Post by Okwes on Apr 26, 2007 12:07:28 GMT -5
Tribal scholars say some faculty are falsely claiming American Indian
heritage to boost their job prospects
Mary Annette Pember / Diverse Education
<http://www.diverseeducation.com/>
redwebz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2158
<http://redwebz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2158>
For American Indian scholars, securing a job in higher education can
sometimes be as simple as checking a box. Most of the country's
colleges and universities do not require proof of tribal enrollment from
faculty or staff who identify themselves as American Indians. Students
looking to receive financial aid, however, must submit proof that they
are members of federally recognized tribes. The question of American
Indian identity can be an incendiary one. What does it mean to be an
American Indian? Who are the "real" Indians? How are they
identified? A recent surge of interest in personal genealogy has made
the already complicated question even more troublesome. Many families
hand down tales of American Indian ancestry, and the Internet is making
it easier for average Americans to discover the truth for themselves. In
the 2005 New York Times column, "The Newest Indians," Jack Hitt
suggests that the sudden spike in citizens claiming tribal heritage is a
symptom of "ethnic shopping." The term refers to individuals who
wish to change identities and simply don new ethnicities that are more
personally comfortable or interesting. But why are American Indians so
often the ethnicity of choice among ethnic shoppers?
Dr. Venida S. Chenault, a member of the Prairie Band Pottawatomie and
vice provost of Haskell Indian College, speculates that American Indian
culture may be so attractive because it has been romanticized by
mainstream American culture. "We are pretty cool people," she
adds with a laugh.
Despite claiming American Indian heritage, some people refuse to
formally enroll in a tribe, arguing that the process is the federal
government's method of nforcing control over Native peoples.
Enrollment requirements can differ widely among tribes. Some require
would-be members to trace their lineage to the 19thcentury land
allotment lists, for example. The various enrollment requirements are
often a hurdle that ethnic shoppers are unable to clear. Says Dr.
Grayson Noley, (Choctaw), department chair of the College of Education
at the University of Oklahoma, "If you have to search for proof of
your heritage, it probably isn't there."
Adding even more confusion to the debate is an emerging generation of
American Indians who may possess nearly 100 percent Native ancestry, but
the ancestry may be so fractionalized that they are not eligible for
enrollment in a single tribe. The subjects of genuine American Indian
blood, cultural connection and recognition by the community are
extremely contentious issues, hotly debated throughout Indian country
and beyond. The whole situation, some say, is ripe for
misinterpretation, confusion and, ultimately, exploitation.
In response, the Association of American Indian and Alaska Native
Professors issued a statement on what they call, "ethnic fraud,"
to assist universities wanting to develop culturally diverse campuses.
The association's statement, released in 2003, recommends that
colleges and universities:
1. Require documentation of enrollment in a state or federally
recognized nation/tribe with preference given to those who meet this
criterion;
2. Establish a case-by-case review process for those unable to meet the
first criterion;
3. Include American Indian/Alaska Native faculty in the selection
process;
4. Require a statement from the applicant that demonstrates past and
future commitment to American Indian/Alaska Native concerns;
5. Require higher education administrators to attend workshops on tribal
sovereignty and meet with local tribal officials; and
6. Advertise vacancies at all levels and on a broad scale and in
tribal publications.
While mainstream colleges and universities can legally ask for proof of
U.S. citizenship, Cheryl Nunez, vice provost for diversity at Ohio's
Xavier University, notes that "there is no standard measure for race
or ethnicity."
She cautions that institutions face a slippery slope if they rely on
anything other than racial and ethnic self-identification among staff
and faculty.
"The only legal means for giving preference is affirmative action
planning," she says.
Since self-identification is the current standard for entities other
than the federal government and tribes, schools fear that to ask for
anything else might put them at risk for lawsuits. A short, unofficial
survey of universities — including Northern Kentucky University, the
University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of New Mexico, the
University of Oklahoma and others — reflects that standard of
self-identification. American Indians and Alaskan Native faculty and
staff at those institutions aren't required to show proof of
tribal affiliation. Box-Checkers and Mock-Checkers Noley and Chenault
have a name for those who would use spurious ties to tribal heritage to
further their employment opportunities. They call them
"box-checkers."
According to Chenault, some job candidates simply "check the
box" for American Indian/Alaskan Native on job forms, hoping to be
identified as minority faculty and thus reap the benefits of any
available affirmative action plans. There is responsibility, however,
that comes with checking the box, she says. "We need committed,
passionate people who will help other Native people gain access to
universities and colleges."
Chenault argues that not requiring proof of tribal enrollment reflects
mainstream institutions' lack of commitment to genuine diversity.
She says allowing those with marginal tribal ties to represent the
Native community only diminishes the importance of indigenous academics
and opens the discipline to attack.
Haskell and the other tribal colleges require proof of tribal
affiliation from all faculty and staff claiming American Indian
heritage. Tribal colleges' unique relationship with the federal
government allows them to extend Native preference to students and
staff. Chenault and the Association of American Indian and Alaska Native
Professors say that standard for faculty should apply at all
universities and colleges, whether mainstream or tribal.
"If a potential job candidate falsely claimed to have a Ph.D., that
person would not be considered. It should be the same for those claiming
to be Native American,"Chenault says.
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's ethnicity has been
called into question by the news media and many Indian leaders. The
ethnic studies professor came under intense public scrutiny after he
called some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks "little
Eichmanns."
The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News did extensive research into
his genealogy and concluded that his claims of Native ancestry are based
on family lore and are unsupported by fact. He has claimed at various
times to be of Creek, Cherokee,Metis and Muscokee heritage.
An investigation by the Seattle Post Intelligencer found that Terry
Tafoya, a nationally known psychologist who made his Native heritage a
large part of his public persona, was not a member of the Warm Springs
Tribe of Oregon nor an enrolled member of the Taos Pueblo as he claimed.
Tafoya formerly was a psychology professor at The Evergreen State
College and sat on the board of the Kinsey Institute for Research in
Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University. The Seattle paper
also reported that he admitted in a legal deposition that he never
earned a doctorate from the University of Washington, credentials that
helped propel his career. The newspaper report prompted a criminal
investigation to determine if Tafoya violated a Washington law banning
the use of false academic credentials. Far more objectionable than those
who simply "check the box" are the "mock checkers," says
Noley.
The term refers to those in academic programs who not only falsely claim
tribal affiliation but also set themselves up as official purveyors of
American Indian culture and religion. Some of the professors Noley has
labeled as mock-checkers have been known to conduct so-called sacred
ceremonies as part of their courses.Many of the ceremonies, however, are
little more than amalgamations of parts of disparate ceremonies or
outright fabrications.
The reports of questionable ceremonial activities have included stories
of faculty taking students on trips to search for their power animals,
teaching "sacred" dances, conducting ceremonies each time
reservation land was crossed and others.
Chenault maintains that faculty who engage in these activities do a
tremendous disservice to the Native community and academic disciplines.
She says their presence marginalizes American Indian culture and
eliminates opportunities for true, qualified American Indians. She
speculates that a degree of racism lurks beneath the surface of
mock-checkers.
"They seem to believe they are more knowledgeable than tribal people
and therefore better advocates for tribes," she says. In the end,
however, Noley concludes that it's a practical impossibility for
universities to formally intervene in cases of ethnic fraud because it
might be viewed as intolerance, a perception that institutions can ill
afford to bear.
heritage to boost their job prospects
Mary Annette Pember / Diverse Education
<http://www.diverseeducation.com/>
redwebz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2158
<http://redwebz.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2158>
For American Indian scholars, securing a job in higher education can
sometimes be as simple as checking a box. Most of the country's
colleges and universities do not require proof of tribal enrollment from
faculty or staff who identify themselves as American Indians. Students
looking to receive financial aid, however, must submit proof that they
are members of federally recognized tribes. The question of American
Indian identity can be an incendiary one. What does it mean to be an
American Indian? Who are the "real" Indians? How are they
identified? A recent surge of interest in personal genealogy has made
the already complicated question even more troublesome. Many families
hand down tales of American Indian ancestry, and the Internet is making
it easier for average Americans to discover the truth for themselves. In
the 2005 New York Times column, "The Newest Indians," Jack Hitt
suggests that the sudden spike in citizens claiming tribal heritage is a
symptom of "ethnic shopping." The term refers to individuals who
wish to change identities and simply don new ethnicities that are more
personally comfortable or interesting. But why are American Indians so
often the ethnicity of choice among ethnic shoppers?
Dr. Venida S. Chenault, a member of the Prairie Band Pottawatomie and
vice provost of Haskell Indian College, speculates that American Indian
culture may be so attractive because it has been romanticized by
mainstream American culture. "We are pretty cool people," she
adds with a laugh.
Despite claiming American Indian heritage, some people refuse to
formally enroll in a tribe, arguing that the process is the federal
government's method of nforcing control over Native peoples.
Enrollment requirements can differ widely among tribes. Some require
would-be members to trace their lineage to the 19thcentury land
allotment lists, for example. The various enrollment requirements are
often a hurdle that ethnic shoppers are unable to clear. Says Dr.
Grayson Noley, (Choctaw), department chair of the College of Education
at the University of Oklahoma, "If you have to search for proof of
your heritage, it probably isn't there."
Adding even more confusion to the debate is an emerging generation of
American Indians who may possess nearly 100 percent Native ancestry, but
the ancestry may be so fractionalized that they are not eligible for
enrollment in a single tribe. The subjects of genuine American Indian
blood, cultural connection and recognition by the community are
extremely contentious issues, hotly debated throughout Indian country
and beyond. The whole situation, some say, is ripe for
misinterpretation, confusion and, ultimately, exploitation.
In response, the Association of American Indian and Alaska Native
Professors issued a statement on what they call, "ethnic fraud,"
to assist universities wanting to develop culturally diverse campuses.
The association's statement, released in 2003, recommends that
colleges and universities:
1. Require documentation of enrollment in a state or federally
recognized nation/tribe with preference given to those who meet this
criterion;
2. Establish a case-by-case review process for those unable to meet the
first criterion;
3. Include American Indian/Alaska Native faculty in the selection
process;
4. Require a statement from the applicant that demonstrates past and
future commitment to American Indian/Alaska Native concerns;
5. Require higher education administrators to attend workshops on tribal
sovereignty and meet with local tribal officials; and
6. Advertise vacancies at all levels and on a broad scale and in
tribal publications.
While mainstream colleges and universities can legally ask for proof of
U.S. citizenship, Cheryl Nunez, vice provost for diversity at Ohio's
Xavier University, notes that "there is no standard measure for race
or ethnicity."
She cautions that institutions face a slippery slope if they rely on
anything other than racial and ethnic self-identification among staff
and faculty.
"The only legal means for giving preference is affirmative action
planning," she says.
Since self-identification is the current standard for entities other
than the federal government and tribes, schools fear that to ask for
anything else might put them at risk for lawsuits. A short, unofficial
survey of universities — including Northern Kentucky University, the
University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of New Mexico, the
University of Oklahoma and others — reflects that standard of
self-identification. American Indians and Alaskan Native faculty and
staff at those institutions aren't required to show proof of
tribal affiliation. Box-Checkers and Mock-Checkers Noley and Chenault
have a name for those who would use spurious ties to tribal heritage to
further their employment opportunities. They call them
"box-checkers."
According to Chenault, some job candidates simply "check the
box" for American Indian/Alaskan Native on job forms, hoping to be
identified as minority faculty and thus reap the benefits of any
available affirmative action plans. There is responsibility, however,
that comes with checking the box, she says. "We need committed,
passionate people who will help other Native people gain access to
universities and colleges."
Chenault argues that not requiring proof of tribal enrollment reflects
mainstream institutions' lack of commitment to genuine diversity.
She says allowing those with marginal tribal ties to represent the
Native community only diminishes the importance of indigenous academics
and opens the discipline to attack.
Haskell and the other tribal colleges require proof of tribal
affiliation from all faculty and staff claiming American Indian
heritage. Tribal colleges' unique relationship with the federal
government allows them to extend Native preference to students and
staff. Chenault and the Association of American Indian and Alaska Native
Professors say that standard for faculty should apply at all
universities and colleges, whether mainstream or tribal.
"If a potential job candidate falsely claimed to have a Ph.D., that
person would not be considered. It should be the same for those claiming
to be Native American,"Chenault says.
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's ethnicity has been
called into question by the news media and many Indian leaders. The
ethnic studies professor came under intense public scrutiny after he
called some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks "little
Eichmanns."
The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News did extensive research into
his genealogy and concluded that his claims of Native ancestry are based
on family lore and are unsupported by fact. He has claimed at various
times to be of Creek, Cherokee,Metis and Muscokee heritage.
An investigation by the Seattle Post Intelligencer found that Terry
Tafoya, a nationally known psychologist who made his Native heritage a
large part of his public persona, was not a member of the Warm Springs
Tribe of Oregon nor an enrolled member of the Taos Pueblo as he claimed.
Tafoya formerly was a psychology professor at The Evergreen State
College and sat on the board of the Kinsey Institute for Research in
Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University. The Seattle paper
also reported that he admitted in a legal deposition that he never
earned a doctorate from the University of Washington, credentials that
helped propel his career. The newspaper report prompted a criminal
investigation to determine if Tafoya violated a Washington law banning
the use of false academic credentials. Far more objectionable than those
who simply "check the box" are the "mock checkers," says
Noley.
The term refers to those in academic programs who not only falsely claim
tribal affiliation but also set themselves up as official purveyors of
American Indian culture and religion. Some of the professors Noley has
labeled as mock-checkers have been known to conduct so-called sacred
ceremonies as part of their courses.Many of the ceremonies, however, are
little more than amalgamations of parts of disparate ceremonies or
outright fabrications.
The reports of questionable ceremonial activities have included stories
of faculty taking students on trips to search for their power animals,
teaching "sacred" dances, conducting ceremonies each time
reservation land was crossed and others.
Chenault maintains that faculty who engage in these activities do a
tremendous disservice to the Native community and academic disciplines.
She says their presence marginalizes American Indian culture and
eliminates opportunities for true, qualified American Indians. She
speculates that a degree of racism lurks beneath the surface of
mock-checkers.
"They seem to believe they are more knowledgeable than tribal people
and therefore better advocates for tribes," she says. In the end,
however, Noley concludes that it's a practical impossibility for
universities to formally intervene in cases of ethnic fraud because it
might be viewed as intolerance, a perception that institutions can ill
afford to bear.