknowledge Indian values, exploitation through unethical research, and efforts to eradicate Native culture provide the logic behind the continued to distrust systems of Western schooling and informs the contemporary relationship of American Indians, both personally and collectively, to academia (Grande, 2015; Wright, 1991). This study brings this history into the present by pointing to the on-going presence of settler colonialism in contemporary tribal-university relationships.
Contemporary Relationships Between American Indians and Settler Universities
Today, tensions loom between American Indians and higher education reflect the assimilative nature of settler colonial education (Calloway, 2002; Carney, 1999) and amplify how institutions neglect American Indian students and communities. In recent years, settler universities have expressed the importance of student, faculty, and staff diversity on campuses and made commitments to student learning in diverse environments in response to scholarly critiques (Hurtado et al., 2012). There has also been a proliferation of hiring campus diversity officers to address such issues, including Native personnel (Francis-Begay, 2013; Wilson, 2013). However, how American Indians are included in these on-going conversations has yet to be studied or understood empirically.
The literature on American Indian college student persistence indicates that students experience a cultural dissonance at their institution (Bickel & Jensen, 2012; Brayboy, 2004; Huffman, 2003). Meaning, students experience an inherent discrepancy between their culture, values, and worldview with mainstream culture (Bickel & Jensen, 2012; Brayboy, 2004; Huffman, 2003). Brayboy et al. (2012) point out that higher education’s fundamental purpose remains at odds with Native students’ cultural values and worldview. For example, mainstream institutions focus on individual success, which conflicts with the Indigenous values of collective success. Additionally, classroom settings in mainstream institutions tend to be based on competition rather than collaboration.
Furthermore, settler universities continue to be inhospitable and hostile places for American Indian students that are unwelcoming to Indigenous epistemologies (Brayboy, 2004; Brayboy et al., 2012). Scholarship addressing the topic of racism and discrimination shows that American Indian students report higher rates of discrimination and hostility on college campuses (Jackson et al., 2003; UCLA Student Affairs Office of Information and Research, 2013). For example, a 2011 report from the UCLA Office of Student Affairs reported that American Indian and Black students experience greater levels of discrimination and bias than White students, who reported significantly lower proportions experiencing discrimination on campus. This same study also showed that American Indian students self-reported the highest level of negative cross-racial interactions and harassment (UCLA Student Affairs Office of Information and Research, 2013). Extending scholarship on American Indian student experiences within postsecondary institutions, this study points out the reasoning for adverse reporting—that being that university leaders are ill-equipped to serve this population because of their limited knowledge about students and communities broadly.
Emergence of Statewide and Campus Specific Studies
Accounting for the historical relationships between Native nations and academic institutions and American Indian students’ educational outcomes brings to light a nearly unexamined area—current tribal-university relationships. Existing scholarship on such partnerships reflects the varying types of relationships between Native nations and universities: research, curricular, cocurricular, economic, or legally mandated. For example, some studies document exemplar models between American Indian studies programs and Native nations, such as research or service-learning partnerships focusing on health science and public health programs (Champagne & Stauss, 2002; Norman & Kalt, 2015; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006, 2010). This scholarship focuses on American Indian centers and programs and internal institutional relationships with American Indian students, staff, and faculty; however, and does not address the institution-wide role or relationships with Native nations. Moreover, limited research explores the nature or evaluates the quality of tribal-university relationships. Therefore, little is known about how or whether these relationships have transformed due to changing political climate, DIE initiatives, or tribal economic investments.
Within the past decade, academic institutions have started to conduct comprehensive and longitudinal investigations on the academic achievement of American Indian students within their states at the secondary and postsecondary level (Akweks et al., 2009; Proudfit & Gregor, 2016; Proudfit & San Juan, 2012). In California, the CICSC at CSUSM released three reports on the state of American Indian education that closely examined educational attainment at the CSU, UC, and community college levels and available American Indian programs and resources (Proudfit & Gregor, 2014, 2016; Proudfit & San Juan, 2012). Likewise, several scholars and institutions have examined their historical relationship to settler colonialism, including their institutions’ role in chattel slavery and land procurement (Fuentes & White, 2016; Wilder, 2013). For example, the University of Denver convened a task force to examine their institutions’ involvement in the Sand Creek Massacre. Northwestern University conducted a similar historical investigation that examined their founder’s connection to the illegal seizure and sale of Indian land. Findings and outcomes of such investigations often result in the creation of campus-wide task forces or advisory councils that address American Indian students and communities at their institution (e.g., the University of Washington, Northwestern University, Denver University, CSUSM). While many examples and models exist, research rigorously examining the nature or quality of relationships between tribes and postsecondary institutions organizationally remains sparse. This study builds on current research to broadly characterize the nature of relationships.
Theoretical Framework
Tribal Crit (2005) addresses the complicated relationship between American Indians and the U.S. federal government so as to understand the unique place that American Indians hold as legal and racialized people and groups in society. This study used Tribal Crit to analyze the perspectives of Indigenous and non-Indigenous university administrators (Brayboy, 2005). Critical race theories offer frameworks that seek to identify, analyze, and transform the structural and cultural aspects of society that maintain subordinate and dominant racialized positions (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). Under this umbrella is critical race theory (CRT), with Tribal Crit serving as an extension of CRT to address limitations in its application in Indigenous communities. Tribal Crit specifically offers a lens for examining racism and colonization experienced by Indigenous communities in education and provides explanations for perspectives and experiences within academia. This study primarily utilized two of the nine tenets for analysis.
The first tenet of Tribal CRT states that “colonization is endemic to society.” Relating this tenet to education, we previously covered that the goal of Western formalized schooling was a technology of settler colonialism used by settlers to eliminate Indigenous people through assimilation. More specifically, this process included “replac[ing] heritage with English, replac[ing] ‘paganism’ with Christianity, replac[ing] economic, political, social, legal and aesthetic institutions” (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006, p. 4). This tenet helped examine the role of educational systems in colonization through the domination of hegemonic perspectives—historically and currently.
The other tenet applied in this study pertains to the impact of government and educational policies of assimilation. Brayboy (2005) asserts, “governmental policies and educational policies toward Indigenous peoples are intimately linked around the problematic goal of assimilation” (p. 429). The most notable are federally operated boarding schools, whereby Congress approved policy and operated secondary boarding schools to assimilate American Indian youth (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006). An example of this being Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania, founded in 1878 by General Richard Henry Pratt and the U.S. government (Almeida, 1997). This tenet helped examine how institutional policies and practices at the case study sites are geared toward assimilation and exclusion.
Tribal Crit was selected for this study because it serves as an Indigenous lens that can interrogate the Western world instead of a Western lens used to examine the Indigenous world (Brayboy, 2005; Castagno & Lee, 2007). Indigenous scholars are increasingly using Tribal Crit for studies that focus on undergraduate and graduate student experiences (Keene, 2016; Waterman & Lindley, 2013). In contrast, the study presented in this article uses Tribal Crit to examine high-level organizational issues in postsecondary education—including structural inequities, differing worldviews, and expectations pertaining to relationships in higher education.
Methodology
The data for this article are a part of a more extensive illustrative multiple-case study that examined community-campus relationships with local American Indian nations. Using data collected from multiple sources—including interviews, observations, and documents—this case study design foregrounded the examination of community-campus relationships while placing the case study sites in the background. This technique allowed the generative understanding of patterns within individual sites, and, more importantly, across case study institutions (Creswell, 2013; Kezar & Lester, 2011; Stake, 2006). This method essentially placed greater attention on understanding patterns across institutions, as opposed to fixating on site-specific themes.
Case Study Sites
The two sites for this study were located in California and composed of a public postsecondary institution and neighboring Native nations. California is home to the largest number of American Indians and tribes compared to any state in the United States—with nearly 723,225 American Indians and over 150 federally and nonfederally recognized tribes (Norris et al., 2012). The prominence of Native nations in California offers a unique context for studying community-campus relationships. Site selection used the following three criteria: (1) institutional control (i.e., public vs. private), (2) geographical location in urban centers, and (3) the presence of existing campus services supporting American Indian students (e.g., the prevalence of Native programs). The research focused on the relationships that institutions have with local Native nations (i.e., tribes whose traditional homelands the institution is occupying or nearby); therefore, the proximity of tribes to the case study universities was the primary factor in identifying tribes. Together the university and tribes composed the bound systems, and the relationship between the two was the unit of analysis. This article focuses on senior and mid-level university leaders, and institutions have not been disclosed beyond their location in California to protect institutions and participants’ identities.
Data Collection
Public documents were gathered through an online Web-based search and respective campus archives spanning the past 50 years, including newspaper articles, reports, peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as master’s theses and doctoral dissertations. Documents were analyzed for their content and used explicitly to contextualize the institution’s history, development of American Indian programs, and institutional relationships. In total, over 100 documents were collected and analyzed, covering nearly 100 years.
Study participants were purposively selected to maximize the variety of perspectives within and across sites. To understand institutional perspectives, interviews were conducted with senior and mid-level Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders who have a role in determining and influencing the day-to-day objectives of their respective university and department. According to the American Association of University Professors, chancellors or presidents of universities are responsible for external relations, garnering support, and articulating the goals and direction of the institution (American Association of Professors, 1967). Similarly, vice-chancellors, associate vice-chancellors, vice provost, deans, and faculty have a role in shaping academic initiatives that affect university relations with external communities. For this study, senior leaders were identified as chancellors, vice-chancellors, associate and assistant vice-chancellors, deans, and provosts. Mid-level leaders were identified as program directors, coordinators, and chairpersons over campus programs, most of which included American Indian programs. Mid-level leaders overseeing American Indian research, academic, and student affairs programs were targeted because of their role in dictating curricular and co-curricular activities with the on and off-campus American Indian community. To no surprise, all senior-level leaders were non-Indigenous; therefore, any references to senior leadership speaks to a non-Indigenous perspective. Mid-level leaders affiliated with American Indian programs were not necessarily of American Indian descent. As such, distinctions have been made throughout the findings as to whether the mid-level participant is Indigenous and non-Indigenous (see Appendix Table A2).
Given these leaders’ role in determining institutional, departmental, and programmatic priorities, I intentionally present the perspectives of Indigenous and non-Indigenous senior and mid-level university leaders in this article. These perspectives have not been addressed in prior literature explicitly, and non-Indigenous university perspectives are the crux of institutional relationships. The intention of focusing on higher education leaders is to “write back” and “research up” by critiquing voices of power. As such, the perspectives of local tribal leaders of participating tribes were omitted from the presentation of findings. These perspectives were an integral part of understanding community-campus relationships; therefore, their omission is not intended to be an act of erasure. A future article will center the voices and perspectives of tribal leaders.
Approval was obtained through the institutional review board before any outreach or interviews we conducted. After that, semistructured interviews, ranging from 30 to 60 minutes in length, took place with university representatives to learn about differing perspectives on existing and potential relationships. Generally speaking, semistructured interviews consist of open-ended and less structured questions, allowing me and participants to reflect on questions and responses and permitted additional questioning or discussion to occur on related topics that may seem tangential to the question at hand (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Before interviews, all participants were sent a consent form, study description, and California tribal territories map. At the onset of the interviews, all participants were physically presented and signed the consent form. Interviews were audio-recorded and guided by a protocol consisting of questions related to relationships, the educational needs of tribes, and how universities serve tribal communities. In total, 21 interviews were conducted with institutional representatives across two sites.
Data Analysis
In preparation for data analysis, all interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim by an outside company. All documents (i.e., interview transcripts, documents) were imported into a qualitative data analysis software (i.e., MAXDQA Version 12). Inductive and deductive codes were developed using relevant literature and the corpus of data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam, 2009). In the first cycle of analysis, deductive codes were identified using literature and theoretical framework (Miles et al., 2013). A significant portion of data were analyzed and labeled with these categories. Simultaneously, themes that emerged from documents and interviews were added to the codebook. In the second cycle of analysis, codes were refined using a constant comparative method as necessary (Miles et al., 2013). This process reoccurred until a final coding inventory was established that was inclusive of categories found in both cases.
Four levels of analysis were used to understand patterns by individuals, within sites, and across sites. First, individual interviews were analyzed. Following, each site was independently examined to understand themes occurring within each site and as a primer for identifying themes across sites (Creswell, 2013). Third, nested case analysis was conducted to understand unique occurrences across sites and reiterated by three or more participants (Kezar & Lester, 2011). Last, a cross-case analysis was performed to generate a comparative understanding of patterns between sites. Central to this study was the cross-case analysis, which allowed for a deeper understanding of themes represented across sites and enhanced this study’s transferability to other contexts (Miles et al., 2013; Stake, 2006). Using these steps helped with cross-case analysis, allowing for more comprehensive and robust findings to emerge (Miles et al., 2013). The following sections discuss themes that emerged from the data concerning the proposed research question.
Findings on the Existing Nature of Relationships
This study sought to answer the question, “What kinds of formal and informal relationships exist between the case study postsecondary institutions and local American Indian nations?” Findings that emerged from interviews contextualize the perceptions of senior- and mid-level university leaders about American Indians generally and tribal-university relationships specifically. This knowledge offers a baseline understanding of how university leaders, especially senior leaders, have varying priorities, articulations, and understandings about American Indians, Native nations, and university relationships. Moreover, these findings shed light on how the perceptions of leadership can be a barrier to serving and relating to American Indians on and off-campus. Included in this section is a descriptive analysis of the terminology used by participants to reference Indigenous people. Thereafter, I describe how participants implicitly and explicitly express their knowledge about local Native nations and describe community-campus relationships. The following themes are addressed: relational awareness, exploitation, the delegation of responsibility, reactionary relationships, and, last, the desire to improve relationships.
Use of Indigenous Terminology
Given this study’s specialized nature, I anticipated some reluctance from senior leaders to participate when conducting interview outreach. Although there was some hesitance, I received an overwhelmingly positive response from senior- and mid-level leaders interested in this study and willing to participate in an interview—one exception being external relations at one case study site. Across both sites, most responses were met with cautionary statements. In e-mails and interviews, individuals frequently stated, “I’m not sure I can help you all that much, but I’m happy to help if I can” (Participant 9). Through a discourse analysis of interviews, I examined the use of general and specific terms used when referencing American Indians and communities. According to Bazeley (2013), the purpose of conducting a discourse analysis on terminology is to understand “the relationships between language and behavior” (Bazeley, 2013). In this case, the intent was to unearth whether and how participants made specific reference to local Native nations and the terminology most commonly used to reference American Indians. Appendix Table A1 depicts a summary of findings from the discourse analysis across both case study sites separated by campus positions.
Across both sites, the generic term Native was used by interviewees to refer to American Indians or Native Americans generally, a total of 16 out of 21 interviewees to be exact. The terms Native American and American Indian were the next most commonly used terms, with 14 and 12 references, respectively. The term California Indian was used by four interviewees, all of whom were Indigenous participants or affiliated with an American Indian program. Specific tribal names were also referenced by a select group of Indigenous participants and one senior leader. The sole senior leader to reference any local Native nation by name stated, “I don’t know of the official relationship. I know that the local community is the [American Indian tribe]. But as for a relationship, I could not speak to that,” when asked about their knowledge on the state of relationships (Participant 10).
Given that this study specifically focused on relationships with local Native nations, there is a serious cause for concern that so few individuals referenced tribal names. Although it was difficult to ascertain why generic terminology was used to reference American Indians, Native nations, or California Indians, Tribal Crit highlights that the use of language is symptomatic of settler colonial erasure, wherein the limited use of appropriate terminology illustrates a psychological erasure from people’s consciousness. The generalization also points to the racialization of American Indians into one categorical group, as opposed to the recognition of Native nations.
Relational Awareness and Absence
When asked about the universities’ relationship with local Native nations, two themes emerged. First, there was a genuine lack of awareness among senior leaders of local Native nations. Related to this was a reference to the “distance” between the case study sites and local Native nations that hindered and even prohibited engagement. The second was a confession regarding the absence of institutionally led relationships.
What Tribe?
Senior leaders participating in this study articulated a genuine lack of awareness about the presence or existence of Native nations located near their university. In response to the interview question, “what is the university’s relationship with local California Indian tribes,” one senior leader responded by saying, “I am not aware of tribes in the immediate area” (Participant 20). Awareness of local Native nations was not limited to university leadership; however, it also extended to students. One Indigenous mid-level leader shared that students were equally unaware of Native nations and much less of those in California. They explained how the awareness among students did not exist compared to other states or universities, sharing: In my role . . . one of the things that we tried to get off the ground was whether there could be a plaque on campus to acknowledge [that] this is Indigenous land. Exactly what it would be, and what it would say, and all of that we knew could be potentially controversial even within Indian communities. But we wanted to see if that could be done. One of the issues for me was that I feel like in contrast to [other states], for example, our students don’t even know that there are tribes in California, they don’t even know that there are Indians here and now. (Participant 3)
Moreover, several senior leaders referred to the difficulty of establishing relationships with California Native nations because of the physical distance between the case study universities and local reservations. One senior leader shared: The fact that there are so many tribes, if you look at the map, we’re not located near anything. I think that if you knew we were down the road from a group, an organized group that was recognized, that might make a big difference. (Participant 9)
This participant referenced the map of ancestral territories provided to all participants before the interviews. The map included an overlap of cities, ancestral territories, and present-day reservations, for which this participant only referenced reservation lands. Other senior leaders suggested that some institutions are “better placed” than others. One senior leader fittingly described this, stating: There’s a genuine interest in doing more and better for Native students. There’s also interest at the [system] level. . . . There are some significant barriers to us doing this well. Some of it is distance, our capacity to work with some of the students in their tribal lands, and our capacity to engage with them on an on-going basis. Some campuses are better placed than others. (Participant 11)
In part, these findings reflect the erasure of American Indians physically and psychologically from society—an aim of settler colonialism. Findings also illustrate a common assumption (or rather a stereotype) that American Indians exclusively live on reservations, when over 70% of American Indians live in urban, suburban, and metropolitan areas (Norris et al., 2012). Being “down the road’ or “better placed” infers proximity, which suggests a lack of awareness by senior leaders of Indigenous presence in metropolitan areas. Similar to the use of terminology, this find reflects the psychological erasure of Indigenous people from consciousness. Moreover, this finding points to the assumption that tribes are those located on reservations and demonstrates an absence in the understanding of the presence of local Native nations or the urban American Indian community that may not be visible or perceived as an “organized group.” Such perspectives operate as a rationale for the lack of relationship—excusing accountability or responsibility to Native nations.
What Relationship?
Related, participants across both sites admitted that their university did not have relationships with local Native nations, with several mid-level leaders candidly expressing their perspectives on the lack of institutional relationships with Native nations. For example, one non-Indigenous mid-level leader shared, “For the most part, the university doesn’t really have any kind of hardwired relationship with any [tribal] communities” (Participant 5). This comment was affirmed by a senior leader who shared, “We don’t have formal institutional relationships with the tribes” (Participant 9). When asked why they believed this to be the case, this same senior leader explained that relationships were “something the university has never really considered,” elaborating: I think the first reason [that there are not relationships with tribes] is that the institution didn’t think about it. It wasn’t probably at one time of high value . . . I think, as we have thought to be more proactive in reaching out, we’ve begun to understand that tribes might be of help to us in increasing our Native American enrollment in some ways or in supporting American Indian studies in different ways. I think that it was partly, and I’m not sure what the right term is, ignorance or, you know, lack of knowledge about the tribes . . . I don’t think there is an absolute institutional barrier. It’s more custom and practice than anything else. (Participant 9)
To better understand why the case study sites did not have established relationships with Native nations, I inquired with mid-level leaders overseeing American Indian programs about this tendency. One Indigenous mid-level leader suggested that economics influenced partnerships, stating, “If there is no money, there is no incentive to have a relationship” (Participant 1). Furthermore, another Indigenous mid-level leader shared, “Outside of individuals’ that work with communities, the university does not have a relationship” (Participant 2). Responses offer a clear understanding that community-campus relationships do not exist with local Native nations and those that exist reside between individuals instead of the institution.
Later sections of this article probe deeper into the types of relationships between the case study universities, including the exploitive relationships with Native nations for economic resources and delegation of responsibilities to foster institutional relationships. I now turn to descriptives regarding the “kinds” of relationships between the case study institutions and local Native nations.
Exploitive Relationships
Participants were acutely aware of tensions and shared perspectives on the historical and continued exploitation of Native people and nations. Discussed at greater length in this section is the exploitation of land, culture, people, and, more recently, economic resources. Rogers (2006) defines exploitation “as the appropriation of elements of a subordinated culture by a dominant culture without substantive reciprocity, permission, and/or compensation.” The perspectives of mid-level leaders are centered in this section as they provide clearer understandings of how the case study sites are tied to settler colonial logics and linked to education policies and practices of assimilation and exploit American Indians (Norman & Kalt, 2015; Smith, 2012).
Land
All U.S. colleges and universities rest on Indian land and benefit from occupying the homelands of Indigenous communities. This fact has been affirmed by recent scholarship on land grant universities that illustrate how postsecondary institutions have (and continue to) profit from Indigenous dispossession (Lee & Ahtone, 2020). Although a significant number of universities have acknowledged these historical ties (e.g., Harvard, Dartmouth, University of British Columbia) or articulated in writing commitments to tribes (i.e., Miami University and Miami Tribe of Oklahoma), the majority of U.S. universities do not acknowledge their relationships with Native nations. The case study institutions are no exception. Participants commented on the lack of education about local tribes and resistance by senior leaders to acknowledge or affirm such truths when information about these connections is made evident. One Indigenous mid-level leader shared that efforts to recognize local Native nations and whose traditional land the university occupies were met with resistance and excuses by the university’s senior leadership. Comparing impressions between another university and one of the case-study sites, the participant shared: It’s just ubiquitous, [the presence of American Indians] is everywhere. The population is large. There is a large percentage of Native people. There are a lot of tribes. It’s always struck me how ignorant, and I don’t mean that in a demeaning way, but I just think our education system doesn’t teach people in California about Native people in a real way. . . . And to me [a plaque acknowledging the local tribe] was a real priority, and I thought it would be a really important legacy. But I felt so much resistance to it from university administration, at a bureaucratic level [in that] they don’t want any more permanent structures (i.e., plaques, buildings, anything) on the campus. [And] if we do one for you, do we have to do one for x group and y group . . . There seemed to be a complete absence of understanding of why there might be something unique about the fact that this is Indian land. (Participant 3)
In this explanation, the participant shared that senior leaders lacked a basic understanding that their campus rests on Indian land. The participant also indicated that the knowledge of senior leaders regarding local Native nations, and California Indians specifically, were minimal in comparison with other states where the presence was “pervasive.” Mid-level leaders at both institutions questioned their university’s role in the historical and continued dispossession of local Native nations from their homelands and the resistance in acknowledging or including these communities into the fabric of campus life.
Cultural Knowledge
Participants also expressed an irony in the fact that case study universities occupy Indian land with no acknowledgment yet have a legacy of collecting, studying, and conducting research on Indigenous cultures across multiple academic disciplines. As such, both case study sites have amassed significant museum collections containing audio recordings, human remains, cultural artifacts, and ceremonial objects that are preserved to be used in curated exhibits and research. These ethnographic and archeological collections can be attributed to early cultural and linguistic anthropologists practicing “salvage” anthropology, where knowledge and cultural items were hastily (and often unethically) collected by researchers because American Indians were perceived to be a “vanishing race” (Clifford, 2013). Numerous participants indicated that museum collections had been a point of contention at different times over the universities’ history. The following expresses this perspective about the university’s reputation by one mid-level leader: The [museum] collection has not just the bones [of ancestral tribal members] but baskets and all things that they view as property [of] the university . . . they don’t understand the value that those items have to the communities in a very different way that is enmeshed with the culture and their whole worldview. If they did really understand that, they would be more inviting in and recognize how meaningful, particularly for California Indian tribes . . . how that could interrupt cycles of colonialism and attempted genocide . . . [the university] still remains an institution that owns things that shouldn’t be owned, and is full of a lot of non-Native people who view themselves still as experts. . . . There are a lot of bad things that [the university] was very proud of as an institution and has done nothing to address or even recognize that it was the reality. (Participant 15)
This participant explained a tension existing around the ownership, accessibility, and research of cultural material while simultaneously pointing to the exploitation of such cultural knowledge by researchers who are considered “experts.” This is to say, faculty at the case study sites extracted cultural knowledge from Indigenous people under unethical means and claimed ownership and expertise of such resources. This practice is worsened by the inaccessibility of such collections by tribal members and the continued exploitation of such resources, often by non-Indigenous people, for personal and professional gains.
Related to this, an Indigenous mid-level leader jokingly suggested that the university must place value on American Indian cultural knowledge; otherwise, it would not commit resources to such collections. In this line of thinking, both participants are questioning the energy and resources that universities invest into collecting, preserving, and studying American Indian culture, which is not similarly reflected in the relationships with local Native nations, the respectful return of human remains, or the enrollment of American Indian students. They shared: Why would you collect all of these things if you didn’t have high regard for Native people and Native intelligence? Why would you collect all these artifacts? Why would you build a huge building with drawers and drawers of sacred objects if you didn’t see value in them? And why would you refuse to give the bones back [to the tribal communities] if you didn’t see value in them? (Participant 16)
This participant probes at the value the case study sites place on past and present American Indian wisdom and worldview and questions the value placed on the research of Indigenous cultures. They expose a deep irony in the value placed on archival collections. What does it mean when a university values a tribe’s knowledge, intelligence, and culture—to the extent of preserving its baskets, songs, and human remains—but it will not admit or enroll the descendants of these tribes? Although it may not be fair to say that universities, in this instance the case study sites, value artifacts overinvesting in the intellectual development of current American Indian students, the unequal distribution of campus resources suggests otherwise.
Individuals
Similarly, a non-Indigenous mid-level representative shared, “I’ve been asked in some ways to ‘go fetch’ [tribal] community members for programs . . . they’re not dogs, and I’m not here to fetch them. I don’t think it’s intended to sound that bad, but it is” (Participant 2). Other mid-level shared the inclusion (or rather addition) of local Indigenous people as accessories to events, such as inviting tribal members to offer a blessing or prayer at the opening of gatherings rather than meaningful inclusion throughout the planning. American Indian programs were not immune from this critique either, with participants being equally critical of their programs as they were of their institution. The prior analysis reflected the exploitation of Indigenous land and knowledge; however, these comments demonstrate the literal exploitation of local tribal members—of individuals—and a dehumanizing element of exploiting individuals as adornment for events. This critique also aligns with Brayboy’s (2005) assessment that “viable images have instead been replaced with fixed images from the past of what American Indians once were” (p. 431), meaning that institutions have developed the habit of treating American Indians as relics.
Economic Resources
In recent years, some Native nations have found success with economic development through Indian gaming, particularly in California (Rossum, 2011). Of these tribes, some have partnered with colleges and universities to provide educational opportunities to tribal members and American Indians broadly. Such partnerships have motivated postsecondary institutions to look at tribes as prospective partners, especially given the California state government’s steady divestment from public higher education (Leonhardt, 2017). Interestingly, senior- and mid-level leaders had differing impressions of partnering with Native nations for economic gain, which reflected an on-going tension between participants.
Several mid-level leaders expressed concerns about their university’s motivation and efforts to foster relationships with tribes for economic resources, which they did not see as “mutually beneficial.” One Indigenous participant poignantly stated, “There are a few tribes in California that now have resources. That’s when the university suddenly gets interested in tribal nations, when they have resources, because then suddenly they want to have relationships with them, which is ironic” (Participant 4). Adding to this, the same participant explained the insensitivity of universities to seek funding from tribes, stating, I think there is again probably a range of issues, but the most obvious one is that these are communities that were historically underserved by this institution and have been long ignored by this institution . . . to then go to them when they have money and ask them to give us money after we gave them nothing for decades. . . . There is a sensitivity [there] that I don’t think the universities often are aware of in the ways that tribes are evaluating our approaches to them. (Participant 4)
On the other hand, several senior leaders expressed a divergent perspective that contradicts the previously articulated assumption. One senior leader contended, rather, that the university should not build economic relationships with local tribes. They shared that approaching tribes based on financial gains would be the “wrong approach,” stating, I think the people have looked to tribes as, sort of, sources of support and revenue, and I don’t think that’s a good way to do it. I think that what you would want to do is to think about what we could do to help our students, and fundraising might be part of that. (Participant 9)
While I remain critical of this perspective and challenged this participant’s reference to “fundraising,” it is difficult to assess whether these intentions were honestly conveyed. There was an impression by participants that universities only seek to foster relationships with tribes for economic gains. As such, both sides’ perspectives reflect a looming tension between non-Indigenous and Indigenous university leaders around economic relationships.
Reactionary Relationships
Positioning themselves to be in proactive relations with local communities, both universities have articulated community relations goals on their website, stating, Build[ing] relationships with community leaders, elected officials, government agencies, and third-party advocates to further the mission of [the university] in the public sector. The issues of primary focus for the Government and Community Relations team include student financial aid, admissions, scientific research, and other policies at the forefront of higher education and government.
However, an overwhelming number of participants across both institutions indicated that their university primarily reacts to issues with Native nations and other communities instead of proactively seeking out relationships. Of the respondents, senior leaders were the most conscious of proactive and reactionary relationships. Senior leaders addressed the reactive nature of community/external relations across both sites, sharing that their university typically reacts to problems rather than intentionally fostering relationships. A senior leader overseeing community relations explained, I feel like I tend to hear when there is a problem, so when there are problems, people come to me . . . that’s how we find out when there are problems going on. And it’s been relatively quiet, I would say in the last three or four years, and so, it feels to me like things have been getting better [with tribes]. (Participant 19)
While quietness does not equate to better relationships, much less acceptable engagement practices, these findings reflect how the case study sites typically react to issues that arise instead of proactively engaging the local communities around specific matters. This could be because the university leadership is not aware that tribes are present, does not view tribes as part of the communities they serve, or are not aware of the needs and issues of tribal communities.
The following anecdote, shared by a mid-level leader, describes a campus event that required reaction because proactive relationships had not previously been established.
There are things that happen that are “response necessary.” Two years ago, the [museum on campus] sponsored a hackathon . . . and the winning game that people developed is for the digital archives because everything is going digital and to increase public access . . . [the winning game was] based on an Indiana Jones theme, where you go around looting different sites. . . . It opened up certain [Indian-related] sites that shouldn’t have been public, where they could [actually] have been looted . . . working with the [museum], I had to educate them on why that’s an issue. (Participant 15)
Addressing events such as the hackathon make it apparent that relationships with local Native nations are not established. Given their role to engage with communities, a key question is why relationships with Native nations do not fall under similar priorities as other local, regional, national, or international communities targeted by Government and Community Relations? Why are sovereign tribal nations not perceived or held in the same regard as international, national, or state governments and organizations? As a result of reactive university approaches to issues, American Indian units assume the responsibility of proactively forming relationships, discussed in the following section.
Delegation of Responsibility
Participants admitted that tribal engagement is a responsibility delegated to American Indian Studies programs. “I think [the university] thought that it was farming that out. I think [the university] thought every one of the [ethnic] study centers was supposed to be developing community connections,” stated one non-Indigenous mid-level when asked to explain the current state of tribal-university relations (Participant 5). Another mid-level leader added to this, noting that the university tends to “sidestep serving Native communities” (Participant 4). Delegating the role and responsibility of fostering relationships with tribal communities was a recurring theme across institutions and interviews.
American Indian programs, including academic and student programs, have become epicenters at colleges and universities for fostering relationships with on and off-campus tribal communities. At the case study sites, American Indian Studies units bear the responsibility of building and sustaining relationships with local Native nations and the broader American Indian community. Several participants indicated that American Indian units are tasked by the institution with community relations. For example, one participant stated, That’s sort of the way. If you take a look at the two arms of American Indian Studies that are most responsible, where the mission statement does talk about the local community, it will be the centers, and our centers have actually done a pretty good job with connecting with the urban community. (Participant 5)
An issue with American Indian units assuming the roles of solely managing community/external relations with tribes is a matter of moral, ethical, and institutional responsibilities of universities to serving American Indian communities. What responsibility do universities have to foster relationships with tribes? Should American Indian programs bear the responsibility of managing tribal relations on behalf of the university? The majority of respondents—non-Indigenous and Indigenous—contended that universities need to fulfill their public mission.
Desire to Improve Relationships
Looking for a beacon of hope amid the devastating reality that leaders at the case study sites neither know about tribal presence nor do they have proactive relationships with tribes, I found hope in the reiterated comment from all participants that “we can do better.” This theme echoed across both sites and all participants, regardless of their leadership role. Broadly, participants expressed the desire to build on current work with local Native nations. One mid-level leader shared, “I think that our engagement has gotten better, but we can still do more” (Participant 6).
Specifically, much of this desire was about improving American Indian admissions to increase the current enrollment of Indigenous undergraduate and graduate students. Sharing about efforts to be more inclusive of American Indian students applying for graduate admission, a senior leader in graduate education shared, “I think there are opportunities for us to do more” (Participant 7). Yet another senior leader shared, With respect to underrepresented minority students, we really do need to reach out. We’ve realized, I think, more concretely, in terms of enrollment and admissions. We can’t be passive about it, just reactive, and hope that people apply. We have to actually go out and encourage people to apply. With respect to Native American communities, I think we’ve realized through a variety of ways that if we’re going to get Native American students to apply, we really do have to work with local tribes to show that we’re a place where students can thrive, and we have to make that happen. (Participant 9)
Along with the desire to improve relationships is the confession that universities do not know how to have relationships with Native nations. Several mid-level leaders offered examples of one-time interactions with tribes that did not result in sustained relationships. Similarly, a senior leader shared several examples from efforts—hosting national conferences, attending community meetings, and inviting tribal leaders to campus—all of which resulted in one-time programs. They expressed a personal desire to develop long-term relationships; however, these efforts never “got off the ground.” They shared, I was climbing the walls at one point until I said, “I’m doing this all wrong . . . I shouldn’t do it this way. How do I provide the support and the engagement and the belief in the importance of doing this?” To me, if you look at it from a Western perspective, it’s a failure. Money can’t [form a relationship]. It’s not a failure of will or failure of interest; it’s a failure of communication. I came to understand that it’s got to be something, and I’m not doing it right. (Participant 11)
This same participant contended that relationships are not a “failure of will or failure of interest,” but a communication failure. In other words, they realized that there were not approaching relationships with proper communication. Expressing their frustration with not only themselves but also the university, they shared their perceptive on fostering relationships: After some time goes by, that effort just dies on the vine. We didn’t seem to be able to build. Everything felt like a one-off. It’s got to be hugely frustrating for the Native community and me looking and saying, “you do that and then nothing.” I was very happy when the council said we want to hold the event at [our campus]. I said absolutely. I’ve wanted to do a summer program for Native students forever. The question is, how does that iterative process get started, and what are the steps that we need to put in place to keep it going? (Participant 11)
Related to this, multiple senior- and mid-level leaders reiterated that “the university does not know how to have relationships with tribes.” The fact that leaders expressed a general desire to improve relationships posits how universities can work with tribes to advance partnerships.
Based on these emerging findings, it was apparent that understanding the state of relationships between local tribes and universities is complex. The political and legal distinction of federally recognized tribes, coupled with the nonfederal recognition, requires multiple considerations, including context, knowledgebase, and personal biases when discussing or addressing American Indian community needs. These findings offer a baseline for understanding where university leaders—those instrumental in fostering university-wide community relations—prioritize, articulate, and understand American Indians, California Indians, and tribal-university relationships, as these perspectives ultimately influence an individual’s knowledge of broader institutional relationships.
Discussion and Implications of Research
Described as the “nature of relationships,” participants offered an unfiltered and rare perspective on how university leaders understand and perceive American Indians broadly and relationships with local Native nations specifically. It was clear that the perceptions of senior leaders influenced how they examined, spoke about, participated in, and even prioritized relationships with local Native nations, particularly those in California. The following discussion addresses the implications of findings for practice, policy, and theory.
The use of appropriate terminology, or lack thereof, limited knowledge regarding local Native nations, and constant references to distance presented themselves as an area of concern regarding tribal-university relationships, illuminating institutional perspectives regarding American Indian students and Native nations. This is especially true when we consider the institutional missions of public universities to contribute to a public good that hinges on relationships with local constituencies through community engagement. When examined through a Tribal Crit lens, we can better understand how this ignorance reflects the attempted erasure of American Indians via settler colonial technologies (Brayboy, 2005; Wolfe, 2006). Assimilation practices and policies, such as the 1830 Indian Removal Act and 1853 Urban Relocation program (Wilkins & Stark, 2010), have erased Indigenous people into the milieu of society. These findings affirm the endemic nature of colonialism, or rather settler colonialism, and the manifestation of assimilation and eliminationist federal policies through the absence of American Indians from the consciousness and psyche of senior university leaders. While this reality plagues much of society, not just university leaders, it is helpful to recognize how colonization affects perspectives and hinders the development of tribal-university relationships.
Furthermore, these findings beg the following questions: How can universities have a relationship with local Native nations, much less serve American Indian students, if they are not a part of their consciousness? If universities are not aware of Native nations, are they more or less obligated to serve this population? How do we close existing knowledge gaps to enable conversations about adequately and appropriately serve American Indian students and nations? To best serve their local constituency, universities need to invest time and resources in the (re)education of leaders and personnel regarding American Indian peoples and local Native nations whose land institutions occupy. This can be achieved by adopting onboarding practices or professional development sessions that include an accurate account of the history of where individuals work. It is outright negligent, irresponsible, and harmful for leaders to be ignorant and uninformed of this history and lead institutions without including those most vulnerable and in need. While onboard and training may feel insufficient, such practices do not exist at colleges and universities and are necessary for establishing more robust procedures of (re)education and engagement. Moreover, leaders must invest in their entire constituency, which includes American Indians and local Native nations. Leaders, especially new leaders, can prioritize tribal engagement in ways similar to how they engage other local communities (e.g., meeting community leaders, visiting community centers, and inviting constituents to campus). Likewise, local Native nations should be included in strategic planning regarding external relations.
The acknowledgment by participants at the case study universities “do not have relationships with tribes” serves as a benchmark for understanding the state of tribal-university relationships more broadly. This finding is not news to American Indian faculty, staff, and students—we have long known that universities seldom consider American Indians, much less partner with Native nations. Exposed here is a longtime fissure between universities and American Indians rooted in the assimilative efforts of Westernized formal schooling that affect political relationships. Universities must recognize the cultural and political sovereignty of Native nations and form government-to-government relationships as an act of political diplomacy and demonstrated commitment. Universities, including the case study sites, have practices of signing memorandum of understanding with other nations or universities that articulate commitments to student enrollment. This practice must be extended to Native nations. Moreover, if institutions are to advance tribal-university relationships, I argue that universities must move beyond “understandings” and draft “memorandum of agreement” with Native nations that articulate educational commitments, including student transfer articulations between tribal colleges to universities, financial aid, or tuition waivers.
The exploitation of American Indians by universities is not an easy or commonly discussed topic in higher education, albeit prevalent. This finding reflects the numerous ways universities continue to exploit Indigenous land, cultural knowledge, people, and, now, economic resources. Tribal Crit highlights how the possession of cultural artifacts by universities is tied to colonialism, including assimilationist government and educational policies and practices. The very establishment of institutions illustrates Indigenous dispossession. Likewise, museum collections representing a perception that American Indians were a vanishing race; therefore, needing to be preserved through research. Participation in this shameful history prohibits institutions from acknowledging their role in colonization, including the extraction of cultural knowledge and resources and the physical displacement of entire communities. Institutions must move away from this history by publicly atoning for their role in Indigenous dispossession and acknowledging the land and first people who have been dispossessed and displaced from their homelands. This is especially important for institutions located in urban and metropolitan areas where Indigenous presence is not apparent, serving as a decolonial or anticolonial tactic that challenges erasure.
Leaders must also reduce harm to Native nations by associating ancestral remains and cultural artifacts owned by museums that ultimately lead to repatriation under federal and state guidelines. Often, nonfederally recognized tribes are not eligible to claim their ancestors and cultural items from institutions, nor might they have the resources or land base to receive such items. In these cases, community-campus relationships are critical in identifying creative avenues for repatriations. Mechanisms must also be sought for authorizing research with Indigenous communities through institutional review boards. Numerous models are available (Champagne & Goldberg, 2005); however, practices are not universally applied and necessary to reduce further harm to Native nations.
The tension between Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders at the case study sites regarding individual and economic exploitation represents a level of insensitivity by institutions toward inclusion. Inclusivity of American Indian people and nations starts at the inception of initiatives or program planning—not the middle and not the end. Furthermore, invitations of Indigenous people to welcome, bless, or pray over events are disingenuous forms of engagement when a complacency of settler colonial structures continues to exist and be upheld outside of these points of interaction. Genuine tribal-university relationships and partnerships should not be rooted in economic gains but instead prioritize tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
Findings characterizing current institutional relationships as reactive and delegated characterize the current state of external relationships. While the practice is not exclusive to American Indians but more commonplace for external relations, it is disturbing that universities skirt responsibilities to American Indian programs. American Indian program staff hold a level of expertise in working with tribal communities; however, the failure of universities to engage tribes demonstrates a lack of commitment. Leaders should intentionally, strategically, and meaningfully include American Indians into their academic community and external relations. To support these efforts, universities should hire an American Indian staff person in an administrative position that reports, represents, and advises university leadership on student needs and community engagement. In recent years, universities across the nation have hired tribal liaisons and special advisors to the chancellor and president (i.e., University of Arizona, Arizona State University, CSU San Marcos, CSU Chico). These positions differ in their placement and reporting within organizations, but individuals serve in an official university capacity. Dedicating institutional resources to such staff positions reflects a commitment to local Native nations and aligns with institutional missions of service for the public good.
Last, the confession of leaders about the need to “do better” by tribes acknowledges the failures and shortcomings of institutions in supporting students and engaging communities, offering a promise for a better future. However, what does “doing better” entail? How can universities serve American Indian students and communities with limited knowledge about this populace? In addition to investing in full-time personnel to advise leaders, institutions should also heed the advice and expertise of on-campus Indigenous leaders familiar with the educational needs and desired partnerships of local Native nations. “Doing better” also entails strategically and thoughtfully responding to the communities’ expressed needs not just today but into tomorrow as well.
The findings that emerged from this study from the administrative perspective offer significant contributions to the literature, as few studies provide perspectives on American Indian tribal-university relationships from the most senior university leaders and American Indian unit heads at the grassroots level within postsecondary institutions. As such, this study adds to the current scholarship employing interviews with senior- and mid-level campus leadership in higher education (Kezar, 2008). Finally, few studies have applied Tribal Crit to study California tribal communities or postsecondary education relationships, filling a significant education research gap.
Future Research
This study also presents numerous opportunities for future research on tribal government and community relations. Given the diversity of tribes and universities across the nation, additional research can explore the diversity of existing tribal-university relationships. Case studies should expand the scope of participants to include other institutional representatives on campus. This study included interviews with senior leaders, American Indian program leadership to gain an organizational understanding of relationships and revealed that work is often filtered to lower-level staff. Therefore, perspectives from mid-level and lower-level staff would provide a more nuanced understanding of relationship building.
Conclusion
This article began with the comment “we can do better,” a sentiment expressed by nearly every senior and mid-level leader participating in this study. Why? Because universities can, should, and must do better. The intention of exposing these perspectives is not to single out university leaders. On the contrary, the intention is to seek out one avenue for addressing the inequities in enrollment, persistence, graduation, and outcomes of American Indians within institutions linked to Native nation-building. I hope that these findings reflect severe knowledge gaps of university leaders and reflect the challenges experienced by Indigenous faculty and staff, to encourage critically honest and generative discussions and transformations at universities around student and community needs.
Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) argue that postsecondary institutions must think beyond admissions and retention issues, for these concerns neglect how institutions continue to perpetuate the colonial beliefs and practices that negatively affect Native communities. They contend that institutions upholding the assimilative nature of Western education are failing to critically examine the education they are “trying to provide [American Indian] students,” even though it is unintended. This study challenges us to think of alternatives ways of reconciling past relationships between institutional education and Native nations to address tribal sovereignty and self-determination. This study aimed to shift perspectives, open minds, and begin dialogues between university leaders, American Indian staff, and local Native nations to move this conversation forward. While this study illustrates the intentions, desires, and commitments of Native and non-Native university representatives, the fact remains that American Indians continue to have the lowest admission, enrollment, retention, and graduation rates compared to most minority students in the nation and state of California. American Indian staff and faculty are also significantly underrepresented across university systems. There is much work that needs to be done. For Native nations, the stakes are high. Sovereignty, self-determination, self-reliance—our livelihood and very ability to self-govern—are at stake. While tensions remain between postsecondary institutions and tribal communities, the promise of what education can provide for Native Nations is great—as is the promise of what Native Nations can teach universities. To this end, relationships between tribes and universities remain a critical component in building our nations—tribally and nationally.
Footnotes
Appendix
List of Study Participants With Descriptive Characteristics
| Participant | Campus role | Race | University |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 1 |
| 2 | American Indian Program | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 3 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 1 |
| 4 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 1 |
| 5 | American Indian Program | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 6 | American Indian Program | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 7 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 8 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 9 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 10 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 11 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 12 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 13 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 1 |
| 14 | Mid-Level Leader | American Indian | 1 |
| 15 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 2 |
| 16 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 2 |
| 17 | American Indian Program | American Indian | 2 |
| 18 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 2 |
| 19 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 2 |
| 20 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 2 |
| 21 | Senior Leader | Non-Indigenous | 2 |
Notes
T