Skip to content

Fort Lewis College Administration silenced Students and Threatened another Kent State could happen if they protested on campus

As we enter into a new semester will fort lewis college administration continue to ignore students rights and concerns
We shall see but we must not forget or allow time to go by without knowing what are the issues from last year never solved on Fort Lewis College
Well here is one of many issues that can’t go ignored.

November 17, 2010
FLC President Dene Kay Thomas Brings up Kent State Shootings
At Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado an urgent letter was
released altering the fort Lewis and Durango community about a
meeting that took place between FLC president Dene Thomas, Provost
Steven Roderick and two students. Concern was raised because of the
methods used by the president and the Provost of the college with
regards to student input. Not only did the students concerns fall
on deaf ears, but we feel there was an attempt to silence us. Most
surprising of which is an analogy President Thomas made to FLC and
Ken State. Please read the narrative below explaining the meeting
in further detail.
November 15th, 2010
The following narrative is a jointly written document concerning
the meeting held on Friday November 12th, between FLC students,
Jake Brettin and Alex Pullen, and FLC President Dene Kay Thomas and
Provost Stephen Roderick. As students who were invited by the
President to her office to talk, we feel our voices were not heard
and, moreover, an attempt was made to silence us.
On the morning of Friday November 12th, Alex Pullen received a
friendly email from President Thomas explaining that she would like
to chat and continue a conversation that President Thomas and Alex
had the day prior walking to her car. Alex responded, accepted the
invitation and brought fellow student Jake Brettin to the meeting,
assuming she wanted to continue talking about the recent removal of
Tina Evans from the Environmental Studies Program. We went to the
President’s office, met Dene Kay Thomas and were surprised to also
see Provost Steven Roderick at the meeting.
After introductions, the President stated that she received an e-
mail describing a peaceful protest that we and other students were
planning for Monday, November 15th. We tried to speak on the goals,
concerning the desired outcome of the proposed peaceful sit-in.
But, instead of having a productive discussion regarding the
communication issues between students and administration, a blame-
game began. President Thomas started by making an analogy that, we
felt, demeaned all students involved in the rally and march held
two weeks ago. Her analogy was that the student protests were like
contesting a speeding ticket by going down to the courthouse with a
large group of friends and screaming from the sidewalk, stamping
and waving signs around.
This insulting and unproductive conversation continued and
President Thomas focused on the idea that the students had not
pursued all the available means of contesting Professor Evans’s
removal, even though over the last two weeks students held a rally
and marched into Berndt Hall to talk to the administration. The
ASFLC Student Senate also passed an Emergency Resolution in favor
of Professor Evans’s reinstatement, and numerous letters were
written to the FLC administration and the local newspapers. Prior
to this meeting, none of the student-led actions above gained even
a wink from the FLC administration. President Thomas’s solution to
our problem was to look into the faculty handbook and consult the
school’s policies.
President Thomas then explained school procedures and asked us if
we had talked with Professor Evans about the matter. President
Thomas went on to say if Professor Evans has not pursued the
grievance policies herself, why are you pursuing them for her? Then
she said, does that make you feel like a pawn? We felt that this
statement was an attempt to turn us against our professor, mentor
and friend, to get us to question our motives and drop the issue.
Most surprisingly, the conversation then turned to the potential
hazards of a peaceful protest when President Thomas brought up the
shooting that took place at Kent
State in 1970. As neither of us were familiar with the details of
the shooting, President Thomas and Provost Roderick went on to
explain the significance of this event in their lives. Provost
Roderick explained seeing a front page newspaper picture of a
female student holding her friend in a pool of blood. Then they
both went on to explain that to this day the university doesn’t
know what to do with the spot where the shooting took place and
that the location will forever be a blight upon the campus. They
also explicitly conveyed that this tragedy was the students’ fault.
They told us that the unarmed students were fired upon by the
National Guard because they were told to stop moving and the
students disobediently moved forward.
After that gruesome note, the topic was generously changed by
Provost Roderick. We responded by trying to re-state our peaceful
mission and desire for open communication. While Alex was talking
on the matter, President Thomas leaned her head onto her hand and
smiled in a very patronizing and demeaning way. Her verbal response
to our agenda was playful and curt, yet she seemed not to
understand what we had just said. Then Roderick chimed in, stating
that our meeting time was drawing to a close. President Thomas and
Provost Roderick explained how both of them have open door
policies, and if we had any more concerns or questions to let them
know. Even though both of these administrators explained their open
door policies, we feel that at any future meetings our concerns
would not be taken seriously.
We as students feel there is a lack of communication and
transparency regarding the future of Tina Evans at Fort Lewis
College. We also feel this lack of communication is symptomatic of
the general lack of transparency, student inclusion, and input in
administrative policies. In talking with the administration, our
goal was, and is, to hold an open and public discussion so that
these concerns can be heard by all parties involved. V

Sande Grande – Red Pedagogy

20110829-043612.jpg

Colorado San Juan Mountains public lands threatened as a Sacrifice Zone, by New Proposals for thousands of Gas, Oil wells and Incitu Mining Parasites

Attention to those CONCERNED for the future of our water and the Mountains and health
Please get involved go to Public comment date n SAY HELL NO The WELLS must GO
BP, Williams, XTO/Exxon n other gas n oil are sucking every last bit to sacrifice the lands to industries energy demands. The industry of mining, oil and gas will create a sacrifice zone for the beautiful land and mountains that is left untouched and rape our planet.
We will increase the amount of global warming gasses in the atmosphere like crazy!
In the longest droughts and heat waves ever climate change wreaking havoc on all of us and the Eco systems!
Redneck racist pricks say that global warming is a theory and fear campaign to make money this idiot is saying the answer to state wide drought is a day of prayer.
Corporations are lobbying to kill everything in the lands and water all for a last ditch effort to make profits.
Federal officials are reviewing a land
management plan that could spark a new gas boom in the area.
Please get involved !!!!
Save the water Save the Lands Save the Children’s Rights n Health NOW!!!

http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan/DEIS/default.htm

http://durangoherald.com/article/20110823/NEWS01/708239942/New-gas-boom

San Juan National Forest supervisor Mark Stiles says new
technology could allow more than 1,700 wells to be drilled in a
shale formation covering over 646 thousand acres in parts of
Dolores, San Miguel, Montezuma
and La Plata counties. That’s about double what the federal
government considered when it started.

more than half the area involves federal surface ownership.

federal agencies wrote an addition to a 2007 draft federal land
management plan for the area that was recently released and
will be open for public comment.

the first open house is sept. first in norwood, then on wednesday sept.
7th a second meeting will be held at the Durango public library from
6-8pm.

two other meetings are scheduled: one in dove creek on sept. 8 and finally

one in Cortez sept. 14 at the montezuma county annex building.

you can view the plan at ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan
or CD copies can be requested by contacting elysia retzlaff at 385-1253

the public comment period will end Tuesday October 11.

20110823-093945.jpg

Elk research or BioGenetically modified Canned Elk Hunt /Mineral Game

ERI Elk Research Institute has been using Colorado Indian Trust Land under the 1910 Indian Appropriations Act , which the intent of Congress written heading the the bill reads “To Uphold Treaty Obligations”
This means the native students are the primary beneficiary of this act.
The Native American Tuition Wavier along with the land have been under attack by generations of Corporate Greed and Racism.
Raping the land for generations many oil gas and mining corporations have sought out and occupied thus trust land violating the Original Intent of the congressional act which says the land was being granted as long as the said lands,facility’s, and buildings be MAINTAINED as an institution of Learning and that ALL Native American children are allowed tuition free upon equality of whites.
Many industries and much white money is going to these leases and projects.
One of those is the non Scientific no ethical and Earth rapist / mining/ canned hunting / deforestation parasites.
Elk Research Institute or ELK QUEST occupied mad fantasies canned hunt outfit for massive genetically altered Elk for up to 25,000 dollars under the guise of non profit research.

http://www.ElkResearch.com/board_of_directors.cfmw
XTO is the king of fraking in this country they were bought by Exxon go 40 million over a year ago. Del Cradock is the prez of ERI. Here is ELKQUEST website premium package hunts. Canned hunts Elk are like Pets come when you open a bag of Chips. The Elk Research Institute Only pays the state of Colorado 3000 a year to lease this Indian trust land. No money goes to the native Tuition waiver. 1 elk 25000 dollars could nearly pay for a Native American Student’ Four Years at Fort Lewis College. No accountability for the Hesperus Trust Account in the Native Tuition Waiver. when I asked Former Senator Isgar questions about ERI he said it was important research and a few thousand dollars don’t matter and that the fees cover the operations cost.
If ERI only has a 3000 dollar a year lease selling hunts for 25,000 – 15,000, 10,000 6,000 9,000 etc that adds up past the non profit stage.
The irony here is that I researched the people hunting this place n found ties to the radical Right Wing Nationalist publication Colorado Freedom Report who writes clearly against Indian Sovereignty and Write articles against the Native American Tuition waiver in this article

http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/outofstate.html

Here is what ERI is really doing Canned Trophy Elk Hunting for the Rich White elite.

http://Elk Quest Sells Large High dollar canned Hunting

Go to their premium hunting packages to see prices they very for the super wealthy to the sorta rich to the HUD ole boy rich. No money for NDNZ n certain not Non Profit.
The Elk Research Institute Claims to carry on research of Chronic Waste disease. A 13 foot fence Doubled Around the land was built to so called keep the land Clean of Chronic Waste Disease but with Two rows of fencing at 13 ft high and wide enough separated to drive a 18. wheeler in to.
As you see Elcan/Raytheon and Williams Gas And XTO and Trigon were posted as the sponsors of the ERI in the beginning all are interests in mining n gas and Military. I found The ERI has the Colorado Forestry Allowing truck loads of Timber large old Pine Forests to be cut from the Indian School Land without any accountability to the beneficiaries, the students if the college.
For over a year there have been unknown amounts of Trees ripped off the Land n deforested the NDN school land.
ERI has occupied and abused for 8 years.Only one research paper came off the land on chronic waste disease. 8 years and only one research paper under Texas A&M. Many hunters from the southern states like Texas seem
To hunt the place also in Gas n Military.
The absolutely clear point here in the Highlighted Letter here the Depart of Interior clearly states The Minerals are under the Department of Interior, that’s because the Indian Appropriations Bill of 1910 which transferred this land under Indian Title this mean only congress can ever make a new bil stating otherwise because they have plenary power in this land conveyance and Congressional Act concerning Native American tribes.
The state of Colorado claims they have title to the minerals on the land but the Department if Interior says they do and that means only an Act if Congress can change that.
Last year Elk Research Institute bragged on there website that they were flying over the land with hyperthermalspectral imaging or Geomapping of minerals by SPECTIR Llc http://www.spectir.com/
and Aerospace. http://www.aero.org/
I thought this interesting knowing the ties and interest to find RARE-EARTH minerals with this technology all over the world by Raytheon Exxon XTO, Great Western,and others Williams Gas, and Trigon.
I finally found just what that research and Hyoersthermalspectral imaging flight
Information was gathered for. Nunavut mining Symposium in Alaska here’s the power point on jowcElk are used to help Rare Earth oil Gas Mining industry increase their profits.
Nunavut mining symposium Power Point By SPECTIR, Areospace, and Elk Research Institute.

http://2010.nunavutminingsymposium.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Coulter-and-…
It seems to me the elk have sensors planted in them and are used to help survey n map the minerals or the presentation was done to see the difference in the elk and the mineral. This technology is DOD level what the hell is going on when the State says it can’t afford the waiver and multiple billion dollar industries are sitting on it for nothing?

Coming soon ….The Fort Lewis College And Fort Lewis Indian School lands connection to DOD and military Contractors.

20110823-011737.jpg

20110823-011843.jpg

Colorado Sacrifice Zone for Tech and Military Weaponry minerals

20110821-105918.jpg

Fort Lewis College Institutional Racism GUILIFORD’s colonial conundrum Continues

Stay tuned for a series of investigations on the Racist Right Wing Christian and military ties to Fort Lewis Indian Land and Fort Lewis College coming in the next few days.

ATTENTION NDN country and FLC Students and Parents….
This is for all those out there who are concerned for institutional racism against Indigenous People. Fort Lewis College has been under federal investigation for racism since 2001. It hasn’t stopped they just all drink the cool Aid and put a facade to everyone there’s an effort when i say They I mean the STATE of Colorado and the FLC Administration and Board.
Andrew Guilford was just given head of the history department and is still teaching here at FLC after Violating at least 8 FERPA violations. Yet the administration Demonized FLC’s Student Alray Nelson’s misconduct and Emotional cry for help as if he was s mass murderer and kicked him out of school indefinitely . Read here just what Dr. Andrew Guiliford did to Native Students go and ask should this man still be teaching?
The FLC Administration and the powerful money players like Ron Fogleman and Many others have such a tight squeeze in keeping Native American Indigenous Studies Program under control they passed up Professor Carey Vicenti tenured and at FLC for 26 years for the head position of the NAIS program at Fort Lewis College.
Instead appointing NON tenure and Ethic Studies background not Native American Studies Dr.Majel Boxer a devoted Mormon and self professed Decolonization Expert ( that’s quite the “oxy-Mormon” The position was not decided on like all Other head of department faculty positions. The position of Fort Lewis Colleges Native Indigenous Studies program was decided behind close doors,and not with students and the department FAIRLY but the President of the college Dean K. Thomas, who has been under Knight Horse Campells and the States wing from day one of her arrival.
This is because the administration knows Carey Vicenti would go the direction best for Native American Studies and not support Grave Diggers and Mining interest and those that romanticize and allow the grave diggers to pack everything away in to personal collections.
Carry Vicenti knows Tribal preservation is protecting Indigenous Youth from Institutional racism and Trust Embezzlement.
Not advocating white elite grave digging and stealing of sacred things that belong to Indigenous people. Here are the ARTICLES in DR.ANDREW GUILIFORD. Dr.Boxer (Decolony imaginary) had invited GUILIFORD to Speak to her native Students last Semester. I have had several personal stories from students Majel Boxer also has given Ds and Fs to Single Parents Native mothers. She is much like the Black sergeant in the film An Officer And A Gentleman, mad at the world and had grad school and now you all others have to suffer the Colonial Wrath of The Box! It’s plainly called INTERNALIZED Racism !
DECOLONY imaginary!!!
here are many articles on Guliford
READ SOME REAL HISTORY of FLC STUDENTS FIGHTING FOR Native Rights at Fort Lewis College. The fight never ended it’s still going on this NAIS program wouldn’t excist if it wasn’t for the students!
The Trust Land of Fort Lewis Indian School must be protected!
Transparency NOW!
Stop the Logging and deforestation.
Stop ERI! Canned Elk Hunts !!!!
Oil GAS and Military Contractors and Mining are en imbed
The State if Colorado refuses and omits to act at Student request for transparency. Save Fort Lewis Indian School and the Native American Tuition!Waiver!
Dian
From the Denver Post:
Article Published: Sunday, November 21, 2004
Fort Lewis College professor’s article stirs racial tension
By Electa Draper
Denver Post Staff Writer
Durango — A quest by American Indian students at Fort Lewis College to discipline a professor they accuse of subtle racism and unethical behavior has stirred long-simmering racial tensions at the campus.
Andrew Gulliford, head of the school’s prestigious Center of Southwest Studies, published an account in a scholarly journal about the rewards and pitfalls of teaching tribal members about their own cultures.
In response, 12 students formed the Student Alliance for Appropriate Representation. They hosted a week of almost nightly forums on the campus marked by angry confrontations. The week ended with the gathering of public testimony Thursday night to submit to federal and state civil rights commissions.
But some college and community members rose to Gulliford’s defense. Several said he shouldn’t be made the scapegoat for long-running resentments on the campus.
Gulliford has declined requests for interviews but made two public apologies to students for “serious mistakes” with his work, “The Kokopelli Conundrum,” published in the October issue of American Studies International.
College administrators will meet on the matter in executive session Dec. 1.
The furor has shaken the college of about 4,400 students, of which almost one-fifth are American Indians from more than 50 different Indian nations. Fort Lewis has an unusual history that strongly shaped its student body. Fort Lewis was a cavalry fort used to quell violence between white settlers and Indian tribes in the Four Corners area of the 1880s.
The fort evolved into an Indian boarding school and later a rural high school. In 1911, Congress gave the campus, a federal reservation, to the state of Colorado in return for the state assuming “a sacred trust.” The school was charged with educating American Indians, free of tuition, on equal terms with white students.
“Everyone thinks it’s a free ride for us,” 22-year-old student Leah Carpenter-Kish said of the tuition waiver. “We hear that all the time. But tribes bring a lot of tribal money to this school.”
The Southern Ute Tribe, for example, has made large contributions to the Center of Southwest Studies.
There are sensitivities on both sides, said exercise science assistant professor Jim Cross. He questioned the appropriateness of American Indians burning sage and offering a prayer before a Tuesday night forum in a room packed with Indians and non-Indians.
“The intent of the prayer was not to harm some people. But some people were offended a prayer was said at a public meeting over a public microphone,” Cross said.
“It is clear these issues have been festering for a long time,” said Jeanne Brako, who works with Gulliford at the center.
Many students and the Faculty Senate have harshly criticized Gulliford for stereotyping American Indians and for callous disregard of his own students’ privacy.
He recounted students’ stories about sacred rituals, quoted some test answers and even described medical and family histories in the article without the students’ knowledge or consent. He used many students’ real first names.
“In his article, in his apology, in his history he has shown us he is incapable of understanding our complexity,” said Bill Mendoza, a 28-year-old student and Lakota who co-founded the student alliance pushing for Gulliford’s ouster.
But Southern Ute tribal member Kenny Frost, who consults on Native American culture with many universities, said he has worked with Gulliford for years and finds his intentions honorable.
“He has been trusted with a lot of native stories by elders to help educate people,” Frost told students Thursday. “There’s no legal protection for our legends and stories that we tell professors. They have been written about in books for years. If you don’t want something known, don’t say it. But why are you here? So you can share diverse experiences.”
Many believe Gulliford’s personal flair and other impressive publications have brought new attention, even luster, to the 40-year-old Center of Southwest Studies.
Paulette Church, who identified herself as just a member of the community, said that Gulliford has been an able ambassador between ethnic communities.
“You can’t be in a room with him for five minutes and not know how he values the Native American cultures,” Church said.
But Gulliford’s detractors are outraged that he generalized about students by calling them “impeccably polite” and “quiet and well-groomed, with sometimes irrepressible laughter.” He also wrote that “succeeding in school for these students is not easy.”
He wrote about students who missed class because of family healing rituals, which he described.
Jimmie Jefferson, a Southern Ute scholar who attended Fort Lewis, said teachers here are not sensitive to the Indian way.
“Teachers must understand native students if they are to teach them,” Jefferson said.
Jan Sallinger, Faculty Senate member and associate professor of political science, told Gulliford: “This offends me to my core. You have harmed all of us as an academic facility. I find it unconscionable that you all people, the head of Southwest Studies, would not be aware of the potential consequences of your words.”
Gulliford also wrote in his controversial piece: “I am supposed to be teaching (Native American students), but often they are teaching me, and the lessons I learn are profound.”
*****
From the Farmington Daily Times:
Magazine article sparks firestorm
By Valarie Lee/The Daily Times
Nov 22, 2004, 11:34 pm
DURANGO, Colo. — Dozens of Native American students met at a classroom on the Fort Lewis College campus Thursday.
They were there to provide taped testimonies with the intention of showing it to college President Brad Bartel, The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Ballatine Foundation.
The reason for the taping stems from an incident that began months ago.
It began when Professor Andrew Gulliford, director of Center for Southwest Studies, submitted an article to a university publication in Washington that featured Fort Lewis College Native American students.
In the article, which was titled “The Kokopelli Conundrum: Lesson Learned from Teaching Native American Students” appeared in the American Studies International, June/October 2004 double issue. The magazine was published by the George Washington University American Studies Department.
In the article, several Fort Lewis College Native American students were quoted and the article featured many of the comments and stories they shared.
The students said they never gave permission for Gulliford to use their comments — or share the traditional stories they told.
It was only after the article was printed the students became aware of its content.
Matt Nehmer, media relations, said the college was unaware of the article and no longer prints the magazine.
Nehmer read an official statement on behalf of the university.
“The publication ASI (American Studies International) is a very small publication of less than 1,000 and is a two-person operation. ASI, incidentally is the last one George Washington University will be publishing, which was decided well before this (current) issue was published. The ASI will be going to the University of Kansas to another American Studies program.”
When asked if the university or department knew of the event surrounding the concerns of Native American students, Nehmer said, “I did talk to the department and they did not publish the submission with the knowledge of any wrong doing,” Nehmer.
Repeated calls to Shelly McKenzie, one of the two staff members of the magazine, were not returned.
The incident has caused even the college president to become involved.
Speaking officially on behalf of President Brad Bartel, who is on vacation for the Thanksgiving holiday, Dave Eppich said the content in the article caused the college “real concern.”
“The president was informed of those concerns and started a procession with the Institutional Review Board,” Eppich said.
The board concluded the article “Kokopelli Conundrums” did not fit inside federal policy and fell out of guidelines, which protects students in regards to what they share in the classroom or with a professor.
“It (the article) did not violate any federal policies or regulations concerning human subjects because the article did not meet the criteria under those guidelines. We also had a ruling internally that the student federal privacy act, called FERPA, was not violated,” Eppich said.
The president is in the process of calling each student mentioned in the article and is talking, or has talked to them about contents of the article. Some of the students are not at the college anymore and others mentioned in the article are current students, Eppich said.
“The process is still continuing. On Dec. 1, there is a regularly scheduled Board of Trustees meeting, and when they go into an executive session, Dr. Bartel, the president, will be briefing the board of the process of this incident,” Eppich added. “No action by the college has been determined yet, as the process is continuing.”
Eppich said Gulliford met with a group of students this week and a formal public apology was issued for the contents of the article.
Gulliford said in a telephone message left at The Daily Times, “This whole episode has been disheartening and depressing. I never wanted to hurt anyone. As difficult as its been, I’m grateful to have received the support of many student and others.”
Yet, for some Native American students, Gulliford’s apology is not good enough.
“Dr. Gulliford has proven that he grossly misrepresented the Native American people by making generalizations and stereotypes in the article,” said Bill Mendoza, a Oglala Sicangu Lakota and senior at Fort Lewis College.
“Native American students here on campus feel violated by the trust they placed in him by sharing with him these stories that were featured in the article,” said Mendoza, who added the he had no confidence in the professor for his insensitivity towards the Native American students.
Despite the feelings among some Native American students, Gulliford had his supporters at the meeting on Thursday.
“I see Andrew Gulliford as an ambassador and a bridge builder in our community. You can’t be in a room with him without knowing how much he values and respects the Native American culture,” said Paula Church, who participated in the video testimonial session.
Two other people testified to Gulliford’s character and love of Native American people and culture.
Earlier in the week, the Fort Lewis College Student Senate, Faculty Senate, Institutional Review Board, and the Intercultural Committee met in an informative discussion on the issue.
*****
From the Denver Post:
Clueless, yes; racist, unlikely
By Jim Spencer
Denver Post Columnist
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Andrew Gulliford is not William Shockley.
Unlike Shockley, the infamous professor who claimed genetic differences made blacks intellectually inferior to whites, Gulliford is no racist.
He just plays one in an overwrought drama underway on the Fort Lewis College campus in Durango.
There, some students and faculty have accused Gulliford of racism for calling American Indian students “quiet almost to a fault, slow to speak up, reticent to challenge professors.”
Gulliford, the director of Fort Lewis’ Center of Southwest Studies, used this description in a recently published essay in American Studies International, an academic journal. Gulliford also wrote that his American Indian students were “impeccably polite” and “well groomed.”
“Unlike my white students,” he wrote, “my Indian students never interrupt.”
How dare he say such things, you ask?
Based on his experience, I guess. Does that mean he thinks those traits apply to every American Indian? Read the essay.
Gulliford called it “a personal reflection” when I talked to him Friday.
That’s a good thing. Gulliford’s piece, titled “The Kokopelli Conundrum,” is to scholarly research what this column is to great literature. As readers often do with this column, folks looking at Gulliford’s piece might disagree with his impressions. They might find his observations naive, shallow, stupid or stereotypical.
Some students want Gulliford disciplined. The Fort Lewis faculty has called for an investigation of his article. College administrators are scheduled to meet this week to discuss his case.
“I apologized for any misunderstanding,” Gulliford said Friday.
In reference to charges of racism, the professor said, “I’ll stand on my writing.”
That’s a shaky platform. Some of Gulliford’s pronouncements about Indians smack of the old cliché once applied to blacks: “They make good singers, dancers and athletes.”
The problem with such thinking is that it applies characteristics to an entire race that can only be determined individually. Worse, it implies limits on what members of an ethnic group can or should become.
Gulliford’s prejudices — such as they are — don’t seem intended to limit his students. And I don’t think a racist would work at a school that offers tuition-free education to American Indians and where 18 percent of students are Indians.
His book “Sacred Objects and Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Traditions” is in a second printing.
“I donate royalties to the National Museum of the American Indian,” he said.
He spent the current semester working with the museum to set up an exhibit of Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s jewelry.
Ironically, Gulliford may have erred in being too romantic. The “profound” lessons he learned from students who put tribal tradition ahead of science or history actually grate on the roots of academia. Yet his descriptions are as unctuous as they are paternalistic.
If the issue is racial prejudice — as most of Gulliford’s critics hope to make it — his worst offense is pomposity.
Gulliford figured he could use first names of students and their stories in his essay without permission. That’s a definite no-no. Still, the most outrageous intimate details come without names attached. There is, for instance, the student who argued for sharing sacred tribal knowledge in textbooks.
“My parents didn’t teach me anything,” Gulliford quoted the unnamed student as saying, “because they were frequently drunk with their car in a ditch.”
This revelation does little more than inflame the “firewater” stereotype Indians have battled for decades. In context, though, it’s clear Gulliford had no racial malice aforethought. Which leads us to what might be the real “Kokopelli Conundrum”:
Its author apparently had no forethought at all.
*****
‘Kokopelli Conundrum’ — Professor violated federal law
Posted: December 10, 2004
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
DURANGO, Colo. — A Fort Lewis College professor who published student comments and essays without permission has been found in violation of a federal law that protects student records, but the college president has not taken disciplinary action.
“If you cannot take disciplinary action on eight federal violations, what can you take action on,” asked William Mendoza, Oglala Sicangu co-founder of the Student Alliance for Appropriate Representation at the college.
Fort Lewis College President Brad Bartel told students that Andrew Gulliford, director of the Center of Southwest Studies, violated eight students’ rights, protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by publishing their class comments and essays without their permission.
However, Bartel said he is continuing to investigate and declined to carry out the suggestion of students that Gulliford be asked to resign. “Bartel was unable to support us in that request,” Mendoza said after the president met with students on Dec. 8.
Although Gulliford offered a public apology, Mendoza said apologies are not an adequate response for a violation of law.
Gulliford’s article, “The Kokopelli Conundrum, Lessons learned teaching Native American Students”, was published in American Studies International, June/October issue, by the Department of American Studies at George Washington University.
Kaeleen McGuire, junior communications major, said she has mixed reactions to the president’s response to students. While feeling encouraged by institutional changes to protect student rights in the future, McGuire questioned the president’s sincerity.
“I feel hesitant to believe him,” said McGuire, member of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon. “On some points, I felt like he was just going through the motions to make things better.”
Bartel assured students that his priorities are the protection of student privacy and the reputation of the college.
As for Gulliford publishing Indian students’ class comments and essay statements without permission, McGuire said, “He has broken that trust.”
While the college president did not immediately take disciplinary action, Indian students did receive support from Fort Lewis College faculty. The college’s Intercultural Committee unanimously passed a resolution calling for an investigation, disciplinary action and a retraction.
The resolution said Gulliford showed “a callous disregard” for the privacy rights of American Indians, while promoting stereotypes of American Indians and seizing intellectual property rights without consent.
“It appropriates confidential statements made by Native American students regarding Native American religious belief and practice without the informed consent of those students, which appropriation may have been motivated by a particularly callous disregard of the privacy rights of Native Americans, thereby suggesting that the college condones or permits such disregard of rights,” the resolution said.
“It reinforces stereotypes regarding Native Americans, thereby implying that the college condones or permits the stereotyping of minorities by its academic faculty.”
Gulliford’s article also misrepresents Fort Lewis College’s “free tuition” for American Indian students, because it fails to clarify the historical context in which the tuition waiver was accomplished and perpetuates the misconception that American Indians are a minority receiving an undeserved privilege, the resolution said.
The Intercultural Committee is chaired by Elayne S. Walstedter, Navajo professor and librarian, and includes faculty members Mary Jean Moseley, Oklahoma Cherokee; Carey N. Vicenti, Jicarilla Apache and Richard M. Wheelock, Oneida from Wisconsin.
Gulliford’s article was embarrassing to students because students can be easily identified by their first names and tribal communities. Gulliford uses real first names with identifying information, including that of a Navajo Yei’bi’chii dancer.
Indian students said the writing is paternalistic, as in this excerpt: “[Name deleted] comes to school tired, with some of his work not done, but I am sympathetic. He is trying to live in two worlds, with two languages and two sets of expectations, and he is succeeding.
Gulliford quoted directly from student essays without their permission and published detailed information regarding the presence of spirits. He concludes, “Some students have extraordinary sensitivities. They can detect the presence of spirits from centuries past.”
Gulliford also repeats a private conversation with Eastern Shoshone, while traveling with them in the Northwest, concerning a healing ceremony.
Then, quoting elders, Gulliford wrote, “We have two ears and two eyes and only one mouth because we are supposed to listen and observe before we talk.”
Indian students, however, say Gulliford did not heed the voices of elders he published. He did not include the rest of the traditional admonition: Proceed with respect, do not take without permission, never take more than one gives and never exalt oneself over others.
Gulliford declined an interview with Indian Country Today.
While a professor of Southwest studies and history, Gulliford wrote the article about his experiences teaching Native students during his 25-year career. He said the experience was difficult and rewarding. “There are frequently cross-cultural complications and conundrums.”
As for the title, “Kokopelli Conundrum,” Webster’s Dictionary defines conundrum as “a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun and (2) a question or problem having only a conjectural answer; an intricate and difficult problem.”
Gulliford said he taught one of the few courses in the nation titled “Tribal Preservation” and many of the museum classes have 75 percent Native student enrollment.
Placed in the category of education, the article describes teaching Indian students at Fort Lewis College, a four-year, public liberal arts college. Describing it as having moderate admission standards, Gulliford says students are attracted to the beauty of the region in southwestern Colorado, home to Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, Jicarilla Apache, Hopi, Zuni and the Navajo.
Eighteen percent of the college’s 4,400 students are American Indian.
Fort Lewis College is named after the military fort that evolved into an Indian boarding school for Ute and Navajo. It remained as federal land, with rich mineral and water rights, until in 1911 when Congress transferred the land to the state of Colorado with a provision that it remain tuition free for Indian students.
*****
Professor’s ‘research’ rife with stereotypes — Dec. 12, 2004
By JODI RAVE Lee Enterprises
What was professor Andrew Gulliford thinking?
Had he convinced himself his Native students were truly tacit and would stand for publication of their names, thoughts and ideas without consent?
Gulliford, director of the Center for Southwest Studies at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo., borrowed from their private conversations, final exams and classroom discussions for recent use in an academic journal.
“The stories they tell me, an Anglo professor, and the things they have to say are as powerful as anything one can learn from books,” he wrote for the American Studies International.
His students mystified him. “Some students have extraordinary sensitivities. They can detect the presence of spirits from centuries past.”
At times they floored him with questions. “Why can’t you white people handle Indian sexuality?”
It was a valid question relative to the iconic Kokopelli figure. And it was raised in a classroom setting, but one certainly never intended for international publication. Nor was the private information about a traditional ceremony involving a student’s sick mother. And neither were the comments from a student who revealed a life with drunken parents.
He spelled this out, including sacred cultural information, in his essay, “Kokopelli Conundrum: Lessons Learned from Teaching Native American Students.”
And that’s where Gulliford created his own conundrum.
The essay not only violated student trust, but was peppered with stereotypes. Ironically, he colored students as “quiet almost to a fault, slow to speak up, reticent to challenge professors.”
Since the essay’s publication, students have turned that supposition on its head.
They met with Fort Lewis College president Brad Bartel on Wednesday, insisting the professor be held accountable for violations of the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. They also created the Student Alliance for Appropriate Representation, an organization intended to give a voice to Native students across the country, and a measure to protect their intellectual property rights.
“We’re all vulnerable to this kind of exploitation,” said Lakota student Bill Mendoza. “Because we’re in school does not mean those can be harvested and exploited or molested.”
Native professor Carey Vicenti is left to wonder what would happen to a professor if it were white students quoted. He sees a college that seems ready to overlook the infraction.
College administrators have said Gulliford might be protected by freedom of speech. And an internal review board said his essay fell short of meeting academic research standards, thereby offering some reprieve.
“I refuse to accept the argument he’s not educated and schooled in the methods of his profession,” Mendoza said. “As freshmen, these things are pounded into our head. You have to cite your sources. If you use human subjects, there are specific guidelines.”
Gulliford has a doctorate in philosophy.
Excluding tribal colleges, Fort Lewis College has the country’s highest percentage of Native students, who make up 18 percent of the student body. And those faculty and students who’ve stepped forward have now said Gulliford’s essay is more than an isolated incident. It’s reflective of a campus entrenched in a “pervasive environment of racism,” Vicenti said. It falls in place with Durango’s “frontier-chic attitude,” where Natives make good props but don’t receive respect, he said.
And Native students frequently feel the pinch of racism because they attend school free of tuition as part of a 1911 land exchange between Natives and the state.
And then there’s professor Gulliford, whose actions provide yet another example of arrogant paternalism, the kind Natives frequently experience when associated with so-called white “Indian experts.”
It’s part of today’s modern racism, “the kind where people might love their Indians but they never conclude these Indians have the same intellectual capacity, the same career potential as themselves,” Vicenti said.
Gulliford’s future now rests with college president Bartel, who is reviewing the matter. He is expected to release his findings in about two weeks, according to David Eppich, special assistant to the president.
Many on campus are wondering how he will handle it, given the recent forced resignation of a Hispanic faculty member. She kicked a white male student who she said backed his rear end into her face while she was seated at a restaurant. He was “showing off” his Republican-inspired T-shirt that read: “Join us now, or work for us later.”
The college agreed the student had a right to free speech.
In that vein, Native students at Fort Lewis need to keep talking.
Gulliford has apologized since the article’s publication. “If I mentioned sensitive subjects, I apologize for my ignorance,” he said in an interview with Kaeleen McGuire of the online Reznet news site. “I beg forgiveness of anyone I’ve hurt.”
But not all Native students are ready to forgive. “He says he loves Indians,” Mendoza said. “That he cares for Indians. But he doesn’t understand us. He doesn’t know anything about us.”
*****
Fort Lewis College professor transferred
Posted: December 17, 2004
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
Students say instructor violated rights and remains a liability to college
DURANGO, Colo. — The president of Fort Lewis College announced the transfer of a professor that violated federal law by publishing American Indian students’ comments and essays without their permission.
Fort Lewis College President Brad Bartel said Andrew Gulliford, director of the Center of Southwest Studies since 2000, would step down as the center’s director effective April 1, 2005. Gulliford agreed to accept a non-instructional position as a fundraiser for the college.
While Native students were disappointed that Gulliford was not removed from the college, they are celebrating the action as a victory because their voices were heard.
“Gulliford is still a liability,” said William Mendoza, Lakota cofounder of Student Alliance for Appropriate Representation.
“He clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of indigenous complexities. What happens when you magnify that? Now he will represent not just indigenous students, but the college as a whole.”
American Indian students say the transfer reflects how difficult it is to remove a professor with tenure.
“I saw it right away as a compromise,” Mendoza said.
Mendoza said when he spoke with Gulliford, expressing the wishes of students that he resign, Gulliford admitted he made mistakes, but believed an apology was adequate. Mendoza said Gulliford had no idea of the extent of harm to students.
With nationwide media coverage of the incident and reactions, Mendoza said there is a great deal to be learned. “I think the primary lesson from all of this is that no matter how much a college administration claims to be looking out for student interests, there is an inherent bias within the administration.”
Citing the need for nationwide changes, Mendoza said if students were allowed to serve on Institutional Review Boards at colleges, it would serve to protect student rights.
Although no lawsuits have been filed so far, at least two of the Indian students Gulliford quoted in the article are proceeding with complaints to the U.S. Department of Education for violations of the Federal Education and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). One of those, Craig Benally, Navajo, made his name public as his father, Clyde Benally, called for Gulliford’s resignation during a series of college forums.
When asked about the transfer, Patrick Kincaid, Cheyenne from Oklahoma, said the subtle racism present is reflective of this society. “I wanted a full resignation, but I understand you have to have compromise.”
Still, Kincaid, a senior majoring in Environmental Biology, said Gulliford’s transfer is positive. “It is a victory.”
More on Gulliford and the “Kokopelli Conundrum”
The Journalistic Conundrum: Lessons learned from watching experts and the media cover Native Americans
Rob’s comment
The notion that Indian students are “quiet almost to a fault, slow to speak up, reticent to challenge professors” is a variation of the wooden- or stoic-Indian stereotype.
Although Gulliford apologized for his remarks, let’s delve a little into his situation. He might claim he was just observing his students, factually describing how rarely they spoke in class. Let’s assume his observations were accurate—that his Indian students did indeed speak up less often than non-Indians.
Some questions immediately arise. Was this presumed classroom behavior normal or abnormal for these students? Was this behavior particular to this group of students, this subject matter, or this professor?
If it was particular to these students, was it because they all come from one tribe or group of tribes? Because they were taught to respect authority figures? Because they were intimidated by being minorities in a predominantly white school? Or because they thought the professor’s comments were obvious, uninteresting, or unworthy of a response?
You see the point? Even if the professor’s observations were accurate—a big assumption—his blanket aspersions were stereotypical. As far as we know, he didn’t do any kind of study comparing these students to other Indian students or non-Indian students. He didn’t assess his own behavior and how it might’ve contributed to their behavior. He didn’t delve into the possibly complex reasons why the students behaved as they did.
By describing all Indian students as being a certain way, Gulliford’s writing was stereotypical and arguably racist. By using their names, Gulliford apparently violated the law. Therefore, he probably got what he deserved.

20110801-010859.jpg

20110801-010952.jpg

20110801-012433.jpg

Militarization of Indian country

http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/

Fort Lewis College Administration Continues To Oppress The Efforts of Student Engagement and Democratic Participation in Order to Maintain Damage Control of their Institutional and Civil Rights Violations

20110411-080342.jpg

20110411-080424.jpg

20110411-081752.jpg

HERE IS THE LINK TO BUFFALO COUNCILS POSTER FOR THE SYMPOSIUM on
Indigenous Education and Civil Discourse in American Society
BRIGHT GREEN BUFFALO COUNCIL SYMPOSIUM FLYER -2
on APRIL 15th ALL DAY FRIDAY
WITH :
* Dr. Lanada WarJack
* Walter Echo Hawk
* Dr. Manuel Pino
* Dr. James Riding In
And others !!!!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: