cultural resources – Page 114

Regardless of the merits of this paper, I have to say this might be the first time I’ve ever heard “Indigenous cultural secre[ts]” likened to military secrets. I don’t think I like it.

Frankly, it is usually the other way around –“Give us your secrets or we’ll kill you.” Or something like that.

NYTs on Race-Based Place Names (Including Limited Mention of “Squaw” Place Names)

October 6, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the article, inspired by Rick Perry’s hunting grounds. An excerpt (wish it added more context than this):

Still, even on the local level, changing a name is difficult. Part of the reason is the nature of cultural sensitivities. One person’s offensive name may be another’s point of pride, as communities are learning as they grapple with requests to change sites that use the term “Squaw.”

New Scholarship on Conducting Research with Tribal Communities

October 1, 2011October 1, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Anna Harding of Oregon State University, Barbara Harper of Oregon State University, Dave Stone of Oregon State University, Catherine O’Neill of Seattle University School of Law, Patricia Berger of the Department of Information Technology, Stuart Harris of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation – Department of Science and Engineering, and Jamie Donatuto of the Indian Tribal Community Office have posted their paper, “Conducting Research with Tribal Communities: Sovereignty, Ethics and Data-Sharing Issues” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Background: When conducting research with American Indian tribes, informed consent beyond conventional Institutional Review Board (IRB) review is needed because there may be potential for adverse consequences at a community or governmental level that are unrecognized by academic researchers.

Objectives: This paper reviews sovereignty, research ethics, and data-sharing considerations when doing community-based participatory health-related or natural resource-related research with American Indian nations and presents a model material and data-sharing agreement that meets tribal and university requirements.

Discussion: Only tribal nations themselves can identify potential adverse outcomes, and they can do this only if they understand the assumptions and methods of the proposed research. Tribes much be truly equal partners in study design, data collection, interpretation, and publication. Advances in protection of intellectual property rights are also applicable to IRB reviews, as are principles of sovereignty and indigenous rights, all of which affect data ownership and control.

Conclusions: Academic researchers engaged in tribal projects should become familiar with all three areas: sovereignty, ethics and informed consent, and intellectual property rights (IPR). We recommend developing an agreement with tribal partners that reflects both health-related IRB and natural resource-related IPR considerations.

Update in Eagle Rock Mine Dispute

September 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is a link to the AP news story.

Ingham County judge Paula Manderfield expected to rule in the next few weeks.

Government Summary Judgment Motion Denied in Challenge to S. Dakota Prison Ban on Tobacco

September 23, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber (D. S.D.):

NA Council of Tribes v Weber

Summary judgment is denied on plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claim because genuine issues of material fact exist on whether defendants’ October 2009 policy substantially burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Summary judgment is also denied on plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because defendants offer no argument as to why summary judgment is appropriate on those claims. Summary judgment is granted on the AIRFA claim because AIRFA does not create an independent cause of action. Summary judgment is also granted on plaintiffs’ international law claims because the customary law claim is vague, the genocide claim lacks a factual basis, and the United Nations Charter claim does not create an individual cause of action.

NNALSA Writing Competition Winner: “Tipping NAGPRA’s Balancing Act”

September 22, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Matthew H. Birkhold’s “Tipping NAGPRA’s Balancing Act: The Inequitable Disposition of ‘Culturally Unindentified’ Human Remains under NAGPRA’s New Provision” has been published in the William Mitchell Law Review — here.