University of Nebraska Press American Indian Quarterly

Native Faculty, Higher Education, Racism, and Survival
Author(s): Chris Mato Nunpa

Source: American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Native Experiences in
the Ivory Tower (Winter - Spring, 2003), pp. 349-364
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138871
Accessed: 22-05-2016 20:55 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Indian Quarterly
This content downloaded from 128.83.63.20 on Sun, 22 May 2016 20:55:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Native Faculty, Higher Education,
Racism, and Survival
CHRIS MATO NUNPA
My first ten years at a state university in the Midwest were horrible years!
In this time I experienced much hostility and racism in a "college cul-
ture,"' which to me was "distinctly alien and unfriendly." The message, as
stated by Jon Reyhner, was "subtle but clear, you are not welcome here."'
It had reached the point, after a number of years, where I was consulting
attorneys for a possible racial discrimination lawsuit against the univer-
sity. Then, a new president took over and reinstated my program, Ameri-
can Indian Studies and Dakota Studies (AIsDs) and my position as associ-
ate professor. What I propose to do in this article is recite and comment
on some of the horrible racist acts that happened to me over the past ten
years; mention the sources of support for my program, positions, and for
me personally; and discuss what it is like now in the year 2003. Another
purpose of this account is to serve as encouragement for younger Native
faculty and to convey the message that it is possible for Indigenous fac-
ulty to survive in a hostile and racist environment such as higher educa-
tion institutions are.
LITANY OF LAMENTATIONS
In my first ten years at the university I have undergone the following

experiences:
two grievance processes;

two dose votes, one involving program status by the faculty assem-
bly, and the second involving tenure by the Social Science De-
partment;
AMERICAN INDIAN QUARTERLY /WINTER & SPRING 2003 / VOL. 27, NOS. 1 & 2 349
two cuttings of my program;
two cuttings of my position;
one denial of tenure; and,
numerous instances of racism, intimidation, and harassment by two
different university administrations and by faculty
FIRST GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT FALL 1992
In my first quarter (fall 1992) at the university, I was the focus of a griev-
ance complaint filed by the local faculty union against the then univer-
sity president. Apparently, the president had violated several provisions
of the contract between the faculty union and the state's university sys-
tem in bringing me to the campus. Hence, the grievance complaint was
filed. Thus, I was embroiled in controversy right from the beginning of
my employment at the university It was not an auspicious beginning!
I think that the president acted courageously in bringing me, a Native
faculty member, a faculty person of color, to campus. In my opinion,
most higher education institutions, including this university, have care-
fully insulated themselves against "those people" and the "problems" they
cause. In spite of the lofty rhetoric espoused by faculty and administra-
tion in general regarding rational thought, objectivity, and the intellec-
tual process, and in spite of the lip-service paid to diversity and
multiculturalism, there would be no change or opportunities for faculty
persons of color at this university or at other institutions unless direct
action, in-your-face action, was and is taken, as the president did. So, I
owe a debt of gratitude to him.
In addition, I think that the university owes a debt of gratitude to the
president. I say this because the university is surrounded by four Dakota
communities and/or reservations, so it is appropriate to have a Dakota
studies program and Native studies program at the university.
FIRST CLOSE VOTE SPRING 1994
The first of the two close votes I experienced regarding my program's

status was taken in spring 1994 at a meeting of the university's faculty
association. It involved the question of granting"program status" to AISDS,
which meant getting a specific program number. The vote was thirty-
seven faculty for granting program status to AISDS and thirty-one against.
350 Mato Nunpa: Native Faculty, Higher Education, Racism, and Survival
When the program first began with my coming to the university in fall
1992, my position was funded with "soft" money, that is, from a grant.
This grant was concerned with diversity and hiring faculty of color. My
position was funded from this grant for two years. In 1994 the funds ran
out, and a decision had to be made as to the fate of AISDS.2
There was much discussion among the faculty with regard to the fu-
ture ofAISDS. Several faculty members, including an administrator, thought
the Dakota casinos in the area should fund the AISDS faculty position,
namely, my position. I promptly said this was a racist notion. I raised the
question, "Would we ask the local newspaper to fund a program in jour-
nalism at the university?" "Would we ask the country of France to fund
the French Language Program?" No, we would not. The funds to support
these programs, including AISDS, should come from the institution, from
"hard money." Fortunately, this idea was eventually dropped.
If AISDS was going to stay, then "program status" would have to be granted
to it, a status that would allow AISDS to have its own number. Every aca-
demic program has a number. In the previous two academic years (1992-
93 and 1993-94), I had to borrow numbers from either the Anthropology
Program or from the History Program. One anthropology professor said
to me, "Chris, you are not an anthropologist." One history professor said
to me,"Chris, you are not a historian." I generally responded "I know that
I am not an anthropologist or a historian, I just need some damn num-
bers for my courses!" Not having program status and not having my own
program number was very demeaning. One time, when I wanted to teach
my Dakota History and Culture course, an anthropologist wanted to title
the course, "Dakota Ethno-History." I responded to him by saying, "do
we say French Ethno-History, or English Ethno-History, or German
Ethno-History, etc.? No, we say French History or German History. In
the same way, we say Dakota History, Anishinaabe History, Dine History,
etc." The Native peoples are nations just like the European nations, a con-
cept that is very difficult for most Euroamericans to grasp, including aca-
demics at higher education institutions.
The university did vote on the question of granting "program status"
to AISDS. As indicated above, program status was granted by a narrow vote,
and my program continued to survive and did get its own number. If the
other side, the "anti-Indian" and racist faculty element present at the uni-
versity, had recruited more faculty of like mind, AISDS would not have
survived.
AMERICAN INDIAN QUARTERLY/WINTER & SPRING 2003 / VOL. 27, NOS. 1 & 2 351
Since nobody knew what to do with AISDS in terms of funding the pro-
gram, the university did what most organizations and institution do when
they do not know what to do-refer the question to a committee. Thus,
the university's Advisory Committee to the AISDS Program was established.
I was able to choose faculty to serve on the committee, faculty who seemed
to be open-minded and who believed that a Native studies and a Dakota
studies program had a valid and legitimate place in a contemporary uni-
versity setting such as this university. As it turned out later, this was one
of the best things that the university ever did for the program and for me,
both professionally and personally. More will be said about that below.
THE FIRST CUTTING OF THE AISDS PROGRAM SPRING 1997
The first cutting of the AISDS Program and retrenchment of the AISDS posi-
tion (mine) occurred in the early spring quarter of 1997. The reasons
given for the "discontinuance" were "severe budgetary difficulties,"' "en-
rollment patterns and shifts in the affected programs,"' and "the develop-
ment of new programs" at the university.
One of the reasons for the low enrollment ("enrollment patterns and
shifts") was the fact that all of my courses counted only as electives. None
of my courses were part of the Liberal Arts-Social Sciences core. None of
my courses were required for any majors. None of my courses were even
elective alternatives or options for another major. None of my courses
were required for education majors even though many of them would be
teaching in the region and the likelihood was high that there were would
be a Dakota/Native student(s) in their classrooms. None of my courses
fulfilled the requirements of a program at the university I shall call "Re-
gional Studies." Also, there was no minor in AISDS at the time; it was estab-
lished in 2000.
THE SECOND CLOSE VOTE FEBRUARY 1998
The second close vote involved my tenure and occurred in February 1998.
The vote split the Social Science Department, where the AISDS Program is
based, right down the middle. The departmental vote was eight against
recommending tenure and seven for recommending tenure. This was the
beginning of a series of negative decisions for me. The academic dean did
not recommend me for tenure; the vice president of academic affairs did
not recommend me for tenure; and the president did not recommend
me for tenure. This meant that the next year, the 1998-99 academic year,
would be my last year at the university according to the contract between
the university and state university system. I did file a grievance complaint,
however, which will be discussed below.
DENIAL OF TENURE SPRING QUARTER 1998
The Social Science Department meeting to vote on my tenure occurred

on a late Saturday afternoon and evening in February 1998. The meeting
lasted more than three hours. The voting result, eight against tenure for
me and seven for, left me emotionally devastated. It was one of the most
painful nights and times in my professional experience.
This vote on my tenure caused many negative things to occur within the
Social Science Department. There were shouting matches between my sup-
porters and my opponents and enemies. One professor tore up the minority
report, written by a colleague and supporter of me, in a Social Science De-
partment meeting. Professors would not talk to each other, some for several
years. Professor would not look at each other when they encountered each
other in the hallways. One of the professors had to move out of the social
science building because of the tension and hostility, partially due to this
contentious tenure vote. We were like little kids, with PhDs, fighting with
each other. We did not "play well" with each other. The professor who moved
out finally moved back into the social science building in the summer of
2003. The hostile, negative, and racist element was strong and prevalent,
then, within the Social Science Department and continues even now, al-
though with some abatement. Five of the eight social science faculty who
voted against my tenure are now gone from the department.
In the department meeting about my tenure, one professor who did
not support me voted against my tenure because he said I did not pub-
lish. According to our contract, tenure decisions are to be made on the
basis of five criteria, and publishing is not one of them. In addition my
teaching evaluations, in general, were good. In fact, one professor from
the Psychology Program commented, after reviewing my evaluations, "I
would be honored to have such evaluations," or something to that effect.
This professor is a colleague of the same professor who not only voted
against my tenure because of my not publishing but also tore up the mi-
nority report in a department meeting.
AMERICAN INDIAN QUARTERLY/WINTER & SPRING 2003 /VOL. 27, NOS. 1 & 2 353
Also, one of my supporters wrote the minority report, and he pro-
vided the opportunity to any social science faculty member to sign it.
Four social science faculty, supporters of my program and of me who
voted for my tenure, signed the report. One faculty member in the Social
Work Program who was not tenured yet signed the minority report. Later
that year she was denied tenure by the university president, even though
the Social Science Department, the academic dean, and the vice presi-
dent of academic affairs had all recommended tenure for her.
Many of this professor's female colleagues were absolutely sure that

the president denied her tenure because she supported the AISDS Program,
supported the AISDS faculty position, and signed the minority report. Be-
cause this denial of tenure was an action so blatantly unfair, so arbitrary
and capricious, within two month the president had to rescind his denial
and did grant the professor tenure. The AISDS Program and I, both profes-
sionally and personally, owe her a tremendous debt of gratitude. She had
the courage to stand by her convictions and beliefs and, consequently,
paid the price for her action by being punished by the university presi-
dent. I do not know too many faculty who are courageous enough to take
such an unpopular stand in the eyes of their fellow faculty and adminis-
tration as this professor did, especially when they are untenured.
SECOND GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT SPRING AND SUMMER 1999
After I was denied tenure by the university president in July 1998, the
1998-99 academic year was considered my terminal year at the univer-
sity. In the spring of 1999 I filed a grievance against the administration
for denying me tenure. There were four steps to this process: the first step
involved the vice president for academic affairs; the second step involved
the university president; and the third step involved the state university
system. The fourth step, arbitration, was not taken. A memorandum of
agreement (MOA) was signed by all the parties involved, and it was agreed
that I would go through the tenure process again.
Because of all the turmoil and problems within the Social Science De-
partment, however, the tenure process bypassed the department. The aca-
demic dean and the vice president for academic affairs were bypassed as
well. The second tenure process involved only the president, AISD per-
sonnel (me), and the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO) labor relations di-
rector.
On May 30, 2002, the president finally had to, and did, grant me ten-
ure. When I received the news that I was granted tenure, I was so happy,
so excited, and so grateful! I took a vacation to the North Shore of Lake
Superior. Even though it was cold, gray, and rainy most of the week, that
was the best vacation I had in a long, long time. Such wonderful news of
getting tenure after such a long, arduous struggle enhanced the vacation
for me. I thought my struggles were now over, and I could direct my
efforts to positive and creative endeavors instead of fighting to save my
program and my position. Little did I know that my program and posi-
tion would be "retrenched" again, the following year.
SECOND CUTTING OF AISDS PROGRAM AND
POSITION SPRING 2001
In February 2001 the second university administration cut my program

and my position. The reasons given for the "discontinuance" and "re-
trenchment" were "patterns of enrollments" (low), "current budget reali-
ties," and "the need to reallocate resources into programs with high po-
tential for growth." And I thought, "here we go again. It doesn't stop."
Fortunately, a new administration stepped in, and the actions to cut
the AISD Program and position ceased. Before the new administration is
discussed, however, I would like to mention several instances of racism
and intimidation.
INSTANCES OF INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT, AND RACISM
I will mention several instances, out of many, of intimidation, racism, and

harassment by university administration, and not necessarily in order of
importance. I remember one time when I complained about the dean who
was going to be the reviewer for my professional development plan (PDP); I
thought this particular dean could not be fair or impartial. I remember re-
ceiving, one day, three letters from three different administrators-from the
dean (who was going to be my reviewer), from the vice president of aca-
demic affairs, and from another dean-assuring me that the dean in ques-
tion would be fair and impartial in dealing with me and my PDP. I am cer-
tain, in my own mind, that they thought that with the three of them, all
university administrators, coming down hard on me that I would now shut
up and keep quiet. I regarded their action as pure intimidation!
I remember another time when the vice president for academic affairs
delivered his letter recommending that I not be granted tenure fifteen
minutes before I was to deliver a paper for my annual AISDS spring confer-
ence. In my mind, I suspect that this administrator did this in order to
rattle me, that I might say something publicly that would get me in trouble.
Then he would have grounds to justify his getting rid of me. This par-
ticular administrator and his fellow administrators had a history of in-
timidation and harassment of other faculty. It was reported or alleged
that they even had a "hit list:'
Another example was when I received a threatening letter from an-
other administrator about personal phone calls, which I had made and
for which I was willing to reimburse the university and eventually did. In
his letter this administrator said that my personal calls "constitute eva-
sion of taxes" and threatened that unless I paid he would take "further
action." Although I was in the wrong for making personal phone calls
from my office phone, it was my understanding that other faculty were
doing the same thing every day for a much longer time period. They did
not receive threatening letters because they were white, however, or so I
thought. Threatening letters such as the above were often delivered to me
on a Friday afternoon so I could spend the weekend worrying about the
threats, the intimidation, the denials of tenure, and so on, in the letters.
Faculty worked against the AISDS Program and/or the AISDS professors.
They would implement their racism in a number of ways. One way was
to advise students not to take AISDS courses. Several students once came to
a meeting of the Social Science Department and testified about some

faculty advisors to students. One student reported,"Advisors tell students
not to take AIS courses because they have a'personal problem' with Chris.
People who do not even know Chris 'don't like him.'" The students went
on to suggest that supportive faculty members could "talk to advisors."
One of the administrators, a dean, even called students at home to find
out what they disliked about AISDS courses and why a student dropped
out of another AISDS course. Several students reported this to me. They
mentioned that the dean did not want to hear anything positive about
me and the AISDS courses. If a student mentioned something they liked
about the courses or that they liked me, the dean would terminate the
conversation. I wrote to the president and vice president of the university
that I thought this dean was looking for "dirt" to be used to further dis-
credit me.
I would like to comment about the academic racism that permeates
institutions of higher education such as this university. There is the no-
tion among many, if not most, of the university's faculty that the AISDS
Program does not have a legitimate and valid role in a contemporary
university setting. They believe that there is only one way of knowing
(epistemology) and that is the Western European or Euroamerican way.
There is another notion that the only valid and legitimate scholarship
about Indigenous peoples is written by white scholars.
We have a program at the university that typifies this academic racism,
Regional Studies. The program purports supporting the university's
"founding mission to study, represent, and serve" the region. This pro-
gram also purports to teach about the history of the region. However,
they did not teach about nor did they include any of the AISDS courses
until recently. In response to the question, "Why don't you include courses
about Indigenous peoples?," one of the program's professors responded,
"Indians are studied enough."' At their conferences they would rather have
a white academic, with his stereotypes, misconceptions, and misinfor-
mation, talk about Native or Dakota history or issues instead of a Dakota
academic (for example, me) talk about Dakota people. They would rather
have a white academic parroting what other white writers say about Da-
kota or Native people than quote or listen to Dakota or Native writers
and speakers. I have never been asked by the this program to speak about
Native peoples in this region although there are four reservations in the
surrounding area and I have expertise and knowledge about the history
and culture of the Native peoples of the region.
Other racist acts, consisting of anonymous letters, attacking me, ac-
cusing me, impugning my character and past, have been a part of the
hostile and racist environment at the university. Just recently, in the spring
of 2003 when I was off-campus on my sabbatical leave, I was the object of
attack by some conservative, Republican-type students on a campus ra-
dio program. These students were history students. They said things like,
"Mato Nunpa, your ticket has been punched. And it's a one-way ticket
out of here." Because of pressure from faculty and administration, they
were forced to apologize. On their radio program, the two racist students
apologized to the university president, the provost, the dean, and the fac-
ulty member who was supposed to be supervising the student radio pro-
gram, and, lastly and finally, they apologized to me, the object of their
attack. In their minds, I was not important-the others were more so
AMERICAN INDIAN QUARTERLY/WINTER & SPRING 2003 / VOL. 27, NOS. 1 & 2 357
because they were either white or an administrator. I truly believe that
these students only apologized to me because white faculty and adminis-
trators pressured them to do so.
Over the past ten years ifI was involved in an incident with a Euroamerican
faculty, student, or staff member, the administration would side, generally,
with the Euroamerican and sometimes I would get disciplined, even if I
thought I was not at fault. I have found the statement by Dr. Linda Tuhiwai
Smith to be relevant to my experience at the university: "Indigenous staff
and students, too, have found the institution to be toxic."3 I am hoping that
with the new administration the number of such racist incidents and events
will be minimized and that the university community will work toward the
goal of eliminating racism on the campus.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
There are several statements made by Indigenous scholars and academics

that apply not only to this university but also to most higher education
institutions. One such statement is found in a book written by Linda
Tuhiwai Smith: "In many examples indigenous and ethnic studies
programmes have struggled to survive in rather hostile environments."4
Another memorable and relevant statement was made by Haunani Kay-
Trask and certainly applies to my ten years of experience in higher educa-
tion: "As I look back at my long struggle, some basic truths emerge. The
most important truth, I think, is that institutional racism and sexism can-
not be fought alone ... it is a truism that the more besieged the activist,
the greater the need for support."' Kay-Trask further states: "A coalition
of supporters must be formed for daily strategizing and as a core to orga-
nize a larger community group."6
Because of these above-mentioned truths it was indeed fortunate for
me that in spite of the negativity, hostility, adversity, and racism, there

was help and support through faculty, especially a faculty committee,
through students, and through the recent administration. I now turn to
these sources of support.
Faculty
On January 24,1994, the university's faculty association asked me to sub-

mit names of faculty to serve on the association's advisory committee to
AISDS, which I did on February 16,1994. Thus, one of the strongest sources
of faculty support for the AISDS Program was inadvertently developed be-
cause the administration and faculty did not know what to do with the
program.
During the two cuttings of the AISDS Program and of the AISDS faculty
position, this committee helped in planning strategies and actions, draft-
ing documents, speaking to committees, and defending AISDS in faculty
assemblies. Some of them also participated in the marches and rallies
that were held after each of the two cuttings of the AISDS Program and
position. This committee helped in the development of the AISDS minor.
They helped in getting several AISDS courses included in the Social Sci-
ences Liberal Arts Core. One of the professors included an AISDS course in
the requirements for the social work major.
The committee members also helped in getting a number of AISDS
courses designated as Regional Studies. They did this by making presen-
tations for the AISDS courses in the Social Science Department meetings,
in Curriculum Committees, and in faculty assemblies. The committee
helped in the planning of the annual AISDS spring conference in April of
each year. These professors encouraged their students to attend the con-
ferences and write reaction papers for extra credit.
Students
There are three situations and students who immediately come to mind
when the role of student support is mentioned. One involves the first
time the AISDS Program was cut in March 1997. Later that spring, I read in
Impact, the student newspaper, that about twenty students had protested
at a meeting of the administrators. There was a picture of students carry-
ing placards and signs. One sign read "Save American Indian Studies."
(The university administration also had cut the physics and hotel and
restaurant administration programs. The scuttlebutt was that the admin-
istration did not like the faculty that were in these programs, and it was
easier to cut the programs than to get rid of the personnel.) I was amazed.
I did not know these students. These students had not taken any AISDS
courses, yet here they were, protesting the cutting of AISDS simply because
they thought it was wrong. I was so grateful to see such student support
for my program!
One of the young female students, a junior at the time and an English
major, was one of the principal organizers of that initial protest. Later
she, along with a number of other students, organized the march and
rally that was held in October 1997. She also organized a petition drive
that netted between three hundred and four hundred student signatures,
more than the number of students who generally vote in the elections for
student government.
In February 1998 the university administration reinstated the AISDS Pro-
gram, citing student support as a major factor in the decision. The AISDS
Program owes a major debt of gratitude to the hundreds of students who
believed in the principles of fairness and diversity, who were against the
injustice of racism, who acted on behalf of those principles, and who had
a tremendous impact on the curriculum of the university.
A second student comes to mind who helped in getting the AISDS mi-
nor established as part of the university's curriculum. In May of 1999 the
AISDS minor was approved by the faculty association. Approval of the mi-
nor, however, was being held up in the office of one of the university's
administrators. In the meantime, this student was working on an AISDS
minor, in addition to majors in history and philosophy. He began to ask
questions as to what was happening with the AISDS minor because he
needed to complete the forms in order to graduate. Since he was an out-
standing student, an honors student, and president of the History Club,
it was difficult for any administrator to ignore him, especially since they
were paying lip service to the idea that their reason for being was to serve
the students. The matter of the AISDS minor was brought up in a meeting
between the faculty association and the university administration. At the
meeting the university's vice president announced that the AISDS minor
was now available to students. Because of the pressure this student ap-
plied through asking his questions, the "hold-up" was resolved, and he
became the first student at the university to graduate with an AISDS minor.
The AISDS Program and I owe a debt of gratitude to this student.
The third student I wish to acknowledge is a nontraditional student;
she was a mother and a prospective teacher, and she needed a Regional
Studies course in order to graduate. She considered the present courses
in the program as too "Eurocentric." She thought that the AISDS courses,
especially the Dakota History and Culture course, should be part of the
curriculum of Regional Studies. She wrote letters, made telephone calls,
and set up a meeting between her, me, and the Regional Studies commit-
tee. Although the meeting was "heated" and the votes were close, three
AISDS courses were approved for Regional Studies designation. This ac-
tion was then accepted by the university at their faculty assembly. So,
now three AISDS courses (eventually four courses) with Regional Studies'
designation are officially part of the university's curriculum. The AISDS
Program and I owe a debt of gratitude to this student as well.
Because of these three students, and dozens of others, I have learned
through experience, bitter but also gratifying, that committed and cou-
rageous students can make a difference in a university setting. When I
saw the students march, carry signs, and rally, I thought of the 1960s and
civil rights demonstrations and, especially, of the Vietnam War student
demonstrations. I did not expect to see students from this area, a very
conservative, very religious, and predominantly Republican area, to march,
carry signs, and rally as they did in support of the AISDS Program.
I wish to say, also, that without students, such as those discussed above,
I most likely would not have survived ten years in such a negative, hostile,
and racist environment.
Administration
With the arrival of a new university president in July 2001, what appeared
to me as a new day had dawned at the university, certainly for the AISDS
Program and for me, personally. I remember his inauguration ceremony
in October 2001 for several reasons. First, in the inaugural procession the
flags of the local Native American communities were included. I had never
before seen this attention paid to the Dakota people and to the Dakota
communities in the ten years I had been at the university. Also, in the first
two lines of his inaugural speech, the president mentioned the people
who were in the area first, the Dakota people. I was stunned. Neither of
the previous two administrations would have said this. I think the coura-
geous university president who brought me to the university back in 1992
would have said something like this. Then, later in the inaugural speech,
the new president made a statement that I will always remember: "We
must embrace diversity fully"! Tears came to my eyes. It appeared to me,
then, that things were changing. The racism that had been overt at the
university would now, under a new administration, have to take cover,
and the possibility existed that progress could be made toward eliminat-
ing racism on the campus.
Recently, another source of support from the administration has come
in the form of the recently hired provost of academic affairs. The provost
is of Chinese ancestry and has a PhD in ethnic studies. A man who had
worked hard to earn a PhD in ethnic studies would, in my opinion, be a
supporter of the only ethnic studies program at the university, the AISDS
Program. Thus, I am optimistic for the future because of this administra-
tor.
The third source of administrative support is a professor in the En-

glish Department who now serves as the interim dean of the College of
Arts, Letters, and Sciences. This professor was and has been a member of
the faculty association's Advisory Committee to the AISD Program since
its inception; she has always been a strong supporter of the AISDs Pro-
gram, and she believes that Indigenous studies and Dakota studies has a
legitimate place in a modern university setting.
This past year, 2002-2003, even though I have been on sabbatical leave
working on a book, I have spent time both professionally and socially with
all three of these administrators. I have had good conversations over lunches
and have spent time at their houses for social/holiday gatherings of the fac-
ulty. The administration has sought my advice about the direction that the
AISDS Program should go. The only times the previous administrations talked
to me was when they were going to cut my program, cut my position, deny
me tenure, discipline me, or harass and intimidate me.
I used to return to the university each fall, since 1992, with a sense of
anxiety, uncertainty, apprehension, and outright fear about what might
happen to me. What is the dean going to do to me? What is the vice presi-
dent going to do to me? When is the president going to cut me again?
Some of my friends have asked me, "if the situation is that negative for
you, why don't you go someplace else?" My usual responses are the fol-
lowing. This is my home. This is Dakota land, according to our origin
stories, according our oral history, and according to the Treaty of 1851
signed by our people and the U.S. government. The university sits on
Dakota land!
Also, I am like any other human. We do not like to be forced to do

something we do not want to do. We do not want to be forced from some-
place when we do not want to leave. We, as humans, resist coercion and
force.
In addition, this is the best salary I can make in this region of the coun-
try. If I leave the university, then I will not be able to make the kind of
money I am making now. I will have to leave the region, leave my reserva-
tion, and go elsewhere to make a comparable salary. And I like to teach. I
like to be around young people with their idealism and enthusiasm. I like
to be around ideas and concepts. I find a college environment exciting
and stimulating.
Probably, most importantly, I do not leave because I feel I have a right to
be at the university. I truly believe that Indigenous studies and Dakota stud-
ies have a right to be here and should be taught at this university. Today's
students need to be exposed to the perspectives, worldviews, and values of
diverse cultures and learn that the Western European and Euroamerican
culture and worldview is not the only culture and worldview.
This fall my general attitude is not quite so apprehensive. In fact, there
is definitely some anticipation and optimism about the future of Indig-
enous nations studies and Dakota studies at the university. There is defi-
nitely some faculty support, some student support, and, now, there is
some administrative support. One of the administrators has talked to me
about the expansion of the Native studies program, and I am gratified,
delighted, and hopeful.
I wish to reiterate to young Native faculty who might be reading this ar-
ticle that it is possible to survive in a hostile and racist environment such as
a higher education institution. Find and build support among faculty, stu-
dents, and the administration. With such support personnel, you can dis-
cuss, strategize, organize, and negotiate your plans, objectives, and goals.
Although this may sound strange and irrelevant to the Euroamerican
mind, belief in and prayer to the Creator, that is, our Indigenous spiritu-
ality, is a powerful tool. In the last several years I had to pray, "Tunkansida
Wakan Tanka, anpetu kin de, unsimada k'a omakiye. Micante kin
mayusuta k'a mitawacin kin he wasagyaye wo." In English this means,
"Grandfather Great Mystery. On this day, have pity on me and help me.
Make strong my heart and strengthen my mind and will." Do not forget
that our spirituality is inextricably intertwined with our life, including
our academic life. Ho, hecetu do! "Yes, so shall it be!"
NOTES
1. Jon Reyhner, "The Case for Native American Studies," in American

Indian Studies, ed. Dane Morrison (NewYork, Washington Dc: Peter Lang,
1997), 93.
2. A black female faculty person, in social work, was also hired through
these "soft" monies. The Social Science Department also denied her ten-
ure. I say "also" because I, too, was later denied tenure by the Social Sci-
ence Department.
3. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies (London and New
York: Zed Books, 1999), 129.
4. Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies, 129.
5. Haunani-Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter (Honolulu: University
of Hawai'i Press, 1993, 1999), 165.
6. Trask, From a Native Daughter, 166.

University of Nebraska Press American Indian Quarterly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Nebraska Press American Indian Quarterly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Native Faculty, Higher Education, Racism, and Survival

Author(s): Chris Mato Nunpa

CHRIS MATO NUNPA

In my first ten years at the university I have undergone the following

two grievance processes;

FIRST GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT FALL 1992

FIRST CLOSE VOTE SPRING 1994

The first of the two close votes I experienced regarding my program's

THE FIRST CUTTING OF THE AISDS PROGRAM SPRING 1997

THE SECOND CLOSE VOTE FEBRUARY 1998

DENIAL OF TENURE SPRING QUARTER 1998

The Social Science Department meeting to vote on my tenure occurred

Many of this professor's female colleagues were absolutely sure that

SECOND GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT SPRING AND SUMMER 1999

SECOND CUTTING OF AISDS PROGRAM AND

POSITION SPRING 2001

In February 2001 the second university administration cut my program

INSTANCES OF INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT, AND RACISM

I will mention several instances, out of many, of intimidation, racism, and

a meeting of the Social Science Department and testified about some

There are several statements made by Indigenous scholars and academics

me that in spite of the negativity, hostility, adversity, and racism, there

On January 24,1994, the university's faculty association asked me to sub-

The third source of administrative support is a professor in the En-

Also, I am like any other human. We do not like to be forced to do

1. Jon Reyhner, "The Case for Native American Studies," in American

You might also like