First Nations Journal

Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) is a federal university totally funded by the federal government and arbitrarily controlled and operated by the U S Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). 

The Higher Learning Commission’s “Accreditation on Notice” sanction is not merely an academic warning.  It is a formal declaration that Haskell Indian Nations Univerfsity is out of compliance with federal standards of institutional integrity, governance, and fiduciary stewardship.  The HLC process to remove the sanction is clear, structured and demanding.  It requires evidence of competent leadership, transparent governance, and the elimination of conflicts of interest.

HLC-Action-Letter-Haskell-Indian-Nations-University-7.8.25.pdf

The Higher Learning Commission’s sanction clearly exposes the deep systemic problems with the Department of the Interior, forcing significant reforms in federal trust responsibility as cited in the Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act (S.2140/H.R.4085).

S.2140 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Haskell Indian Nations University Improvement Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress    

The Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Haskell Trustees are conflicted and have no clear and transparent written policy of checks and balances.

Haskell’s three trustees—the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Indian Education—are all federal agencies staffed by federal employees and must adhere to the Indian Education Policy as found in Title 25 CFR Part 32 Subpart A.     They are simultaneously:

• The owners of Haskell’s trust land
• The regulators of Haskell’s operations
• The funders of Haskell’s budget
• The investigated parties in the HLC sanction
• The decision-makers responsible for correcting the violations    

This is the textbook definition of conflict-of-interest.  No checks and balances.

eCFR :: 25 CFR Part 32 — Indian Education Policies

The Haskell trustees answer only to themselves.  There is no independent governing board, no external oversight, and no structural separation between the trustees and the beneficiary.  This violates the basic principles of fiduciary trust law and the standards of higher education governance. 

Haskell Federal employees are bound by the Hatch Act and federal ethics regulations prohibiting conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflicts of interest. 

Hatch Political Activity Act – Wikisource, the free online library

Yet, the Haskell trustees are in a position of authority where:

• They investigate themselves
• They discipline themselves
• They approve their own budgets
• They certify their own compliance
• They determine whether their own mismanagement is corrected

This is not merely an appearance of conflict; it is conflict in fact and reflects the “severely dysfunctional” Haskell situation as described in the BIE’s investigative report of April 2024.

Kansas federal lawmakers introduce legislation to let Haskell Indian Nations University govern itself | Representative Tracey Mann     

HLC requires independent governance to restore accreditation.  Haskell’s trusteeship structure makes independence impossible.  The trustees cannot credibly certify that they have corrected violations they themselves caused. 

The Haskell trustees’ use of authority and Self-Interest Overrides Fiduciary Duty.

The trustee’s priority is bureaucratic self-protection, not the educational welfare of Native students.  Their decisions consistently reflect:

• Protection of agency reputation    
• Avoidance of accountability
• Resistance to external oversight
• Retaliation against whistleblowers
• Suppression of documentation

These behaviors are incompatible with fiduciary trust responsibility. 

HLC requires that governing authorities be free from conflicts of interest, DOI, BIA, and BIE cannot meet this requirement because:

• They are federal agencies with political and administrative interests
• They are responsible for the very failures under investigation
• They cannot be independent reviewers of their own conduct

Thus, Haskell cannot satisfy HLC’s governance standards until the trusteeship is restructured. 

Congress is the only body with the authority to resolve the Haskell trusteeship conflict.  Congress must:

• Establish an independent governing board
• Remove DOI, BIA, and the BIE from direct operational control
• Protect whistleblowers and faculty/staff providing documentation
• Ensure compliance with federal trust responsibility
• Mandate transparent reporting and external oversight

Until Congress acts, Haskell remains trapped in a governance structure that cannot meet HLC standards and cannot protect the rights of Indian beneficiaries.   

HLC has provided a roadmap to restore accreditation.  The Haskell trustees have provided a barrier that makes restoration impossible.  Haskell’s crisis is not an academic failure.  It is a federal conflict-of-interest failure and only Congress can fix it.

Congress can reverse Haskell’s conflict of interest by following a structured process that ensures fairness, transparency, and compliance.  To resolve the conflict-of-interest Congress must conduct meaningful consultation with Indian nations based on inherent powers of limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished.   

First Nations Journal presses the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Congress to review the Haskell crisis and advance the Haskell Indian Nations Univerfsity Improvement Act.  It is a Call to Action. 

                                                           FIRST NATIONS JOURNAL

M’gwitc, 🪶     

Steve Cadue

Kickapoo