Detroit Free Press article here.
WWMT West Michigan article here.
Link: New state-tribe agreement may help schools nix Native American mascots by Emily Lawler from MLive.
The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi and the State of Michigan amended their gaming compact to allow up to $500,000 to be put in the Michigan Native American Heritage Fund:
The federal government on Dec. 12, 2016 approved another amendment that puts a portion of state revenue sharing into a special fund dedicated to promoting understanding, history and good relationships with the state’s Native Americans.
One use could be for monetary help transitioning schools away from Native American mascots.
“This fund demonstrates our commitment to providing Michigan schools, colleges and universities with the funds needed to improve curricula and resources related to Native American issues and mascot revisions,” said NHBP Tribal Chair Jamie Stuck in a press release. “We understand that schools often don’t have funds available for these types of projects and we are dedicated to removing that obstacle.”
Up to $500,000 per year from the tribe’s revenue sharing to the state could go into the new Michigan Native American Heritage Fund. It will be run by a board consisting of two people appointed by the tribe, two people appointed by the governor and also the Michigan Department of Civil Rights Director or his designee.
Link to editorials here.
Link to Education Week article by Jared Hautamaki here.
The interim superintendent of the Montgomery County district responded to me. He said that in a large, diverse school district, not everyone is going to like what they see. He said that given the system’s values of equity and respect and students’ right of free expression, district officials would continue to monitor the impact and respond to the issue by benchmarking their actions against those of other Washington-area school districts. He hoped I would continue to collaborate with my son’s principal and still be “respectful and kind.” He didn’t address the academic research that I had shared. He didn’t address the comments of the district spokesman, who said the board addresses complaints like mine on a school-by-school basis. He didn’t address the dress code. He didn’t address the offensiveness of the name. But, he also didn’t use the name itself.
In the Washington region, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, tribal lobby offices, and tribal law firms all employ a steady number of Native Americans who leave their tribal homes and uproot their families to serve their communities and their two nations—their tribe and the United States government. Native American student enrollment in the Montgomery County schools is around 280 students. The fact that we are a minority among minorities in the region is not an excuse for ignoring our children’s rights to an education environment free of racist imagery and discrimination.
UPDATE 8/12/15 0838:
Interim President’s letter is on EMU’s website.
A copy of the meeting minutes mentioned in the letter available here.
Documents only available through HTM links, not as PDFs.
|3:00pm||Thursday, March 15, 2012|
|20120112|| North Dakota State Board
of Higher Education, Petitioner
Al Jaeger, Secretary of State,
in his official capacity,
Fighting Sioux Ballot Measures
aka Committee For Understanding
and Respect, Respondents
North Dakota Legislative Assembly Intervenor
|Nature of Action:||Writ of Prohibition (Civil)|
|Issues:||Respondent’s Statement of the Issues:
Fighting Sioux Ballet Measurers Issues:
1. Whether Article I, 3, regarding the free exercise and enjoyment of religion precludes the State Board of Higher Education (“SBHE”) to obtain a Writ of Injunction without joinder of the N.D. Sioux Tribes.
2. Whether the 1969 sacred Sioux ceremony giving the Fighting Sioux name to the University of North Dakota constitutes a religious function preventing civil interference.
3. Because the Secretary of State has not certified the Referral Petitions nor has there been an actual vote, whether the matter is ripe for Appellate Review.
4. Whether the actions by the majority of the State Legislature along with the State Board of Higher Education can be separated because the two entities acted in concert to promulgate SB 2370.
5. If SBHE and legislative actions can be separated so that constitutional authority can be chosen and decided by this Court, then the issue is whether or not retaining or retiring the Fighting Sioux name is an act to “organize or reorganize” under Article VIII, 6(6)(b) subject to statutory and constitutional limitations.
6. Because of the SBHE’s failure to assert any constitutional rights following the enactment of N.D.C.C. 15-10-46 and the subsequent repeal of said statute pursuant to SB2370, whether the matter has now vested to the power reserved to the people pursuant to Article III, 1 to approve or reject legislative acts for which the SBHE was directly and influentially involved.