State Superintendent Brian Whiston does not have authority to withhold state aid from school districts with Native American mascots or logos, according to a legal opinion issued Thursday by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette.
HERE.
Education
Fort Peck Tribe Files Education Discrimination Complaint against Wolf Point District Schools
An excerpt:
The Wolf Point School District discriminates against Native students and deprives them of basic rights to which they are entitled in school. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, whose reservation encompasses the Wolf Point school district, asks that the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education intervene. The unequal treatment of Native students is detrimental to their development and education and violates federal law.
White residents on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, which is majority-Native, control local politics, business, and schools. Gerrymandering and nepotism have perpetuated racial inequality created by federal policies, including preferential land grants for white homesteaders and compulsory boarding school programs for Native students. Schools on the Reservation bear the legacy of the Fort Peck Reservation Boarding School, which violently imposed Western culture, values, and education on Native families through the early 1900s.
Hostility towards Native students and culture persists. Native students in Wolf Point report the use of racial slurs and harmful stereotypes by white administrators, faculty, and staff. Native students are disproportionately disciplined and excluded from school, often without due process. At Wolf Point High School, non-white students, most of whom are Native, are more than twice as likely to receive in- and out-of-school suspensions than white students. These suspensions also violate federal and local standards for discipline. Native students are routinely denied academic and extracurricular opportunities available to white students. Students with academic and behavioral challenges, most of whom are Native, are warehoused in the Opportunity
Learning Center, which is understaffed and underfunded.
HuffPo: “America Spent Centuries Mistreating Native American Children. Trump Is Making It Worse.”
Here.
Guest Post — Jay Rosner — Response to Kevin Washburn
This is the third in a series of posts:
(1) Guest Post — Jay Rosner: The LSAT vs. the GRE: May They Both Lose
(2) Guest Post — Kevin Washburn: The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education
I’m honored that Prof. Kevin Washburn took the time to respond to a Turtle Talk post of mine. I had deeply criticized both the LSAT and GRE, but I expressed the hope that the movement to accept both in law school admissions will subject both to the kind of scrutiny, particularly on their disparate impacts, that will be more difficult for them both to withstand.
Prof. Washburn’s post, entitled “The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education,” emphasized that “… if the LSAT lost its leading role in legal education … it could be bad. Very bad.” He then tells the uplifting story of PLSI, which has an admirable record helping 25-35 Native students each year, for decades, succeed in law school by providing them with excellent summer instruction, stipends and role models, among other supports. He clearly is a proud alumnus of that program.
Prof. Washburn’s primary defense of the LSAT is that its developer, LSAC, has played a major role in funding PLSI over the years. LSAC is to be commended for that; however, I submit that for those of us advocating fair representation in the legal profession, LSAC’s only positive attribute is its support for PLSI. Continue reading
Indian Law Week and Summer Indian Law Courses at University of Montana School of Law
Download: 2017 Indian Law Week Poster
Link: Summer American Indian & Indigenous Law, previous post
Law students, grad students, attorneys, tribal leaders:
JOIN US for the Summer American Indian and Indigenous Law Program here at the Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana in beautiful Missoula. We are once again offering a unique slate of courses (for which we have also requested CLE credit) taught by some of the preeminent scholars and practitioners in our field. Topics include:
- June 5-9: Indian Law Research, Stacey Gordon
- June 12-16: Mastering American Indian Law, Maylinn Smith
- June 19-23: Tribal Business Law, Matthew Fletcher
- June 26-30: Environmental Justice in Indian Country, Wenona Singel
- July 10-14: Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country, Kevin Washburn
- July 17-21: Good Native Governance, Angela Riley
- July 24-28: Sacred Sites and Religious Freedom, Hillary Hoffmann
- July 31- August 4: Indian Child Welfare Act & Indian Civil Rights, Stephen Pevar
- August 7-11: Taxation and Finance in Indian Country, Rob Roy Smith
The program is a great opportunity for students, attorneys, and tribal leaders to gain or feed a passion for Indian law by engaging with other outstanding students and professors in a beautiful and scenic location. Please have them check out the brochure or our website: www.umt.edu/indianlaw. Also, please feel free to post the brochure at your institution and pass the website and brochure along to others who may be interested in this opportunity to spend a few weeks this summer learning with us here in Missoula.
NAICJA 2017 Conference RFP
The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA) invites presentation proposals for the 48th Annual National Tribal Judicial and Court Personnel Conference which will be held October 10-13, 2017, at the beautiful Isleta Resort & Casino in Albuquerque, NM. NAICJA’s Annual Conference offers innovative and timely tribal justice information through high quality presentations by national experts.
The theme of this year’s conference is, “Tribal Justice: Building and Strengthening Relationships and Partnerships.” NAICJA is featuring topics that highlight ways in which American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and First Nations justice systems are building and strengthening relationships between tribes, states, federal agencies, and organizations including the philanthropic sector. We are especially interested in presentations that focus on collaboration and partnerships, tribal sovereignty, international frameworks for understanding indigenous principles and topics, promising Indian child welfare practices, court security, and other areas of interest to court clerks and court personnel.
Full details available here: NAICJA 2017 Presentation RFP Final.
This is your opportunity to share your expertise and display your creativity by developing an original program for presentation. Proposals specifically tailored to meet the needs of the 300-person NAICJA audience are strongly preferred. Proposals are due on or before Monday, May 1, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (MST).
NNABA Foundation 2017 Bar Review Scholarship Recipients
Here (featuring two of my current or former students!):
The National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) Foundation is proud to announce its 2017 Bar Review Scholarship Recipients. The NNABA Foundation received an impressive pool of applications from Native American students representing Indian nations and law schools across the country. The Foundation is proud to support these students in the penultimate step to joining the legal profession: taking the bar exam. Scholarship recipients will receive $1,500 for bar review preparation services.
Congratulations to the 2017 NNABA Foundation Bar Review Scholarship Recipients, listed below in alphabetical order by last name.
- Simone Anter, Pascua Yaqui & Jicarilla Apache, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
- Jacob Michael Glass, White Earth Nation, Mitchell Hamline School of Law
- Simon Goldenberg, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
- Corin La Pointe-Aitchison, Athabaskan, Lewis & Clark Law School
- Erica McMilin, Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians & Valley Indian Tribes,University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
- Christine Reyes, Tohono O’odham Nation, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
- Heather Torres, San Ildefonso Pueblo & Navajo, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
- Austin Ryan Vance, Southern Cheyenne, University of Oklahoma College of Law
- Allyson Von Seggern, Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota & Menominee,Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
- Lisa R. Wrazidlo, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, James E. Roger College of Law, University of Arizona
- April Youpee-Roll, Fort Peck Sioux, Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana
“These students exemplify hard work, commitment to their communities and dedication to advancing justice for Native Americans. The NNABA Foundation is delighted to support them on their journeys into law practice,” said NNABA Foundation President Jennifer Weddle.
Ninth Circuit Materials in False Claims Act Appeal against Salish Kootenai College
Here are the briefs in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College:
Oral argument video here.
Lower court materials in Cain v. Salish Kootenai College (D. Mont.):
Guest Post — Kevin Washburn: The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education
THE LSAT’S KEY ROLE IN NATIVE LEGAL EDUCATION
By Kevin Washburn
In this morning’s post on Turtle talk, Mr. Jay Rosner asks what would it mean for Native Americans and law schools that seek to increase their numbers of Native students if the LSAT lost its leading role in legal education.
The answer: it could be bad. Very bad.
Indeed, it could kill the PreLaw Summer Institute (PLSI) at the American Indian Law Center located the University of New Mexico School of Law, which helps Native law students succeed in law school — and helps law schools recruit Native students.
The PLSI program, which is about to celebrate its 50th anniversary, began out of a desire to meet the federal trust responsibility to tribal nations in part by developing more Native lawyers. It was supported originally with federal funding. It takes a couple of hundred thousand dollars each year provide travel and living stipends to the 25 to 35 students who attend the two-month PLSI program each summer and to pay the professors and staff who run the program. The professors are excellent and it can be a life changing experience for the students. Professors Matthew Fletcher and Wenona Singel have taught in the program, as have many of the other leading law professors in the field.
For years, the program existed at the whim of federal officials, some of whom were supportive, and some who were not. Its funding has tended to vacillate over the years and, indeed, for a couple of years in the 1980s, the program did not exist at all.
At least twice in the PLSI’s history, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has come to the rescue when the PLSI program lost federal funding. For decades, the LSAC has annually directed modest revenues from its reserves toward various pipeline programs for law schools, to help poor and minority students gain access to a legal education.
In times of crisis for the PLSI, funding from the LSAC has literally saved the program. In total, during the last three decades, the LSAC has provided more than $3 million in funding at various times to keep the PLSI program alive.
Most of us are ambivalent in legal education about standardized tests, especially the most important one of all, the bar exam. It is true that standardized tests can produce disparate outcomes in scores. No one who sees inequities in society will be surprised by these disparities. Psychometricians who design the LSAT work very hard to identify raw analytical ability and to minimize the advantages that “wealth” might contribute to test scores. But inequality in education surely exists in our society, and none of us are terribly surprised that it cannot be entirely eradicated from tests.
We should keep working on the perfect test that can find a way to eradicate any influence, even indirectly, that socioeconomic factors play. In the meantime, in light of the fact that the bar exam will always be an obstacle to be overcome for anyone seeking to become a lawyer, I am grateful for the pipeline programs supported by the LSAT, and I do not want to see them disappear. Because of my own personal interest in pipeline programs, I have served within the volunteer board structure of the LSAC and am currently a member of the board. I also recently joined the board of the American Indian Law Center, which runs the PLSI. I am writing today not on behalf of either of these two organizations, but only myself. From my perspective, the collaboration between the LSAC and the PLSI program has dramatically improved the number of Native American lawyers in the United States. Indeed, the PLSI program is sometimes called the single most successful program in Native American education. That program changed many lives, including my own.
I am glad that Mr. Rosner has asked what it might mean for Native American law school applicants and law schools seeking more Native Americans to lose the support of the LSAC as a leader in legal education. It is important that we all understand the answer: a program that has helped more than a thousand Native Americans succeed in law school in the last 50 years might be at risk. In sum, the answer is that it could be devastating for Native Americans seeking a legal education.
Guest Post — Jay Rosner: The LSAT vs. the GRE: May They Both Lose
The LSAT vs. the GRE: May They Both Lose
The monopoly that the LSAT has enjoyed for decades in law school admissions appears to be eroding. What does that mean for Native American law school aspirants, and for the law schools that desire to increase their number of Native students?
Up until yesterday, the fight to be able to use the GRE in law admissions instead of the LSAT had been led by the University of Arizona Law School, which had accepted a small number of students with GRE scores. A few other law schools had been studying the possibility, but no other law school joined Arizona until yesterday, when Harvard Law announced that they too would consider the GRE from applicants.
For the foreseeable future, the impact on law admissions will be symbolic only. Arizona and Harvard will each only accept a small number of applicants based upon their GRE scores, and until a few dozen more law schools join them, the total number of applicants affected may be a few hundred out of tens of thousands. So, while the current discussion may have substantial implications years down the road, today’s applicants will find this a niche play at best.
The LSAT vs. GRE discussion will likely generate more heat than light. Folks will look at their differences, which are worth noting:
- The LSAT is a pencil and paper test, while the GRE is delivered on computer;
- The LSAT is offered only 4 times per year, while the GRE is offered almost continuously throughout the year;
- ¾ of the LSAT’s bubble sections, generating its score, are verbal, and only ¼ (one section, informally called “Games”) involves some math-related sensibilities, while fully ½ of the GRE bubble sections are straightforward math, and 1/2 are verbal; and,
- Under the current rules, a student must report an LSAT score to a law school if he/she has taken it, so only students who have taken the GRE and not the LSAT will have their GRE solely considered.
What most LSAT vs. GRE comparisons will miss are the profound and important ways that these two tests are similar, and both deeply problematic. Both are created by psychometricians using the same methods, so they share these significant characteristics:
- They both generate significantly disparate results by gender, race and ethnicity, with Native Americans, Latinos and African Americans scoring much lower on both, on average, than whites and Asian Americans, and females scoring lower than males;
- The foundation for these disparities could be revealed by item level data, which are statistics on individual test questions that test developers routinely refuse to release because they would expose the way that tests are designed to solidify and maintain those disparities;
- Scores for both are affected by inequitable access to high-quality, often expensive, test prep, with groups like Native Americans penalized because Native students often can’t afford to pay for test prep courses; and,
- What equity activists need to do is try to reduce, and even eliminate, the weight that any bubble test is given in any competitive admissions (or financial aid, etc.) decision.
While the last concept may seem fanciful in the law school admissions world, we now have many highly selective undergraduate schools, like Wake Forest, Wesleyan, Mount Holyoke, etc., that have years of successful experience with test-optional admissions policies that serve to reduce the bubble-test burden faced by URM students.
Any Native educators supporting either the LSAT or the GRE are, I contend, missing the forest for the trees. Bubble tests are designed in a way that Native students are placed at yet another disadvantage in admissions, and these tests should be made optional until they are eliminated entirely.
It should be noted that multistate bar scores will tend to correlate with LSAT (or GRE) scores, since all bubble tests have high correlations with other bubble tests. That’s not a reason to keep the LSAT; that’s a reason to make sure that all Native bar takers have the benefit of high-quality bar-prep courses to leverage their ability to get their best score on the multistate.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.