Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) is a federal institution established to provide Indian treaty fiduciary education trust responsibility to Indian beneficiaries. The U S Department of the Interior is the fiduciary trustee over Haskell. The U S Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and U S Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) provide operation and maintenance over Haskell with the DOI who has the ultimate oversight trustee oversight over Haskell.
For decades, federal trusteeship over Haskell has been marked by chronic mismanagement, unstable leadership, and repeated failures to meet the most basic fiduciary duties owed to Indian beneficiaries. In 2025, these failures reached a point that can no longer be minimized or deferred: the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) issued an “Accredited on Notice” sanction—one step away from loss of accreditation. For any university, this is a crisis. For a federally controlled Indian University, it is a breach of trust with generational consequences.
From a First Nations Journal perspective, the question is no longer whether the Department of the Interior can correct course. The question is whether Congress has a due-diligence obligation to intervene by suspending DOI’s oversight authority at Haskell to prevent further harm to Indian beneficiaries.
Congress has long recognized that Haskell’ students are not ordinary students—they are federal Indian beneficiaries, and the United States is their trustee. When a trustee repeatedly fails to protect the trust corpus—in this case, Haskell’s accreditation, governance stability, and educational mission—intervention is not optional, it is required.
The record is not speculative. Congressional findings in the Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act explicitly cite mismanagement by DOI trustees. These findings were based on testimony, documentation, and historical patterns of administrative failures. The 2025 HLC sanction simply confirms what Indian communities have been reporting for years.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2140
Accreditation is the lifeline of any institution. When HLC issues a Notice sanction, it signals that the institution is at serious risk of losing accreditation unless immediate, credible and sustained corrective action occurs. For Haskell, the consequences would be catastrophic:
- Loss of federal aid
- Loss of degree granting authority
- Loss of institutional legitimacy
- Direct harm to current and future Indian students
No trustee acting in good faith would allow the institution to reach this point. The fact that DOI did is evidence of breach.
Executive Order 13175 and DOI’s own Trbal Consultation Policy require meaningful, timely, and good-faith consultation with Tribal Nations when federal actions affect Indian beneficiaries. Yet DOI advanced a reorganization plan for Haskell and BIA/BIE operations without meaningful consultation, even though the plan directly affects the governance, funding and accreditation stability of a federally controlled Indian university.
A trustee cannot unilaterally restructure the trust while the trust asset is in crisis. Doing so without consultation compounds the breach.
Suspension is not punitive—it is protective. In trust law, when a trustee’s actions threaten the trust corpus, courts routinely suspend or remove the trustee to prevent further harm. Congress, as the plenary authority over Indian affairs, has the same responsibility.
A temporary suspension would:
- Halt further administrative harm
- Allow for independent stabilization of accreditation
- Create space for a forensic audit and governance review
- Ensure that any further structure is built with Tribal Nations, not imposed on them
Given the severity of the crisis, suspension is not an extreme measure. It is the minimum due-diligence action to protect Indian beneficiaries.
The Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act remains necessary—Reorganization does not replace statutory reform. Some may argue that DOI’s reorganization plan makes the HINU Improvement Act unnecessary. The record shows otherwise. The Act was grounded in evidence, testimony and documented failures. A unilateral reorganization—especially one developed without Tribal consultation—cannot substitute for statutory reform designed to correct structure deficiencies.
The HINU Improvement Act remains the only pathway that:
- Establishes clear governance standards
- Creates accountability mechanisms
- Aligns Haskell with accreditation requirements
- Centers Tribal Nations in decision making
Suspension of DOI’s oversight over Haskell is true trust responsibility in Indian self-determination.
The Haskell Student Senate publicly stated that students cannot speak without administrative permission. Faculty and staff reported similar constraints. When beneficiaries cannot safely express concerns, the trustee’s accountability mechanisms have already failed.
Congress cannot rely on internal reporting when the environment itself suppresses dissent. Suspension becomes not only reasonable but necessary to restore a safe and accountable governance structure.
First Nations Journal writes that Congress has a duty of care to act. The combination of:
- Documented decades of mismanagement
- The 2025 HLC’s “Accredited on Notice” sanction
- DOI’s failure to consult Tribal Nations, and
- The inability of beneficiaries to safely voice concerns
FNJ writes it is a clear and compelling case for temporary suspension of DOI oversight at Haskell. This action would not be radical—it would be responsible. It would not be punitive—it would be protective. And it would not undermine the trust responsibility—it would honor it.
Therefore, First Nations Journal writes to Congress for suspension of DOI authority at Haskell and look to Congress to fulfill its trust responsibility to Indian beneficiaries.
FIRST NATIONS JOURNAL
M’gwitch, 🪶
Steve Cadue
Kickapoo Nation Kansas
Leave a Reply