The proposed Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act is a transformation in law and policy governance of Haskell. Improvement, yes, but transformational outcome is critically required at Haskell. First Nations Journal recommends the HINU Improvement Act Purpose be submitted in the Higher Learning Consortium Performance Recovery Plan in response to the HLC ‘accredited on notice” status of Haskell. The Purpose of the Act is to fulfill the Federal Government trust and responsibility to Native Americans and clarifies Haskell’s charitable organization tax status and independence from the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The HLC accreditation process must ensure that the BIE and U S Department of Education fulfills its trust responsibility to Indian beneficiaries.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4085/text
There is a persistent gap between federal law and internal policy governance at Haskell. The university lacks a published policy framework that provides credible guidance for administering programs in accordance with federal law. Numerous federal statutes, trust‑responsibility obligations, and Supreme Court decisions apply to Haskell, yet BIE provides no operational guidance for implementing these legal requirements. In the absence of published rules, Haskell defaults to ad‑hoc decision‑making, resulting in crisis management and repeated violations of HLC criteria. As early as Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the federal government characterized its role as that of a guardian to its Indian wards, underscoring the federal trustee’s duty to act lawfully and transparently. When BIE fails to publish rules, this trust framework collapses into arbitrary action. The problem is compounded by federal sovereign immunity, as illustrated in Jane Doe v. Haskell, which limits accountability mechanisms for federal employees and leaves students without clear avenues for redress.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/30/1
The Higher Learning Consortium “accredited on notice” letter to Haskell Indian Nations University is arbitrary without regard for the facts and circumstances. The HLC criteria standards are incongruent as Haskell Indian beneficiaries have a unique political status relationship with the federal government. (Morton v. Mancari). Haskell is defenseless and totally dependent upon the federal government in the provision of Indian treaty trust responsibilities to Indian student beneficiaries. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Haskell has no authority to generate financial wherewithal to overcome unsustainability as required in the HLC criteria standards. Haskell is a federal institution and not public. (Jane Doe v. Haskell, et al). Public universities have a myriad of revenue sources available for sustainability, i.e., state statutes, legislation, tuition and fees, endowment, research grants, federal appropriations. Haskell’s Indian beneficiaries’ well-being is at the mercy of the congress and fulfillment of Indian treaty trust responsibility.
Haskell Indian Nations University has been historically and perpetually underfunded for decades, and this fact and circumstances is not recognized by the Higher Learning Consortium. Haskell does not have the capacity to endure and maintain effective sustainability as required to overcome the HLC “accredited on notice” criteria.
First Nations Journal will look forward to resolving the violations of HLC criteria injustice and indifferences difference issues of the “accredited on notice” letter to Haskell Indian Nations University and the fulfilling of trust education responsibilities to Indian beneficiaries.
FIRST NATIONS JOURNAL
M’gwitch, 🪶
Steve Cadue
Kickapoo Nation Kansas
Leave a Reply