Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

One university, two universes : the emergence of Alaska native political leadership and the provision… Jennings, Michael L 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-982934.pdf [ 3.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055466.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055466-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055466-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055466-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055466-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055466-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055466-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055466-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055466.ris

Full Text

ONE UNIVERSifY, TWO UNIVERSES: THE EMERGENCE OF ALASKA NATIVEPOLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND THE PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 1972-85byMICHAEL L. JENNINGSB.A., The University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1986M.Ed., The University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1987A THESIS SUBMITFED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Educational StudiesWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNI RSITY OF BRITI H COLUMBIANovember 1994© Michael L. Jennings, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of ‘\.C k 3The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada0Date / -DE-6 (2/88)ONE UNIVERSITY, TWO UMVERSES: THE EMERGENCE OF ALASKA NATIVEPOLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND THE PROVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 1972-85byMichael L. JenningsABSTRACTThis study explores the relationships between the Alaska Native leadership,its interests in and impacts on higher education in Alaska, and the ways in whichthe University of Alaska responded to Alaska Native educational needs andinitiatives, especially during the period from 1972 and 1985. The major questionexplored is why and how the University of Alaska system failed to adequatelyaddress the educational needs of Alaska Natives, especially given the level ofpolitical acumen of the Alaska Native leadership, their awareness of theimportance of higher education as a means to control the land base “acquired”through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the mission statements of theUniversity concerning the education of Alaska Natives, and the abundance ofpetroleum dollars available to the University during that period. While the AlaskaNative leadership was requesting that “appropriate” educational programs bedesigned and delivered to rural Alaska Native students, the University of Alaska’sresponse to these requests took the form of structural changes within theinstitution, rather than substantive change in the content of educationalprograms. The study demonstrates that the discrepancy between Alaska Nativerequests for substantive educational change and University of Alaska responsesin the form of structural alterations is attributable, in large part, to the opposingworld views of the two sets of actors, and thus to different perceptions of thenature and role of education in general.11TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT iiLIST OF TABLES vACKNOWLEDGMENTS v iCHAPTER I 1ALASKA NATIVES AND HIGHER EDUCATION 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Rationale 41.3 Methodology 71.3.1 Overview and Research Approach 71.3.2 Data Collection and Analytic Procedures 111.4 Setting 151.5 Summary 18CHAPTER II 20LITERATURE REVIEW 202.1 Minority Education 202.2 Higher Education 222.3 Organizational Theory 252.4 University of Alaska and Native Peoples 322.5 Summary 37CHAPTER III 39ALTERNATh WORLD VIEWS 393.1 Introduction 393.2 Native and Non-Native World Views 393.3 Summary 50CHAPTER IV 51THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMY AND EDUCATION:THE CONSEQUENCES FOR ALASKA NATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION 514.1 Introduction 514.2 Early Primary and Secondary Education 524.2.1 Russia 524.2.2 The United States 554.3 The Rise of Native Leadership 654.3.1 The Tlingit Haida Central Council 684.3.2 The Inupiat Patiot 724.3.3 The Tanana Chiefs Conference 774.3.4 The Alaska Federation of Natives: A StatewideOrganization 814.3.5 The Policy Environment 854.4 Summary 91CHAPTER V 92CONTINUING CONFLICTS: THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA AND THEALASKA NATIVE LEADERSHIP 925.1 Introduction 925.2 AFN: Internal Organizational Conflict 921115.3 Alaska Native Human Resource Development Program 975.4 Seeking Mediation 1045.5 Legislation 1085.6 Native Leadership: The New Generation 1125.7 University Response: Rural Educational Affairs 1205.8 Summary 130CHAPTER VI 133THE CONFLICT CONTINUES: STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS VERSUSSUBSTANTIVE CHANGE 1336.1 Introduction 1336.2 The Community College, Rural Education and Extension 1336.3 Summary 153CHAPTER VII 154INDIGENOUS CONTROL OF INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNiNG: ENDING THECONFLICT 1547.1 Current Approaches to Educational Change 1547.2 An Indigenous Approach to Education 1577.3 Implications for Future Research 163REFERENCES 164Primary Sources 164Interviews 164University Archives 164State of Alaska Archives 165Native Organizations Archives 166Government Documents 167Newspapers 168Secondary Sources 169APPENDIX A 178ivLIST OF TABLESTable 1. A Case Model for Comparing and Contrasting World Views 45Table 2. Fiscal Year 1977 Operating Budget 125VACKNOWLEDGMENTSI express sincere appreciation to the Alaska Native peoples with whom andfor whom I have lived and worked for the past twenty-five years, and whose trust,support, and encouragement made this work possible.To the members of my committee, I thank Dr. Vince D’Oyley, who alwaysfound a reason to believe, Dr. Jean Barman, who always found a way to encourageme, Dr. Dierdre Kelly, who always found a way to remind me of the need forinclusion, and Dr. Carl Shepro, who always found time for one more draft.I thank Dr. Jordan Titus and Dr. Nora White for their support, insightfulcriticisms, and supportive counsel over the period that this argument took form.To my mother, Ann, my wife Karen, and most of all, my son Bryce, I thankyou for believing in this project.I thank the National Science Foundation for their financial support.Thanks go also to Fred Hoxie and the Newberry Library for their researchfellowship award.viCHAPTER IALASKA NATIVES AND HIGHER EDUCATION1.1 IntroductionI found my eight years as a member of the Board of Regents [ofthe University of Alaska] very frustrating because the Universitydid little to respond to the needs of rural Alaskans when I wasappointed and was only slightly more responsive when I left. Idon’t believe it has become any more responsive today.1This statement by Sam Kito, an Alaska Native political and educationalactivist, accurately summarizes the attitude of most attending the 1991 AlaskaFederation of Natives Convention. Few would attempt to defend the University ofAlaska for its record of addressing, rather failing to address, the higher educationneeds of Alaska Natives.This perception must appear ludicrous to the outside observer, given theamount of money, programs, human effort, and facilities that were devoted to“rural education,” especially during the oil boom years between 1972 and 1986.Why then, did this perception of the university exist in 1991?This dissertation attempts to address this question by examining thedevelopment of Alaska Native higher education in the state from 1972-1985, andthe role played by Indigenous people in that development. To accomplish thisexamination, two interrelated sets of activities are traced. On the one hand, thepolitical rise of the Alaska Native leadership, their interest in development ofhigher education for Alaska Natives, and their influence on the appearance of‘Sam Kilo. “Higher Education and Alaska Natives Workshop.” Speech to theAnnual Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Anchorage, AK, 1991.1new initiatives in education are examined. On the other hand, the study examinesthe structural changes implemented by the University of Alaska in its attempt torespond to the needs articulated by the Native leadership, as well as to the themedeveloped in this thesis concerning the relationship between the world viewsheld by these actors (the Alaska Natives on one side and the administration of theUniversity of Alaska on the other) and the way in which those world viewsinfluenced each sides’ understandings of how the higher educational needs ofAlaska Natives could/should be met. The argument developed herein is thatjuxtaposed understanding of the purposes, meanings, and roles of educationinherent in these opposing world views have been the major factor in the failureof the University of Alaska to provide higher educational opportunities that canbe considered appropriate for contemporary Alaska Native needs.Viewed in retrospect, it appears that the University of Alaska neverplanned for the inclusion of Alaska Natives in the higher educational system thatdeveloped in the state. In the seventy-five years since its creation, the Universityhas responded to the higher educational needs of Alaska Natives only whenexternal political pressures were brought to bear. Moreover, those responseswere guided by a Western, Euro-American understanding of education, itsstructure, and underlying values and ideology.The roles of Alaska Native leaders in the provision of post-secondaryeducation for Alaska Native people are central to understanding any success orfailure of a Western model of education in serving the needs of Native Americans.Alaska Natives have, through linkages to the larger society, shaped and reshapedtheir own structures.2 These structures have tended to frame their economic and2See Norman A. Chance, The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, Inc., 1990). Seeespecially his preface discussion.2political opportunities as well as be framed by them, thereby limiting their abilityto act.3 In essence, the changing situation in which Alaska Natives have foundthemselves over the past three decades (from the mid 1960s to the present) hasframed the issues—Land Claims—which necessitated higher education for the nextgeneration of Alaska Native leaders. This, in turn, has impacted the range ofresponses available to both the Native leadership and the University. Thisrecurring pattern is best understood as part of a dynamic relationship betweenthese groups of actors rather than as a unified or restricted relationship definedby one actor alone; the Western world view. Individual and group actions are bestunderstood within the distinctive histories of those groups and institutions.Native leadership and the University have made and re-made themselves throughacting on not only those forces under their control but also on their perceivedlimits. In so doing, these groups have altered themselves, the world in whichthey live, and the conditions under which they act and interact.A Western model of education and its inherent assimilation function placesNative Americans in a state of conflict, wherein achievements in Westerneducation are coupled with destruction to Native cultures. Examined here is thestructure of American education (as exemplified by the University of Alaska)which incorporates an Eurocentric view of Native peoples and conflicts withNative people’s understandings of nature, the environment, their relation to theland, and ultimately, the role of education. By tracing the history of the politicaland economic relationships of the Alaska Native leadership to the University ofAlaska, this research highlights the attempts of a Western institution to redefinethe Alaska Native understandings of land and spirituality to conform to thoseembodied in the Euro-American society. The University’s failure to provide3stephen Cornell, The Return of the Native: American Indian PoliticalResurgence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).3Native-defined educational services to Alaska Native people was the result of aconflict between incompatible world views and the values they embody. To theextent that people in the Alaska Native leadership were able to work within aWestern world view, they succeeded in encouraging the University to respond torural and Native initiatives (1) by developing alternative sources of funding forprograms, or (2) through legislative initiatives sponsored by Alaska Nativelegislators. The University’s unwillingness and/or inability to recognize thenature and validity of a Native world view, and complementary conceptions of thenature and role of education, has resulted in responses to Native initiatives alwaystaking place within a Western understanding of education. Thus, post-secondaryeducational structures—even if intended to meet Native needs—have onlyaccomplished goals defined within the Western world view. Ultimately, thisresearch argues for the necessity of implementing institutional change based onthe world view of Alaska Natives in order for the educational services desired andneeded by Alaska Natives to be appropriately and successfully delivered to them.1.2 RationaieThe need for research exploring the relationship of Native Americaneducation and land is a glaring one. Dean Chavers writes that an important“barrier which presently hampers American Indian education is a lack ofresearch which has been conducted on the education of Native peoples.”4 WhileChavers is correct in his assertion that there is a shortage of research conductedby Native Americans about education, there is no shortage of research beingconducted “on” Native Americans. In fact, an average of five hundred documents4Dean Chavers, Funding Guide for Native Americans (Broken Arrow:Broken Arrow Press, 1982), 17.4per year are added to the ERIC data base.5 Given the large number of studies it isdifficult to believe that a shortage of research exists. Moreover, the linkagebetween land and Native American education has gone largely unexplored.Therefore, Chavers might more accurately argue that there is a shortage ofeducational research useful to Native Americans and none that directly addressesthe inter-related issue of land.Land has been and continues to rest at the core of these world views. At theheart of Native American values is the belief that we come from the earth andthat we are bound to the cosmos by spiritual links to ALL things. The land is notviewed in relation to scientific materialism, but rather as a source of spiritual,intellectual, emotional and communal sustenance.Beginning with the arrival of the first Europeans, the drive to de-limitNative land holdings continues to this day.6 More than 320 ratified “Treaties”affirm this assertion.7 Often overlooked, an additional feature of these “Treaties”was the provision for education. Europeans established praying colleges early onto civilize the Native Americans and to instill in them a Western ethic of hardwork. These two themes, civilization and work, should be read as make Christiansof them and settle them on individual small tracts of land where they can becomeself-sufficient farmers, thereby freeing up large tracts of land for Europeanimmigrants to America. In the 1870s President Grant felt that control of theNative population could be accomplished less expensively through government5Elaine Roanhorse Benally, Trends in American Indian Education: ASynthesis/Bibliography of Selected ERIC Resources (Las Cruces: ERIC ClearingHouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, 1981).6Ward Churchill, Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to GenocideEcocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America (Monroe: CommonCourage Press, 1993).7Oren Lyons and John Mohawk (eds.), Exiled in the Land of the Free:Democracy, Indian Nations and the U.S. Constitution (Santa Fe: Clear LightPublishers, 1992), ix.5supported, missionary delivered education than it could by supporting a largestanding army. His resultant change in policy reflects the prevailing opinion inthe power of Western education as a means of acquiring Native lands without theneed for payment in the form of treaties.8In the case of Alaska, the record is also clear. The Alaska Nativeleadership’s request for education to be provided in an appropriate manner andlocation came about concurrently with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in1971. Emil Notti describes in his story the clear understanding on the part of theAlaska Native leadership that only through education could Alaska Natives hope toretain the land.9 Moreover, there is an equally clear understanding that withoutappropriate education the land will be lost, and with it the Native Peoples ofAlaska.This tension is framed in the language of “local control” of education. Themanner and methods in which this drama is played out in post-secondaryeducation is the focus of this investigation. John Schaffer argues that ‘control’ ofthe educational enterprise was never really the goal of the Alaska Nativeleadership.1° Rather, what was sought was an inclusion of Native values,knowledge and respect into the educational pedagogy of the State Universitysystem. The leadership’s hope was that this inclusion would in turn lead to theacademic advancement of Alaska Natives who could one day be a part of theUniversity community contributing to the betterment of both cultures. In cases8Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government andthe American Indian, abridged ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984&1986), 152-64, 168, 170, 178, 179, 191.9Emil Notti, interview, Anchorage, Alaska 1990,‘0John Schaffer, interview, Anchorage, Alaska 1990,6where this inclusiveness has been accomplished, such as Tribal Colleges, therehas been a significant improvement in retention and graduation rates.1 11.3 Methodology1.3.1 Overview and Research ApproachEven though there already exist many sciences, the most importantone is missing: a science of humanity. That is the only science thatcan reconcile the interest of classes and thus serve as thefoundation of a natural science because man is, after all, a part ofNature.12An inquiry of this type is best understood as extended and reciprocal, in asmuch as the structure (the University) and the actions (the Native peoples) areboth engrossed in a struggle over agency. As Philip Abrams notes:The problem of finding a way of accounting for the humanexperience which recognizes simultaneously and in equalmeasure that history and society are made by constant and moreor less purposeful individual action and that individual, howeverpurposeful, is made by history and society.13This research is designed to provide insight and understanding of theevolution of Alaska Native demands for appropriate, rural-based higher educationand the University’s structural responses to those demands. David Apter definesstructure as “the relationship in the social situation which limit the choices ofaction to a particular range of alternatives.”14 The method includes historicalreview of policy, the political and economic relationships which have linked the1 Norman T. Oppelt, The Tribally Controlled Indian Colleges: TheBeginnings of Self-Determination in American Indian Education (Tsoile: NavajoCommunity College Press, 1990).12lrving M. Zeitlin, “Saint Simon,” in Ideology and the Development ofSociological Theory (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1994), 68.13Philip Abrams, Historical Sociology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1982), xiii.14David Apter and Harry Eckstien, (eds.), Comparative Politics (New York:Free Press, 1973), 732.7Alaska Native people to the University, and an examination of the effects of thoserelationships.Works by Max Weber and Philip Abrams provide an historical andsociological framework for this study. Weber provides an understanding of thetendencies of bureaucracies to establish highly centralized institutions,maintained by rational legal forms of administration.’5 The Weberianperspective provides a means for examining the University’s reactions to theexternal political demands of the Alaska Native leadership for higher education.In addition, the perspective of historical sociology provides a means forexamining the dynamic interaction that has occurred between the Alaska Nativepeoples as represented by their leadership, and the University of Alaska.Building upon Abrams’ work, this thesis attempts to provide a betterunderstanding of the intricate interplay between two conflicting social systemsand the “shaping of action by structure and the transformation of structure byaction.”16 Historical policy analysis blends educational policy analysis with aprobing of the structural elements that tend to shape particular educationalpractices and arrangements over time. While this approach may lack atheoretical prescription, it tends to guard against premature exclusion of datawhich can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy and ultimately compromise the utilityof the research.This study also draws on the humanities and the social sciences by utilizingthe narrative method to make visible the power variables embedded in the policyprocess, in much the same manner as a policy historian in that the focus of thisinvestigation is on the origins and effects of power. Education is viewed here as15Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A.M.Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Free Press, 1943), 324-385.16philp Abrams, Historical Sociology (Ithica: Cornell University Press,1982), 3.8dependent on power variables. The extent to which modes of education representthe accumulation of political, economic, cultural, and symbolic power is seen asindicative of those that are persistent, stable, transitory, or dynamic. This work,like that of educational policy historians, seeks not to discount or simplify theconflict over education; rather than merely analyzing or describing the effects ofschooling, the intent here is to identify the influences which shape theinstitutions and processes.1‘Because this thesis is concerned with the behavior of a particularpopulation within a particular geographical area, the regional-historicalapproach was also adopted.18 Regional histories are particularly useful as theyaid in placing social institutions within a context. An awareness of regionalvariations is important for comprehending what is happening to a nation’speople and institutions. Those institutions are not only representations of thegreater societal understandings of particular social relationships but also serve asbrokers of those understandings, particularly higher education in democraticsocieties.’ 917Evelyn C. Adams, American Indian Education: Government Schools andEconomic Progress (New York: Rinehart, 1971), 27-46.‘8David B. Tyack, George Ticknor and the Boston Brahmins (Cambridge:Oxford University Press, 1976).‘9Louis Wirth, “The Limitations of Regionalism,” in Regionalism inAmerica, ed. Merrill Jensen (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952), 381-93. See also Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (NewYork: H. Holt and Company, 1931); idem, The Significance of Sections in AmericanHistory (New York: P. Smith Co., 1932). Turner’s emphasis on regionalism wasshared by other early twentieth-century historians, as was his interpretation thatthe origin of American uniqueness and greatness was attributable to westernexpansion. See Richard M. Andrews, “Some Implications of the Annales Schooland Its Methods for Revision of Historical Writing about the United States,”Review 1 (Winter-Spring 1978), 171-73.9Educational history as a field has tended to ignore the issue of NativeAmerican educational experience.20 For the past three decades Americaneducational historians have focused much debate on ‘new’ methodologies andmodels with which to re-examine the educational enterprise in relation to urbanexperiences.21 Studies of Native American education have tended to focus onindividual school experiences,22 analyses of policies,23 and personal histories ofthose subjected to the boarding school model of assimilation.24 In addition, NativeAmerican educational history has tended to focus on the role of primary andsecondary education to the exclusion of higher education. These tendenciesalongside the tradition of historians’ to not address issues unless they have20See, for instance, Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education: TheMetropolitan Experience, 1876-1980 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988)who, in 684 pages, acknowledges the Native American educational experience in amere 6 pages, 3, 116, 149, 150, 203, 268.21The debate is best represented by Diane Ravitch, The RevisionistsRevisited—A Critique of Radical Attack on the Schools (New York: Basic Books,1978); and Walter Feinberg, Harvey Kantor, Michael Katz and Paul Violas, inRevisionists Respond to Ravitch (Washington, D.C.: National Academy ofEducation, 1980). Also see Marvin Lazerson, “Revisionism and AmericanEducational History,” Harvard Educational Review 43, 2 (May 1973), 269-283.22Thomas James, “Rhetoric and Resistance: Social Science and CommunitySchools for Navajos in the 1930’s,” History of Education Quarterly, 28, 4 (Winter1988).23See Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Governmentand the American Indian, 2 vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984);also see Margaret Connell Szasz, Education and the American Indian: The Road toSelf-Determination Since 1928. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,1977).24Michael Coleman, “The Response of American Indian Children toPresbyterian Schooling in Nineteenth Century: An Analysis Through MissionarySources” Paper delivered at the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Organization ofAmerican Historians and the National Council on Public History. 1986. also seeColeman, “The Missionary Education of Francis La Flesch: An American IndianResponse to the Presbyterian Boarding School in the 1860’s,” American Studies InScandinavia 18 (1986), 67-82; Also, Coleman, “Problematic Panacea: PresbyterianMissionaries and the Allotment of Indian Lands in the Nineteenth Century,”Pacific Historical Review (1985), and Coleman, “Christianizing andAmericanizing the Nez Perce: Sue L. McBeth and her Attitudes to the Indian’s,”Journal of Presbyterian History 53, 4 (Fall 1975).10“ripened” historically, have left relatively unexamined the role of highereducation in the assimilation process.25Another useful methodological principle is contained in Max Weber’sinterpretation of class and class conflict in ancient societies.26 Weber arguesthat one must give due consideration in all historical analyses not only toeconomic and economically conditioned phenomena, but also to economicallyrelevant phenomena.27 Public education (inclusive of higher education) is anexample of an institution that may have considerable economic relevance in somehistorical circumstances; such is the case for Alaska Native education.1.3.2 Data Collection and Analytic ProceduresThe data gathering techniques employed for this inquiry are a function ofthe research agenda itself. That is to say, because this study focuses on AlaskaNatives’ perceptions of actions and events, a culturally appropriate approach wasrequired. A formal, structured interview format was rejected as being culturallyinappropriate. Instead, interviews conducted were undertaken with anunderstanding of the traditionally correct manner in which to elicitinformation.28 Native America has been “studied and interviewed” to the pointthat researchers using questionnaires, surveys, structured interviews and otherso-called “objective” techniques tend not to obtain crucial information, and the25Jorge Noriega, “American Indian Education in the Untied States:Indoctrination for Subordination to Colonialism” in The State of Native America:Genocide, Colonization and Resistance, ed. M. Annette Jaimes (Boston: South EndPress, 1992), 371-402, is one notable exception.26Max Weber, The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. R.LFrank (London: NLB, 1976), 393.27Max Weber, The Methodology of Social Sciences (Glenco: The Free Press,1949), 65 ff.28Oscar Angayuqaq Kawagley, “A Yupiaq World View: Implications forCultural Education and Technological Adaptation in a Contemporary World.”Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of British Columbia, 1993, 21.11information they do receive may be masked or distorted. In part, this is becauseof cultural differences between Native Americans and dominant cultureresearchers. For example, among most Native Americans it is consideredinappropriate to ask someone direct questions. Instead, people are asked to tellabout some event or events and the people then tell you a story. Standardizedinterview formats do not elicit such stories and do not provide a basis upon whichthese stories can be interpreted within their context.29Mishler has called for the modification of interview techniques in wayswhich will capture the informants’ narratives. He argues that even whenresearchers engage in semi-structured and unstructured interviews, they tend tocontrol the direction of the interview, viewing stories told as digressions from thetopic at hand. He writes, “that one of the significant ways through whichindividuals make sense of and give meaning to their experiences is to organizethem in a narrative form.”30Therefore, inquiry more in tune with Native Americans and/or AlaskanNative ways of interacting was called for in this study, one attuned to the contextof the events discussed and to the cultural nuances involved in the discussion(story) itself. Unstructured interviews were conducted in a way which wouldcapture the narratives of each informant’s unique perspective. This format canbe viewed as a continuum in relation to narrative forms used in Native andWestern cultures. In the case where informants had adopted Westen modes of29The importance and success of efforts to employ modes of inquiry whichfit the culture of the researcher’s informants is demonstrated by William W. Ellisin his study of urban Black youths. See his White Ethics and Black Power: TheWest Side Organization (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969).30Elliot Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).12communication, interviews shifted toward more Western narrative forms. Ibegan each interview by posing the following open opened question:3 1Tell me about the university’s relationship to Alaska Natives and itsprovisions for the delivery of higher education.Spradley and McCurdy call such questions grand tours which serve to facilitate amore culturally appropriate and sensitive negotiation between the researcherand informant.32Because the focus of this study is on Alaska Native perspectives of theevents, all research participants were Alaska Native. They represented the twelveregions established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971). All hadheld elected and/or appointed positions not only within Native Corporations, butalso at the State and, in some cases, the National level.33 Almost all had served onthe University of Alaska Board of Regents at some time and all had a demonstratedinterest in and commitment to Alaska Native education. Not only had they workedfor the betterment of Alaska Native education, but their personal experiences asNative American students provided an understanding of a whole range ofeducational situations; public, private and federal.34 These participants workedtogether with the researcher in a manner that went beyond the traditionalquestion and answer approach, collaboratively bringing clarity to the events,personalities, policies and actions reported herein. As Glaser and Strauss35 haveargued, the best research participants are those who know the most about what3‘Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.32r. Spradley and D. McCurdy, eds., The Cultural Experience: Ethnographyin Complex Society (Chicago: Science Research Association, 1972).33See Appendix A for list of interviewees and sampling of interviewtranscripts.34Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1953), 143.35B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies forQualitative Research (Chicago: Adline, 1967).13the researcher is hoping to learn and are able to engage in a dialogue with theresearcher to achieve this end. Open ended questions about the relationship ofAlaska Native leadership to the provision of rural higher education were posed toa number of Alaska Native leaders selected on the basis of their central role in theevolving relationship concerning higher education between the University ofAlaska and Alaska Natives.Twenty-four years of personal and professional involvement at seniorpolicy levels in Alaska Native leadership and at the University of Alaska providedme with considerable access to, and an understanding of, the important events,key people, and the written records essential to this inquiry. These uniqueexperiences provided access and knowledge of where and what types ofdocumentation were available. Moreover, the researcher’s collection over thistwenty-four year period of personal daily notes, copies of correspondence andrelevant official documentation provided data that otherwise would beunavailable to other scholars. By reason of race, culture, profession andinclination the author has been a participant observer in Alaska Native educationfor more than two decades. The knowledge and experiences shared by theinformants and myself were reflected in their initial responses to this question.For example, they typically remarked, “Why are you asking this? You werethere.”Following Peshkin,36 Smith,37 and others who have argued the need forengaging in self-analysis, it was necessary for me to continuously reflect on myown personal biases throughout the research process. My ethnicity, personalexperiences, and relationships with informants created a danger in assuming that36Alan Peshkin, “In Search of Subjectivity: Ones Own,” EducationalResearcher 17, 7 (1988), 17—21.37John Smith, “The Evaluator/Researcher As Person Versus the Person AsEvaluator/Researcher,” Educational Researcher 17, 2 (1988), 18—23.14I knew what the answers would be or what informants would say. To guardagainst this, I continually checked my observations against my assumptions.Still, the specificity of personal experience and the a priori interest inlearning from Alaska Native leaders informed this examination throughout.Historically, this dissertation addresses the phenomena of identity, action andincorporation, in as much as the institutional actions and individual actors aremore a reflection of process than events. The author’s point is to tell a story notsimply to present a narrative of events, which would run the risk of giving thereader an erroneous idea of what has happened and is yet to occur. A perceivedneed to focus on structural relationships over time, and only address the cases andindividuals here as a means of highlighting or bringing into sharper focus thosestructural arrangements, prevents the dissertation from becoming mired ininter-group relations or the specific details of a particular set of individualand/or collective actions. In other words, the intent here is to offer someanalysis, within the historical events themselves, of the construction andreconstruction of the relationships between the University of Alaska and theAlaska Native peoples, as represented by the leadership groups.1.4 SettingThe word ‘Alaska’ is derived from the Aleut Alyeska, meaning the greatland. This Native conceptualization of Alaska is very different from the Westernnotion of Alaska as “the last frontier.” Alyeska is indeed a great land. It is thenorthernmost state, one of only two non-contiguous states in the union. Itcontains the most western area and is by far the largest state in terms of landmass (586,000 square miles). If one were to place a map of Alaska on a map of the15contiguous states on the same scale, it would reach from California to Florida andfrom the Canadian to the Mexican borders.As its size would suggest, Alaska is not a single entity climatically orgeographically. The rain forests of the Southeast bespeak a temperate, moistclimate, while the barren expanses of the Arctic North Slope suggest harsherweather patterns. Temperatures on the North Slope can fall to 50 F with windchill factors in the range of -100° F. Summers on the North Slope, the land of themidnight sun, seldom rise above 600 F, and the summer sun never sets, just as itnever rises above the horizon for three months during the winter. Suchextremes are not present in most other areas of the state, with the exception ofInterior Alaska. The Interior shares the extreme cold and lack of sunlight duringthe winter months that are common to the North Slope. Summer temperatures inthe Interior can exceed 1000 F, and the sun does not set appreciably for almostthree months (mid-June to late August).Alaska’s geography is also diverse. Three major mountain ranges (Brooks,Alaska, and Wrangells) divide the state. The Brooks Range separates the Interiorof Alaska from the North Slope; the Alaska Range lies between the Interior andSouthwestern Alaska; while the Wrangells rest between Southwestern andSoutheastern Alaska. Mt. McKinley, the tallest peak in North America, is in theAlaska Range. Many active volcanoes and glaciers are also present within thesethree ranges. One glacier alone is larger in area than the entire state of RhodeIsland.Alaska is further divided by great river systems, including the 1,979 mile-long Yukon, which begins in Canada and empties into the Bering Sea. Alaska alsocontains more than a million lakes, one of which is Lake Iliamna, the secondlargest freshwater lake in the United States (more than seven million acres).16Alaska is, in fact, many Alaskas, highly diverse in terms of climate,geography, and topography. Such a diverse environment necessitated a humanpopulation which was creative and highly adaptable in order to survive andprosper. Anthropologists and archaeologists suggest that Alaska’s first humanpopulations arrived from the west, from Siberia to Alaska, by way of the BeringLand Bridge. Although the debate on the actual time frame continues, mostexperts agree that the first movement into the New World probably occurredsometime around 15,000 years ago. The resultant population of Alaska Natives38 isgenerally divided into three major groups: Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts. Whilethis grouping provides a simplified system of classification for non-Natives, itdoes a great disservice to the rich and diverse cultural, linguistic, and ethnicbackgrounds of the Alaskan people.There are, in fact, some twenty Native languages spoken in Alaska,supporting the notion of great diversity rather than a more simplified assumptionof only three groupings. By way of example, the term Eskimo is commonlyunderstood as describing those aboriginal inhabitants of the North Slope ofAlaska when, in fact, the Inupiat people are but one representation, linguisticallyand culturally distinct from other Eskimo peoples inhabiting other areas ofAlaska. The geographical and climatic diversity of the state has, and continues tohave an effect on Native and non-Native populations. The geographic separationstend to contribute to regionalism, parochicalism, transportation, and constructionissues within the state.38“Alaska Native” is a geo-political term coined during the land claimsbattle of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in order to allow U.S. and Alaska policy-makers a term which encompassed all of the various linguistic, ethnic, andcultural groups present in and party to the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement.There is no such “Alaska Natives” group, strictly speaking. The term has gainedwidespread acceptance among Native peoples (as well as non-Natives) in the yearssince the land claims (1971), and it has taken on a connotation of ethnic prideamongst Native peoples.171.5 SummaryThe purpose of this study is to explore the development of highereducational services offered to Alaska Natives, the political rise of Alaska Nativeleadership, and this leadership’s interest in and impact on higher educationdevelopments in Alaska. This exploration makes visible ways in which theresponses of the University of Alaska to Native educational needs and initiativeswere manifestations of incompatible world views, those of the university cultureand the Native people. These conflicts have resulted in the failure of highereducation in relation to its Alaska Native constituency.Acting as a participant/observer, various data were gathered. Dataconsisted of unstructured informal interviews, Native organization archivalrecords, regional and historical records of the university, and state recordsrelating to educational policy and land management.This chapter details the purposes, theoretical and methodologicalbackground, and approaches taken in this study. Chapter II is a survey of theliterature on minority education, higher education, organization theory, theUniversity of Alaska and Native peoples related to this study. Chapter III is ananalysis of the ways in which Western notions of education have shaped AlaskaNative life, and in turn the way this has influenced the revitalization and focuson traditional views of education by Native leaders. Chapter IV is an overview ofthe relationship between the economy and education, with an analysis of theeffects this relationship has had on Alaska Native higher education. Chapter Vaddresses the efforts made by the Alaska Native leadership to initiate, encourage,or implement educational change within the University of Alaska system.Chapter VI addresses the structural modification adopted by the University in18response to Native leadership efforts to bring about substantive educationalchange. Chapter VII is the conclusion, including a discussion of the implicationsfor future research.19CHAPTER IILITERATURE REVIEW2.1 Minority EducationMany universities across the United States have realized that the doors toeducation in general, and to higher education in particular, had long been barredto persons of color and of lower socio-economic status. Over the past thirty yearsa few members of the academy began to seriously question and, subsequently,investigate the promise of education in America.National disillusionment with educational provisions was reported in the1960’s and 1970’s in such studies as James S. Coleman et al, Equality of EducationalOpportunity (1966) and Christopher Jencks et al, Inequality (1973). Theseexaminations brought to the foreground a proof that not all Americans enjoyedthe basic opportunities of the United States’ economic, social, and political system.In “the land of plenty,” resources were neither abundant nor evenly distributed.Access to political power, as most Native Americans have been well aware, wasreserved for the non-Native population of America. The work of Coleman andJencks and their associates identified education not as an avenue for theredistribution of resources but as one means by which other social and economicfactors were legitimized in a process of social sorting and in the distribution ofaccess to resources.Universities’ responses in the 1960’s and 1970’s were characterized bypolitical radicalization and renewed interest in Marxist and class analysis, spurred20historiographically by revisionist educational history. Bernard Bailyn,39Lawrence Cremin,4° and others were heralded as responding to the “househistories” and other noncritical descriptions often written by non-historians asinspirational textbooks for future teachers.41 Revisionist history, however,remained focused primarily on urban school experiences. While there was someinterest in the educational opportunities available to African American children,Native Americans were still caricatured in the writing of American history, andall but nonexistent in the history of American education.Native American education was not addressed even with the appearance ofthe radical new histories, such as Michael Katz,42 Samuel Bowles and HerbertGintis,43 and Joel Spring.44 However, a new-found interest in the equality ofeducational opportunity, combined with national policy focus on education as ameans of creating a new social order, brought an awareness to post-secondarydecision-makers of the need to insure that racial and ethnic minority students notonly finished elementary and secondary education, but also that universities andcolleges provide an appropriate environment in terms of academic offerings,social settings and support. There is little evidence to suggest that substantivechanges occurred within the university community at large beyond scholarlymethodology and research foci.39Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society (NewYork: Vintage Books, 1960).40Lawrence Cremin, The Wonderful World of Ellwood Cubberly (New York:Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965).41Ellwood P. Cubberly, Public Education in the United States (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1947).42Michael M. Katz, The Irony of Early School Reform (Boston: BeaconPress, 1968).43 Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America (NewYork: Basic Books, 1976).44Joel Spring, Education and the Rise of the Corporate State (Boston:Beacon Books, 1974).212.2 Higher EducationWhile the Native American presence in higher education has beenvirtually non-existent, the desire to provide higher education to NativeAmericans by the academy has a long history in the United States. In 1619 theVirginia community of Jamestown established a college which opened its doors in1621. Among the members of the first student body of the East India School werethe male children of the local tribe.45 The purpose for the enrollment of theNative children, according to a commentator of the time was that “[ut would beproper to draw the best disposed among the Indians to converse and labor withour people for a covenant reward that they might not only learn a civil way oflife, but be brought to the knowledge of religion and become instruments in theconversion of their countrymen.”46In 1636 Harvard College listed among its goals, “the education of Englishand Indian youth of this country in knowledge and goodness.” In order toaccomplish this education of Native youth, Harvard created a college-within-a-college for “twenty Indian pupils.”47 Dartmouth College and William and Maryalso established Indian colleges in an effort “to teach the Indian boys to read andwrite and especially to teach them thoroughly the principals of the Christianreligion.”48There have been many shifts in local and national policies concerning theeducation of Native Americans since these initiatives in the early 17th century.But the underlying purposes for providing higher education to Native Americans45Patricia Porter McNamara, American Indians in U.S. Higher Education(Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, 1984), 104.46Alice C. Fletcher, Indian Education and Civilization, prepared in Responseto the Senate Resolution of 23 February 1885 (Washington D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1888), 32-33.47Ibid., 33.48Ibid., 54.22have remained fairly consistent. Moreover, the locus of control of the policyprocess for prerogative educational provisions for Native Americans remainedthe purview of non-Native politicians, University administrators, and facultywith little, if any, regard for distinctive perspectives and priorities of NativeAmericans. This approach to higher education for Native Americans and theattempt to educate them in an European world view and values via European-styleeducation—at all levels—has been, by and large, a failure.49While we can account for shifts in federal policy as being reflective ofchanging national moods, coupled with the western expansion of the Union,5° abrief examination of the sociology of the academic profession provides someinsights into the neglect of Native Americans, as well as other minority groups,not only in the historical record, but in the profession as well. E. Digby Baltzellargued that the composition of major university faculty, especially in historydepartments, was the preservation of old stock Protestants.51 Baltzell suggeststhat it was a matter of policy that certain history departments did not hireCatholics, Jews, African Americans, to say nothing of American Natives,52 in an49See, for instance, the 1928 Merriam Report, “The Problem of IndianAdministration” and the 1969 Kennedy Report, “Indian Education: A NationalTragedy-A National Challenge.” Both reports argue that the educationalprovisions for Native Americans have failed to meet the needs of those it was toserve.50Fredrick Jackson Turner, The Frontier In American History (New York:P. Smith Co., 1920). In his later study of sectionalism, Turner recognized thecultural influences carried to the frontier by immigrants. It is this ideology andaccompanying quest by these immigrants for “free land” that is at issue here.While Turner’s hypothesis has been criticized over the years, I would argue thatthe American environment transformed the immigrant has gone largelyunchallenged. See Edward Mims, Jr., American History and Immigration(Bronxville, 1950). Also, Ray Allen Billington, Western Expansion, 3d. ed. (NewYork: Holt and Company, 1967), 1-3, 308, 706, 746.51Digby Batzell, The Protestant Establishment (New York: Vintage Books,1966), 335-42. Also see the interview with John Schaffer; this ‘understanding’ is aconstant theme expressed by all the Native leadership interviewed.52Ibid., 335.23effort to assure White Anglo Saxon Protestant hegemony in the content andeducative process of American academic life.The boom in higher education after World War II (occasioned not only bythe broad investment in post-secondary schooling afforded by the G.I. Bill, butalso the vastly increased mobility of the American population) accounted forsubstantial increases in the racial diversity of American colleges anduniversities. The enrollment gains made were chiefly by second and thirdgeneration American Jews and Catholics. Higher education in America, it hasbeen argued, has been one of the most effective agencies of acculturation or deethnicization.53 The university’s role has been to assimilate talented youth fromall segments of American society into the dominant Anglo-American culture.54Given this hegemonic impulse, and the largely Caucasian composition ofuniversity faculty, along with the history of American educational policy, it is nowonder that universities have been as ineffective in the education of NativeAmericans as their elementary and secondary counterparts.It was not until the 1970’s that the political and social climate of the UnitedStates was conducive to acknowledging the growing desire of Native Americansfor more control over the policies and institutions governing their daily lives.Nationally, the increasing demands of Native Americans, combined with anadministration committed to a National policy of self-determination, finally led tothe passage of a series of legislative reforms designed to increase the control ofthose institutions which affected the lives of Native Americans on a daily basis.553joshua Fishman, “Language Loyalty.” Social Problems 15 (Winter 1968),67-79.54Digby E. Batzell, The Protestant Establishment. (New York: Vintage Books,1966), 345.55For instance: the Indian Education Act(s) of 1972 and 1974, the IndianFinancing Act of 1974, the Indian Self-Determination Act and EducationAssistance Act of 1975, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, and the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.24There was an increased awareness on the part of many universities and collegesof the need to provide a more hospitable, social, and educationally supportiveenvironment for all racial and ethnic minority groups, including NativeAmericans. This redirection manifested itself, institutionally, in theestablishment of racial and ethnic studies departments.56Native Americans fully realize that they do not and cannot live in isolationfrom the larger society, but they are no longer content to live under the policyedicts of the government or institutions. Native Americans, like their non-Nativecounterparts, want the skills and the abilities to determine their own future. It isagainst this backdrop that Native American higher education should be viewed.Higher education offers a route for Native Americans to reach greater equalitywithin the larger society, while at the same time retaining those distinct qualitieswhich are Native American.2.3 Organizational TheoryIn order to frame the tensions which developed between the University ofAlaska and the Alaska Native people over post secondary educational delivery inthe 1970’s and early 80’s, it is necessary to look beyond the normal range ofliterature on education. Because the University’s response to pressure fromAlaska Natives is best described as structuralist, it is necessary to examine thefield of organizational theory and behavior to determine how that response hasbeen and is influenced by the institution of the University itself, as well as tounderstand the subsequent conflict between world views.Local control of education is not a new concept. It is, however, relativelyun-addressed in the literature examining post-secondary education and especially56Susan Guyett and Charlotte Heth, Issues for the Future of AmericanIndian Studies. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985).25in the area of cross-cultural education. Viewed through the lens oforganizational theory, the construct is comparatively new. However, the preceptsupon which it is founded may be traced to neoclassical organizational theory andits view of the human element, organizational behavior. From the timeneoclassical theorists began to question mechanistic models of organizationdesign until the present, theorists have argued the relative value of theimportance of humans, within and outside the organizations, from both positiveand negative positions. The bulk of today’s educational administration researchmaintains that local control is an effective and efficient educational practice.It must also be realized that organizational theorists, like other socialtheorists have defined their work within the particular tradition of theirdiscipline. The questions considered by earlier scholars form the basis ofacceptance, rejection, reformulation and/or criticism for contemporaryresearchers. As a result, theories are firmly grounded in the social and culturalcircumstances—understandings or world view—of the theorist upon which thecurrent research rests. That is to say, like other social theorists, organizationaltheorists must place their work within the larger cultural and intellectual worksof their time in order to address the broader questions regarding the impact onthe human condition(s).Karl Marx, Max Weber and Sigmund Freud, arguably, have had the mostprofound impact on the development of Western society’s orientation of socialtheory in this century. Taken together, these three Western theorists havepresented the most articulate and influential statements of the modern industrialsociety. Their efforts have provided the basis for social theorists for several26generations and have set the agenda on which contemporary theorists haveconstructed their interpretation of social organization and behavior.5‘Rather than review the basic intellectual heritage of Marx, Weber andFreud, the following review of organizational theory and behavior will focus onthe principal developments within the fields after World War II, as the field ofpublic administration, and particularly the field of organizational behavior, doesnot come into its own until this time. It should be noted, however, that thecontemporary works in these fields are clearly the intellectual beneficiaries orinheritors of one or another (or a combination of all) of these great thinkers. Inother words, the basic questions concerning the nature of human beings, socialorganization and the interaction(s) of the combination of the two are still acentral focus of social theory.The end of World War II brought about a proliferation of writing regardingorganizational theory and organizational behavior. Two of the main theoristsresearching the impact of humans in organization (albeit from differentperspectives) were Philip Selznick and Frederick 3. Roethlisberber.Roethlisberber argues that humans are social beings and, as such, are motivatedby self-esteem and recognition of their values and beliefs.58 The tone ofRoethlisberger’s paper adds a new dimension to the study of organizationalbehavior—that of the dignity and respect for humankind. However, this approachis also firmly grounded in the Western understanding of humanity as well as theWestern construct of organization. That is to say, on the one hand, human beingsare still assumed to be separate and above all other forms of life and, therefore,57Robert B. Denhardt, Theories of Public Organization (Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993).58Frederick 3. Roethlisberber, “The Hawthorne Experiments,” in ClassicReadings in Organizational Behavior, ed. J. Steven Ott (Pacific Grove: Brooks/ColePublishing Company, 1992), 36-47.27superior; on the other hand, this approach does not challenge the scientificmanagement assumption that there is “one best” method of organization.Roethlisberger simply offers another variable for management’s considerationin its formulation of strategies to achieve its desired results.In 1948, Sleznick59 published Foundations of the Theory of Organization, awork which states that while the tasks of production may be divided into theirincremental parts or stages, humans who perform such tasks are “wholes, notsimply in terms of their formal roles within the system.”6° This introduction ofthe human element into the organizational model adds the element of humanbehavioral management in order to accomplish an organization’s task(s).Selznick proposes co-option, a process of adopting antagonistic sentiments intothe leadership structure, as a form of manipulation.61 While Selznickacknowledges the human element, he does so in a manner which gives theillusion of respect for the employee but which, in fact, is simply a form ofcoercion. This centralized management approach also assumes that the consumeror client’s interests are best determined by the leadership of the organizationand, like the employee, they too can be coerced into supporting the organization’sinterests.Douglas McGregor, working from earlier research, coined the concepts of‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’ as terms which represented dichotomous views ofhuman beings in his paper “The Human Side of Enterprise”62 According to59Philip Selznick, “Foundations of the Theory of Organization,” inAmerican Sociological Review 13 (1948), 25-35.62Douglas M. McGregor, “The Human Side of Enterprise,” in ClassicReadings in Organizational Behavior, ed. J. Steven Ott (Pacific Grove: Brooks/ColePublishing Company, 1992 [1957]), 66-73.28Theory X, humankind is slothful and must be prodded to work.63 Conversely,Theory Y conceived human beings as industrious and filled with latent creativeenergy which will burgeon in the right organizational environment.64 Theory Yhas provided the theoretical basis upon which practicing educators have builtand are attempting to advance the concept of site-based management—incarnationof local control in as much as “Theory Y relies heavily on self-control and self-direction.”65 In other words, McGregor places the locus of control with theindividual and not the organization. This approach clearly assumes adecentralization of authority, a delegation of responsibility, and a meaningfulrole in the decision-making process.66Cawelti’s work clearly builds on McGergor’s basic tenet of decentralization.Viewed from an educational perspective, Cawelti adds the elements of parental,community and student involvement in determining the educational agenda..67Larson states that effective decentralization includes autonomy in budgeting,staffing and curriculum.68Gaibraith’s “Information Processing Model” provides an outline oforganizational structure from the population ecology and contingency school oforganizational theory, which argues that organizations do not operate in avacuum, but are a part of a constantly changing environment which impacts onthe organization.69 This work clearly builds on that of Katz and Kahn, who63Ibid., 66-67.64Ibid., 71.65Ibid., 71.66Ibid., 72.67Gordon Cawelti, “Key Elements of Site-Based Management,” in EducationalLeadership (Newberry Park: Sage Publishing Ltd., 1989), 46.68Robert L. Larson, “Small is Beautiful: Innovation from the Inside Out.”Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (1991), 550-54.69Jay Gaibraith, “Information Processing Model,” in Classics ofOrganization Theory, eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott (Pacific Grove:Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1992), 308-3 15.29coined the phrase “open system” to describe organizations that function in anenvironment which has external forces (or uncertainty) affecting them.7 0Gaibraith’s starting point is that of a highly structured hierarchical model whichoperates by standardization (i.e., it has a set of rules and procedures established toaddress various situations) and adds the variant of uncertainty. He does notpropose the relinquishment of standardization brought about by rules andregulations, but instead proposes a type of contingency basis to deal with the newand unique problems and uncertainty. The foundation of this model holds that “itbecomes more efficient to bring the points of decision down to the points of actionwhere the information originates.”71Burns and Stalker argue that stable conditions may suggest the use of amechanistic form of organization, where a traditional pattern of hierarchy,reliance on formal rules and regulations, vertical communications and structureddecision making are possible. More dynamic environmental situations requiringrapid changes would require the use of an organic form of organization, wherethere is less rigidity, more participation, and reliance on the workers to defineand redefine their positions and relationships. Supervisors and managers findthat the mechanistic form provides them with a greater sense of security indealing with their environment than the organic form, which introduces muchgreater uncertainty. Burns and Stalker conclude that either form of organizationmay be appropriate in particular situations.7270Robert L. Kahn, and Daniel Katz. “Leadership Practices in Relation toProductivity and Morale.” In Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior, ed. J.Steven Ott (Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992), 283-298.713ay Galbraith, “Information Processing Model,” in Classics ofOrganization Theory, eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott (Pacific Grove:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992), 308-3 15.72T. Burns and G.M. Stalker, The Management of innovation (London:Tavistock Publications, 1961).30The purpose of this discussion is to make visible the movement in “publicadministration” toward more people focused, decentralized, democratic, andculturally defined administrative organizational approach. Rather than adoptingan administrative perspective reflecting this movement in organizational theory,the drive by educators, as David Tyack and others73 have correctly argued, hasbeen to create centralized control of the educational process, as well as the rise ofan educational management class. This drive was in part due to the very nature ofeducation. That is to say, in order to obtain and maintain the support of business,politicians, and the general population, public educators found it useful to adoptthe scientific management theories exemplified by those of Frederick WinslowTaylor as a means to rationalize the use of public funds. The tensions betweenefficiency and effectiveness and the lack of a tangible product, such as a vehicle,have been an ongoing source of public distrust of education from the beginning.While these scholars are addressing elementary and secondary schooling, thesituation is analogous to that of public higher education.Max Weber described two strong and opposing forces that impact on allorganizations: the need for division of labor and specialization and the need forcentralizing of authority. The division of labor is an inevitable consequence ofspecialization. In the case of education, this is best understood as the separationof functions between the faculty and the administration. This complexspecialization is, arguably, essential for organizational effectiveness andefficiency. It also means that diverse forces are, at any given point in time,attempting to move the organization in different directions. This in turn73DavicI Tyack, The One Best System (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1974). Also see Lawrence Cremin, American Education, The National Experience(New York: Harper, 1980), and Sol Cohen, “The History of Education in the U.S.:Historians and their Discontents,” in D. Rider, ed., Urban Education in theNineteenth Century, (London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1977).31increases the need—or the perception of need—for stronger organizationalcoordination and control74 and poses the policy dilemma in terms of choicesbetween excellence and equality. In the process of mediating between thesepoles, many bargains have been struck. Educators often couch these trade-offs interms such as freedom or individuality, which would otherwise be lost, it isargued, if we should unwisely follow equality to the door of mediocrity.752.4 University of Alaska, Rural Education, and Native PeoplesThe only research specifically addressing the relationship of theUniversity of Alaska to Alaska Native peoples, and the provisions for highereducation in rural Alaska, is Louis Jacquot’s 1973 “Alaska Natives and AlaskaHigher Education, 1960 to 1972: A Descriptive Study.”76 Jacquot provides anexcellent historical overview of the major educational developments in Alaska.His anthropological approach frames the developments in an optimistic light.That is to say that, while Jacquot acknowledges the historic inequalities ofWestern education as applied to Native peoples, he still paints a picture which is atbest naive and at worst assimilative. While the title of Jacqout’s work leads one toassume that the major focus of his dissertation would be on higher education, hein fact devotes less than one chapter to higher education. This is, in part,understandable as the time frame under consideration pre-dates Universityinvolvement in rural educational affairs. His study does provide a historicalaccount of the policy practices of the State of Alaska, thus setting the stage for the74Jay M. Shafritz, and Steven J. Ott, eds. Classics of Organizational Theory,(Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1992).75John Gardner, Excellence: Can We be Equal and Excellent Too?(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1961). Also see Michael Young, The Rise ofMeritocracy (New York: Vintage Books, 1959).76Louis Jacquot, Alaska Natives and Alaska Higher Education, A DescriptiveStudy: 1960-1972. (Fairbanks: Alaska Native Human Development Project, 1974).32emergence of the REAA’s (Rural Educational Attendance Areas) in the area ofelementary/secondary education. This was seen by Native leadership as anattempt to provide for local control of elementary and secondary education inrural Alaska. This study also serves to document the growing pressures in thestate for higher educational delivery in rural Alaska. Jacquot concludes his studywith glowing comments concerning the University’s growing acknowledgmentof the need for higher education in rural Alaska, and the structuralmanifestations of reorganization, as well as the creation and construction of ruralcommunity colleges. One would expect in 1994, then, to be able to report thesuccess of the University of Alaska in providing quality, meaningful and relevanteducation to Alaska Native people; unfortunately, this is not the case.Frank Darnell investigated the degree of local control exercised by REAA’s,which were structurally similar to urban school boards in other parts of theUnited States, and concluded that:they are extraordinary units of government, not only for theunique physical and cultural contradictions under which theyoperate, but also because they are neither cities nor boroughs and,consequently, there is no provision for their existence in either theAlaska Constitution or in the statutes defining local and intermediategovernment.7Upon specifying the legal constraints to the authority under which the REAA’soperate, Darnell concludes that the real control of Native education by AlaskaNative people remains problematic because of the REAAs’ “anomalous nature,questionable legal status” and “because REAA’s have less authority than ordinaryschool districts” and thus “may be said to be agencies empowered more to managethan control.”78 The structural response of the University of Alaska to thepolitically created Rural Educational Affairs Division and later the Rural77Frank Darnell, “Education Among the Native Peoples of Alaska,” PolarRecord 19, 122 (1979), 443.78Ibid., 444.33Community Colleges mirrors the understanding and response of the State ofAlaska in their vision of the REAA’s. The University, when faced with thelegislative mandate to provide education in rural Alaska, responded in astructural-functionalist manner rather than attending to the Native requests forculturally appropriate education. In other words, the University chose to buildbuildings and replicate the highly centralized, hierarchical form ofadministration, firmly grounded in the Euro-American tradition of organizationand scientific management, rather than attempting to incorporate Nativeunderstandings of education, organization and world views.The interest in decentralization of education in Alaska was the focus ofDavid Getches’ (1978) and Kathryn Hecht and Ronald Inouye’s (1978) studies.These works focused on the perceived quality of rural education as expressed byAlaska Native corporate leaders, statewide Native leaders and educationalresearchers from the University of Alaska. The studies stressed the motive orintention to provide quality education and focused on achievement as measured interms of scores on standardized tests. Implicit in these studies is the notion ofnonsubstantive parental involvement in the educational enterprise at the policyformation, governing, control, operation and design levels of rural schools.This observation is supported by the works of John U. Ogbu in hisCalifornia studies of programs for Black students which were developed andimplemented, without the input of the parents, by school officials more inresponse to external economic and political pressures than a sincere desire toimprove education for minority children.79 These arguments are relevant in asmuch as they point to the lack of concern educationalists, in general, have for theinclusion of non-educational professionals in the conceptualization, planning79John Ogbu, Minority Education and Caste (Orlando: Academic Press, 1978).34and implementing of educational programs, particularly in a cross-culturalarena. Moreover, in Ogbu’s studies, the responses by the educational communityto the external political forces manifested themselves in structural ways. That isto say, when faced with low attendance, low grades and high drop-out rates amongminority students, the educationalist’s response was to create ‘new’ programsrather than to examine the basic value assumptions of the educational enterprise.This approach ‘blamed the victim(s)’ while continuing to assume that the‘system’—the school—is blameless. Ogbu’s work is in general supportive of thebasic assumptions contained in this thesis; there is, however, a point ofdisagreement. Ogbu assumes that the solution to the problem rests in increasededucational involvement of the urban Black parents, which will result in anincrease in social/economic positions for African Americans. In other words, ifthe educational system will simply provide increased access into the policyformation processes and professional employment opportunities within theeducational enterprise, educational attainment levels among Blacks will equalize,resulting in African Americans attaining their piece of the “pie.” Therein liesthe major difference: most Native Americans do not and have chosen not toassimilate; they do not want a piece of the “pie”; they have a “pie.” They simplywant to be able to enjoy their pie, their way.Gerald McBeath’s study of the North Slope Borough governmentinvestigated the nature of formal organizations (read Western), focusing on thepolitical institutionalization of policy formation and the degree of responsivenessand representativeness displayed by relatively important groups and individualswithin the bureaucratic structures located in the decision-making process.80McBeath also considered the concepts describing the leadership process, for80Gerald A. McBeath, North Slope Borough Government and Policymaking(Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1981).35example, political recruitment, communication and socialization of Native leaders.While the study did not focus on educational policy formulation specifically, it isinstructive in that it provides a view of the manner in which the North SlopeBorough leaders perceive problems. McBeath’s major thesis is that Nativeleadership is—and has been—developed by or through exposure to Westerninstitutions and Western educational practices. According to McBeath, it is onlythrough these experiences that Alaska Native leaders learn the appropriatebehavioral patterns necessary to function successfully in the bureaucratic world.This line of argument is suggestive of an assimilationist attitude and provides onlya superficial explanation of an extremely complex set of social, economic, politicaland cultural factors. McBeath fails to grasp that one may replicate a bureaucraticstructural organizational form, and even operate it in a manner similar to theWestern corporate model, without surrendering one’s own cultural integrity oridentity. This can be accomplished even when the outcomes of the organizationare not profit motivated as in Western organizations.A major tenet of this thesis is that the establishment of rural post-secondary education in Alaska was facilitated by key Alaska Native policy actorswho, to varying degrees, had been exposed to Western institutions and educationsimilar to those suggested by McBeath. However, this study will in no wayadvance or support the argument that Alaska Native leaders, merely because ofexposure to Western institutions and/or education, sought to create yet anotherset of assimilationist institutions when they established the Rural EducationalAffairs Division as well as the Rural Community Colleges within the University ofAlaska system. Quite the contrary, the records presented here clearly show apattern of requests on the part of Native peoples to have an educationalexperience, at all levels, which would allow for the retention of traditional values36and lifestyles, while participating in the educational process. This is not meant tosuggest that there are not those within the Alaska Native population who chose toattempt to assimilate, or that such a choice is inappropriate; the point to be madehere is that, if McBeath’s line of argument were accurate, we would not bediscussing such issues here and now. After five hundred years of exposure toWestern institutions and education, there would be no appreciable differencesbetween Native Americans and Euro-Americans. Obviously, this is not the case.The issue is much deeper, more profound than merely a matter of how Nativecorporate leadership structurally organizes mandated corporate and/orgovernmental organizations, or how it is ‘socialized’ through ‘exposure toWestern institutions and education,’ as some researchers would lead us tobelieve.81Carl Shepro’s 1985 study of rural Alaskan village self-governmentinvestigates the basic question of ‘who’ is making the decisions which affect thelives of the villagers. He focuses on the degree to which the state and federalgovernment’s proposals to decentralize service delivery have been accomplished.His findings suggest that the implementation of these decentralization policieshave, in fact, resulted in an increase in the degree of centralization of decisionmaking. Of particular interest to this study is Shepro’s observation that theWestern view of politics is one of conflict over issues, while the Alaska Nativecultural view is that conflict is to be avoided. This dichotomized world view of thepolitical process, as well as the educational, is at the heart of this thesis. It will beargued that throughout the period investigated here Alaska Native people,through their leadership, continually sought to achieve compromised/negotiated81Thomas A. Morehouse, Gerald A. McBeath and Linda Leask, Alaska’sUrban and Rural Governments (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984).37solutions to problematic issues, rather than utilizing direct power confrontationsas a means of achieving their desired goals. In other words, while Alaska Nativeleaders were clearly in positions within the Alaska State Legislature, and wereclearly aware and competent to address the issue in appropriate Western culturalterms, the record shows that this was not the case. The Native leadership choseinstead to attempt resolution in ways which were more clearly reflective of theircultural values and world views.2.5 SummaryIn this chapter a review of the literature was presented in the areas ofminority education and higher education as developed in relation to NativeAmericans. In an attempt to clarify the University of Alaska’s response to NativeAmerican’s higher educational needs, a discussion of organizational theory waspresented in order to demonstrate the continual tendency of the institution tospecialize and centralize its organizational structure. This institutional postureclearly is not in keeping with current movements in “public administration.”38CHAPTER IIIALTERNATE WORLD VIEWS3.1 IntroductionIn the previous chapter a review of the literature in the related areas ofminority education and higher education was presented, as well as the theoreticalframework from which I analyze the University of Alaska’s responses to AlaskaNatives. In this chapter, a discussion of the conflict between the alternate worldviews of the dominate culture and of the Native American/Alaska Native cultures,and its effect on the provision of higher education is presented.3.2 Native and Non-Native World ViewsAll societies have mechanisms for the training or teaching of their youngabout the patterns, norms, and roles of their culture, of training youth for theirroles in society and for on-going adult learning and development. Westernsocieties have, to a large measure, given this responsibility to professionals whocreate and define what is valid knowledge and how it is to be taught and learned.The power to create and validate knowledge and to control its dissemination isgiven to those who, by birth or training, have accepted a certain paradigm ofknowledge—variously called Western, Cartesian, and scientific. The NativeAmerican populations do not need to rely upon formal educational institutions(structures) to teach the knowledge and skills of the culture. Families andcommunities build this knowledge, this learning, into their integrated, holistic39patterns of daily life. The academy’s response to this form of knowledge—if itresponds at all—tends to be one of studied intellectual curiosity. Little has beenattempted by way of validating this knowledge as an equivalent way of knowingthe world, the known or oneself.82At the base of people’s beliefs and practices are ideas and concepts that areof ancient origin, which form the basis of “presuppositions” about whatconstitutes reality.83 These unstated presuppositions constitute the frameworkby which we give meaning to the world in which we live. These presuppositionsdiffer from group to group, thereby producing different senses of whatconstitutes reality. A set of related presuppositions becomes the lens throughwhich we examine the world. These related presuppositions provide theconceptual framework which we use to filter new phenomena, that which is alienand, in so doing, shape what we see.The number of accounts concerning the “alien” human beings thatEuropeans encountered in the “new” world is vast. The Native American—theIndigenous people of the Americas—presented an anomaly to the European. TheNative not only looked different, but had also developed a lifestyle and ideas aboutsocial organization and political theories which were unlike anything previouslyencountered by the European. The initial reaction of the European, after contact,was to view the Native American as merely “humanoid.”84 As there was nomention in the Bible of such people or continents, Europeans sought anexplanation grounded in their own presuppositions, based largely on Christiandoctrine, in order to place these. “new” peoples and places within their own82Jules Henry, On Education (New York: Vintage Books, 1972).83R. 0. Collingwood, “An Essay on Metaphysics.” In Introduction to ModernPhilosophy, ed. A. Castell, 2d ed., (New York: Macmillan, 1963).84John Mohawk, “Indians and Democracy: No One Ever Told Us,” in Exiled inthe Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the US. Constitution, eds.Oren Lyons & John Mohawk (Sante Fe: Clear Light Publisher, 1992), 48.40cosmology and, in so doing, they laid the foundation for five hundred years of“other.”85Real insight into the Native world(s) remains problematic. Contemporaryresearchers provide different descriptions of the possibilities which, for mostWestern trained social scientists, are historically grounded in the early works ofmissionaries who sought to compile Native descriptions of the world and ofhumanity’s relationship to that world by gathering information concerningmyths, legends and rituals. The focus was on myths of creation and explanationsor descriptions of ritual practices surrounding those myths. These early effortsprovided an information base to which anthropologists and ethnographers addedinformation concerning the people themselves. The information which has beencompiled is undoubtedly colored by the intentions of the researcher. Forinstance, the intention of the missionary was to replace the belief systems ofNative Americans, through education, with one based in Christianity. Theintention of the non-missionary social scientist is to provide some insight into theNative ‘mind’ so as to facilitate assimilation of Native Americans into thedominant society.Benjamin Whorf brought a new focus and greater insight to the study ofNative Americans. Whorf’s analysis of Native languages found that ‘different’people did, in fact, describe the world in different ways. Whorf’s presuppositionwas that there is an external reality, something that exists outside our ownsubjectivity. This external reality is multifaceted; it consists of many phenomena;human beings select particular phenomena as their main focus. Whorf refers tothis act as a “dissection” of nature.86 “Each language,” he argues, “performs this85Ibid.86Benjamin L. Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality. ed. John B. Carroll(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1956).41artificial chopping up of the continuous spread and flow of existence in adifferent way.”87 Whorf points out that in the Western higher educationtradition “different sciences chop segments out of the world,” such as botany,biology, chemistry, and so on.88 Indigenous languages, especially Hopi, whichwas the focus of Whorf’s work, frame the world in terms of motion. Western“things and objects” are seen as “events” in Hopi terminology. “Events” are in aconstant state of flux; the world is continually re-manifesting itself:[Hopi metaphysics] imposes upon the Universe two grand cosmicforms, which as a first approximation in terminology we may callManifested and Manifesting (or, Unmanifest) or, again, objectiveand subjective. The objective or manifested comprise all that is orhas been accessible to the senses. The subjective or manifestingcomprises all that we call future.89That which is “manifesting” then becomes something which is “objective” in thesense that it is something that can be experienced. The universe, however, isdynamic, so that what is “objective” is not itself eternal—it is temporary—therefore, it is not so much a “thing” as it is an “event” in flux.9 0In Models and Metaphors, Max Black criticizes aspects of Whorf’s findingswhile acknowledging that Hopi (as well as Navajo) thought is based on languagesconstructed on the concept of motion as the major feature of the universe.9’ GaryWitherspoon, in Language and Art in the Navajo Universe, argues that “theassumption” which underlies the Navajo world view is that “the world is inmotion, that things are constantly undergoing the process of transformation,deformation and restoration, and that the essence of life and being is87Ibjj, 213.88Ibid., 59.89Ibid., 59.90Ibid., 59.91Max Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1962).42movement.”92 It is from this concept of motion that Whorf derives hisdescription of the Hopi universe as one of dynamic “manifestation.”The works of Whorl and others who have probed the meanings inherent inNative American languages leave no doubt that such languages, and thereby thecultures in which those languages are spoken, depict a world view unlike that of aresearcher who is of European extraction.93 It is plausible, then, for us to arguefrom an alternate world view or conceptual framework, which has at least thesame validity as those who choose to argue from the world view of the ancientGreeks.The implications of this conception of an alternate world view have onlyrecently begun to be explored by researchers such as Gary Witherspoon,94JamesKale McNeley,95 and John R. Farella.96 Sadly, this research, like that of othersocial sciences impacting Native America, has been left to non-Natives lackingcontextual understanding. In most cases, these social scientists also lack thelinguistic training to accurately depict these complex philosophical concepts or tobe able to comprehend their meaning(s). This is the case especially when focusedon the Native world view, and even when attempting to relate the concepts to thedominant culture.A conceptual framework, though it is implicit in language (bothstructurally and contextually), and is based on some real aspect of the universe, is92Gary Witherspoon, Language and Art in the Navajo Universe (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977), 48.93F. M. Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins ofWestern Speculation (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), 43-4594Gary Witherspoon, Language and Art in the Navajo Universe (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977).95james Kale McNeley, Holy Wind in Navajo Philosophy (Tucson:University of Arizona Press, 1981).96John R. Farella, The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987).43difficult to expose to explanation unless one has lived within that framework.Also, in order to recognize that there is such a framework, one must acknowledgethat there are ‘other’ competing explanations of reality which are equally valid.For example, the Western concept of guilt does not exist in Native Americanlanguage(s), nor is there an equivalent emotional concept.97 One may readeverything available about the concept of guilt, and one may even come tounderstand that guilt is something which arises out of specific philosophicaltraditions, and it may manifest itself in very specific and individual ways withthose persons who share an understanding of that construct. However, if one hasno such concept, it is almost impossible to consider what it would be like to livewith such a concept as a real aspect of everyday life. On the other hand, someonewho actually believes that guilt exists or knows what guilt is will not react in thesame manner as does one who does not believe this concept to be a fact.A world view can be likened to the concept of guilt. People do not merelybelieve that their view is the correct one; it is frequently believed to be the onlyone. It is reality and, as such, it is taken for granted. A world view is the filterthrough which one looks at and interprets the world; that grants meaning toone’s utterances, practices and goals. This is how it can be said that a conceptualframework is lived. As in the case of the Navajo and Hopi (as well as many otherNative Americans), it becomes impossible to “chop up the universe” to see objectsand events as separate or distant from the people.Indigenous peoples have world views which are fundamentallyincompatible with those generally held by industrialized societies. Thisincompatibility can be made visible through the comparison of nine principledifferences (Table 1). While the elements detailed in the following table are based97m1s understanding comes from numerous discussions with many NativeAmericans from varied Nations, over the author’s life time.44on my own experiences, those experiences have been greatly influenced bypersonal communications with Dennis Demmert, David Case, Vine Deloria, WardChurchill, and other Native American activists expressing similar understandingsin their own work. The table below is a blending of many Native Americanapproache and as such it is a representation of Native Americanconceptualizations of the world and should not be viewed as a definative or allinclusive presentation of any or all Native American constructs.Table 1. A Case Model for Comparing and Contrasting World Views“Industrial Society” “Tribal Societies”1. Land Use Intensive Extensive2. Governance Hierarchical Participative3. Relationship to Controlling, AdaptiveEnvironment manipulative4. Social Life Establish guilt By shame, internalizesocial controls5. Beliefs Deistic Naturalistic6. Knowledge Transfer Written, Oral, visuallanguage-based7. Social Life Individualistic Communal/tribal8. Life Work Specialist Generalist9. Education:Teaching Abstract, Demonstration ofclassroom sessions practical activitiesLearning Abstract Experiential45The first difference relates to use of land. For industrialized society, landuse is intensive. Land is farmed more and more efficiently. People crowd togetherin immense cities, while the resources are extracted from the land. In contrast,the use of land for Natives is extensive. Huge amounts of land are needed toprovide subsistence for few people. Especially in the Circumpolar regions,resource usage does not tend to alter the land.The second difference is governance. Governance in Western society ishierarchical and bureaucratic. There are federal, state, and local levels, eachwith specialists exerting control on our lives, and within each level there arehierarchies of power. Native societies tend to be more democratic as the peoplehave more direct involvement in the decision making. Consensus building isviewed as an important leadership characteristic. Leaders are not elevated toexalted specialized roles; consequently, conflict or the use of overt methods ofcontrol are limited.The third difference is in the approach to the environment. The non-Native approach tends to be one of control and manipulation. This is best viewedin conjunction with intensive land use and industrial age technological society,where the environment is reshaped to respond to human needs and whims. Incontrast, tribal people adapted to their environments. Their technologiesprovided unique adaptations to the environments but the adjustment was made onthe human side rather than one forced on the environment. These adaptiveversus controlling mind sets tend to influence the ways in which humansinteract with each other as well as with the physical environment.The fourth difference relates to social control. For non-Natives socialcontrol is accomplished through guilt, determined externally and attributed to anindividual. For Natives, social control is internalized through shame. In tribal46societies, an individual is viewed as responsible for his or her actions; therefore,societal control is predicated upon the individual’s understanding of their socialobligation and role within the community.In traditional Native beliefs spiritualism encompasses all living beings.Supernatural forces do not necessarily take on human form. In this schema,human beings are but one of the intrinsic parts of a much larger interrelateduniverse. In contrast, non-Natives are deistic, conceiving of human beings ascreated in the image of their God. Such a conceptualization of human beings andtheir relationship to a deity allows for their belief that humans are superior to allother forms of life. This belief leaves non-Natives disconnected from the rest ofcreation, without a sense of community with other living things.The sixth difference relates to knowledge. For non-Natives, the transfer ofknowledge predominantly occurs through written communication fromprofessionals who are given the power to decide what is worth knowing, to thosewhom such professionals deem to be in need of such expertise. In traditionalNative societies, teaching tends to be done through oral and visual means, and theoutcomes of learning are best exemplified by the life experiences of the elders,incorporating both thinking and feelings.Social life within the dominant society tends to be based on individualism.The understanding of individual achievement, based on competition andattainment of social status and material goods to the exclusion of other members ofthe societal group, is a common feature of Westernized societies. In contrast,Native Americans tend to be communal and tribalist. Personality itself is derivedby accepting the responsibility of being a contributing member of the socialgroup. Understanding the interconnections of personality to other forms of life(and the rest of the universe) is what allows for a person’s education to proceed.47While in the industrialized world we identify people with their job titles(professor, engineer, lawyer), in Native societies, your employment does notdefine who you are:You are an Indian first, last and always. You may have a degree inanthropology, law, or nuclear engineering, but that is yourprofession, and how you make your living; it is not you! . . . Yourfirst responsibility is to be a human being, an Indian. Once you canaccept that fact and use it as a positive factor, you can do whateverprofessional tasks are required of you but you will know when todraw the line between professional responsibilities and the muchgreater responsibilities of being a person. You can earn money butyou cannot be happy or satisfied unless you become yourselffirst.98The role of the individual as it relates to work is the eighth differenceaddressed. In industrialized society, greater value tends to be placed onspecialized knowledge. In tribal societies, survival is dependent upon a broadrepertoire of knowledge held by individuals.The final distinction between the two world views relates specifically toeducation. For the dominant society, education is an abstraction carried outthrough formalized instruction. In tribal societies, education is based on personalexperiences, observation, demonstration, and practice toward competency.Only in the Industrial society is education conceived as a separate functionfrom the categories described above. Education is conceived as a product which ispredicated on the assumption that achievement in education will facilitate amember’s economic and social mobility in the society. The ability tocompartmentalize and conceptualize issues such as land and governance asseparate and distinct entities from education makes visible the sharp differencesbetween Native and non-Native world views. Education in a Native context is both98 Vine Deloria, Jr., Indian Education in America. (Boulder: AmericanIndian Science and Engineering Society, 1991).48process and content.99 Native students who undergo education through Westernforms of schooling acquire knowledge during that process, but it is knowledgewithout relevance or meaning because it is decontextualized from a Native worldview. Thus, by its very nature, Western education places Native Americans andAlaska Natives in a conflict between two worlds. Traditional values, spirituality,and tribal ways of being and knowing are neither respected nor incorporatedinto the schooling curriculum. Those absences have been the case in Americaneducation in general and, as this study will document, more particularly in theinstance of the University of Alaska.As discussed previously, these differences in world views are also closelyrelated to differences in organizational approaches. The Western approach toorganizational management is hierarchical. This structure presupposes adifferentiation of an individual’s worth within the hierarchy. The value of theindividual is defined in terms of his/her office, gender, title, or educational statusheld within the organization. Conversely, from a Native perspective anindividual’s worth is predicated on the assumption that all things have equalvalue. Metaphorically, social organization can be viewed as a flat circle from aNative world view and as a pyramid from a Western corporate world view.In the face of theoretical shifts within the field of “public administration”toward more humanistic, culturally sensitive approaches, Western educationaladministration continues to be wed to a structural-functionalist approach tomanagement. A structural-functionalist perspective is a product of its culturaland intellectual heritage and presupposes differentiation at all levels. It assumesthat people are created in the image of God, therefore, all other things areinferior. This assumption is in direct opposition to the Native world view which99John Schaffer, interview, Anchorage Alaska, 1991. This is a theme whichruns throughout the interviews conducted.49assumes that all things are interrelated and equal in importance. Therefore, inorder to provide more people focused, decentralized, democratic, and culturallysensitive approaches to education, an examination of these differences in worldviews makes visible the need to go beyond issues of organizational structure tolooking at more substantive issues of what constitutes appropriate education.3.3 SummaryThis chapter has outlined a number of variables for differentiatingbetween the world views of the dominant world culture and that of NativeAmericans. In the next chapter, a discussion of the relationship betweeneconomy and education is presented.50CHAPTER IVTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMY AND EDUCATION4.1 IntroductionThe argument presented in this chapter is that the Western approach toNative American education, and more specifically Alaska Native education, hasbeen driven by economic and political desires of the dominant culture toassimilate or acculturate the indigenous peoples so as to delimit their control overlands, resources and their identity. In the United States, higher educationalprograms provided by the majority of colleges and universities are not designedfor people who do not wish to share or buy into the American Dream. The cultureof the University is deeply grounded in the Western philosophical tradition of thescientific/intellectual model and the Judeo-Christian belief that humankind issuperior to and removed from the natural world.’0° Thus the curriculumcontent, regardless of the particular philosophical orientation of the author orthe teacher, is approached from the Western civilization/colonial/pioneer pointof view. Native Americans are subjected to an educational system that is opposedto their existence as tribes, not only as political entities but as cultures withspiritual and economic relationships with the land. The melting pot identity ofmost Americans is the dominant theme throughout the literature in all academict00William Mayo, “Opening Remarks” at the Alaska Federation of NativesAnnual Convention. Anchorage, 1993.51disciplines, as well as in the popular culture. This belief leaves no room for otherworld views and or definitions of education.10 1Until recently in the United States, the phenomena of class and classstruggle were neither studied by members of the academy nor acknowledged as apolitical force, especially as it relates to higher education. The belief that theUnited States was (and is) a classless society was embedded in the Constitution andrelated philosophical documents, and this belief was perpetuated by the state. Allcitizens were encouraged to believe that such a society inevitably led toopportunity as well as upward social and economic mobility. The chief agency forthe perpetuation of this belief was education, ostensibly available to all equally.This was and is not the case for Native education in Alaska at any level of theeducational enterprise, in any geographical area, or at any point in Alaska’shistorical evolution. A look at the history of primary and secondary education ofNative children in Alaska begins to demonstrate this inequality. The discussionthen turns to the role of the Alaska Native leadership, especially as they were, andcontinue to be, influenced by the issue of land and the land claims movement inAlaska.4.2 Early Primary and Secondary Education4.2.1 Russia: The Beginnings of Western ContactThe Western educational experience of Alaska Natives began in 1741 whenthe Russian explorers Vitus Bering and Chirikof made the first recordedcontacts. 102 Indeed, the loss of sixteen men by Chirikof in a skirmish with101George Spindler, The Transmission of American Culture (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1959).LO2Clarence Culley, Alaska: Past and Present, 3rd ed., (Portland: Binford andMort, 1970), 47-50.52Tlingits near present-day Sitka must have been educational for both parties, andit set the tone for Russian/Native relations for the next 126 years.103The Czar’s eastward expansion of the Russian empire to Alaska seems tohave been the result of two major factors. First, by the 1700s, the colonialexpansion of European nations in the Pacific Basin had determined thegeographical importance of Alaska as a link between America and Asia.104 Thesecond factor was greed. The Russian promyshlenniki, Siberian fur hunters,received the reports of large numbers of fur-bearing mammals in the regionwith jubilation. In a fashion similar to the coureurs de bois of New France, andsomewhat later, the American mountain man, these fur hunters swept eastwardfrom Kamchatka to the Aleutian Islands. By 1784, the promyshlenniki, inflamedby cupidity, had violently and viciously established a base on Kodiak Island.’05Fearing the loss and misuse of tax rubles, the Czar moved to consolidate control ofhis extension of empire through the creation of a profit-motivated corporationpatterned along the lines of Great Britain’s Hudson’s Bay Company. The Russian-American Company, chartered in 1799 and headed by Alexander Baranov,contained a provision directing that schools for children of both sexes beestablished and attended.106The inclusion of an educational provision in the Russian-American Charterappears to be more directly related to the company’s economic interest than tocharitable inclination. For the Aleuts and Tlingitfllaidas, the period between 1742and 1780 had been a period of holocaust. The promyshlenniki made no attempt to103bid, 48.104Ted C. Hinkley, The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897, (Palto Alto:Pacific Books. 1972), 17-18.‘05Hector Chevigny, Russian America: The Great Alaskan Venture, 1741-1867 (New York: Viking, 1965).106llector Chevigny, Lord of Alaska: Baranov and the Russian Adventure(New York: Viking 1944).53civilize or convert the aboriginal inhabitants, instead a policy of extermination ofthe entire Indigenous population was begun. The state of war which existedbetween the Russian fur hunters and the Native peoples ultimately detracted fromthe harvest of furs.107Eventually, the Russians recognized that the improvement of relationsbetween the Russians and the Alaskan Natives would increase economic returns,so the task of bringing order between the two cultures was assigned to themissionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church. Through education and conversionin schools provided by the Company and staffed by the Church, it was believedthat greater profits would result because of a decreased level of hostility betweenthe Russians and the Alaskan Natives.108 During the Russian-American periodin Alaska (1741-1867), the Russian-American Company established andmaintained over twenty mission schools from Kodiak Island to Russian Mission onthe Yukon River, including a colonial academy at Sitka (to train surveyors,navigators, engravers, and accountants) as well as Lady Etulin School for youngwomen, which taught needlework, languages, geography, history, and householdarts.’ 09The decline of the fur trade, the questionable profits from the Russian-American Company, the political and economic costs of the Crimean War (1854-1856), and the growing interest of the United States in becoming a Pacific powerconvinced St. Petersburg that the gigantic, isolated, and costly holdings in North107Louis Jacquot, Alaska Natives and Higher Education, A Descriptive Study:1960-1972. (Fairbanks: Alaska Native Human Development Project, 1974).108Charles Ray, A Program of Education for Alaska Natives (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1959), 16-24.109Ibid., 24.54America had become a liability. These factors, as well as hannonious diplomaticrelations with the United States, set the stage for the sale of Alaska.’ 1 0The sale of this territory to the U.S. in 1867 initiated a marked and rapiddecline in Russian missionary activity. The Russian Orthodox Church, however,continued to provide economic assistance to Alaskan schools until the 1917Bolshevik revolution, after which the mission school support came from the U.S.branch of the Church.’ 114.2.2 The United StatesThe United States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7,200,000 may beviewed as an astute business move from both sides, particularly on the part of theRussian Chancellor, Baron Edouard de Stoecki, whose countryman PrinceGorbachev declared in a letter home:[Americans] look upon that continent as their patrimony. Theirdestiny (“our manifest destiny” as they call it) is forever to expandthey are the ones who gradually invaded Texas, which later became astate of the Union. New Mexico and some other parts were acquiredin the same manner. It had been hoped that our colonies’ lack ofresources would keep them safe from the greed of freebooters, but itwas not so. Although the fish, the furs, and some othercomparatively insignificant products of our possessions certainlydid not measure up to the rich valleys of the Mississippi and RioGrande, nor to the gold-bearing plains of California, they did notescape the covetousness of the Americans.11 2Prince Gorbachev had indeed felt the pulse of the land hungry Americansand their sense of destiny and greed. Viewed in this light, the sale of Alaska was ameans for the Russians to receive at least some payment for their possession1‘°Ian C. Jackson, “The Stikine Territory Lease and its Relevance to theAlaska Purchase,” Pacific Historical Review 36 (August 1967), 289-306.‘11Charles K. Ray, 17.1L2Quoted in Ernest Gruening, An Alaskan Reader: 1867-1967 (New York,Random House, 1968), 46.55rather than run the risk of losing it to American expansionism, which had beenthe Mexican experience with the loss of Texas and California to the U.S.From the American viewpoint, the purchase may be viewed as a wise moveon the part of William Henry Seward, Secretary of State under President AndrewJohnson. While traditional historians of these events have focused on thecongressional and public debates surrounding the purchase, arguing that ageneral lack of support existed both in Congress and in the national press, thereseems to have been sufficient material support for the purchase. The BostonHerald told its readers:• . . those who know the most about it, estimate it most likely, theclimate on the Pacific side [at that latitude] •is not to be compared tothat on the Atlantic side of the continent.. .the country is reported toabound in furs, forests and minerals, while the rivers and bays on itscoast swarm with fish as fine as ever were caught.1 1 3The Philadelphia Inquirer was prophetic:• . • a time may come, when the possession of this territory will giveus command over the Pacific, which our extensive possessions thererequire.’ 14Political and public debates aside, the fact is that an economic relationshipbetween Sitka and San Francisco predated the California gold rush, and by 1868Louis Sloss, Hayward M. Hutchinson, and William Kohl had formed the AlaskaCommercial Company, a furrier business which in 1870 was granted a federalmonopoly for the Fur Seal Islands (now the Pribilofs). The venture proved aprofitable and enduring one. Like its predecessor, the Russian-AmericanCompany,115 the Alaska Commercial Company also saw an economic benefit to1 3Richard E. Welch, Jr. “American Public Opinion and the Purchase ofRussian America,” American Slavic and East European Review 17 (December1958), 277.114Ibid., 283.1 5Richard A. Pierce, “Prince D.P. Maksutov: Last Governor of RussianAmerica,” Journal of the West 6 (July 1967), 403-411.56educating Natives (that is, civilizing them) and founded schools on St. Paul and St.George Islands in 1870.11 6The fact remains that Alaska’s economic benefits were almost irrelevant inthe Gilded Age of America, an America that was preoccupied with urbanizationand a contiguous West rich in minerals, farm products, and cattle, all of whichwere being linked together by an ever-expanding network of railroads.Understandably, perhaps, provisions for educating Alaskans (both Native andnon-Native) were left to the commercial ventures (such as the Alaska CommercialCompany and the Nevada Mining Company) and to various missionary societies.Between 1867 and 1884, the Federal Government neither established nor madeprovision for the establishment of any schools in the district (territory) ofAlaska.117Protestant church societies first established mission schools in AmericanAlaska at Wrangell in 1878, followed by mission schools at Tanana, Sitka, Anvik,Hoonah, Hydaburg, and Juneau between 18781884.1 18 These schools were theresult of efforts by the Methodists and Presbyterians in Alaska.The year 1884 marked two major developments for Alaska Native education.First, Sheldon Jackson, a Presbyterian minister, educator, and founder of themission school at Sitka which still bears his name, was appointed General Agentfor Education in Alaska. Second, the United States Congress passed the first116William A. Dunning, “Paying for Alaska: Some Unfamiliar Incidents inthe Process,” Political Science Quarterly 27 (September 1912), 385-398.1 17Carol Barnhardt, Historical Status of Elementary Schools in RuralAlaskan Communities, 1867-1980, (Fairbanks: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies,University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1985), 2.118 Louis Jacquot, Alaska Natives and Alaska Higher Education, ADescriptive Study: 1960-1972. (Fairbanks: Alaska Native Human DevelopmentProject, 1974), 53.57Organic Act1 19 for Alaska, which appropriated $25,000 and required the Secretaryof the Interior to use the funds as was necessary to “make needful and properprovision for the education of the children of school age in the territory ofAlaska, without reference to race, until such time as permanent provisions shallbe made for the same.”2° The act also provided for the continuance of missionschools by permitting missionary stations previously established among theIndian tribes to occupy up to 640 acres of land for the support of themission/school. This action was simply an extension of U.S. policy in effectduring this period, as the provision of funds and land to missionary societies forthe support of mission/schools in Indian country had been standard U.S. policyfor many years.Reverend Jackson, as the newly appointed Educational Agent for Alaska,proceeded to divide the territory. Jackson decreed that certain religiousdenominations would be given lands and a portion of the educational budget indiffering regions of the Territory, thus insuring that established missions wouldnot have to compete with newly arriving missionaries.12 1Reverend Jackson’s works were productive indeed. His drive to bringChristian education to Alaska was instrumental in the Moravian mission begun inBethel in 1885, the Quaker mission/school in Kotzebue in 1887 and over 20 Catholicschools by 1920 (Holy Cross being the first in 1888).122 In fact, 28 of the 43schools operating in Alaska in 1888 were denominational, while the balance1 19Ted C. Hinckley, “The Presbyterian Leadership in Pioneer Alaska,”Journal of American History 52 (March 1966), 742-743.120Jeannette Paddock Nickols, Alaska: A History of its Administrations,Explorations, and Industrial Development During the First Half Century Under theRule of the United States (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1924), 59.t21Theodore C. Hinckley, The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897 (PaloAlto: Pacific Books, 1972), 128-132.122U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. EducationReports on Education in Alaska, 1894-1918, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1918).58consisted of private schools such as those previously mentioned established bycommercial enterprises to provide education for the children of companyemployees.123By 1896, increased public pressure for sectarian education in the U.S. led tothe progressive federal dissolution of the missionary school subsidies. Federallyrun day schools replaced the mission-run boarding schools, although severalboarding schools were maintained.124 Not until 1905, with the passage of theNelson Act, did Alaska see the establishment of compulsory-attendance publicschools.125 The Act provided that incorporated towns could organize and managetheir own schools. Further, it established that any community outside of anincorporated town having a school population of at least 20 “white children andchildren of mixed blood who lead a civilized life” could petition the clerk of thecourt for the establishment of a school district. The Nelson Act also stated:[T]he education of Eskimos and Indians in Alaska shall remain underthe control and direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and schoolfor and among the Eskimos and Indians of Alaska shall be providedby an annual appropriation and they shall be permitted to anyIndian boarding school.126With the passage of the second Organic Act, creating the territoriallegislature, Alaska now had two school systems, as was the case in the UnitedStates. One system existed for Whites and children of mixed blood while a separateone operated for Eskimos and Indians. In 1917, the territorial legislature wasgranted control over the school systems for Whites and children of mixed blood,123Niilo E. Koponen, The History of Alaskan Education, Unpublished Ed.D.diss., Harvard University, 1964.124Markku Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation andthe United States Congress, 1862-1907 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1984),110-111.25Claus M. Naske, An Interpretative History of Alaskan Statehood(Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1973), 5.126Roger L. Nichols, The American Indian; Past and Present (New York:Alfred Knopf, 1986), 218-220.59while the Federal Bureau of Education operated the schools for Natives. From 1912to 1931, approximately 5000 Alaska Native students passed through Federal schoolsin Alaska.127It should be noted that with the passage of the second Organic Act (1912),the Federal government not only established the means for local control ofeducation (excluding Natives), but also assumed that the territory would fund theschools from the Alaska Fund.128 The Alaska Fund was made up of those taxdollars received from trade and the sale of liquor within the Territory. Becausethe importation and sale of liquor to Natives was illegal, and the major source oftrade was between residents of those towns and villages founded for the purposesof resource extraction (e.g., timber, fur, fish, and minerals), and most of theseventures- were owned by outside concerns, it seems reasonable to assume that theFederal government could simply have funded a single school system. Theywanted out of the education business, but they were ultimately the funding agentfor the dual system from separate but similar tax bases.This situation was more economic than legal. As very few treaties existedbetween the Native inhabitants and the Federal government, Federalresponsibility for Native education notwithstanding, a legal question existed as tothe degree of Federal responsibility. Was the level of responsibility the same asfor those Indians with whom the government had negotiated treaties? Ultimatelyit was held by Federal courts that the government retained educationalresponsibility.129127Theodore C. Hinckley, The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897 (PaloAlto: Pacific Books, 1972), 128-132.128 Clause M. Naske, Interpretative History of Alaskan Statehood.(Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing), 1973.129Ellis and Anderson, Alaska Natives: Sociological and Educational Status.(Washington D.C.: US. Department of the Interior, 1932), 444-448.60What is of particular interest is that the Territory was not industrializedand all taxes were based on import/export of raw products, so the Federalgovernment was taking money out of different pockets to pay for two schoolsystems. This dual school system was to remain in place until 1962, when the Stateof Alaska signed an agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, transferringthe responsibility for Native education to the State.13° It was not until 1975,however, that a truly single system of education emerged.1The policy vehicle which made possible the transfer of Native schooling tothe State came about in 1934 with the passage of the Johnson-O’Malley Act.1 32The national mood concerning the education of Native Americans shifted slightlyfrom an assimilationist mode to one providing a more culturally sensitiveeducational environment.133 This minor shift in philosophy on the nationallevel was never completely achieved in Alaska, however. As Jacquot has noted,the basic curriculum focus remained “rudimentary English, training invocational crafts and personal and community hygiene.”134 Citing the Rayreport, Jacquot argues that:[The] policy [was one] of creaming off the brightest boys and girls,sending them to boarding schools for basically vocational education,and then returning them to their villages where they were expected,by teaching and example, to render service to their neighbors.135130Charles K. Ray, 37.131Frk Darnell, Alaska’s Dual Federal-State School System: A History andDescriptive Analysis. Unpublished Ed.D. Diss., Wayne State University, 1970, 49.132Margaret Szasz, Education and the Road to Self-Determination, 1928-1973(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974).133William C. Canby Jr., American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 2 ed. (St. Paul:West Publishing Co., 1988).134Louis Jacquot. Alaska Natives and Alaska Higher Education, ADescriptive Study: 1960-1972. (Fairbanks: Alaska Native Human DevelopmentProject, 1974), 63.135Ibid, 37.61This practice of providing secondary education via boarding schoolslocated in various areas of Alaska was a holdover policy from Native education inthe contiguous states, and at the time it was implemented in Alaska, it was viewedas too costly and lacking in results in the lower 48 states. The first such school inAlaska was located in Wrangell, and boarding schools were also established atEkiutna in 1924, Kanakanck in 1926, White Mountain in 1924, and Mt. Edgecumb atSitka in 1947.136 It is interesting to note that the locations of these boardingschools were in rural areas, not urban non-Native communities, and that theeducational histories of these locations were tied to missionary and economicactivities from the earlier eras. The other alternative for secondary education forNative students was to send them to BIA boarding schools in the contiguous states.The pre-World War II era saw little change in the educational deliverysystems for Alaska Natives. The State did assume control of the schools previouslyoperated by the Federal Government, however, and by the 1940s Alaska Nativeswere beginning to push for the abolishment of the dual system of education.They also began to raise the issue of shipping their children off to boardingschools located great distances from their home villages or even to locations inthe contiguous states.Of particular importance for our purposes is the boarding schoolestablished in Sitka in 1947, Mt. Edgecumb.137 Edgecumb would prove to be thetraining ground (not in an academic sense, but rather in more of asocial/psychological sense) for the cadre of Native leaders who would help to136JS Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Education Reportson Alaska, 1884-1944. Department of Interior, 1944.137Angela A. Mantz, “A Study of Secondary and Higher Education inAlaska,” Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 1953, 301.62shape not oniy educational policy in Alaska, but also State and Federal policyconcerning almost all aspects of Native life for generations to come.1 3 8By 1959, the State of Alaska had assumed the operational responsibility forthose rural schools previously under Federal control as well as those schoolslocated on military bases. It is worthy of note, however, that complete transferwas not accomplished until 1962.139 Instead, the State, at this juncture, chose tocreate another educational structure (the S.O.S., or State Operated Schools) tooversee these institutions, rather than simply incorporate them under the State’sDepartment of Education. This move essentially continued the operation of twoseparate and unequal educational systems.14° This pattern would be replicated bythe state university system, in its establishment of rural co-operative extensioncenters, in as much as these centers were created to serve the non-nativepopulations of the various state and federal agencies based in rural Alaska.14In 1917, the University of Alaska was formed by a special act of the AlaskaTerritorial Legislature, with the main campus located in Fairbanks. The campuswas originally known as the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines.This name reflects the understanding of Western society as to the nature ofhigher education and its relationship to economic and social development infrontier America. Therefore, the purpose of the institution was to train studentsin agriculture and mining. In relation to Indigenous people, Lester Henderson, aformer Commissioner of Education in Alaska, stated:138Morris Thompson, interview, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1990.139Frank Darnell, “Alaska’s Dual Federal-State School System: A History andDescriptive Analysis,” Unpublished Ed.D. Diss., Wayne State University, 1970, 86.140Ibid., 111-112.141While it might be noteworthy to provide statistical data about AlaskaNative student retention rates, according to the university reporting system, suchdata has not been maintained in a distinguishable fashion, Statistical Abstract,University of Alaska System, Office of Institutional Research, 1991.63In any consideration of the general population and school population, inrelation to higher education, account need be taken of representatives ofthe white race only . . . The aboriginal population, while equal to thewhite in many sections and larger in other sections, is not aconsideration when the establishment of higher education institutionsof learning is contemplated, in view of the fact that a very small percentof the aboriginal children complete the eighth grade and an almostnegligible number attend high school. These people will not be a factorfrom a higher educational stand point for at least two generations, if oneis to judge from their past rate of progress.142While there was little change in educational provision for Alaska Nativesin the 1950’s and 1960’s at either the elementary or secondary level, and none atthe post-secondary level, there was major change for Urban Alaskans. In 1953,the territorial legislature created a system of Community Colleges in urbanizedareas of Alaska.143 The original Community College Act stated that a qualifiedschool district could establish, operate, and maintain a community college inconjunction with the University of Alaska, which had been established in 1917.The language of the act caused more than a little confusion as to who would haveultimate authority over the colleges—the University or the school districts.144The 1962 State legislature, in an effort to clarify the governance question of theCommunity Colleges, acted on the recommendation of a special legislativecommittee and revised the Community College Act to read: “the University willestablish, maintain, and operate community colleges in cooperation with localschool districts or other political subdivisions.” 45The situation in rural areas would not be altered substantially until 1976,when the Tobeluk vs. Lind case (more commonly known as the Molly Hootch case)created Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs) in 1976. These regionally142Lester Henderson, Should Alaska Establish Junior Colleges?Unpublished Master’s thesis, Stanford University, 1930, 33-34; also cited inJacquot, 149-150.‘43Laws of the State of Alaska. 1953, chap. 57.144Ibid., chap. 58.L45aws of the State of Alaska. 1962. Senate Bill 267 (SB 267).64based, locally administered districts initially cost the state $59 million for ruralschools, and by 1986 an additional $150 million for the construction of elementaryand secondary schools in rural Alaska.This overview of the history of education in Alaska sets the scene for therole that Native leadership would play in Alaska education. Clearly, the focuswithin the state was on the education of majority children, and what littleattention Native education received was apparently given grudgingly by bothfederal and state level governments. Changes in these attitudes awaited a strongactive voice from within the Alaska Native communities.4.3 The Rise of Native LeadershipEducation arrived on the North Slope of Alaska in 1924, six years after thesecond Organic Act (1912). Western education was established with the arrival ofBureau of Education schools at Cape Prince of Wales, on the Bering Straits, at PointHope on the Northwest Coast, and at Point Barrow, the Northern most tip of theNorth American continent. These schools were operated by the Presbyterian,Episcopal, and Congregational mission boards, respectively, with annual subsidycontracts from the U.S. government.’46Western education was linked directly with Western economic developmentin Alaska. The same steam ship, usually from San Francisco, that delivered theannual supplies for the school and store also brought the new teacher.’47 As theBureau of Education established schools, it also built cooperative trading posts.These stores were united under the Alaska Native Cooperative Association (ANICA)146Eva Alvey Richards, Arctic Mood (CaIdwell: Caxton Printers, 1949). Thisis one teacher’s account of experiences in Arctic Alaska during the year 1924-25and should be viewed as a romantic account as it was written retrospectively fromoutside Alaska and is based on a single year’s experience.147 Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), 3 85-6.65when the Indian Reorganization Act was extended to Alaska in 1936. The neteffect was the gradual modification of what had been a purely subsistence-basedeconomy to one more cash-oriented.’48The social and economic shift brought about by schooling and cash basedeconomics posed limited threats to the traditional lifestyle of the Inupiat peoples.Threats to the land, or the loss thereof, have historically been the source ofconflict between Native Americans and the non-Native cultures of theAmericas.149 In the case of Alaska, loss of land holdings was not initially a causefor concern among most Native peoples because early white arrivals tended toestablish few permanent communities, and those were tied to mainly seasonaleconomic enterprises such as whaling, fur seal harvesting, mineral extraction,and logging. However, as rural Alaska moved closer to a cash-based economy, thedemand for Native land and resources accelerated. As a result, the need increasedfor an educated Native leadership15° to mitigate the tensions inherent betweenthe resource extraction/development philosophy of the White, urban populationand the rural Alaska Native desire for cultural survival. Given that largenumbers of non-Natives tended to be concentrated within the coastal areas ofSoutheastern Alaska, the Aleutian Chain, it is not surprising that the earliestorganized Native leadership developed in the southeast region. With the post‘48Ibid., p. 356.149Michael Paul Rogin, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and theSubjugation of the American Indian (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975), 9-11. Fora psycho-historical approach to Indian affairs see Richard Drinnon, Facing West:The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire-Building (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1980).150The use of the term leadership is not meant to infer that the Nativeleadership of the 20th Century is a traditional leadership, but instead is aleadership derived from contact and conflict with western ideologies, institutions,and legal practices. It has evolved in large part as a consequence of Nativeawareness that traditional authority structures would not be recognized aslegitimate by the larger society, and thus represents an attempt to use theauthoritative structures of that larger society as a means to promote and protecttraditional Native values and interests.66World War II push by various political elements in Alaska to achieve statehood forthe territory, local concern mounted because Natives in Alaska held clear title totwo small reservations (Metlakatla on Annette Island in Southeast, and the ChilkatIndian village near Klukwan) and, after entry into the Union, the state would beentitled to withdraw 102,550,000 acres of land.’51 Thus, the rationale for thefounding of that organization, the ANB, was in response to threats to the land.An even more pressing regional concern to Inupiat peoples would be theAtomic Energy Commission’s 1958 proposal to use 1,600 square miles of land nearCape Thompson south of Point Hope as an experimental test site, code namedProject Chariot.’52 The proposed nuclear test provided the catalyst for thecreation of the Inupiat Patiot organization in Barrow in November 1961, thesecond Native organization to be formed with regional concerns. Additionally,support for the project—clearly from non-Native interests—was the first casewhere the University of Alaska took an active and visible stand in opposition toNative interests. The newly hired University of Alaska President, Dr. William R.Wood, would clearly set the tone for his long tenure as the chief executive of thestate’s higher education institution by attempting to use his position in support ofpro-development interests in the proposed use of thermo-nuclear devices at PointHope. These actions established the policy orientation of the University as itrelated to Native issues for years to come.The following section will briefly delineate the rise of three Alaska Nativeregional organizations: the Tlingit Haida Central Council, the Inupiat Patiot, andthe Tanana Chiefs Conference. The events surrounding the rise of each of these151Claus M. Naske, An Interpretative History of Alaskan Statehood(Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1973). Also see Francis Paul Prucha,The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, 2,(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).‘52Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,1971), 224.67organizations are similar in that, in each case, non-Native interests posed a directand clear danger to the continued use and occupancy of the land and, thus, athreat to the continuation of Natives’ existence as separate and distinct peoples.So, while these organizations might appear to mirror organizations from thelarger or dominant society, in terms of structural arrangements as well as publicbehaviors, they are fundamentally different in their primary function: to helppreserve Native values, culture, language, and above all, land—goals which are atodds with those characteristic of the dominant society. While the events of the1970’s 153 have shaped and will continue to reshape the Native world, it is difficultto appreciate their impact without an understanding of the historical progressionof Native organizations and leadership development upon which these events arebased. This understanding is appropriate because it in turn provides anappreciation and understanding of the factors influencing the conflict overhigher education.4.3.1 The Tlingit Haida Central CouncilIn 1912, nine Tlingits and a Tsimshian met in Sitka and founded the AlaskaNative Brotherhood (ANB). Initially, ANB had one main objective, winningcitizenship status for Alaska Natives.’54 By 1922, Chapters (called camps) wereestablished in most towns and villages of Southeastern Alaska.155 The Dawes Act(1887) had made provisions for citizenship for Native Americans provided thatthose Native Americans “severed tribal relationships and adopted the habits of‘53Such as the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA); the MollyHootch rural schools settlement, 1976; the construction of the trans-Alaskan oilpipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, 1974-77; the State’s subsistence law, 1978;and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1980.154me Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS) was formed three years later tomake this a universal goal, as opposed to one focused only on males.155Robe D. Arnold, Alaska Native Land Claims (Anchorage: Alaska NativeFoundation, 1976), 83.68/civilization.” This national policy necessitated the inclusion of two related itemsonto the ANB agenda: education for themselves and abandonment of aboriginalcustoms which were seen by whites as uncivilized.From its inception, ANB addressed political issues and concerns. William L.Paul, a Tlingit attorney and active member of ANB, successfully defended CharlieJones, who had been denied the right to vote in Wrangell two years before thenational legislation passed.156 While the case did not really affect the legal statusof Alaska Natives, according to Drucher “it was accepted as doing so in the popularmind, both White and Indian.”157 As a result, there was increasing acceptancethat Alaska Natives had the right to vote.In 1924, William L. Paul was elected to the Territorial Legislature, makinghim the first Alaska Native to serve in that body. Even though one legislative seathad been won in the name of Alaska Natives, it represented very little realpolitical power in a forty-person legislature, especially since most Natives livingin remote settlements away from Southeastern Alaska were not generally awareof it. Their children were enrolled in schools as they were established, but mostadult villagers had little formal education and, by and large, were not concernedabout elections and the operations of territorial government. Their concernsinstead were to continue to live on the land as they had for generations.15 8The significance of ANB, and of William Paul’s focus on the right to vote forAlaska Natives, has at least two major implications relevant to this discussion.First, is the early realization on the part of Alaska Natives, at least those int56Stephen W. Haycox, “Racism, Indians, and Territorial Politics,” inInterpreting Alaska’s History: An Anthology, ed. Mary Childers Mangusso andStephen W. Haycox (Anchorage: Alaska Pacific University, 1989), 291-92.157Phillip Drucher, The Native Brotherhoods: Modern IntertribalOrganizations on the Northwest Coast Bulletin 168(Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1958).158Robert Arnold, 85.69Southeast Alaska, that the legal/legislative process was the only viable vehicle forresolution of Native/White conflicts. The second is, that education—in the Westernsense, not the Native one—was the key to accomplishing the first goal.In 1920, the Alaska Native Brotherhood, under the direction of William L.Paul and his brother Louis F. Paul, focused its attention on the issues of equalrights for Natives. The Pauls sought to place Natives in control of their own liveswith the abolishment of the separate school system in Alaska being viewed as amajor means to bring such a goal to fruition. This, then, became the primaryissue of the 1920s.59By the 1930’s, the issue of recognition by the federal government of Nativeland claims was of primary importance as more non-Natives moved intoSoutheastern Alaska and, as such, presented a growing threat to the Native way oflife. Specifically, the issues were land and resources (timber and fishing rights).ANB’s response to these threats was to pursue legislative and legal means ofresolution. In 1935, with ANB backing, Alaska’s Congressional delegate AnthonyDiamond secured passage of the Tlingit-Haida Jurisdictional Act authorizing aNative suit before the U.S. Court of Claims to determine what lands the Tlingits andHaidas were entitled to due to their ownership at the time of purchase. The nextyear (1936), in part because of ANB backing, the New Deal Indian ReorganizationAct was extended to Alaska.16° These events and activities set the legal andlegislative stage for ANB to sponsor the establishment of the Tlingit and HaidaIndians of Alaska Organization, the group filing suit against the federal159 Steven Haycox, “William Paul Sr. and the Alaska Voters’ Literacy Act of1925,” Alaska History 2, (Winter 1986-87).160William L. Paul Memorandum, 12 December 1948. Alaska NativeBrotherhood, William Paul Papers, Sitka, AK.70government in the U.S. Court of Claims over timber sales within the TongassNational Forest—a suit which was not settled until 1959.16 1ANB’s leadership changed by 1940. Frank Petrovich of Klawock andAndrew Hope of Sitka were significant not only within ANB’s leadership but alsoin the Alaska Territorial Legislature. They were elected first to seats in the Houseand later the Senate from which they worked to improve the status of AlaskaNatives for more than a decade.162World War II brought into focus the first real threat to land holdings ofAlaska Natives as the U.S. government built military bases in various parts ofwhat had been rural and largely un-threatened areas of the state. Alaska’sstrategic location was of enough importance for the U.S. to build the firstoverland road, the Alaska/Canadian Highway. This road linked the territory tothe contiguous states and allowed for the transportation of material and personnelto the interior regions of Alaska.The war focused the nation’s attentions on external issues, which meantthat the Indian policy of the New Deal largely fell by the wayside. Thetermination policies of the post World War II era manifested issues in Alaska, suchas the opening of the Tongass National Forest in Southeastern Alaska for loggingin 1949. ANB fought the opening in court as well as in the U.S. Congress withoutsuccess. Congress considered a number of anti-, or at least non-supportive, billsdirected at and posing threats to Native rights. In addition to the logging of the161Jauqlin Estus and Glenda Choate, Curry-Weissbrodt Papers of the TlingitHaida Indian Tribes of Alaska: An Inventory (Juneau: Central Council of theTlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, 1983), 2-3. For a detailed account of theseevents see G.D. Taylor, The New Deal and American Indian Tribalism: TheAdministration of the Indian Reorganization Act, 1934-45 (Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press, 1980).162Evangeline Atwood and Robert N. DeArmond, Who’s Who in AlaskanPolitics: A Biographical Dictionary of Alaskan Political Personalities, 1884-1974(Portland: Binford and Mort, 1977).71Tongass National Forest, Congress considered a bill which would have limited thenumber of fish traps permitted in Alaskan waters. On its face, this would be apositive measure; however, it would actually legitimize a practice which wasdetrimental to Native fishing. Congress also attempted to prevent the Secretary ofthe Interior from establishing Indian reservations in Alaska which would haveprovided some measure of protection to Native lands and resource rights.163Finally, during the same period, Alaska’s Congressional Delegate, E.L. ‘Bob’Bartlett, introduced statehood legislation which posed a clear threat to Native landrights. ANB fought these issues in court as well as in political circles andlegislative halls with mixed results. The significance of these events, as Haycoxhas noted, is in the increased political, legal, and organizational experiencesgained through relations with the federal government. The interactions allowedthe development of a level of sophistication on the part of the ANB leadership, asophistication not as yet present in other regions of Alaska.’64 The ANBleadership experience would prove to be a significant factor when, in 1966, theAlaska Federation of Natives was founded in response to the growing threat fromthe State of Alaska to Native land and resources. Tlingit and Haida leaderscontributed significantly to the successful organizational development of AFN andthe settlement of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.16 54.3.2 The Inupiat PatiotThe decade of the 1960’s brought a new threat to Native land rights andcultural survival. Whereas Southeastern Alaska had a steadily increasing Whitepopulation and accompanying economic development from purchase onward, the163Stephen Haycox, “Alaska Native Brotherhood Conventions: Sites andGrand Officers, 1912-1959,” Alaska History 4, 2 (Fall 1989), 41.‘65Arnold, Native Land Claims, 1978.72more remote regions of Alaska, that is, the Interior and the North Slope, had hadlimited white populations until after World War II; thus, the Alaska Natives ofthese regions had no real perception of that threat to their land. Themilitarization of Alaska during the 1940’s and 1950’s brought, for the first time, asubstantial and permanent White population to regions of the state which had hadonly limited White populations prior to World War II and the subsequent Cold War.By 1960, Alaska Natives made up about one-fifth of the total population of thestate.166 The White population was concentrated in half a dozen cities(predominantly Juneau, Ketchikan, Anchorage, and Fairbanks) and the majorityof the Native population lived in one or another of the 250 plus villages scatteredthroughout the state. 1 67With the Cold War came the period of fear and fascination with nuclearpower. In 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission conceived and attempted topromote an “excavation application” through the use of atomic and hydrogenexplosives.168 The goal of the project, “Project Chariot,” was to create a deepwater port at the mouth of Ogotoruk Creek, 110 miles north of the Arctic Circle, byexploding two, one-megaton and two, two hundred kiloton bombs. Each of thesmaller bombs were ten times more powerful than the bomb dropped onHiroshima.Without consulting the Eskimos living in the area (approximately 700people living in the three villages of Point Hope, Kivalina, and Noatak169), in1958 the Bureau of Land Management licensed the Atomic Energy Commission to1 66In contrast, Alaska Natives made up fifty percent of the territorialpopulation in 1930. See Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States,387.167Aruold, 94.168Peter Coates, “Project Chariot: Alaskan Roots of Environmentalism,” inAlaska History 4, 2 (Fall 1989), 1-32.169Debo, 388.73use 1,600 square miles of land around Cape Thompson, south of Point Hope, as theexperimental test site. Dr. Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb,”traveled to Alaska, making speeches in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks in anattempt to build support for the project by assuring his audiences that thefledgling state would receive multi-millions of dollars in federal funds, andfurther that the creation of a deep water port would provide a means ofdeveloping and transporting to market mineral deposits thought to be availablealong the Arctic coast of 70 Dr. Teller and his associates from the AEC andthe University of California’s Lawrence Radiation Laboratory were successful ingaining the support of C.W. Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, the state’s Chamber of Commerce, and notably the University of Alaska’spresident, Dr. William R. Wood, newly arrived from the state of Nevada—a statewith some history of its own concerning nuclear testing.1‘ 1When officials of the AEC held a meeting in March of 1960 with the VillageCouncil in Point Hope,172 the commission officials assured the villagers that“[there would not be] any danger to anyone” as a result of the explosions.173 Atthe heart of the issue from the Native perspective was the possible destruction ofand/or contamination of fish, migratory fowl, and caribou, which were andremain a part of traditional subsistence lifestyle for these people. Also of concernwas the loss of the land, in the Native world view inseparable from the effects onfish and animal life. In an attempt to avoid possible litigation, the AEC promised tocompensate for any possible damages, personal or property. Not surprisingly, the170Norman Chance, The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment (Fort Worth: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1990), 143.171Peter Coates, 5-12.172Angie Debo, 388.L73Charles Don Foote, “Project Chariot and the Eskimo People of Point Hope,Alaska,” Report to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, March 1961; also cited inChance, 145.74AEC’s assurances that Project Chariot would not be hazardous to the Inupiat peopleor their subsistence lifestyle were unanimously rejected by the VillageCouncil. 174As the controversy surrounding Project Chariot continued, further northanother threat to Native culture was unfolding in Point Barrow. The Bureau ofSport Fisheries and Wildlife of the Department of the Interior was ordered by theSecretary of the Interior to enforce the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty. TheMigratory Bird Treaty forbade the hunting of ducks and other migratory birdsfrom March to September, the time when most are nesting, which correspondsexactly to the period in which these migratory birds are present on the NorthSlope of Alaska, and thus contradicts traditional subsistence hunting cycles.175 Itis of interest to note that the Treaty, although ostensibly in place for almost fiftyyears, was not enforced in Alaska until Native peoples began to question theauthority, right, and intent of the policies concerning Native land rights of theDepartment of the Interior. This is the same federal agency which had approvedthe land transferred for Project Chariot and would oversee the selection and174Howard Rock, Editorial, Tundra Times, 1 (November 1962). Howard Rock,an Inupiat artist born in Point Hope, became the spokesperson for the Village ofPoint Hope. With the financial backing of Dr. Henry S. Forbes of the Associationof American Indian Affairs (AAIA) Board of Directors, Rock founded the TundraTimes, a Native newspaper offering a Native perspective on issues concerningNative people. The first edition came off the presses on 1 October 1962, and thepaper remains in operation to this day. The masthead of the first edition carriedthe names of two Native organizations—the Tanana Chiefs Conferencerepresenting Athabascan Indians and the Inupiat Patiot representing the InupiatEskimo. Later that same year the other three Native groupings represented in thestate were added to the masthead: Tlingits, Haidas, and Aleuts. (See Debo, 396)175 As a result of the Secretary’s order, on 31 May 1961, John Nusinginya,an Inupiat member of the Alaska State Legislature, was arrested by a federalwarden for hunting eider ducks out of season. After a village meeting called todiscuss the issue, 300 Inupiat residents of Barrow showed up to present the wardenwith 138 eider ducks and signed statements from each hunter that the ducks hadbeen taken by them out of season.For details of this infamous event, see Chance, 1990; Debo, 1988; Arnold,1978; and Coates, 1989.75transfer of 103 million acres of land from the federal govermnent to the State ofAlaska as a consequence of the Statehood Act of 1959. The agency also wascharged with managing Native American trust lands and, therefore, hadcompeting interests and demands to try to balance. When the history of theDepartment’s management of Native American lands is examined closely, it is alltoo obvious that the scales used in such instances have been weighted heavilyagainst Native rights and interests.176 It is not unreasonable to suspect that thesesame scales were used in the Alaska case, and the reactions by Native peoples toDepartmental initiatives indicate that they shared this perception.As a result of the increasing threats to land and culture, and with fundsobtained from the national Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA), ameeting was held in Barrow in 1961. Yup’ik Eskimos from Southwest Alaska andInupiat Eskimos from the Northwest Coast and the North Slope came together andagreed to undertake a focused political action program designed to address thegrowing threats. The Inupiat Patiot (Peoples’ Heritage) thus was formed andbecame the first political organization in Arctic Alaska, with regionalmembership and regional concerns. Their common focus was the protection ofaboriginal land rights.177In March of 1961 the villagers of Point Hope sent a letter to President JohnF. Kennedy asking that Project Chariot be canceled and that the 1,600 square milesbe restored to their previous status, that is, the public domain. Newly appointedSecretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, who had a good Indian legislative record176Christine Bolt, American Indian Policy and Reform, (London: UnwinHyman, 1987), 103-4, 114, 119-23, 127, 132-4, 272-4, 285. For a more legalistic andAlaska specific, see David S. Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws, (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Press, 1984), 3-22, 51, 132.‘77Norman A. Chance, The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment. (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990). See also Arnold, 96;Debo, 391.76as a representative from Arizona, and Assistant Secretary John A. Carver, who hadan interest in Native American issues, also were interested in having the status ofthe land withdrawal reviewed.178 On May 29, 1963, under growing pressure, theAEC withdrew its land use permit and the land was restored to the public domainon September 2, 1963.179In a similar move, the people of Point Barrow petitioned President Kennedyfor an exception to the Migratory Bird Treaty, so as to allow them to legallyharvest a traditional food source. It was then that Alaska U. S. Senator E.L. ‘Bob’Bartlett began to show concerns over Alaska Native problems. With hisassistance, as well as that of Secretary Udall, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries andWildlife was put in check. The charges against Nusinginya and the other 138hunters were dropped and the traditional harvests continued.1804.3.3 The Tanana Chiefs ConferenceThe North Slope and Coastal regions of Alaska were not the only regions inwhich threats to land and livelihood were presenting themselves. In the interiorof the state, the construction of a massive dam was being proposed by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. The Rampart Canyon Dam and Reservoir Project wasinitiated in 1962 to create a lake “greater than Lake Erie or the State of New Jerseyat a cost of several billion dollars.”18 1Construction of the dam across the Yukon River would have flooded 1,648square miles of hunting, fishing, and trapping lands, displaced an approximateL78Debo, 383. See also Coates, 17; Chance, 147.79Coates, 17. For a brief review of the events leading to the withdrawal ofthe proposal see Peter Coates, “Project Chariot: Alaskan Roots ofEnvironmentalism,” Alaska History 4, 2 (Fall 1989), 1-32.180Arnold, 95; Debo, 393; Chance, 147.181Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness (Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany, 1971), 79.771,200 Athabascan Indians, and destroyed 24 Interior villages. Like Project Chariot,the Rampart Dam proposal enjoyed widespread support from Alaska’s federal andstate senators and representatives, large private contractors, urban mayors,owners of urban newspapers, and the administration of the University ofAlaska. 182In conjunction with and preceding the Rampart Dam Project, the state landselections mandated in the Statehood Act of 1959 were becoming increasinglyominous. While the statehood legislation acknowledged the rights of Natives tolands they used and occupied, each selection withdrawn by the state meant thatmore Native lands were jeopardized across the state. One needs only to recall thatNatives held clear title to just two small reservations in Alaska at the time.Therefore, the potential for massive displacement and/or land loss loomed largerin Native villages across the state. By 1963 Alaska Natives had filed a thousandpetitions with Interior Secretary Udall, calling upon him to implement a landfreeze on all land transfers from the federal government to the state until suchtime as the Native claims and rights had been clarified.’ 83An historic meeting took place in the Yukon River Village of Tanana onJune 24-26, 1962. Having heard of the proposed dam project, village elders andleaders from the Interior villages met to discuss the threat and outline possiblecourses of action.184 Alfred Ketzler, chief of Nenana, served as chairman. Theincipient threat of ongoing state land selections and the immediate threat of theRampart Dam served as catalysts for the creation of the Tanana Chiefs Conference(TCC) (Dená Nená Henash).185182Arnold, 100-103.183Chance, 148.184Debo, 394; Arnold, 102-103.185Personal communication with Alfred Ketzler, Fairbanks, 1991.78TCC was the historic successor to the traditional consultative and governingassembly of the Athabascan peoples of Interior Alaska that dated from 1912.While the modern TCC (which is a non-profit regional social service organizationincorporated after the 1971 passage of the Alaska Native Settlement Act) had itsorigins in the 1959 threat posed by statehood, the first meeting of the Chiefs wasalso a result of threats to the land. The continuing migration of Whites into theInterior of Alaska, and the subsequent plan to construct a railroad fromAnchorage to Fairbanks,’86 had led to the first Tanana Chiefs Conference devotedsolely to Native land rights. It was held in Fairbanks in July of 1915. Judge JamesWickersham, Alaska’s delegate to Congress, called the meeting. Of the fourteenpeople in attendance, six were traditional chiefs. Their concern was bestexpressed by Chief Alexander of Tolavana, who asked Wickersham to “not let theWhite people come near us. Let us live our own lives in the customs we know.” 87The 1915 conference proved to be ineffective, as the railroad wasconstructed and opened the Interior to further white migration and resourceextraction—primarily in the area of gold mining.188 However, the 1962 Tananameeting proved to be valuable. Ketzler was among the first of the Alaska Nativeleaders to propose Congressional actions to save the land for Native peoples, asopposed to the earlier attempts to use the courts. Additionally, the meeting made itclear to all those in attendance that the threats were of concern to all AlaskaNatives, not just to individual groups or villages. This meeting is credited with186Claus M. Naske, An Interpretive History of Alaskan Statehood(Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., 1973), 59, 73, 77.187Patty Stanton, “A Conference with the Tanana Chiefs,” Alaska Journal(Spring, 1971).L88Arnold, 81.79providing the basis for the Native request to Secretary Udall to freeze the land, aswell as being the genesis of the Alaska Federation of Natives.189The organization of Tanana Chiefs, in combination with the publishing ofvillage protests to the Rampart Dam Project by the Tundra Times, apparentlystimulated the Department of the Interior to do a study of the issues. The resultwas the cancellation of the project, as there was found to be no market for theelectricity that the dam would generate. It was also found that the project woulddestroy the habitat of moose and migratory fowl. As Debo points out, however, nomention was made of the “habitat and nesting grounds of the Indians”90 whichwould be lost should the project have been built.Alaska’s Congressional Delegation was not of one mind when it came to theissue of Native lands. Senator Ernest Gruening was of the opinion that the matterbe referred to the U.S. Court of Claims for adjudication. Senator Bartlett, however,felt that the state land selection and transfer should proceed without awaitingclarification of the Native claims, and his position was the more representative ofthe state leadership.19 1By 1962 the number of regional Native organizations in Alaska had grownto five, with the addition of the Fairbanks Native Association (1960) and theAssociation of Village Council Presidents (1962). This still left many regions andNative people of the state unorganized (in the Western sense). The greatdistances, the lack of communication, and the extremely high cost of travelseverely hampered contact among the various regions. Also, age-old ethnicrivalries bred distrust, as State Senator Eben Hopson of Barrow stated in a letterthat Howard Rock printed, in part, in the Tundra Times:189Arnold, 102.190Debo, 397.191This is my liberal interpretation of Chance’s observations concerningthis issue. See Chance, 149.80• . . I can just picture you and a handful of other Eskimos sitting at aconference table with a full battery of the members of the AlaskaNative Brotherhood, and being voted down on every proposal youmight have.’924.3.4 The Alaska Federation of Natives: A Statewide OrganizationWhile mistrust and fear clearly existed between the various Native regions,the growing pressures to obtain title to the land were of common concern. Asthese pressures mounted, Steven V. Hotch of the ANB made a proposal that thevarious Native associations unite.193The central element to the organizing of a statewide Native group was thatof a common threat of loss of the land base which was overcome, in part, becauseof events ongoing in the larger society. The decade of the 1960’s saw thebeginnings of the recognition that the termination policies of the federalgovernment had only served to further erode the land base of Native Americansand had not brought them into the dominant society in any sense of the term—sociologically, economically, or politically. The noted Native American policyhistorian, Francis Paul Prucha, suggests that a middle ground was perceived byU.S. government officials, something between the thrust for total assimilation(which was the primary purpose of the termination policies of the 1950’s) andpaternalism (or, as Prucha terms it, ward-ship) which had been the hallmark ofIndian policy in the early part of the 20th century.194The Kennedy Administration began an Indian policy reminiscent of theJohn Collier policies of the 1930’s, inasmuch as it was the position of the Kennedy192Howard Rock, Editorial, Tundra Times (March 1963), also reprinted inArnold, 109.193For a full account of this event, see Arnold, 108-112; and Debo, 398.194Francis Paul Prucha, The Indians in American Society: From theRevolutionary War to Present (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 72.81Administration that only through Indian participation in the administration ofprograms for them would there be any real hope of raising the living conditionsamong Native Americans. The 1961 Commission on the Rights, Liberties, andResponsibilities of the American Indian recommended that it was the duty of theU.S. government to assist the Indian peoples in progressing “from their presentpoverty to a decent standard of living.” It also made recommendationsconcerning tribal government, Indian health services, and educationalprograms. 195 The Commission’s report, like its 1928 predecessor, the MerrimamReport, believed that only through economic development and Indianparticipation in the administration of Indian programs could Indian peoples hopeto make meaningful achievements.The focus on poverty and citizen participation began in earnest with theascension of Lyndon Johnson to the presidency. President Johnson declared Waron Poverty in hopes of producing a Great Society. The significance of thesenational trends for Alaska Natives lies in the manner in which President Johnsonchose to implement the various social and economic strategies. Because theJohnson Administration sought to put the money for program operations in thehands of local non-profit organizations (e.g., the community action programs),Native organizations had to be created to enable federal funds to be distributed inAlaska. These funds then provided one major impetus for the creation oforganizations ranging from land claims focused organizations to the ultimateformation of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Over the next few years, withfunding available from the Federal Office of Economic Opportunity, it was possiblefor Native leaders to travel and hold meetings to create these organizational195American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report, (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977).82structures leading to the regional and, ultimately, the statewide Nativeorganizations.Two new regional groups were formed almost immediately, that is, GwitchaGwitchin Ginkhye (Yukon Flats People Speak) and the Cook Inlet NativeAssociation. A meeting of the seven existing regional organizations was heldlater that year, in 1964, in Anchorage. The focus of the meeting was the need formore political activity among Native people and the need to work cooperativelytoward the achievement of common goals.National attention was focused on village housing, poverty, and educationin rural Alaska in 1965, which overshadowed the lands issue. Native land rightsreturned to the forefront as a result of an announcement made by the newlyformed Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA). ASNA filed a claim to 58 millionacres of land, representing virtually all the land north of the Brooks Range, basedon Aboriginal use and occupancy. The following year, Emil Notti, then presidentof Cook Inlet Native Association, called a statewide meeting of all seven of theNative organizations, to be held in Anchorage on the ninety-ninth anniversaryof the transfer of Alaska from Russia (October 18, 1966). Thus was created theAlaska Federation of Natives.196The year 1966 saw advances on other fronts for Alaska Natives. In additionto having overcome regional and ethnic distrust, Alaska Natives had begun toexert a political presence. Local and statewide political candidates addressed thethree hundred Native delegates at the Anchorage Convention, and AFN’sendorsements are credited with swinging the election of some state and localraces. Legislation was also drafted for presentation to the U.S. Congress outlining196For a detailed and complete reading of these events leading up to andincluding the creation of AFN, see Arnold, 1978. For a more legal interpretation ofthese events, see David Case, Alaska Natives and American Laws, 198483Native demands and requesting that land withdrawals, sales, and leases be halteduntil a resolution of the Native claims had been reached. In response, SecretaryUdall issued the order to freeze the land pending settlement.The 1966 elections also added seven Alaska Natives to the state legislature.John Sackett of Ruby, Jules Wright of Fairbanks, Willy Hensley of Kotzebue, CarlMoses of Unalaska, Frank See of Hoonah, and John Westdahl of St. Mary’s wereelected to the state House of Representatives, and Ray Christiansen of Bethel waselected to the state Senate. In a sixty-seat legislative body (comprised of twentySenate and forty House seats) seven seats represent the possibility of exertingsignificant influence, especially if those holding those seven seats vote as a bloc.On the house side, six seats were enough to insure the passage or blockage oflegislation, particularly when the other fourteen house members represent theirown regions (primarily white, urban centers) and party affiliations (Democratsand Republicans). This is not meant to infer that those Native legislators did notalso represent regional and geographical differences nor that they were notmembers of one or the other of the major political parties. However, one needs tobear in mind the overriding reason for this turning to politics: resolution of theland claims. The same universally agreed upon reason for coming together underthe AFN banner was the main reason behind the formation of what became theBush Caucus.The Bush Caucus is a term which is used to refer to those legislators fromrural areas (who also happen to be primarily Native) whose beginnings can betraced back to a small group of legislators from Northwest Alaska, who bandedtogether in terms of voting in 1966 to try to assure that the people of theNorthwest Coast received equitable funding from the territorial and later the state84government. They called themselves the Ice Block’97 and while their concernswere regional, the idea of a bloc vote in the legislature (one based ongeographical rather than party lines) seemed a workable way to begin to insurethat state services and projects would go to rural areas.’98 Events elsewhere inthe state were forcing Native peoples to develop organizations and strategies toprotect their land and lifestyles.4.3.5 The Policy EnvironmentThe national policy environment was significant in relation to whatunfolded in Alaska. The mid to late 1960s were turbulent times in the UnitedStates. Ethnic groups and social scientists (such as Colman and Jencks) werebeginning to question the role of schooling. The promise of social and economicmobility advanced by school promoters had not materialized for many of thenation’s people, especially those of color. Still, there were those who believedthat education could set right social injustices, specifically President Johnson,who declared war on poverty. Johnson’s Community Action Programs targetedlow income Americans as the recipients for federal dollars in the hopes that, viasuch programs as Headstart, these people would pull themselves out of theirpoverty. As a former educator, Johnson seemed to share in the belief thatthrough education one would or could advance oneself. However, Johnson did notseem to have a great deal of confidence in the American educationalestablishment if one bears in mind the vehicle(s) he chose for implementing hiswar on poverty. Johnson program dollars were, for the most part, not designated197Major General John Schafer,interview, Anchorage, Alaska, June, 1990.198John Sackett, interview, Fairbanks, August 1990, and Frank Ferguson,interview, Anchorage, October 1990.85for use by the state or local governments. Additionally, educational bureaucracieswere also limited in their access to this new source of funding.199While public attention in the U.S. was divided between the activities of themilitant minorities, the increasing national involvement in the war in SoutheastAsia, the growing unrest amongst the nation’s youth and the radicalization of theacademy—all of which tended to accentuate differences—the Alaska Native peopleswere uniting. Federal funding for Community Action Programs (CAP) hadenabled the various regional Alaska Native leaders to travel to other regions andmeet other leaders who, they soon learned, had the same or similar concerns.These programs also served as the training ground for a new generation of Nativeleaders. Through participation in these meetings, which provided access andexposure to policy makers at the state and National level, the Alaska Nativeleadership gained invaluable experience in the rules of the game,20° whichplaced them in a position to further the Native cause in terms that were mostintelligible to the non-Native community.2°1The 1966 AFN convention and the success of Native political candidates inthe 1966 elections were clear signs that Native peoples were ready and able tocome together to meet a common threat, loss of land—a threat that had increasedwith each and every land withdrawal by the state and with every lease sale. The199This is a line of argument advanced by Dr. Harold Silver, in a summerseminar at UBC, SEDS, 1989, from my own notes.200Neal Putnum, The Beliefs of Politicians (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,1973), 1-3.201Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., 2(c) Report: Federal Programs andAlaska Natives, Introduction and Summary. Prepared for the United StatesDepartment of the Interior (Washington, D.C.: United States Government PrintingOffice, 1975.)For an alternate interpretation which suggests that the training of AlaskaNative leadership made the processes intelligiable to otherwise culturallydeprived minorities, see Gerald McBeath, North Slope Borough Government andPolicymaking. (Anchorage, Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research.1981) and Thomas A. Morehouse, Gerald A. McBeath and Linda Leask, Alaska’sUrban and Rural Governments (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984).861966 elections also brought a new governor, Walter Hickel, a man committed todevelopment and opposed to the land freeze effected by Secretary Udall. Forexample, in a letter to Udall (written shortly after taking office), Hickelcomplained about the freeze, arguing that it denied the state its right to selectland under the Statehood Act. Udall responded by reminding the Governor thatboth the Statehood Act and the Organic Act of 1884 recognized the existence ofNative land rights until Congress enacted a settlement.202The Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interioropened large tracts of land to oil and gas leasing in September of 1966. Nativeorganizations filed protests and Udall announced that all such leases would beheld in abeyance pending investigation of the protests.203 Faced with mountingtensions from the White population of the state over the land freeze and theimpatience of the oil companies to begin exploration activities on the North Slope,Governor Hickel convened a Land Claims Task Force composed of Nativerepresentatives, state officials, and personnel from the Secretary of the Interior’soffice. The task force presented its findings and recommendations to theGovernor in the spring of 1968. While this version of a just and equitablesettlement of Native claims was not acted upon in the Congress, it is nonethelesssignificant as it marks the recognition by the state government that AlaskaNatives were a political force to be contended with if land issues were to beresolved.204As mentioned previously the decision on the part of Alaska Natives topursue political resolution as opposed to legal remedies was a major turning point202Robert D. Arnold, Alaska Native Land Claims (Anchorage: Alaska NativeFoundation, 1978), 118.203Richard C. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: History andAnalysis (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 1972), 440.204Leon C. Daugherty, “The Political Power Struggle in Alaska Native LandClaims.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Syracuse University, 1970, 44.87in the settlement. From 1968 until the final passage of the Claims Act in 1971, anumber of bills were introduced in Congress representing the interests of thevarious parties: the State of Alaska, the U.S. Department of the Interior, theInterior and Insular Affairs Committees of both houses of Congress, and theAlaska Federation of Natives. Congressional hearings were held every year from1968 until passage in 1971, into every aspect of the matter in hopes that a solutioncould be found.205 But not until 1969, when a major oil field was discovered onthe North Slope of Alaska, did there exist sufficient political and economic muscleto push through a settlement.The 1968 election of President Richard M. Nixon posed a new threat to theNative position on the settlement of claims. Once in office, Nixon would seek toreplace Interior Secretary Udall with Alaskan Governor Walter Hickel who hadspent the last two years trying to have the freeze lifted. Upon his nomination,Hickel would state, “[wjhat Udall can do by executive order I can undo.”206 Thisstatement proved to be premature. Cabinet nominees require confirmation by theU.S. Senate and, because AFN chose to withhold its endorsement of Hickel givenhis position on the freeze, Hickel found himself in a situation from which hecould only extract himself by agreeing to support the Native position regardingthe settlement of claims prior to lifting the freeze. Hickel agreed to continue thefreeze until December 1970 and, based on that promise, he obtained the AFNendorsement and was confirmed to the post of Secretary of the Interior. Thisdemonstration of the political acumen of the AFN leadership was an importantone. It sent clear messages to the leadership of the state, as well as to those multinational resource companies interested in developing Alaskan resources, that the205Ibid., 48.206Robert D. Arnold, Alaska Native Land Claims (Anchorage: Alaska NativeFoundation, 1978), 125.88Native leadership was independent, increasingly strong, and growing in theirability to influence the actions of government in order to advance the interests ofthe Native community.207At the heart of the struggle was the matter of control, in a very real sensecontrol of the future survival of many cultures and peoples of the land. Theissues centered in four general areas: the amount of land that Alaska Nativeswould receive; the amount of money that would be received by Alaska Natives forthe extinguishment of pending and present claims; whether the state of Alaskawould be party to the settlement; and the amount and duration of any royaltypayments deriving from the sale of minerals extracted from state and or federallands. While the state consistently argued against its inclusion in any and all ofthese issues, the federal government’s position, via the Department of theInterior, flip-flopped numerous times. The only consistency to the federalposition was to be found in its position that the monetary settlement and landsettlement numbers were low. In the end, a compromise was reached whichawarded Natives less land than they had sought, 40,000,000 acres as opposed to60,000,000. There was an increase in the monetary settlement, from the$500,000,000 sought by AFN to $962,500,000, and the State of Alaska was made partyto the settlement. A two percent overriding royalty on mineral extraction, inperpetuity, would go to the Native corporations.208 In addition, Public Law 92-203(the ANCSA of 18, December 1971) passed the costs of more than fifty percent ofthe monetary settlement on to the state, $462,500,000 would come from the FederalTreasury and 500,000,000 dollars from the State of Alaska.2071bid., 126-9.208Alaska Native Land Claims Hearings (HR 3100, HR 7039, HR 7432). 92ndCongress, First Session (Washington D.C.: GOP, 1971.)89At least one student of ANCSA is highly critical of the AFN leadership for itsactions immediately following President Nixon’s call to the AFN convention inAnchorage (1971) to inform the delegates that he had signed the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act.At a time that called for statesmanship [sic] of the highest order,such was almost totally lacking amongst the Native leadership of theday. While the long legislative skirmishes may have requiredpolitical leadership that was tough, stubborn and somewhat cynical,and indeed, the art of political confrontation was extremely popularall across the nation in the latter 1960s, when the moment of victoryarrived, such men did not have the intellectual training anddiscipline to build the machinery of long-range planning and closeassociation that was then required. The traditional philosophers andintellectuals of the village and regional peoples were set asideduring the long, drawn-out political fight for the settlement. Theleadership that evolved and was in power by 1971 was, by and large,made up of young, vigorous and aggressive men who had gained ataste for power through their association with attorneys of statureand high government officials both within the state and inWashington D.C. The older men of the villages, who traditionallycontributed a steadying influence in the people’s affairs, were notconsulted and were almost totally ignored in the end.209While Jacquot’s point concerning the lack of inclusion of the elders in theactual negotiations of the settlement is valid, he fails to grasp the significance ofthe transformation in Native/non-Native relations. This settlement was foughtout in a Western political arena, not a traditional one. Therefore, for the mostpart, Elders were not well equipped to participate in such settings. Rather, theeducation and experience that these younger leaders had acquired by serving onboards of directors, in the state legislature, and through the creation andoperation of various not-for-profit corporations, made the settlement possible.Understanding the split which occurred requires consideration that AFN was anentity created, in large part, to enable the federal government to negotiate with asingle body rather than with each and every village. Given the diversity of209Louis Jacquot, Alaska Natives and Alaska Higher Education, ADescriptive Study: 1960-1972. (Anchorage: Alaska Native Human DevelopmentProject, 1974), 110-111.90cultures and needs across villages, it is understandable that tensions existedwithin the Federation, and that upon settlement that these tensions should eruptinto regional confrontations over specific clauses within the Act. Provision ofhigher education focused on Alaska Native needs became the major issue duringthe decades of the 1970s and 1980s. It is to this issue that we turn in the nextchapter.4.4 SummaryThis chapter discussed the relationship between economy and educationand subsequent consequences for Alaska Native higher education. Therelationship between Western interests in land and resource extraction createdthe tensions out of which grew the first generation of Alaska Native leaders.These continuing threats to the land base and cultural traditions translated intolegislative and legal actions on the part of the Alaska Native leadership.Educational delivery and the provision of culturally appropriate education toAlaska Natives became a major point of conflict between Western and Nativeleaders. These conflicts set the stage for the rise of the next generation of AlaskaNative leadership. The following chapter details continuing conflicts betweenthe University of Alaska and Alaska Native leadership.91CHAPTER VTHE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA AND THE ALASKA NATIVE LEADERSHIP5.1 IntroductionIn Alaska the development of Native (also called ‘Rural’)21° highereducation came about within the social and political context of national policy.However, the particular events and circumstances which led to the establishmentof rural education by the University of Alaska are distinctly Alaskan. In whatfollows I shall demonstrate that the University of Alaska made educationalprovisions for rural residents only after the intervention of the Alaska Nativeleadership. Specifically, I will focus on the creation of the office of the vicepresident for rural affairs (REA) within the office of the statewide president, thesubsequent dismantling of the REA, and the creation of a division of communitycolleges, Rural Education and Extension services (CCREE).5.2 AFN: Internal Organizational ConflictThe Native leadership managed to restructure the Alaska Federation ofNatives and have it back on track by October of 1972. The major differencebetween the pre-and post-1972 AFN is that, after the 1972 restructuring, thepower to make decisions and negotiate was moved from the statewide organization2t0Generally, ‘Rural,’ ‘Rural Alaska’ and ‘Bush’ or ‘Alaska Bush’ areaccepted as synonymous terms. These terms are used to refer to areas of the statethat are not on or contacted by the road system. The majority populations in theseareas are Alaska Natives, thus the common understanding is that Rural and/orBush are terms relating to Native interests or issues.92to the regional, and often to the sub-regional, levels.21 1 This reorganization wasdesigned to redefine both the structure and functions of the organization. Theboard of AFN recognized that the needs of Alaska Natives were many and varied,and that services provided to regional corporations, both profit and not-for-profit, would require specialized personnel with expertise in both areas. Thesolution was to create two boards: one concerned with the for-profit corporateneeds and one focused on the human resource needs of the various regions andnot-for-profit corporations. It was these human resource needs that motivatedAFN to examine the University of Alaska’s ability and willingness to providetraining to Alaska Natives, and to analyze more closely the role the Universityplayed in their education to that point. They found a lack of appropriateprograms and seemingly disinterested administration at the University, and as aresult, AFN created its own Committee on Higher Education early in 1972. TheCommittee released a position paper prepared by Louis Jacquot on 16, May 1972,which stated in part that “the development of educational programs that preparedpeople to live in the bush and the city must be one of the highest institutionalpriorities of the University.”21 2The structural realignment and the position papers generated at this timewere in response to what occurred at the Alaska Methodist University AFNmeeting in December 1971. Following notification at the meeting of PresidentNixon’s signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, many protests weremade thereby splitting members’ positions on matters of organizational structureand policy decisions. This created a context for the reexamination of structural211This statement is supported by an analysis of Alaska Native organizationthat the author undertook in conjunction with his Ford Foundation LeadershipDevelopment Grant. Report on file with Ford Foundation New York, 1973.212Louis Jacquot, “Position Paper and Recommendations,” (Anchorage:Alaska Federation of Natives, Committee on Higher Education, 16 May 1972), 2.93alignment of the Alaska Federation of Natives statewide organization. A key issueaddressed related to the delivery of higher education in relation to Alaska Natives.The terms of the Settlement Act made visible the need for higher education.Leadership recognized that to insure the continued control of the land andresources transferred under the terms of the Settlement Act required theestablishment of an appropriate delivery system of higher education for theupcoming generation of Native youths.From the onset, elders were consulted informally prior to formal meetingsby Native Regional corporate leaders. Elders’ views and decisions were thenrepresented at formal meetings by the elected Native Regional leadership. Animportant view held by elders was to allow the younger generation of Nativeleaders to serve as culture brokers representing their peoples’ interests to theWestern world. To outside observers, the role of elders may be interpreted asbeing very Western since elders input was less visible. The role of elders,however, is clearly represented in the following quote by John Sackett.21 3because you will be working with your own people’s money, theirbirth right and their settlement and because in many cases, many ofthe Native people do not know what decisions to make because of alack of education, this will be the greatest responsibility ofleadership.Jacquot’s report to AFNs subcommittee on Higher Education was written inresponse to the events which occurred at this meeting. In this report hecriticized the AFN leadership for being too “Westernized.” Specifically he wasreferring to his perceived exclusion of elders from the decision making process.Jacquot’s interpretations of these events are suspect given his reliance onGordon’s214 description of marginalized leaders as an explanation for the lack of213John Sackett, “Editorial,” Tundra Times, 16 (January 1972).214Gordon M. Milton, Assimilation in American Life: the Role of Race,Religion, and National Origin (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).94leadership present in the AFN during this period. The problem is that Gordonstudied European immigrants, not Native Americans. Native Americans are notimmigrants, nor do they intend to assimilate, a dilemma at the very heart of theproblem throughout the history of U.S.INative relations. Furthermore, Gordonsuggested that these “marginally ethnic intellectuals” constituted a distinct transethnic subsociety,215 referring to scholars and intellectuals in the Western senseof that term, that is, University trained persons. Contrary to Jacquot’s position,this does not describe the AFN leadership. As Erichman points out, only twenty-four college degrees were granted to Natives from 1895 to 1950, and between 1950and 1967 only 101 college degrees were attained by Alaska Natives.216 This pointis confirmed by Emil Notti,217 the president of AFN at the time of the split, and theman who structured the reconfiguration of AFN in 1972. This restructure resultedin the division of responsibilities into two boards, The Human Resources Boardwas responsible for dealing with non-profit social services concerns. The LandClaims Board was charged with attending to regional profit corporations.The leadership of AFN at this juncture is more readily understood whenviewed from the perspective of a Weberian tripartite construct of leadership as an“imperfect and transitional affair.”218 Weber’s conceptualization of leadershipand organizational behavior allows the external and internal dynamics ofdevelopment at play during the land claims struggle to be taken into account. Assuch, the Weberian model better explains the organizational split and the more2151bid., 224-230.216John I. Erichman, Who’s Who in Alaska: 1895-1965 (Juneau: Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Nov., 1967).217Emil Notti interview, Anchorage, Alaska. Oct. 1990. Notti, the firstpresident of AFN, stated that there were only “about fifty college trained Nativesin the State in 1966” and that most of the leadership of the regional corporationsand AFN had, at best high school and perhaps some vocational training.218Vince D’Oyley, “A Few Issues and Ideas in Re-planning Education”Comments on Education, 3, 4 (April 1973), 3-9.95dominant roles of the new leadership as opposed to that of the more traditionalvillage elders. Of equal importance, Jacquot’s focus does not consider theinfluence that individual actors may have on shaping the nature and direction ofpolicy, assuming that the environmental constraints are recognized and includedin the process of policy formation. These Weberian concepts, of subjective actorsand social interaction respectively, provide a more useful model from which toevaluate the nature and direction of the leadership. The Weberian types ofauthority must be viewed not only in light of the environmental variables whichinfluence the behaviors of key actors, but also in terms of the role of thecharismatic leader operating within the policy environment to influence thedirection of formulation and implementation. It should also be noted that elderswere not excluded from the claims process; indeed, they were utilized veryeffectively in the course of the public hearings as well as in giving testimonybefore the U.S. Senate and House.219The leadership of AFN was acutely aware of the need for highly trainedspecialists to run the corporations created under the terms of the settlement andto manage the assets of the corporations (the Act granted to the Nativecorporations the title to both surface and sub-surface mineral rights). Due to theefforts of William Paul and other Native legislators, the territorial legislature hadrecognized the need to provide support for Alaska Native students with theirpassage of an Act in 1955 authorizing the University of Alaska to make availableup to ten scholarships (in the form of free room and board) per year to AlaskaNative students.22° The Act had been repealed in 1968 and replaced with a moregeneral type of scholarship program, more general in the sense that Alaska219For an interpretation of the testimony of Alaska Natives and its impactsee Fae L. Korsmo, “Problem Definition and Alaska Natives: Ethnic Identity andPolicy Formulation,” Policy Studies Review 9, 2 (Winter 1990), 294-306.220The legislation was 140 SLA 1955.96Native students were no longer targeted as being in special need of financialassistance.22’ The Act now provided for the University administration todetermine to whom this aid would be given. One year later the Alaska Nativemembers of the state legislature again acted to bring to the attention of theUniversity of Alaska administration the need for support of Alaska Nativestudents. The passage of House Concurrent Resolution Number 56 (1969)instructed the University of Alaska to develop and institute a plan that wouldassist Alaska Native students in their pursuit of higher education and whichwould provide support to Native students, not only in terms of economics, but alsoin terms of academic and social areas.5.3 Alaska Native Human Resource Development ProgramThe University of Alaska’s involvement in rural education at thebeginning of the 1970s was confined primarily to the fifteen sites of theCooperative Extension Service. These sites were in areas of the state which wereeither sites of non-Native economic activity (such as commercial fishing) orlocations which had national defense-related significance (such as early warningradar sites or actual military installations). The educational offerings at thesesites tended to be concentrated on continuing education courses, self-improvement, and agricultural areas.222The average rural education student of this period was thirty years old,worked full time, and pursued an undergraduate degree on a part-time basis, 93%taking seven credit hours or less per semester. There were, of course, regionaldifferences in the student bodies. On Adak, for instance, 60% of the students were221112 SLA.222”Rural Education Status Report,” (Fairbanks: University of Alaska,January 1983), 15.97Navy personnel, while the other 40% were dependents or residents involved inservices related to the operation of the Naval base. At the Delta/Greely center,44% of the students were military with 56% coming from the communities.However, at Ft. Yukon the enrollment was 85% Native, with 65% of the studentsengaged in non-degree, job-related skill development.223The response of the University was the creation of SOS (Student OrientationServices).224 It needs to be acknowledged that there was a program for Nativestudents at UAF which operated from 1963 until 1967. The College OrientationProgram for Alaska Natives (COPAN) was a summer enrichment program fundedby the federal government which sought to increase the level of proficiency ofAlaska Native students in their use of the English language, both written andverbal. This pilot program was the creation of Lee Salisbury, a professor ofEnglish at UAF, who was looking into ways of reducing the Native student dropoutrate. He came to believe that one means to do so was to operate programs thatwere sensitive to Native needs. COPAN only operated as long as the federalgovernment provided funding, and in 1967, without support from the University,the program closed. Its impact was such that it would become the basis uponwhich a new state sponsored program would be built. SOS had rather humblebeginnings for a program which targeted the problem of Native dropouts as itsprimary purpose and which was created as the result of legislative action. Thelegislature acknowledged the problem of high Native attrition at the University223Ibid., 27.224 The University archives, the Board of Regents minutes and theUniversity Presidential records were reviewed in order to ascertain whether ornot there was any institutional support for this program and/or for the creationof its successor (SOS). Except in the case of an unfavorable reaction to the passageof House Concurrent Resolution 56, no mention of either was found, thus, offeringpersuasive evidence that while supporters amongst the faculty for Nativeprograms undoubtedly existed, there was no support at the highest levels of theUniversity system at this point in time.98when it mandated in 1921 the University to take steps to correct the situation,citing Salisbury’s program report:The period of highest Native student dropout occurs, typically,during the freshman year. If social and academic supports, such asCOPAN has provided, were available to students who need themduring this critical period, the attrition rate would decrease.225Unfortunately, the legislature failed to provide the University additionalfunding to implement the program. The solution came by way of private funding.Three oil companies donated the funds sufficient to support a single counselorand a half-time secretary.226 SOS also formed a Native student advisory councilwhich served as the liaison between the Native students and the University.227By 1971, SOS had increased (because of funding made available by the BushCaucus) in size (staffing) to the point that it had three full-time and five part-timestudent counselors:The counseling services affected through SOS are in most casescentered around here-and-now problems the student might have.Some students do seek rather continued advice and assistance oncontinuing problems but for the most part the students are seeking225 University of Alaska Fairbanks, SOS Progress Report, UAF archives (Dec.1971), 2.2261bid., 2. It is important to note that the oil companies had just paid 900million dollars for leases to the state of Alaska for the right to develop oil reserveson the North Slope of Alaska’s Brooks Range and that they (the oil companies)were engaged in a lawsuit in which they sought to prevent the Arctic SlopeNative Corporation from forming a Borough. The issue was one of taxation. Shouldthe Arctic Slope become a Borough with the powers of taxation, the oil companieswould have to negotiate directly with the inhabitants of the area they sought todevelop. Eventually the courts ruled in favor of the residents of the North Slope.Therefore, one could infer from the actions of the oil companies in court thatthey were not supportive of Native rights; on the other hand, one could assumethat these same oil companies were indeed supportive of Native peoples as theycame in aid of the University in terms of providing funds for SOS. My view is thatthe oil companies sought to improve their political image in the Native regions,the University, and possibly the legislative arena by their actions. For adescription of the events surrounding the law suit, see Gerald A. McBeath, NorthSlope Borough Government and Policy making (Anchorage: Institute of Social andEconomic Research, 1981).Progress Report, 1971, 6.99solutions to immediate difficulties. Many of the problems are of abureaucratic or “red tape” nature.228SOS’s 1971 Progress Report notes that one of their chief problems in theprogram centered around the counseling staff. Not only were these counselorsnon-Native, they were frequently unaware of the academic standing of the Nativestudents in their charge. The tutorial service, paid out of the program budgetincrease (FY 1972) resulting from legislative appropriations, proved to be lessthan satisfactory:A student can fall hopelessly behind while at the same time, duringformal contacts with his/her counselors, appear to be having noproblems. Many times it was found that the tutor’s sole motivationwas strictly monetary and he [or she] viewed SOS as a soft touch.229SOS seems to have had mixed results in the area of academic achievementaccording to the perceptions of the faculty most directly involved. Members ofthe English department cited as the major criticism the difficulty of most Nativestudents in word usage, study habits, and motivation. At the same time, theseinstructors argued that the greatest successes were encountered when membersof the English department taught the freshmen level courses in conjunction withthose in biology and history. The report states that student grades stabilized, andin some cases improved, in all three areas.23°In the twenty-two years since SOS’s creation, its mission has not changed.The program is still in operation, housed on the fifth floor of the GrueningBuilding on the UAF campus. The program still provides basic tutorial andacademic support for Native students on campus. The results are still viewed asmixed, but the program has now been institutionalized and all incoming Native2281bid., 7.229Ibid., 9.2301bid., 15.100students are routinely routed to SOS upon acceptance to the University.231 Duringthe University restructuring in 1985, the name was changed to Rural StudentServices (RSS). Among some Native leaders there existed resentment concerningthe acronym SOS as it conveyed the sense that Native students were in trouble and,as such, in need of special help.In July of 1971 the Alaska Federation of Natives initiated a program similarto that of SOS. The Alaska Student Higher Education Services (ASHES), funded by agrant from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, was designed tocoordinate all special services for Native students and was initially implementedat the two non-public universities in Alaska (Sheldon Jackson College and AlaskaMethodist University) as well as at the University of Alaska. Operated under theauspices of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the program’s dual focus was to unifythe operation of Upward Bound (a post-high school summer enrichment programfor rural students of at least junior class standing) and Educational Talent Search(a statewide college recruiting operation).232 As is the case with most first-yearoperations, in 1971 ASHES was a fairly loosely controlled operation, but by 1972AFN had appointed a board and was more closely monitoring the use of ASHES’spersonnel and budget in order to insure compliance with the grant as written.Furthermore, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) had been signed23 1 Jennings, “Rural Education,” unpublished Master’s thesis,University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1987.232As a member of the first ASHES employees, this statement comes frommy personal records and recollections.AFN used the services of the educational field staff for a variety oforganizational purposes outside the scope of the Federal grant; i.e., we frequentlyprovided advice to village councils on matters pertaining to Land Claims, such asthe pros and cons of becoming an IRA and the benefits and liabilities ofincorporating as a municipality—a strong push was on in 1970-1971 by the state ofAlaska to have villages incorporate, and the AFN position was not to do so, pendingsettlement of the Act.101into law and the leadership of AFN was acutely aware of the need to locate andtrain potential Native talent so as to implement the Settlement.A statewide director for ASHES was hired and the following goals were setforth:(1) orientation, by field recruiting and on-campus seminars(2) counseling on academic and personal matters of concern to students(3) tutorial support services(4) curriculum development by providing multi-cultural and communityrelevant materials(5) institutional change by suggesting reforms “to make highereducation relevant to the needs of Alaska Natives.”233The need for AFN to pursue a program such as ASHES was based on thecommon belief amongst Native leaders in 1970-7 1 that the University of Alaskahad failed to actively recruit rural students.234 Additionally, there was a greatbenefit in having six counselors (this was the initial number of field counselorsemployed under the ASHES grant) traveling around the state spreading the wordon behalf of the AFN leadership. These field counselors became the conduitthrough which information flowed to and from the villages, thus enabling AFN toplan and build for the future, and deal with the day-to-day problems existing in astate that spanned five time zones.ASHES, while it worked with and tried to coordinate the various Nativestudent services on the campuses, was ultimately an AFN program staffed andoperated by Native peoples for Native peoples. It was not an extension of theUniversity and, in fact, was frequently at odds with the non-Native staff whocomprised the majority of University personnel and with whom the ASHES staffhad to deal on behalf of the Native students.233Alaska Student Higher Education Services Proposal (Anchorage: AlaskaFederation of Natives, 1971), 27-28.was a member of the AFN/ASHES field staff at this point in time(during the directorship of Kelly Simmeonoff, of Kodiak). This issue was discussedat staff meetings in Anchorage.102The need for trained Native leaders to manage the affairs of the profit andnot-for-profit corporations mandated in the terms of the ANCSA was of extremeimportance to the Native peoples. Regarding establishment of programs andcourses to meet those needs, the University was seen to be so unresponsive by theAFN leadership that a council was formed to address the issue of rural education,and private funding was sought for the development of such programs.On November 20, 1972, Larry Merculieff, representing Alaska NativeFoundation (ANF) interests, Dr. Frank Darnell, director of the Center for NorthernEducational Research (UAF), and Dr. James Matthews, director of the CooperativeExtension Service (UAF) met with a representative of the Kellogg Foundation, Dr.Gary King, to write a grant that would “develop Native leadership and humanresources, based on the expressed needs of the Native community and to attempt toinitiate institutional change to allow for academic certification of informaleducational experiences.”235 Kellogg awarded a major contract to the Universityof Alaska and the Alaska Native Foundation at the conclusion of this meeting.The grant established the Policy Council of the Alaska Native HumanResource Development Program (ANHRDP)236 which was, until 1994, a marriageof convenience between the University and the ANF. Its first year of operationwas not viewed by University President Dr. Robert Hiatt as a particularlyproductive one. As the first ANHRD director points out in his cover letter toKellogg, “most rural Native people have a very negative view of the University of235Janice A. Currier, and Gay Pulley, “A History of Alaska Native HumanResource Development Program,” ANHRDP (Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation,Dec. 1981), 1.236The Council consisted of three Native members, Emil Notti, President ofANF, Roger Lang, president of AFN, and Mitch Dimentieff, vice-president ofTanana Chiefs Conference. Fred Bigjim was later added as a member at-large. TheUniversity membership was made up of Dr. Frank Darnell, director of the Centerfor Northern Educational Research, Dr. Vie Fisher, director of the Institute ofSocial and Economic Research, and Dr. Don Dafoe, Vice President of the Universityof Alaska.103Alaska.”237 This first year of development, in fact, was a very significant one.Interest in higher education, on the part of AFN/ANF, would ultimately lead to thecreation of the Rural Educational Affairs (REA) division within the University, adivision which focused on the needs of rural, primarily Native, residents.It is clear from the above discussion that the Native leadership in Alaska in1971—72 was concerned with what they perceived as a lack of educationalopportunities for Native students, both the Native students attending theUniversity of Alaska and those who chose to remain in rural areas. The Nativeleaders’ use of legislative and private funding as a vehicle to achieve their goalswas clearly a major shift in Native/non-Native policy interaction conducted at thehighest levels of the respective organizations. Meetings of the presidents of ANFand AFN with the Vice President of the University, and correspondence betweenthe University President and the ANHRD council suggest that the use of thelegislature to enact policy provisions for Native students (SOS, House ConcurrentResolution No. 56) had its desired affect. The University was forced, via thelegislature, to make provisions for Native students and began to appreciate thegrowing political acumen of the Native leadership and its ability to influencestate educational policy.5.4 Seeking MediationThe need for a cadre of educated leaders in rural Alaska came into sharpfocus with the settlement of the Alaska Native Land Claims (ANCSA) in 1971. Notonly did ANCSA mandate the creation of regional profit and not-for-profitcorporations, it also mandated the establishment of village corporations which237Louis Jacquot, Cover letter to Kellogg Foundation, first year progressreport ANHRD Program. Alaska Native Foundation, Anchorage, dated 10 December1973.104were granted title to lands in and around the villages, as well as title to surfacemineral rights. Recognizing the need to train personnel who could successfullymanage these local, regional, and statewide assets, the leadership of the AlaskaFederation of Natives and the Alaska Native Foundation sought funding toestablish a leadership training program. In 1971, the Kellogg Foundationprovided the funding and forum for the University of Alaska and the Nativecommunity to begin to address the long neglected educational needs of ruralresidents. The Kellogg Foundation awarded a long term grant to the Alaska NativeFoundation, this grant was to financially support the training of Native leaders.The program which grew out of this grant was the Alaska Native Human ResourceDevelopment Program (ANHRDP). The activities of the Alaska Native HumanResource Development Program have not only been significant, its role in thecreation of rural higher education (as well as the growth of the rural communitycolleges during this period) was, in fact, a driving force.In an attempt to identify the educational needs of rural Alaska, ANHRDPundertook a landmark investigation to determine what fields of study wereimportant to the Alaska Native peoples and how programs might be structured tomaximize the involvement of Native peoples—commonly referred to as the LisaRudd study. “The Higher and Adult Education Needs in Rural Alaska” was astructured interview study of fifty-one Native corporate leaders to determinetheir perceptions of the needs, both in terms of type and location of delivery, foreducation. The study was funded by Kellogg and jointly administered by theUniversity of Alaska and the Alaska Native Foundation.238238”Higher and Adult Education Needs in Rural Alaska: A Report by theAlaska Native Foundation to the Policy Council of the Alaska Native HumanResource Development Program” (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks,December 1974), vi.105The study itself was important as it clearly established an understanding onthe part of the Native leadership that education was an essential aspect indetermining the success or failure of managing the assets of the various regions.Another benefit of the study was the increasing awareness of higher and adulteducation needs among the rest of the Native leadership. The level of awarenessand concern varied widely among the leadership, especially on the regional andvillage levels. While some of the leadership had given considerable thought tothe issue (such as Doyon and the Arctic Slope regional corporations which werein the planning stages of establishing their own colleges), others (such as Calistaand Koniag) were developing working relationships with the University’scommunity colleges. Still others were more focused on gaining control of theelementary and secondary schools. Finally, there were corporations that, whileaware of the need for higher education and training for their employees, werefocused on other more pressing and immediate concerns.239The study’s findings, while of no surprise to the Native community, seemedto leave the university at a loss. The overwhelming interest documented in thestudy in vocational skills development, as opposed to the degree-orientedprograms, reflected not only a response to the demands of the Settlement Act, butalso a basic understanding of what training was needed for cultural survival.Rural Alaska was rapidly changing from a subsistence economy to a casheconomy and as such the need to enter wage-based employment wasincreasing.240 Therefore, there was a strong interest in training which wouldlead to a paying job. In fact, “the possibility of a job on completion of the course”2391bjd., xi.240Gordon S. Harrison and Thomas A. Morehouse, “Rural Alaska’sDevelopment Problem”, in Alaska Public Policy: Current Problems and Issues, ed.Gordon S. Harrison (College: University of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economicand Government Research, 1971), 281.106and “the possibility of better pay or promotion upon completion of the course”were ranked second and third out of ten suggested factors which might motivatepeople to take courses.24’ Not surprisingly, the two most frequently mentionedneeded areas of study were natural resource management and financialmanagement, both of which were obvious responses to the demands of theSettlement Act. The other major theme centered around the issue of local controlof the type(s) of education to be offered. This manifested itself in a dichotomousmanner. On the one hand, rural residents were asking for skill training thatwould lead to known job openings and at the same time, they were asking forskills which could be exercised in their home areas. In 1972 these requestscreated a real dilemma as rural Alaska had little in the way of major constructionprojects. However, this situation changed rapidly during this decade. Housing,construction, electrification, and communications projects were also on theagenda of the Bush Caucus.242In general, all members of the Alaska legislature were concerned with theissue of educational opportunity for their constituents. Thus, competition for thelimited resources available was further intensified, adding new urban andregional dimensions to the heretofore primarily rural focus. The legislativeinterest in the University of Alaska was framed in the context of whether or notthe University was providing an adequate level of support to the communitycolleges—prior to 1972 all of these community colleges were located in urban,primarily white communities. In events which followed, the major factor underconsideration was separation of the community colleges from the University ofAlaska system. This theme of separation has been a recurring one in the241”Higher and Adult Education Needs In Rural Alaska,” 23.2423ohn Sackett, interview, Fairbanks, 1990. See also Sam Kito, interview,Anchorage, Oct. 1990.107University of Alaska’s history and one which the Native leadership made use ofduring the latter part of the 1970’s, as discussed in the following section.5.5 LegislationDuring the 1970 legislature, House Bill 701 and Senate Bill 487 wereintroduced. This House Bill would have created an individual board of regents foreach of the community colleges. The colleges would have remained a part of thelarger University system, and each college board would have remained under thejurisdiction of the University Board of Regents. The belief was that an alternateform of administration was necessary for the community colleges to survive.Senate Bill 407 would have created a more autonomous community college systemheaded by a provost. Neither bill reached the floor of either body, yet this wasjust the beginning of a series of bills which were introduced between 1970 and1983.During the interim months between the 1971 and 1972 legislative sessions,the legislature established a committee to examine the function of, and needs for,higher education in the state. The committee hired the consulting firm ofMcLean and Associates which prepared reports over the course of the next fiveyears and advised the legislature on improving the delivery of post-secondaryeducation. In their first report, submitted in January of 1972, McLeanrecommended that the administrative structure of the University be retained;however, the report also noted that many Alaskans felt that the Universityadministration was more committed to central campuses than to rural orcommunity colleges.243 McLean recommended that the University statewide243 McLean and Associates, “Higher Education in Alaska: A Report BasedUpon Follow-up Visits to Sitka, College and Anchorage” (Juneau: Alaska StateLegislature, 1972), 15.108administration allow the community college presidents to set and administer theirown policies and procedures.244 As a result, the 1972 legislature addressed twopieces of legislation introduced at the request of the Interim Committee on HigherEducation. The House Bill 23 simply urged the University administration andRegents to recognize the community colleges as equally important components ofthe University system, while the second (House Bill 606) contained severalprovisions designed to upgrade the community colleges within the Universityhierarchy; for example, originally, the University organizational structureprovided for a chancellor of community colleges who, along with three otherchancellors (Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks campuses) reported directly tothe University system president. This was a provision of the 1962 legislativerevision of the 1953 Community College Act; however, it did not begin to operateuntil the 1982 Board of Regents’ restructuring of the University system. At thesame time, the Anchorage Community College president was upgraded to achancellor and the college to a major administrative unit (MAU), a technical termused to denote organizational status within the University system reserved forfour year campuses.Representative George Holman of Bethel (rural Alaska), a former schoolteacher turned politician, introduced House Bill (636) during the 1972 sessionwhich proposed to separate the community colleges from the University and putthem under the State Department of Education. This Bill passed the House butfailed to reach the floor of the Senate prior to the close of the session. However,Representative Holman, in an attempt to force the University to address the needsof his rural constituents, held the State’s budget hostage by refusing to report thebudget out of the State House Finance Committee for nearly a month until he2441bid., 18.109received authorization and funding for the establishment of a community collegefor Bethel.245At the beginning of the 1974 legislative session, McLean and Associatessubmitted a report which again recommended that the organizational structure ofthe University system be retained as a single governing body under the directionof the Board of Regents.246 In response to the growing pressures from otherrural legislators for a community college in their districts, the McLean report alsorecommended that a minimum criteria be established to insure that no futurecolleges would be established via legislative mandate and that a commission onpost secondary education be created to evaluate the applications of Alaskancommunities for community colleges. Also, the report suggested that communitycollege directors be more involved in policy program and budget making.247 TheInterim Committee on Higher Education introduced a bill (House Bill 541) whichprovided for the establishment of community colleges by the Board of Regentsthrough contractual agreement with school districts or municipalities. The billpassed the House but was still in committee in the Senate at the end of the session.Also in 1974, Senate Bill 239 was introduced. This bill would haveestablished a vice president for rural education and Native affairs. The bill hadnot made it out of Senate Finance Committee at the end of the 1974 legislativesession, but the concept or idea of a policy-level position within the statewideUniversity system was a matter of some importance to the Native leadership andwould resurface in the future. In fact, the matter was of such a pressing naturethat McLean and Associates produced an additional report in 1974 entitled “HigherEducation in Alaska: With Special Reference to the community colleges” which245George Holman, interview, Bethel, Alaska, 1990.246McLean and Associates; “Higher Education in Alaska: A Statewide Studywith Recommendations” (Juneau, Alaska State Legislature, 1974), 113.2471bid., 206-213.110argued for more local control on the part of the community college presidents andadvisory councils.248In 1975 two bills were introduced (House bill 144 and Senate bill 162).While similar to the 1974 House Bill, the new bills would have created a vicepresident reporting directly to the University of Alaska statewide president,whose responsibility would have been the administration of the Communitycolleges. When the bills were introduced, the Interim Committee stated thatunless this type of administrative structure was established, a great deal ofpressure may be brought to bear on the legislature to separate the communitycolleges from the University system. The final McLean Report, submitted duringthe 1976 legislative session, supported this reasoning. The report called for anautonomous community college system within three years, stressing that thecommunity colleges had matured to a point where they could operate on theirown. In part, McLean was acknowledging that the legislative representatives,especially those from rural areas, were more than willing and able to insure thecreation and growth of Community colleges in their districts (e.g., between 1972and 1976 three rural community colleges were established by legislative actions—Bethel, Nome and Kotzebue).249The 1977 session saw the introduction of yet another community collegeautonomy bill, Senate bill 294 and House bill 410, both of which had several cosponsors and were functionally the same legislation. The chief sponsor, Senator248McLean and Associates, “Higher Education in Alaska: With SpecialReference to the Community Colleges” (Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, 1974), 62,66-68, 76-78.249McLean and Associates, “Higher Education in Alaska: 1975-1976”(Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, 1976), 3 1-32, 40-44, 48-55, 62, 96-97.Between 1972 and 1976 McLean and Associates conducted and submitted fivereports to the Alaska legislature, in Juneau. It is important to note that thesereports were commissioned by a political body and should be interpretedaccordingly.111Croft of Anchorage, sought to create a separate board of governors that wouldhave authority over a chancellor of the community colleges. These bills relevantto education were not reported out of committees and so died there.Meanwhile, legislators from primarily urban centers continued to focustheir attention and legislative activities on the disparities between the Universityand community colleges by introducing bills which attempted to separate thecommunity colleges from the statewide University system. Simultaneously, therewas growing political pressure from rural legislators for community colleges tobe constructed in bush or rural Alaska. Their willingness and ability to use thelegislative process to insure that rural Alaska received its fair share is evidencedin the successful actions of Senator Holman in the creation of Bethel CommunityCollege in 1972.Later, similar bills were introduced in 1979, 1981, and 1983 legislativesessions. Like their predecessors, they failed to clear committee.25° While urbanlegislators and the University administration were bent on finding a differentmethod of structuring the University system, the Native leadership was focusedon the creation of a system of higher education appropriate for, and attuned to,the needs of rural Alaska. In the next section I document the activities of theNative leadership which parallels the legislative period described above.5.6 Native Leadership: The New GenerationThe Alaska Native Human Resource Development Project’s (ANHRDP) policycouncil had sought to work with the University to create not only an appropriatesystem for higher educational delivery in rural Alaska, but also one which would250The above legislative history is a synopsis of a report prepared by theCommunity College Interim Committee on Community Colleges: A Report to theTwelfth Alaska State Legislature (Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, February,1981).112be of utility within the regions to be served.251 The ANHRDP policy council wasestablished and served as the institutional link to the University. It was viewed, atleast from the position of Native leadership, as the linkage at the highest level(the presidents of both the statewide Native organizations were active members ofthis council).252 As the reports were generated, such as the Rudd Reportdescribed above, they were sent directly to the university statewideadministration. Further evidence of this linkage is to be found in the archives ofboth institutions, as well as written correspondence and communications betweenthe policy council and the statewide university administration. These wereaddressed to and generally answered by the presidents of the threeorganizations—AFN, ANF, and the University.The theme of need for Native leadership training had been raised by everyorganization doing business in rural Alaska. It was a theme that was successfullyused by the Alaska State House of Representatives Finance Committee chairperson,George Holman of Bethel, to secure funding in the Fiscal Year 1972 (FY 72) budgetfor the Bethel Community College. Prior to that, the University administrationhad never included a line item for rural Alaska in its budget requests to the statelegislature.253By 1974, the Native leadership was convinced that Mitch Demientief’sassessment of the University’s racist posture was correct. Demientief, who was amember of the ANHRDP policy council and president of the Fairbanks based not251Needs Assessment Survey (Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation 13September 1974), 6. The basis for this statement is the following quote from thereport: “People requested courses that related to their needs in their environmentinstead of the traditional textbook type of approach.”252Emil Notti, interview, Anchorage, Alaska 1990. Mr. Notti was the firstpresident of the Alaska Federation of Natives and a driving force behind thepolicy council.253A Program for the Alaska Native Human Resource Development,Program Grant Proposal, 22 August 1973, Anchorage.113for-profit Tanana Chiefs Conference, stated between Conference in a letter to thepolicy council:It appears that the University of Alaska is beginning to take noticeof the need, and that its budget requests will begin to reflect it. Butthe University is bound by a bad case of institutional racism, andcannot be counted upon to gear up to meet the rural Alaska’s needsfor another three years at least. . . As with all things in the bush,the people of rural Alaska will have to develop their own postsecondary educational systems. This has been the experience of theNorth Slope Borough, and this experience will doubtlessly berepeated many times before the University of Alaska will be willingand able to respond adequately to the needs of rural Alaska for postsecondary education254The Alaska Native Leadership felt it would be necessary for the Native communityto seek alternate means of increasing the University’s awareness of theimportance of rural post secondary educational delivery to Native peoples, and toplace increased emphasis on the policy agenda of the University statewideadministration.255In addition to the Kuskokwim Community College (established in Bethel in1972 by legislative action) the Bush Caucus responded to the need for increasedrural educational delivery in the villages of Nome (1973) and Kotzebue (1974) byusing the legislative authority to issue bonds to financially support the increased254June 1974 letter from Mitch Demientief to ANHRDP policy council.Alaska Native Foundation archives, Anchorage.255Taken from the Minutes of the ANHRD Policy Council, Dated 18December, 1974. The Policy council passed resolution number 46-74, which inpart states, “Whereas the University of Alaska has a responsibility to serve all ofthe citizens of the state, and whereas all the Alaska Native people have alegitimate claim to resources and efforts of the U. of A; and whereas the ANHRDPis one of several, as yet, unrelated efforts addressing educational and developmentneeds of Alaska Native peoples; and whereas efforts to serve the Alaska Nativepeople should be an integrated effort; therefore be it resolved by the Board ofDirectors of the ANHRDP that the board support the development of a substantive,coordinated effort to address the needs of Native Alaskan, and the board urges theAcademic Development Plan Committee to incorporate explicit recommendationsinto their plans, which would constitute a clear commitment on the part of theUniversity to address the needs of Alaskan Native citizens; and that this PolicyCouncil provide the Academic Development Plan Committee with further specificrecommendations in the future.”114level of University involvement in rural Alaska. In part, the issuance of thebonds was a means of moving the University administration into a position whereit was forced to acknowledge not only the need but also the power of the Nativelegislators to obtain state services for their constituents in rural Alaska.256 Byissuing bonds for the construction of buildings to house post secondary educationand by legislatively appropriating the funds to support the personnel and othernecessary items, the university was placed in a position of either staffing andoperating these new institutions or of offending the Bush legislators and possiblyplacing the balance of the University’s funding requests at risk during the nextlegislative session.257The University, under increasing pressure from the Native Leadership andthe press,258 shifted to the belief that the Native requests for rural educationcould not be satisfied via the Cooperative Extension Service’s sites by simplyincreasing staffing. The December 18, 1974 minutes of the ANHRDP policy councilreflect the growing sense of frustration on the part of the Native leaders whenthey said “[tihe University has not responded to the needs of the rural NativeAlaskans in a satisfactory way.”259256See interview with former State Senator Frank Furgeson of Kotzebue,1990. One of the main points of Senator Furgeson is that of attempting to bringparity between urban and rural Alaskans.257This line of argument is supported by a report from Louis Jacquot, thedirector of the ANHRD policy council, which in part states, “Most regional leaders,time and time again, very strongly indicate that the higher educationalinstitutions in this state were not listening to them and they had strong doubts ifthey ever would.” (Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation Archives, 6 August,1974).258The Tundra Times ran a series of articles entitled “Natives Look to theUniversity for Educational Opportunity,” between January and March of 1974.259Alaska Native Human Resource Development Council. Minutes of thePolicy Council (Anchorage; Archives of the Alaska Native Foundation, 18December 1974).115Two themes were clearly emerging from the Native community: (1) thedesire to locally control not oniy the location of post secondary educationdelivery, but the content of the educational process as well; and (2) the belief onthe part of the Native leadership that, if the AFN/ANF rural education plan was tosucceed, a senior policy level position had to be created in the statewideadministration, that is, a position at the vice presidential level.260 With this inmind, the members of the ANHRDP policy council attended University of AlaskaPresident Hiatt’s January 1975 Presidents Council to discuss the plan and seekUniversity support. The University administration formally endorsed theproposal and President Hiatt directed his staff to begin work on itsimplementation. For their part, AFN/ANF was charged with generating thepolitical support necessary to obtain the funding for this new rural educationalcomponent and the legislative strategy. The ANHRDP staff would negotiatebetween the legislature and the University concerning control of the ruraleducational programs with the understanding that a strong emphasis would beplaced on the needs for regional policy boards rather than boards which weremerely advisory.261At first glance, the prognosis for a new educational division focused onrural needs and attention to Native concerns seemed very favorable given theofficial University position, as outlined above. However, by January 15, 1975, theUniversity vice president, Don Dafoe, began to speak of the difficulties theUniversity was encountering in post secondary rural education and of some of themeans it was using to remedy the problems. Some of the problems identified were:260ANF Memo from Eric Ekvall, Director of ANHRDP to Roger Lang,President of AFN and Emil Notti, President of ANF (Anchorage: Alaska NativeFoundation Archives, 20 February 1975).261President’s Files ( Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 1975). Alsosee the Tundra Times Fairbanks (10 December 1975).116finding a way to integrate the University into the bush rather than the bush intothe University; trying to take conventional courses out into bush Alaska withconventional teachers who soon realized that they were not relating to thevillagers nor the villagers to them; offering programs designed to meet theimmediate needs of the people rather than the ‘off the shelf’ courses traditionallyfound on campus.262 Thus, it would seem that the University administration had,within one month’s time, gone from being totally committed to the AFN/ANF ruraleducation plan to being confused about the most basic elements of that plan. Fromthe beginning, the Native leadership stressed the need for programs that wouldbe of use to the people and had offered a possible design for the delivery of thoseprograms. Moreover, Emil Notti had outlined this to James Matthews in his July11, 1972 letter, where he stated “[wie know that the manpower [sic] needs includesuch disciplines as business management, planning, land management, legalservices, etc. I feel the systematic development of college degree programssimilar to the one developed in the Headstart program would be of long-terminterest to Native people”.263The sense that the University was not supportive of the rural educationproposal was voiced by one of the very few Native faculty members of theUniversity, Dennis Demmert. Demmert, director of the Native Studies Departmentof the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, spoke of the need to clarify and dealwith the University’s failure in meeting Native educational needs. He also spokeof the conflict in philosophy of education between the University and the AlaskaNative peoples, which was a means of raising the issue of traditional courses262”Center for Northern Educational Research Holds Meeting inAnchorage,” Tundra Times, Fairbanks (15 January 1975).263Letter to James Matthews, Director of the Cooperative Extension Serviceof the University of Alaska, from Emil Notti, President of the Alaska Federation ofNatives (Anchorage: Alaska Federation of Native Archives, 11 July 1972).117versus those identified in the Rudd study. While this could be viewed as vocationaleducation versus higher education, that was not the intent of the Nativeleadership nor of Demmert. He spoke of the ineffectual manner of educationaldelivery and of the priority given to budgetary considerations over the needs ofNative students, an allusion to the view held by many of the Universityadministration that dollars given to rural education would be dollars taken awayfrom other departments on the main campuses and therefore a reduction inprograms.264 Finally, he spoke of the decision-making problems, meant as acondemnation of the highly centralized decision-making process of theUniversity administration.265It seems evident that at least some members of the University statewideadministration would have preferred that this issue of rural education would beovershadowed by more pressing Native concerns. However, the efforts of theNative leadership, both regionally and statewide, and especially those of Sam KitoJr. (a Native member of the Board of Regents), had achieved too much momentumto be stopped. Realizing this, President Hiatt, prior to receiving either legislativeor Board of Regents approval for the creation of such office, appointed Dr. FrankDarnell, then the director of the Center for Northern Educational Research, to beacting vice president for Rural Educational Affairs •2 66The combination of Native legislative power, the pressure of the Nativeorganizations, the use of the press, and the Native regent managed to securefunding for the construction of a second building in Kotzebue for the community264This line of argument was still being advanced in the Universitystatewide administration, and was still being argued in 1980 when I was assistantto the statewide President Jay Barton (1980-1985).265The above interpretations of Dennis Demmert’s remarks are based onconversations with Dr. Demmert as well as the 1990 interview in Fairbanks. He isno longer a member of the University faculty, Fairbanks; currently he is theExecutive Director of the SeAlaska Heritage Foundation.266President’s Papers (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 1975).118college and the purchase of additional land and equipment for Nome. TheExtension Center in Nome became Northwest Community College, and its firstpresident was appointed in September of 1975. Changes were also occurring inthe ANHRDP Policy Council. Eric Ekvall was appointed as acting director of theANHRDP, replacing Louis Jacquot.267 More importantly, perhaps, was the changein orientation of the Policy Council. The Council recommended that ANHRDPbegin to provide more educational experiences for Alaska Natives rather thanmerely building institutional grant support for the University. Further, it wasrecommended that the ANHRDP staff continue working with AFN/ANF on thedevelopment of a Rural Education plan that was appropriate to the needs of ruralAlaska.268By March of 1975, President Hiatt had come to the realization that he hadlittle choice but to except the Alaska Federation of Natives/Alaska NativeFoundation proposal. By then, the proposal had become a set of legislativeinitiatives that enjoyed widespread support.269 These initiatives mandated theestablishment of satellite centers of higher education in rural Alaska and createdthe office of the vice president of Rural Educational Affairs (REA).27° Thedistrust of the University on the part of the legislature (especially those267Alaska Native Foundation Archives, Minutes of Policy Council,November 1975, Anchorage.2681bid269House Bill 144 and Senate Bill 162. HB 144 established the office of thevice-president for Rural Educational Affairs and SB 162 was the accompanyingbill introduced in the Senate. The major difference in the two pieces of legislationis that HB 144 would have made the position the vice-president for communitycolleges while SB 162 limited the role of the vice-president to that of the RuralEducation Division. With the support of the Native leadership, the Senate versionof the Bill prevailed during conference committee hearings.270As reported in Anchorage Daily Times, 27 (March 1975), “Hiatt told theHESS committee the proposal . .. was ‘one of the most innovative and practicalschemes’ he has seen. He indicated the University is willing to cooperate fully ifthe program wins approval.”119legislators from rural Alaska), was driven home by Senator Holman of Bethel whomade his skepticism of the University’s support for rural education known duringthe Senate finance hearing on the University budget when he said:“[t]raditionally the University of Alaska has not been very responsive to ruraleducation needs.”27’The University Board of Regents took formal action in May of 1975 in theform of a resolution of support for the AFN/ANF rural education proposal and thepending legislation which would support this new division and the office of thevice president. The resolution also reaffirmed the University’s support of theneed for policy making councils as opposed to the traditional advisory councils, toaid the vice president in the formation and administration of the new division.2725.8 University Response: Rural Educational AffairsThe Division of Rural Educational Affairs (REA) came into being at the endof 1975. Elaine Ramos, a Tlingit Indian from Southeast Alaska, was appointed asthe vice president of REA and began her duties in January of 1976. Ms. Ramos’appointment was not altogether well received by the University community asevidenced in a memorandum from a political science professor questioning Ms.Ramos’ qualifications:My concern, because this is an historic appointment, is that a highlyqualified woman be selected. Appointment of a candidate solelybecause she is a woman or an activist Alaskan Native, not on thebasis of her being the best possible candidate for the position, willinjure the prospects of all women and minorities in the future, if Ms.Ramos cannot perform her responsibilities.273271”Bush University’s Bill Gets Hiatt’s Support,” Anchorage Daily Times, 27(March 1975).272University of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes (Fairbanks: University ofAlaska Archives, 9 May 1975).273A confidential memorandum, from Dr. Andrea Helms (AssociateProfessor of Political Science, UAF) to Dr. Robert Hiatt, President of the Universityof Alaska (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 27 November 1975).120The University administration did not support her hiring.274 Indeed, oncethe position was authorized and a search process well underway, it became clearthat the University administration had its own short list of preferred candidates—all of which were male, and only one who was Native—William Demmert, PatO’Rourke, and Frank Darnell.275 Demmert had a posting in Washington D.C.which he chose not to leave. O’Rourke, who at the time was the Director of theBethel Community College and on administrative leave to obtain his Ph.D., alsodeclined the offer. This left Damell, who was actually in the position as ActingVice President for Rural Educational Affairs, and who was the choice of thefaculty. However, the mandate from the Bush Caucus and the Native Leadershiprequired that a Native person be hired. The inability of the Universityadministration to fill the position from their own short-list of candidates meantthat they had little choice but to offer the job to Ms. Ramos. The level of concernabout Ms. Ramos was such that President Hiatt proposed to the Board of Regentsthat the position not be filled until either Demmert or O’Rourke was available totake it. Hiatt was well aware that he could not move Darnell from the actingposition directly into the full-time position as the specter of sexual and racial biashad already been raised as an issue in the hiring for this position.276The position announcement, which stated that an earned doctorate was arequirement for the position, was at the heart of the matter. The Universitycommunity was locked into a singular vision of what constituted a senior274Confidential Memorandum from Dr. Robert Hiatt, President of theUniversity of Alaska, to the University of Alaska Board of Regents referencingthe selection of a Vice President for Rural Educational Affairs (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Archives, 17 November 1975).2751bid276Letter from the United States Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Region X, Seattle, Washington, to Dr. Robert W. Hiatt, President of theUniversity of Alaska (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 5 September1975).121administrator, and that vision was one in which the candidate had to havecompleted and been accepted into the fraternity of higher education—in otherwords, possessing a Ph.D. While Ms. Ramos had a substantive background inadministration—she had been the assistant dean of students at Sheldon JacksonCollege (1972) prior to her appointment with the University of Alaska—she lackedthe required credentials. Her educational training had been in nursing and shehad an M.Ed.. More importantly, Ms. Ramos had been very active in therevitalization of Tlingit language, dance, and religion. One of her major personalinterests was the Raven Dancers. This was (and remains) a group quite unlikethose that non-Native peoples are accustomed to seeing and hearing. From thedress to the spirituality and education embodied in the presentations, the focus ison authenticity. Ms. Ramos was (and remains) deeply committed to the Nativeworld view and this, too, could have contributed to the University’s discomfort.277Dr. Hiatt, given the pressures from the various Native leadership andorganizations, was ultimately left no room to maneuver when the FederalGovernment also became party to the hiring. Responding to a complaint from theAFN, the Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare investigated andfound that there had been improprieties in the recruitment process ranging fromthe way the advertisement was written to the circulation, or lack thereof, of thenotice of recruitment. At stake for the University was the potential loss of federalresearch dollars if the University was found to be out of compliance with Title VI277Marion E. Gridley, American Indian Women (New York: HawthornBooks, Inc., 1979), 162-168. Also based on discussions with Ms. Ramos, 1990-1991,Anchorage.Ms. Ramos is currently the Director of Native Studies at the University ofAlaska Anchorage, and is still an activist for Native affairs and students.122of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title XI of the Educational Amendments of1972.278Native political pressure was beginning to have an impact on theUniversity’s structural alignment for the delivery of rural educational programs.This impact was acknowledged by Mitch Dementiff in his statements that “Wehave created by our mere presence two new things at the University. . . . Thereis now an attitude. There is now a department. •“279 Indeed, AFN/ANF couldboast the creation of an entirely new division. In fact, prior to Ms. Ramos beinginstalled as vice president, the University administration placed four communitycolleges (Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue, and Kodiak), the Cooperative Extension Service,and the new legislatively mandated Alaska Native Language Center under thedirection of the vice president of Rural Educational Affairs.28° This structuralalignment would prove to be not only a beginning, but also the ultimate undoing,of REA and the vice president. In fact, by December of 1976, problems between thenew division and the University administration had escalated to the point that Ms.Ramos was reassigned and the fate of Rural Educational Affairs was againuncertain.In February of 1976 the ANHRDP Policy Council voted to expand the numberof seats on the Council to include the new vice president of Rural EducationalAffairs and appointed Elaine Ramos to fill that seat. At that same meeting,concern was expressed that the Council was being viewed (by the University278Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibitsdiscrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in services tostudents.Title IX of the United States Civil Rights Act, Educational Amendments of1972, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs.279ANHRDP Policy Council meeting minutes (Anchorage: ANF archives,January, 1976).280University of Alaska, President’s files (Fairbanks: University of Alaskaarchives, December 1975).123community and possibly the urban leadership) as an aggressive advocate forRural Education and perhaps the Council was becoming a bit too political. Thegeneral feeling of the members of the Council seemed to have been that theyneeded to walk a very fine line between advocating and agitating. The Kellogggrant funds had been used to set up and run REA and the grant had been for thedevelopment of materials, programs, and processes to better the delivery of ruraleducation. Therefore, there was some basis for concern as far as the possibility oflosing the Kellogg funding due to non-compliance should someone raise thequestion.281Problems for REA began prior to Ms. Ramos’ arrival, as stated above. TheUniversity administration seemed to have not made adequate arrangements forthe new vice president. There were problems with office space; indeed, there wasnone.282 Even though the University had had an acting vice president for REAsince 1975 (Darnell, see above), there was no support staff, budget for thedivision, or any of the customary amenities associated with such a position.Although the least important of these was the University assigned car, the factwas that no car was provided to Ms. Ramos for almost two months,283 and that theUniversity maintained that it could not find the car—the same vehicle that Darnellhad been driving for almost a year—is, I believe, indicative of the level of281Alaska Native Human Resource Development Program, Policy CouncilMeeting Minutes (Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation Archives, 22 February1976).282University of Alaska, Internal Memorandum, addressed to HowardCutler, Chancellor, UAF, from the Fairbanks Campus Space Committee, Subject:Office Space for Central Staff of REA (V.P. Ramos)(Fairbanks: University of Alaska,Archives, 20 April, 1976).283Discussions with Elaine Ramos (Anchorage: University of AlaskaArchives, March 1990). There are some hand written “notes” from the ExecutiveVice President (Don Defoe) to President Hiatt, undated, which would support Ms.Ramos’ claim, although the language of the correspondence is vague.124institutional resistance present within the University of Alaska to the entireconcept of rural education and, perhaps, to Ms. Ramos, specifically.While the record seems clear that there was a lack of institutional supportfor REA, there was continued legislative support. The FY77 budget for REAallocation clearly shows that the Alaska State Legislature was willing to providethe necessary funding to ensure the division had adequate financial support.Table 2 outlines a breakdown of the FY77 REA operating budget exclusive of thecommunity college(s) budgets.Table 2. Fiscal Year 1977 Operating BudgetUnder Regents and Administration:Vice President for REA, Secretary, and $75,000supportUnder Administration and InstitutionalSupport284 $325,000Under Rural AffairsExtension Centers285 $873,800Under Rural Area Centers286$750,000The total REA budget, therefore, increased the University’s operating basebudget by $1,718,800. This number represents all the new money that thelegislature had appropriated for the new division in its first full year of284New money added to University’s operating budget.285This was the old public service budget and was reallocated by thelegislature, taking $230,000 from the University statewide administration, theUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks administration, and from the University of AlaskaAnchorage administration’s operating budgets. The intent was to shift not onlythe management of these rural sites to REA, but to shift the control of theoperating budgets as well.286New money added to University’s operating budget.125operation.287 There was support from elected officials (State Legislature) for thenew division as evidenced by additional appropriations to the University tosupport the operation of the division.While issues of budget, staffing and space are usual and customary problemareas in large, complex organizations, Ms. Ramos certainly had more than herfair share. It would seem that a senior administrator should have been able todeal with these problems and, given time, Ms. Ramos might well have been able todo so, but time was running out and other more pressing issues were mounting.When the division was organized (prior to Ms. Ramos’ arrival), thePresident had placed the Alaska Native Language Center under the direction ofthe new vice president as well as ten of the Cooperative Extension Service sites inthe state and the four rural community colleges. This meant that the new vicepresident would need to travel to each of the locations to meet with the advisoryboards, the staff, and the community leadership in order to establish a workingrelationship with each of the communities to be served, as well as to becomefamiliar with the operations of each location. Given the geographicaldistribution of this new division, the time necessary to accomplish these visitswas, or so it seemed to the University president (Dr. Hiatt), occupying too much ofthe vice president’s time and placing her out of the office far too often.288 Thereal issue was not one of whether Ms. Ramos was in the office, on campus, orwhether she was at one of the rural sites. The issue here was one of philosophy.287Free Conference Committee of the Alaska State legislature, 16 June 1976,Juneau.288President’s Files (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 1976).There are a series of memos from both Dr. Hiatt and the executive vice president,Dr. Don Defoe, to Ms. Ramos citing her frequent absences from the office. It isquite clear from the tone of these memos that their expectations of the behaviorand role of a vice president and Ms. Ramos’ were at odds. The memos start inMarch of 1976 and continue until Ms. Ramos’ transfer from the vice presidency inNovember of 1977.126Ms. Ramos was well aware of the rural (i.e., Native) desire for the local boards to be policy boards, as opposed to the University's preference for these boards to remain advisory to the centralized administration housed at UAF, and this situation was further aggravated by the fact that Ms. Ramos was prepared to work with these councils to implement the findings of the Rudd Report.289 A contributing matter was the Alaska Native Language Center's (ANLC) placement within REA. The ANLC was the creation of Dr. Michael Krauss and Dr. Irene Reed, two noted linguists interested in documenting Native languages in Alaska before these languages were lost. In order to insure that the unit had funding to conduct its research, Dr. Krauss spent countless hours in Juneau lobbying the state legislature for funding and in 1974 was successful in his endeavors.290 j t m u s t jje noted, however, that the Native leadership was not consulted nor made party to ANLC creation.291 it is also noteworthy that the Native leadership was not opposed to the creation of the ANLC and, in fact, financially supported Drs. Krauss and Reed through legislative appropriations. Ms. Ramos felt strongly that Alaska Native peoples should receive credit and acknowledgment for their contribution to the documentation, translation and interpretations of the various Native languages. This placed her at odds with Drs. Reed and Krauss, who saw Ms. Ramos (who spoke Tlingit fluently, as her first 2 8 9 S e e above for a detailed description of the 'Rudd' report. Basically, the report had identified the educational needs and wishes of the Native leadership for 'practical' training' so as to enable the better implementation of the terms of the ANCSA of 1971; these training programs tended to be viewed by the University as vocational rather than academic and, as such, somewhat inappropriate for University offerings. 290in 1974 the State of Alaska passed the Bi-Lingual/Bi-Cultural Act: This legislation was not substantially different from that passed by other states, in order to receive the federal funds made available for these services. 291 John U. Ogbu, The Next Generation: An Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighborhood (New York: Academic Press, 1974). Ogbu makes the same observations by arguing that professionals made without the involvement of parents and in many cases the motive for the actions were or could be seen as economic rather than a academic. This would seem to be the case here also. 127 language) as an unqualified meddler and not an appropriate administrator for their program.292 Tn e addition of the ANLC staff as critics of Ms. Ramos provided the administration with academic support for the position they had held even prior to her hiring. While Dr. Helms had raised the question of Ms. Ramos' qualification early on in REA's history, the impact of the ANLC comments was far more profound as they came from a unit within REA, and from "professional" staff engaged in scholarly research for the betterment of the academy, if not the Native peoples. In November (1976), the decision to relieve or reassign Ms. Ramos of the vice presidency of REA had been made.293 Reasons for her demise fell into four basic categories: (1) that the University administration never believed in the need or legitimacy of REA; (2) that REA competed for legislative funding (with an unfair advantage because of the power of the Bush caucus) for dollars which should have gone to Fairbanks, Anchorage or Juneau; (3) the fact that Ms. Ramos was not a typical University administrator in that she lacked the doctoral degree, was a strong supporter of local control of the educational process, and was a woman; and finally (4) the possibility that Ms. Ramos' vision of what REA should be and should do so frightened the University administration that they saw no other means to deal with this woman but to remove her from the position. Dennis Johnson's August 3, 1977, Tundra Times article "Pressure Politics Do Not Belong In Rural Education," summed up the disappointment felt by the Alaska Native leadership when he wrote that "[t]he University of Alaska's answer to higher 292£)j s c u s sio n s with Elaine Ramos, Anchorage, 1990-1991. This line of argument is also supported by a confidential letter sent the University President by Dr. Reed (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 21 September, 1977). 293President's Files, confidential, hand written memo from Clark Gruening (University General Council) to President Hiatt (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 6 November 1976). Mr. Gruening, assured President Hiatt that, should he desire not to, he need not worry about Ms. Ramos, nor did he have to offer Ms. Ramos another assignment within the institution. 128 education in Bush Alaska has been the Rural Educational Affairs program, butsince it began nearly two years ago, it has been the system’s outcast childstruggling to survive against the administration’s political maneuvers . . .“ Ms.Ramos spent her time working with the various boards on matters of policy andallowed the boards to operate as policy making, with herself serving as anadvocate for their positions at the institutional level.294 This was not wellreceived by the administration.The Rural Educational Affairs division of the University of Alaska was bornof political pressures and implanted on the surface of the University structure. Itnever became a functional part of the University, but rather provided thejustification for the University to not provide services to rural Alaska—REA woulddo it. From the beginning, the University gave little or no support in the areas ofbudget, fiscal management, staffing or office space, nor did they ever commendthe institution for the success of the endeavor. REA was never included in theUniversity’s accreditation umbrella and, in most other institutional senses, wasleft to survive, or not, on its own resources. This might have been appropriatehad the University left the division to survive, or not, to the REA’S own resources.The year 1977 was one of administrative change at the highest levelswithin the University: President Hiatt resigned in February; Dr. Charles Furgesonwas brought from Juneau (UAJ) to serve as acting president until November whenDr. Neil Humphrey became president, and, to the dismay of all, Dr. Humphreyresigned in December. There was such turmoil within the Universityadministration that a sort of paralysis set in. To further add to the University’sdifficulties, the relationship between the University and the legislature294Discussion with Ms. Ramos, Anchorage, 1990. A number of discussionswere held with Ms. Ramos over the 1990-1991 year; I continue to speak with hervia telephone and computer mail on a regular basis.129deteriorated to the point where the legislative budget and audit division tookdirect control of the University after finding an enormous budgetary shortfall.The changing administrative mandates left REA and its staff in a state of flux withvery little support for a decisive rural education program since the removal ofMs. Ramos.Early in 1977, Ms. Ramos filed a grievance over her removal. This actionkept REA in the press, however in a very negative light. Ms. Ramos lost thegrievance, then later filed a successful lawsuit against the University andremains an employee of the University as the coordinator of Alaska Native Studiesat the University of Alaska Anchorage. As for the position of vice president ofRural Educational Affairs, it was downgraded to a vice chancellor level and laterto the level of dean. The division of Rural Affairs was disbanded and became a partof the Division of Community Colleges and Rural Education and Extension Services,CREE5.9 SummaryThis chapter has shown that the locus of control of higher education hasbeen, and may still be, largely the bastion of Western European culture andideology and, as such, has resisted the inclusion of minorities and women. Highereducation has also demonstrated a decidedly non supportive posture as it relates tothe provision of appropriate academic subject matter for these marginalizedgroups. In the case of the University of Alaska, there has been a pronouncedpattern of exclusion of services to Rural Alaska Natives even when the fundingfor these services is provided to the institution.Social scientists concerned with policy making in Alaska have argued thatthe problem was one of demands of Native leaders being made in an inappropriate130fashion. In his study of the North Slope Borough government, McBeathinvestigates the nature of formal Western organizations, focusing on the politicalinstitutionalization of policy formation, and the degree of responsiveness,adaptiveness, and representativeness displayed by relatively important groupsand individuals in the bureaucratic structures located in the decision-makingprocess.295 McBeath’s theme of pluralistic bargaining as an appropriate meansfor Native leaders to articulate their demands for services is a flawed concept as itrelates to the demands of the Native leadership to the University. Primarily, thisline of reasoning assumes that the University has a differential responsibility to(in this case) Native peoples, and also that Native leaders sought a service that wasover and above those services already available to them. In this case, the serviceswere not readily available, nor were the services which were available perceivedas appropriate to the needs of the rural residents. Finally, this line of reasoningblames the victim, rather than the institution.The theme of control of rural services in Alaska is also examined byShepro.296 His focus is on the degree to which the state and federal government’sproposals to decentralize service delivery in rural Alaska have, in fact, resulted ina more centralized form of control of the decision-making process. Shepro arguesthat the Western view of politics as conflict over issues is opposed to the Nativecultural view that conflict is to be avoided. As demonstrated in the chapter, thecreation and use of ANHRDP as a broker between the University and the Nativeleadership bears witness to the willingness of the Native leadership to usenegotiations and compromise to achieve desired goals. Further evidence is the295 Gerald A. McBeath, North Slope Borough Government and PolicyMaking (Fairbanks: Institute for Social and Economic Research, March, 1981).296Car1 Shepro, “Native American Participation in Local PoliticalStructures: An Alaska Native Case,” paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Political Science Association, New Orleans, 1985.131case of the hiring of Ms. Ramos; it is not until she is removed from office thatlegal actions are taken to remedy the unjust termination. As argued in thischapter, Native leaders sought to influence the policy process by negotiation andcompromise within the political processes of the legislature rather than by directpower confrontations with urban non-Native elites and/or institutions such asthe University.While McBeath’s line of argument is the one that most closely representsthe views held by the institution of the University of Alaska, Shepro’s theme ofcompromise and accommodation more closely corresponds to the author’sunderstanding of the events. Additionally, this thesis suggests that aconceptualization of what a University is and should be is a part of the academy’shistorical grounding. Threats, real or perceived, to this notion of University havebeen met with resistance and hostility. While change is frequently a frighteningprospect, the most appropriate conceptualization of higher education is one inwhich change is constant and expected, to be sought rather than avoided. It isonly through the inclusion of new and different ideas and world views that wecan expand our understanding of the universe in which we live. The inclusion ofthose peoples once excluded from the educational process is the true mission ofthose involved in the educational enterprise, for they will help us to betterunderstand the role and relationship of humankind to, and within, the universe.The following chapter discusses the continuing conflicts in structuralmodification versus substantive changes in providing appropriate highereducation for Alaska Natives.132CHAPTER VITHE CONFLICT CONTINUES:STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE6.1 IntroductionThis chapter will examine the reorganization of the University of Alaskathrough the creation of the Community College, Rural Education and ExtensionService (CCREE) division of the University of Alaska (1977), and its later demise(1985). CCREE was created from the ashes of the Rural Educational Affairs divisionof the University of Alaska’s statewide administration. Like the mythical Phoenixwhich rose from the ashes of its own funeral pyre only to be consumed in theflames of its own nest, CCREE too would perish in yet another structuralrealignment of the University’s delivery system. Particular attention will befocused on the concern of the Native leadership about the creation of the CCREEdivision and their subsequent lack of resistance to its reorganization in 1985.6.2 The Community College, Rural Education and ExtensionResponding to growing political pressures from Anchorage urbanlegislators for increased University presence as well as to Alaska Nativeleadership demands for the development and delivery of rural education, theBoard of Regents of the University of Alaska compromised. In June of 1977, theBoard of Regents formally established a new Major Administrative Unit (MAU)charged with the administration of all community colleges, extension centers and133rural education.297 Born of political pressure and compromise and not entirelywell received within or by the Native community, CCREE was in fact yet anothercentralization of rural educational administration. It was not entirely dissimilar,structurally or philosophically, from the pre-REA division, in that it was a totaladministrative division in which rural education was but a part of a largermission. Additionally, it was housed in an urban area—Anchorage—and unlikeREA, CCREE had authority over all the community colleges and all the extensionservices. Rural education had been reduced to a unit within the divisionadministered by a dean rather than a system vice president, and was required tocompete for limited resources at the division level rather than from a statewidepolicy position.CCREE can best be understood when viewed as an extension of the belief inthe equalizing powers of higher education, dating from pre-colonial times. Itsstructural manifestation may be viewed as an expression of political and cultural(Western) understanding of higher education as a means of culturalmaintenance. Education, as a function of the state, is inevitably political, butwhether or not the University expresses a particular political dogma is not thefocus of this study.The western migration of European settlers expanded educationalopportunities to the farthest reaches of the American frontier. Public schools,colleges and universities, compulsory schooling, Chautauqua, universityextension, vocational schools, correspondence study, community colleges, freelibraries, museums, technical institutes, business schools, employer sponsoredtraining programs, Sunday schools, and literacy programs, private schools,preparatory schools, all these offered educational opportunity to anyone who297Minutes of the University of Alaska Board of Regents (Anchorage:University of Alaska Archives, 28 June 1977).134lived in or was willing to move to an urban area. The American belief ineducation as the most important factor in upward mobility was one of the keyfactors in the urbanization of America.298In comparison with cities, the educational opportunities in rural Americawere at best minimal. Rural versus urban, on the basis of opportunity for selfdevelopment through education, became a social and political conflict in theUnited States in the 1970’s. While not generally viewed as a class conflict in theEuropean sense, that is, embedded in political dogmas, this was a historicexpression of American individualism, reflecting the belief that if equality ofopportunity was not available in the rural area, opportunity could be equalized bymoving to the city. This perspective helps to understand the University ofAlaska’s continual placement of rural educational administrative units in urbanareas, on major campuses. What it does not explain is the University’s structuraland philosophical response—or non-response—to Native demands for highereducational opportunities. Scott’s belief that American institutions of highereducation can equalize opportunity, if they have the will, is an interestingobservation.299 While it is true that universities, and other educationalinstitutions, in recent years have attempted to expand their delivery systemsoutward into rural areas, in the case of the University of Alaska the issue wasmore than will, it was and is a matter of world view or philosophy. Scott, likeother scholars,30° is addressing the rural areas of the continental United States,298David Tyack, The One Best System (Cambridge: Harvard, 1974). See also,David Tyack and E. Hansot, Managers of Virtue (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1982), and DavidTyack and H. Kantor, (eds.) Work, Youth, and Schooling (Palto Alto: Stanford Press,1982).299Peter Scott, Strategies for Postsecondary Education, (New York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1975), 142.300Frank Newman, “Report on Higher Education” (Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1971). Also see Frank Newman, “The Second NewmanReport” National Policy and Higher Education (Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1973).135and more specifically the western population of those states. Thus his study,while interesting and informative, does not apply directly to the Alaska situation.These studies perhaps are relevant to conditions and circumstances present in thecontiguous states, and then only if one is concerned with non-minority education.However, they all demonstrate a failure to attend to any of the issues raised by theAlaska Native leadership. Their relevance to this study rests in the fact that thesestudies were incorporated into and used as, at least in part, the rationale andjustification for the structural creation of the CCREE unit within the statewideUniversity of Alaska system.3°1The Regents (with the exception of Native Regents Kito, Fate, and Schafer)did not question the institution’s willingness to meet the higher educational needsof Rural Alaska nor the capacity of the institution to comprehend and respond tothose needs in the manner in which the Native Leadership had been requestingsince at least 1972. However, there continued to be a lack of attention to Nativedemands for practical courses, delivered in culturally appropriate terms and atrural sites.302 The urban/rural aspect of the University’s delivery system was asource of increasing controversy among the urban legislators, as pointed out inthe previous chapter. In addition, the issue could be, and frequently was, framedin regional controversy. While Fairbanks had the main campus, Anchorage had alarger enrollment and was the major population and economic center of the state,yet the two Anchorage campuses (the four-year UAA and the community collegeACC) were not receiving the level of funding that Anchorage legislators thoughtappropriate. Anchorage legislators sought to rectify the situation by raising costeffectiveness issues, specifically the cost of delivering higher education in rural301university of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes, Sub-committee onCommunity Colleges, (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 28, June 1977).302University of Alaska, Board of Regents Minutes (Anchorage: Universityof Alaska Archives, 16 May 1978).136Alaska versus the number of students being served. Representative Terry Martinof Anchorage, a member of the Alaska House of Representatives’ Subcommittee onthe University of Alaska Budget, was a frequent critic of the University’sexpenditures in rural Alaska.303 Martin’s line of reasoning, supported by hisurban-based conservative constituency and motivated by political and regionalinterest, was greatly misinformed. While the costs of salaries and buildings inrural Alaska were higher than those in the urban areas of the state, the numbersof credit hours generated by the rural community colleges and other rural basedprograms were high. In fact, enrollments in Rural Education increased by 69.2%between 1978 and 1982. This translates into 6,973 student credit hours in 1978 and11,802 in 1982.304 Additionally, the unit cost for delivering these credits was$110.26, while the cost for urban based courses was $112.55 over the same fouryear period.305 Clearly the focus on cost effectiveness served to obscure other,more real issues for Martin and his supporters.What had begun as a question of access to higher educational services inthe late 1960s and early 1970s had become a question of ideology, commitment,culture, and willingness on the part of the institution to address the needs of ruralAlaska in meaningful and appropriate terms. The short-lived experience with theRural Educational Affairs division demonstrated to the University administrationthat the delivery of services across vast geographical areas within a fluid andfrequently politically volatile climate was an extremely difficult process. Thestructural response, CCREE, was culturally and organizationally appropriate from303This author had frequent contact with Representative Martin duringthe period under investigation and the above is characteristic of RepresentativeMartin’s understanding and approach.304Rural Education Status Report (Fairbanks: University of Alaska,January, 1983), 5.305Ibid., 41.137a modern306 structural organizational theory point of view. That is to say, theUniversity administration’s concerns focused on organizational design. Thisnaturally leads to a set of structural questions including, but not limited to: whatshould the structure look like? how should it work? how will the unit deal withstructural specialization, departmentalization, control, and the coordination andcontrol of specialized units?The urbanization, centralization, and reliance on professionals ineducational administration is well documented in American educationalhistoriography.307 One of the guiding tenets of the modern structural school isthat rational organizational behavior is best achieved through systems of definedrules and formal authority. Authority is central to modern structuralorganizational theory because control and coordination are essential formaintaining organizational rationality. It is this adherence to the control andcentralized coordination that best explain the University’s establishment ofCCREE. The environment—politically and economically—was indeed dynamic, asdocumented in previous chapters. Even so, the belief on the part of theUniversity administration in centralized control of those units concerned withrural education was a natural response to the tensions inherent in thecontroversy surrounding the structural manifestations, that is, Rural Education.The University of Alaska’s response to Native requests for higher educationwas then, from the Western perspective, the appropriate one. A major point of306The term or label “modern” structural organizational theorydifferentiates this school of organizational theory from the classical school.While both are concerned with structure or design of organizations and theirproduction processes, the term “modern,” always in quotation marks,differentiates the structural theorist of the 1960’s and 1970’s from the classical;i.e., Max Weber, Adam Smith, Fredrick Winslow Taylor.3075ee, for example, Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the School(New York.: Vintage Books, 1964), as well as, Raymond Callahan, Education and theCult of Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).138this thesis is that there has been, and continues to be, a vast difference betweenthe Native conceptualization of education as a tool, and the Universitycommunity’s understanding of education as a process which leads to social andeconomic mobility.308 In other words, CCREE was a Western response to thedynamic political and economic conditions, creating an urban, centralizedadministrative unit charged with the management of the various other types ofeducational delivery systems present at that time. The University created CCREE todeal with rural education because the University administration and Board ofRegents were unable to conceptualize a structure different in design and functionfrom those with which they were familiar (i.e., the bureaucratic model), asdescribed by Weber.The compromises necessary for the establishment of CCREE came from themost active and vocal Native member of the Board of Regents, Sam Kito. Buildingon the well-publicized failure of REA, which was fresh in the minds of the urbanlegislators, and with the continuing need for educational delivery to rural Alaska,combined with the mounting regional pressure from the Juneau and Anchoragecampuses for a larger share of the operating budget, Kito persuaded the Board toestablish a committee for community colleges.309The compromises to the University’s restructuring plan which createdCCREE stemmed in part from the pressures of the urban legislators and in partfrom the internal University community. Anchorage and Juneau legislators,responding to constituent demands, were pushing the University to combine thecommunity colleges with the four-year campuses located in their communities.This would affect Juneau-Douglas Community College and the University of Alaska308lnterview with Willy Hensley, Anchorage and Fairbanks, 1990. CarlKaestle, Pillars of the Republic (New York.: Hill and Wang, 1983), 221-222.309Minutes of the University of Alaska Board of Regents (Juneau,University of Alaska Archives, 2-3 March 1977).139Juneau, and the University of Alaska Anchorage and Anchorage CommunityCollege, in addition to the newly created administration for the CommunityCollege, Rural Education and Extension Service.310 The final concession on thepart of the Native leadership was their withdrawal of the demand for a seniorlevel policy position. Regent Kito had made a motion at the June 28, 1977, Boardmeeting mandating the University to establish the office of vice chancellor forRural Education within the CCREE division. That motion was tabled and was notraised as an agenda item again.3 11The decision to allow the University to downgrade the vice chancellor’sposition to the level of a dean was not necessarily a position universally held byall the Native leadership. In a letter to Philip Smith, Director of Rural CAP (RuralAlaska Community Action Program), dated October 17, 1977, University PresidentNeil Humphrey assured him that there would be no loss of importance within thenew structural alignment of the University—CCREE—and that the Rural EducationDivision would be headed by a vice chancellor and, therefore, would be able tocompete on equal footing with the other two divisions.31 2President Humphrey’s assurances lasted as long as he did. In December of1977, Humphrey resigned. Other Native leaders were not unaware of theimportance of the reorganization and the subsequent downgrading of the vicechancellor’s position. In an article for the Tundra Times newspaper of August 20,1977, Fred Bigjim, a Native Rights activist and author, criticized the University for“choosing yet another reorganization in an attempt to resolve the problems ofrural education.” He argued that organizational realignment of Rural Educational3‘0Based on conversations with the late Fairbanks’ Senators, Don Bennettand Betty Farhenkamp, over a number of years.3 11 of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes (Anchorage: Universityof Alaska Archives, June 28, 1977, ff.).3i2Presicj’s Files, Letter from President N. Humphrey to Philip Smith.(Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 17 October 1977).140Affairs was damaging enough in that the rural community colleges would nowhave to compete with the older, more established urban colleges for resources. Inaddition, the downgrading of the vice chancellor’s position to the level of a deanwas not in the best interests of the Native community. Bigjim concluded that, “Achange in the organizational structure is not likely to ease feelings of conflict orimprove cooperation between the University and the Native community.”31 3While the rationale for combining the Juneau and Anchorage campuseswas slightly different, the compromises made by the Native leadership and theNative members of the Board of Regents were essentially the same. Anchoragesought to have the campuses combine in the belief that the total studentenrollment from the two institutions would place the new institution in a betterposition to compete with the University of Alaska Fairbanks.314 For Juneau, thisissue was one of institutional survival, as Juneau lacked sufficient enrollment tojustify a senior campus, and in the minds of some a community college as well.3 1 5The compromise(s) made by the Native leadership on the Board of Regentscame from the Subcommittee on Community Colleges, chaired by Sam Kito. Thesub-committee agreed to support the combining of the Juneau-DouglasCommunity College and the University of Alaska Juneau into one MajorAdministrative Unit (MAU) and to seek accreditation for the new unit. Anchoragewas not to be combined at this time, however. Instead, the Board of Regents,acting on the recommendation of the sub-committee on Community Colleges,sought to strengthen the Anchorage campuses by placing more programs and313Fred Bigjim, editorial, Tundra Times, Fairbanks, (20 August 1977).314University of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes (Fairbanks: University ofAlaska Archives, 2-3 March 1977, 28 June 1977, 7-8 September 1977, 1 October 1977,1-2 December 1977). The discussion concerning Anchorage and Juneau was amajor theme throughout the Regents minutes from 1977 to 1980-81.315universfty of Alaska, Board of Regents Minutes. The last two meetingsof 1977 and all the meeting minutes of 1978 raise questions as to the advisability ofcontinuing to support Juneau’s demands for increasing funds.141thus personnel in one or another of the divisions and to consider removingAnchorage Community College from the CCREE administration and thus creatinganother MAU.316 What the Native leadership received in return for theirpolitical and public support was the right to hand-pick the new chancellor ofCCREE.317In 1977, at the suggestion of the Native leadership, speaking through theNative members of the Board of Regents, Pat O’Rourke, the president of the firstrural community college (Bethel), was selected as the first chancellor for theCommunity College, Rural Education and Extension Service. O’Rourke had beenone of the University’s choices for the Vice President of Rural Educational Affairswhen the position had been created in 1974. Now, in 1977, the University hadbrought together all the units most concerned with providing community andrural based education into one. The Native leadership was aware that theUniversity community would not accept the appointment of another non-Ph.D. ina new senior level position. There were no Native candidates meeting theacademic requirements, so O’Rourke was promoted as the logical candidate. TheNative leadership believed that O’Rourke was the appropriate candidate to headthe new division because of his background in rural Alaska, as well as theknowledge that he would owe his position to Native support.318 CCREE, like REA,was born of political compromise, and like REA would never fulfill its mission to3 16While there are no documents in the University of Alaska archivesdetailing the work of the sub-committee on community colleges, there are amplereferences contained in the BOR’s minutes, addressing the committeesrecommendations, between 1977 and 1980. Also see the Kito interview,Anchorage, 1990.3175am Kito, interview, Anchorage, Alaska, 1990.142the satisfaction of the rural residents of the state.3 19 It would also be the victimof political actions leading to its restructuring in 1985-87.The above were concurrent issues, although subordinate in many respectsto the larger issue of financial and managerial stability of the University ofAlaska statewide system. Between 1976 and 1980, the University of Alaska had fivenew system presidents. Also, in 1977 the Alaska state legislature assumed controlof the University’s financial management systems for more than a year. Thelatter came about as a result of a legislative audit of the University’s accounts,indicating that the University had miss-appropriated or lost several millions ofthe state’s dollars.32° Thus the creation of the CCREE division necessarilyrequired the active support of the Bush Caucus, as they were often the swing ordeciding vote in the House and Senate. Without their political support, the newdivision could have never been made operational. This, combined with the factthat these rural legislators tended to have seniority in the House and Senate, gavethem a great deal of perceived, if not real, power to influence the budget process.Therefore, their support was needed in order to obtain the funding required toestablish a new administrative unit, especially under the circumstances theUniversity was faced with in 1977.The constant organizational turmoil, the turnover of the chief executives,and the political scrutiny and pressures under which the University had tooperate from 1977 until 1980 created an atmosphere in which the establishment ofnew programs was perceived by many as a possible threat. In an attempt torestore stability and a sense of mission to the University system, the Board of3l9,i See also, Willy Hensley, interview, Anchorage and Fairbanks,Alaska, 1990; and John Schafer, interview, Anchorage. Alaska 1990.320Conversations with Steve Cowper, former Governor, and at the time inquestion Chairperson of the House Finance Committee, Fairbanks, 1990. Alsoconversations with Bill Allen, Commissioner of Administration during this period,Fairbanks, 1991.143Regents conducted an extensive national search for a new president. In May of1979 the University appointed Jay Barton as president.321Barton had been the academic vice president and provost at the Universityof West Virginia prior to accepting the presidency of the University of Alaska. Inpart, the rationale for his hiring was that there were structural similaritiesbetween the two systems, inasmuch as West Virginia consisted of a number ofbranch campuses scattered around the state. Additionally, Barton enjoyed areputation as an individual who worked well with the West Virginia legislature, atalent sorely needed by the University of Alaska.322Barton’s legislative acumen was soon put to the test. Six months after hisarrival, he found himself embroiled in a political struggle for the control of oneof the Rural Colleges. Chukchi Community College, located in the village ofKotzebue on Alaska’s northwest coast, was the last of the legislatively establishedcommunity colleges and had just received capital funding for a new buildingfrom the 1978 legislature. The central issue in this struggle was local control ofthe educational process. The Native legislators from the region, Senator FrankFurgeson and Representative Al Adams, believed that the University was failing tomeet the educational needs of the region by refusing to offer courses that weremore practical in nature (e.g., land management) and continuing to offerpersonal enrichment and general educational requirements leading to abaccalaureate degree. These sorts of course offerings had provided the impetusfor the creation of the REA five years earlier, and they continued to be a source ofcontention between the University and the Native leadership. Secondly, SenatorFurgeson and Representative Adams believed that the newly appointed Chancellor321University of Alaska, Board of Regents Minutes (Fairbanks: Universityof Alaska Archives, 16 May 1979).322University of Alaska, President’s files (Fairbanks, University of AlaskaArchives, June 1979).144of CCREE was not attending to the rural areas of the state as had been hoped, inpart because of the nature of the division itself. Rural Education was but one ofthree units, and the new Dean of Rural Education had only just arrived from NewYork state and had no background in Native education.323Furgeson and Adams’ solution to the problem was to propose the removal ofChukchi Community College from the University system and to place it under theNorthwest Arctic School Board’s control. The legal basis for this argument restedon an interpretation of the legislation enabling the establishment and control ofcommunity colleges. Furgeson and Adams’ interpretation led them to believe thatschool districts had the authority to establish community colleges. Further, theybelieved that they, as elected representatives of the region, had the authority tomove Chukchi from the University system and place it under the school district.This was seen as a means to give the region more control over the types of coursesoffered as well as the nature of those courses.324By December of 1979, the situation had become serious because of the threatby Senator Furgeson and Representative Adams to remove Chukchi from theUniversity system in the same manner in which it had been created, i.e., throughlegislative action. Chancellor O’Rourke flew to Kotzebue for several meetingsbetween December 1979 and June 1980 with the two Native politicians and thesuperintendent of schools to try and negotiate some sort of agreement.325 Whileno transcripts of the actual meetings are to be found in the University archives,323 Adams, interview with Senator, then Representative, Anchorage,October 16, 1991. This theme is also present in most of the interviews with theNative leadership, in one form or another.324The above represents my liberal interpretation of a guest editorialwritten by Cheryl Keepers, published in the Tundra Drums, Bethel (28 September1979).325President’s Papers (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 1980-81).145the events of the next eighteen months bear witness to the failure of ChancellorO’Rourke to resolve the issues.As a result of the inability to reach a workable agreement, SenatorFurgeson redlined326 the University’s 1980 operating budget request for ChukchiCommunity College; in other words, he removed the funding from theUniversity’s budget and transferred the entire amount to the Northwest ArcticSchool District. President Barton and the Board of Regents reacted by askingGovernor Hammond to veto the transfer, which he did.327 The net effect was thatthe University was left with a community college and no budget with which tooperate it for the coming year. In essence, the college was closed. As for SenatorFurgeson, he had made his point, that what the legislature could give thelegislature could take away. The fact that all he needed was the support of amajority in both the House and Senate to eliminate the budget is testimony to thecontinuing political ability of the rural legislators. This should have provided theUniversity with sufficient reason to examine the manner, content, andmanagement of the CCREE division. In other words, the continual failure of theUniversity to provide courses to rural residents in a culturally sensitive andrelevant manner remained an issue ten years after the concerns had beeninitially raised by the Native leadership.The conditions did not improve over the course of the summer and fall of1980 and in February of 1981, the two legislators from Kotzebue introduced HouseBill 219, which would remove Chukchi from the University’s control and place itunder the management of the Northwest Arctic School District. A companionterm is used in the Alaska Legislature to describe the removal of abudget line item, in other words, the funding was deleted from the budget.327University of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes (Fairbanks: UniversityArchives, 26 June 1980). Also see Alaska State Legislative Digest (May 1980); see aswell, the Legislative Affairs Summary of Legislation (June 1980).146House Bill, H.B. 220, provided an appropriation to the School District of the sameamount of money as would have gone to the University to operate Chukchi.328 Inaddition, Senator Furgeson and Representative Adams informed the Universitythat it was their intention to insure that the University’s request for funding forChukchi suffered the same fate in 1981 as it had in 1980. Forewarned of thepossibility of another publicly embarrassing confrontation, President Bartonchose to withdraw the funding request for Chukchi rather than to challenge theBush Caucus on the floor of the legislature.329President Barton then took action on two fronts: on the one hand heinstructed the University’s General Counsel to seek legal advice concerning theconstitutionality of the legislatively-created separate community college system;on the other hand, he instructed his special assistant to open communicationswith the Native leadership to attempt a negotiated settlement of the Chukchi issue.The legal response to the question of whether the legislature could create aseparate community college system came from Ed Merdes, a former state Senator.His interpretation of the state’s constitutional and subsequent legislative actionsconcerning community college legislation indicated that the legislature couldindeed establish a separate system. According to Merdes, the legislative actions inthe form of the 1953, 1955, and 1962 Community College Acts did not preclude thelegislature from establishing a separate college, nor did the constitution of Alaskaprohibit the legislature from taking such actions.330.328Michael Jennings, “Rural Education,” unpublished Master’s thesis,University Alaska Fairbanks, 1987. See Legislative Digest, (Juneau, June 1981). Seealso personnel files. I was special assistant to President Barton from 1980 to 1985,and Native affairs was one of my main areas of responsibility. And as such, I wasa participate observer at meetings and hearings.329University of Alaska President’s Files (Fairbanks: University of AlaskaFairbanks Archives, 1980-81).330University of Alaska President’s Files, Letter from Ed Merdes, attorney atlaw, to Astrid de Perry, general council for the University of Alaska (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Archives, 4 December 1980).147Left without legal recourse and believing that the University would notfare well in a legislative battle, President Barton was forced to select among threealternatives. First, he could acquiesce to the demands of Senator Furgeson andRepresentative Adams and radically alter the course offerings and course contentby mandating that a more vocational-oriented curriculum be put in place. Thischoice did not appeal to either Barton or Chancellor O’Rourke. Second, Bartoncould allow Chukchi to remain closed, arguing that he was simply actingaccording to the desires of the community. This option was unacceptable toBarton, as he saw it as allowing the legislature to make academic policy, and theywere not competent, in his view, to do so. 1 The last possibility was a negotiatedagreement where the University would agree to some of the demands of the Nativeleadership while retaining control of Chukchi.332Barton, not wishing to continue the conflict in the public eye andunwilling to try to do battle on the floor of the legislature, saw only onealternative as viable, to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. His main concernwas the potential structural damage to the University system, should theseparation of one community college from the system lead to other collegesfollowing that example. In other words, the concern of the University of Alaskawas the retention of the colleges and the maintenance of the University as thesource of control.333 It was not providing alternative programs or deliverysystems in response to Native demands.33 1 personnel files. This interpretation comes from conversationswith Barton from 1980 to 1985 and was a consistent line of argument.332University of Alaska, President’s Files. Internal memoranda fromMichael Jennings to President Barton, titled “Chukchi Situation Paper”(Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 28 May 1981). The above is acondensed version of a much larger work, which was itself only one in a longseries of papers on this issue.33 above interpretation comes from discussions between PresidentBarton and the author over the course of several months, during 1981 and 1982.148With this in mind, Barton assigned his special assistant the task ofestablishing communications with the Native leadership for the purposes ofreopening Chukchi. At the same time, Barton and his executive staff prepared alist of three acceptable solutions to bring to the negotiating table. They were:(1) that the University of Alaska would establish a statewide telecommunicationnetwork linking each village with the University centers for the purpose ofimproving educational delivery to rural sites; (2) that the University wouldsupport the establishment of a vocational/ technical center located in Kotzebueand operated under the control of the Northwest Arctic School District; and (3)that the University would begin to examine the feasibility of combining orlinking the various community colleges directly to one or another of the maincampuses (Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau). The latter option would establish asingle system with the necessary organizational structure to insure that thecommunity colleges had the academic and administrative support to meetaccreditation standards, or could be covered under a blanket accreditation fromthe major campus to which they were assigned.334From the University’s perspective, the issue was the potential loss of all thecommunity colleges. This stemmed from an interpretation of a section of (HouseBill) HB 219 which would have established a separate Board of Governors for thecommunity colleges and turn direct management of the colleges over to theschool districts, thereby achieving a degree of local control. However, theUniversity argued that this arrangement would lead to duplication of services anda confusing and complicated management of higher educational services. ThisSupport for this line of argument can be found in the Board of Regents Minutes of26 June 1982, held in Anchorage.334University of Alaska President’s Files, Internal memorandum from MikeMetty, President of Nome Community College to President Jay Barton (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Archives, 8 April 1981).149would result in a piecemeal approach in which the articulation between thevarious colleges and the University system would place rural students at adisadvantage when attempting to matriculate.335 The other major line ofargument advanced by the University was that none of “these small rural collegescould meet the standards for accreditation, nor would they be able to offer acomprehensive program to the people of their service region.”33 6The University’s concerns for the structural maintenance of the statewidesystem, as outlined above, were not shared by the Native leadership, at least not bySenator Furgeson and Representative Adams. The Chukchi situation had become amatter of personal prestige for these Native leaders,337 and the resolution of theconflict between them and Barton was effected on a personal level. Barton’sspecial assistant began an eighteen-month series of negotiations with the Nativeleadership which led to the reopening of Chukchi, but not without substantial lossof face on the part of Barton.A series of seven meetings between the Native leadership andrepresentatives of the University were held in Juneau in March and April of 1983.While the specifics of these meetings are interesting in themselves, it is not themajor focus of this thesis. It is of importance to note that President Barton wasnot included in these meetings at the request of the Native leadership. This was asource of much embarrassment to Barton and a point of some pride within theNative Leadership, as they had only agreed to come to the bargaining table after335Michael Jennings, “Rural Education,” unpublished Master’s thesis,University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1987. Also see President’s Files (Fairbanks:University of Alaska Archives, 1980-8 1.336University of Alaska, President’s Files (Fairbanks: University of AlaskaArchives, 1980-8 1). Italics added are not in the original. This is from a reportfrom M. Jennings to President Barton.337jennings, 45-47.150receiving assurances as to the composition of the University’s negotiating teamand the right to set the agenda.33 8What is also of significance is the fact that the Native Leadership was stillwilling to try to bring closure to this dispute through negotiations rather than bypolitical action. This preference of Native leaders to avoid direct conflict in favorof reaching some conclusion through or by consensus demonstrates that therewas still a belief, on the part of the Native Leadership, that higher education wasof some utility and that a middle ground could be found. They wanted theeducational needs of the rural residents and the interests of the institution to beblended together for the benefit of each. The settlement reached at the conclusionof these meetings reflected the hope that an improvement in not onlyUniversity/Native relations, but in educational provisions for Alaska Natives, wasat hand.There were three major institutional outcomes of the Juneau meetings:(1) the University agreed to support the establishment of a vocational/technicalschool in Kotzebue under the management of the Northwest Arctic School District;(2) the University of Alaska would increase its system of satellite communicationsby adding at least twenty-two new sites in rural Alaska over the next three years;and (3) the University of Alaska Fairbanks would establish a summer’s honorsinstitute—Rural Alaska Honors Institute (RAHI)—for Alaska Native youth andincrease the tutorial and social support programs for Native students attendingthe Fairbanks campus.339 There was little difference between these items asagreed to at the negotiations and those identified as acceptable to the University338Author’s personal files. The author was not only a member of the team,but was also instrumental in bringing the Native leadership to the negotiatingtable. Also see author’s “Rural Education” (1987), 40.339Author’s personal files.151prior to negotiations; the notable exception being the creation of the summerhonors institute (RAHI).6.3 SummaryThe significance of these events on the CCREE unit in general and RuralEducation specifically, is that, as a result of these actions, the Universityadministration began to plan for the restructuring of the CCREE division with there-centralization of rural educational offerings returning to the control of theFairbanks campus.34° This was the same arrangement characteristic of theUniversity in the 1970’s, with the management of the community colleges beingassigned to the nearest major administrative unit (MAU). In other words, theclosest four-year campus would assume authority for those community collegeswithin their geographical area. Those programs attending to rural Alaska (readNative) would be combined under a new college, The College of Rural Alaska,housed administratively within the School of Education on the Fairbankscampus.341By 1985,342 the University administration would set in motion a plan thatwould complete the circle. Just as all rural education programs had once beencontrolled from Fairbanks, the plan called for the return of control to theFairbanks campus of the community colleges in Bethel, Nome, and Kotzebue aswell as control of the telecommunications network and all other rural programs.Restructuring represented an even greater loss of local control, for it not only340Presicient’s Files, “Rural Educational Delivery” report, from Mike Mettyto Jay Barton (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, December 1982).341President’s Files (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Archives, 1983-84).342While the restructuring was not complete until 1987, there was no doubtin 1985 that this was the outcome. In fact, the blue print for this model waswritten in 1983 by Mike Metty, president of Nome Community college at therequest of Barton. This author was present at several of the meetings betweenMetty and Barton as this plan developed, 1982-3.152returned centralized control to an urban campus, but also, in the process,downgraded the chief administrative officer of the Rural College to the level of adean. This ensured that the competition for economic resources and policyconsiderations would be that much further removed from the top levels of theUniversity administration, and hopefully, from the political agendas of rurallegislators.343 In the final chapter, I examine the broader social, economic, andpolitical implications of events in Alaska and, finally, offer recommendations forfuture research.343Author’ s personal files, 1984-5.153CHAPTER VIIINDIGENOUS CONTROL OF INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING: ENDING THECONFLICT7.1 Current Approaches to Educational ChangeI found my eight years as a member of the Board of Regents [ofthe University of Alaska] very frustrating because the Universitydid little to respond to the needs of rural Alaskans when I wasappointed and was only slightly more responsive when I left. Idon’t believe it has become any more responsive today.344It is only fitting that the pessimistic remarks which opened this study arereturned to here. At the very least, the validity of the above statement, made byone of the more active members of the Alaska Native leadership during the timeperiod examined, is more readily understood as a consequence of this study. Whileit can be said that the University of Alaska made an effort to respond to calls foreducational change relevant to Alaska Natives, it is unrefutable that theUniversity of Alaska system has failed miserably to respond adequately to thehigher educational needs of rural Alaska Native people.It has also been shown that the university, while at times attempting towork with those programs, has consistently failed to address Native needs. A largepart of the reason for this failure can be attributed to the conflicting world viewsshaping each party’s understandings of the nature and purpose of educationitself, and the way in which higher educational services ought to be provided forIndigenous people in Alaska.3445am Kito. “Higher Education and Alaska Natives Workshop.” Speech tothe Annual Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Anchorage, 1991.154Put differently, the major problem is that two unrelated approaches,informed by different world views and manifested in different organizationalsolutions to education, have characterized the attempts to provide educationalservices to rural Alaska Natives. The approach pursued by the Alaska Nativeleadership is characterized by placement of the bush or rural Community collegesin the three communities of Bethel, Nome, and Kotzebue. In these instances,Native leaders and/or their supporters were able to utilize their politicalknowledge, legislative experience, statewide stature, and prestige within theAlaska legislature to circumvent the resistance exhibited by the University ofAlaska System and establish the institutions on an individual, case-by-case basis.Two assumptions underlying this approach were: 1) immediate material benefitswould accrue to the villages in which the institutions were located, in the form oflocal employment in construction and related activities at least; and, 2) long termbenefits would appear in the form of educational programs relevant to developingthe economies of villages within these regions.345However, as one of those leaders instrumental in this approach, WillieHensley, states:Basically, the university system has never been attuned to Nativeneeds and wants. We put the community colleges out there in aneffort to provide education in the local community in hopes that itwould become more sensitive to Native needs. I don’t believe that hasoccurred. The Western view of education seems to be an end, I meanthat non-Natives believe that education is itself a product, whileNatives tend to view it more as a tool. It has to have use, application.The university is not really geared to produce courses that are morevocational. They are set up to deal in academic, abstract knowledgewhich is viewed as the product, while we see it more as a process toachieve other ends than just the acquisition of knowledge. Theknowledge must be usable within our world view. This has, andcontinues to be, a real sore point between the university and the345Willy Hensley, interviews, Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, 1990 andJohn Sackett, interview, Fairbanks, Alaska 1990.155Native communities, and I don’t think the University will be able toaddress Native needs until there are more Natives in the system.346In other words, a sufficient number of Native faculty, administrators and staff arerequired in order for the University to incorporate the alternate world viewwithin the form and structure for educational delivery.The University’s approach was to centralize control of the educationalprocesses within a western understanding which, by its very nature, precludesthe Native world view. The reorganization of the University of Alaska statewidesystem in the late 1980’s re-established the centralized control and direction ofstate sponsored post-secondary education. Clearly this represented movementaway from, not toward, any locally controlled educational programming designedto meet the needs of traditional Native communities entering modern,technological society. This position, based on rejection of traditional values andbehaviors as inappropriate in modern society, made it possible to ignore theirimportance to the development of that modern society, thus illuminating thecatch-22 nature of Hensley’s observation.347 That is, the system cannot beresponsive to Native needs until more Natives are in that system. However, in thiscontext such access and entrance requires a rejection of those Native needs andthe values they reflect. This problem is experienced by Indigenous peopleeverywhere. As long as the dominant society remains uninterested or uninvolvedwith territory controlled by Indigenous people, the pace and extent to whichchange occurs is controlled locally; however, when the dominant society becomesinterested and involved in that territory, the modern world intrudes and changesboth the territory and the people. Furthermore, such changes ignores theknowledge of and expertise in local conditions acquired by the Indigenous people346Willy Hensley, interview, Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska 1990.347Norman A. Chance, The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990), 208-219.156over hundreds of years, resulting in negative rather than positive impacts on theIndigenous population. This point is perhaps best made in the observation of aNative elder concerning the changes in construction methods that had occurredin his village as a consequence of development and modernity:Before the missionaries came . . . we lived underground in sod housesand laid our dead out on the tundra. Now we live aboveground andbury the dead, and I haven’t been warm since.3487.2 An Indigenous Approach to EducationAn alternative approach is that adopted by Indigenous peoples world wide,one which seeks to establish locally controlled institutions rather than replicateones modeled on the Western university system. While this approach does noteliminate all of the problems associated with attempts to establish Native controlof educational programs, it does allow for local rather than external controlsolutions to these problems. In addition, this approach provides a mechanism forestablishing a reciprocal working relationship with the major campuses of theuniversity, while still maintaining control at the local level. Unlike communitycolleges within a university system, Indigenous institutions have been able toadapt those aspects of “modern technology” (i.e., university programs) that meetNative needs, and reject those which do not.349The approach taken by Indigenous peoples may offer the best means ofproviding Alaska Native students with educational programs designed to meetNative needs, blending elements of a university education into a lifestyle that is348David Boeri, People of the Ice Whale: Eskimos, White Men, and the Whale(New York and London: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1983), 48.349Norman A. Chance, The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990, 208-219. See also,Joseph Jorgensen, Oil Age Eskimos (Berkeley: University of California Press,1990).157influenced by virtually equal parts of traditional values and modern technology.This is precisely the synthesis necessary for Indigenous People’s cultural andphysical survival in this modern situation, and to all appearances can only beprovided from the cultural perspective inherent in local control.An Indigenous approach in the United States, such as a Tribal College, isdependent upon the availability of federal funding and the continuation of suchfinancial support in order to serve their unique constituency. The similaritiesbetween the Alaskan situation and the situations of other Native American and/orFirst Nations peoples, and of Indigenous peoples within post-colonial states ingeneral, suggest that some lessons can be learned from others’ attempts to beinnovative and to make educational programs responsive to cultural needs.The colonial status of the territory of Alaska35° in general, and the neocolonial experience of Alaska Natives since statehood in l959,1 are welldocumented and need not be discussed here. However, like many developing andpost-colonial states, the tendency has been for the authority—whether the stategovernment in Juneau or the University of Alaska system in Fairbanks—to attemptto centralize control over important aspects of development. This has been thecase in the area of post-secondary education in Alaska and has been an importantissue when any major resource is perceived to be at stake. Tribalism is perceivedto be as much a threat to the maintenance of the state by the authority structure(whether government in general or the university system in particular) as it is tothe authorities of developing nations, and a quick perusal of Alaska newspapers350Claus Naske, An Interpretative History of Alaskan Statehood.(Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1973).351Gary Anders, “Alternative Perspectives on Alaska’s Rural Development”in Alaska’s Rural Development, eds. Peter G. Cornwall and Gerald A. McBeath(Boulder: Westview Press, 1982), 187-201. See also Norman A. Chance, The Inupiatand Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, 1990).158will indicate that fear of this threat is very much alive today. An Indigenousapproach to post-secondary education does much to dispel these fears asunsubstantiated at best, and as obstacles to innovation in education at worst.There are at least three lessons of importance to Indigenous educationefforts to be learned from this discussion. First, an ability to participate inmaking educational policy within the institutional framework of the largersociety does not necessarily lead to effective control, or even influence, over theeducational programs delivered at the local level. Knowledge of policy-makingprocesses, impressive experience within the legislative system, and politicalstatus enabled Native leaders to force the university system, to place communitycolleges in rural villages. This affected neither the content of the programsdelivered by the professionals within the university system, nor the maintenanceof even nominal local control over the physical plant within the villages. Putdifferently, rather than leading to innovative approaches in Alaska Nativeeducation, participation at this level effectively helped to stifle it.Second, as long as the centralized authority does not provide innovativeapproaches to educational delivery, participation that leads to effective control ofeducational programs is necessary. In this case, participation is necessarily basedon local resources, not upon the generosity of the dominant political system.Included in these resources are the value systems and the cultural experiencesthat help to define Native needs, those which the non-Native institutions find sodifficult to address in an innovative manner. Money, as well as expertise andindividual energies, are among the other resources upon which local control isdependent; obviously, genuine local control, and thus innovation, are unlikelywithout them.159Finally, and perhaps most importantly, innovation in education and localcontrol of the educational processes do not imply anarchy or chaos for either theeducational system or for the society as a whole. An innovative approach can leadto effective provision of post-secondary educational programs designed to meetNative or Indigenous people’s needs in the context of modernization. Rather thanleading to the de-stabilization of society, local control and innovation provide themeans for groups to integrate themselves, to the extent this is possible and/ordesirable, and thus to stabilize that society.These are important lessons, especially when the sweeping changes takingplace globally in this last decade of the 20th century are considered. The extent towhich minority populations, whether Indigenous or not, have received just andequitable treatment from the central authorities of modernizing countries is ofincreasing concern in this context. In the same vein, knowledge of the extent towhich industrialized countries achieved their status at the expense of NativeAmerican and First Nations peoples is increasingly recognized, and the extent towhich vestiges of those relationships remain are of increasing concern in theworld today. The question is, whether the tendencies toward centralization andconcentration of authority (to provide services such as education) will lead tocontinued suppression of justice and equity for Indigenous peoples, or whetherinstead, the tendencies can be overcome so that participation, equal opportunity,and justice prevail.352In most cases, the problem is that central authorities have usually beenextremely slow to recognize these lessons, and to apply innovative approaches.The difficulty for Native/First Nations/Indigenous people then becomes one of352Gabriel A. Almond, and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. Comparative Politics:System, Process, and Policy. 2d ed (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1978), 411-415.160determining the resources available and how they can be utilized to accomplishlocal control and an innovative approach.7.2 Implications for Future ResearchIt is clear in the literature that the issues of land and of education havebeen of paramount importance in both Native and non-Native cultures. However,the two policy positions (i.e., education and land) have been intimately linked inNative cultures yet treated as unrelated in a Western perspective.This dissertation clearly demonstrates that, at least in the case of AlaskaNative Leadership, an understanding existed as to the importance of highereducation relative to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of1971. This understanding manifested itself through continual requests by theAlaska Native Leadership to the University of Alaska system for appropriateeducational programs to be devised and delivered in order to provide a cadre ofeducated new Native leaders retaining traditional Native values, thereby insuringthe continued retention of the land base.The literature is replete with research on land policy and on NativeAmerican education; however, to my knowledge, this is the first study whichexamines the linkages between the two. Only in Western industrial society iseducation conceived as a product which is predicated on the assumption that theachievement of education will facilitate a member’s economic and social mobilityin society. The ability to compartmentalize and conceptualize issues such as landand governance as separate and distinct entities from education makes visible theglaring differences between Native and non-Native world views.This study offers a different way of understanding the failure of universitysystems to address the needs of minority populations in general. To date,161universities have typically responded to minority needs through structural asopposed to substantive changes. In part, this is due to universities’ adherence tohierarchical forms of organization as evidenced by ranking of faculty, academicprograms, and the separation of programs from administration. Thisorganizational manifestation is also representative of alternate world constructs.As this study suggests, the Native American perception of education as being anintrical part of the whole tends to be viewed by the university as anunderstanding which is less than that which is offered in a Western educationalsystem. Thus, when entering Western educational systems Native Americanstudents are in effect asked to leave their ethnicity at the door.Additional research is needed exploring the experiences of other minoritygroups from the perspective of alternate world views and social organizations inorder to determine if similarities exist. Taken in concert, these studies wouldprovide a major breakthrough in understanding how to better meet the needs ofminority students.Until this study, research impacting on Native Americans has been left tonon-Natives, who in general, are lacking the contextual understanding toaccurately depict the complex philosophical concepts within the Native worldview or how these understandings are inter-related. Clearly, implications to bedrawn from this study are a call for further research to be conducted directly byNative Americans in order to insure that their alternate world view is reflected inthe findings. Such research would insure that the Native world view is actuallyportrayed and offers a Native vantage point for assessing the events reflected inthe literature. Because this case study offers limited usefulness in termsgeneralizability concerning the educational experiences of Native Americansand/or Indigenous people in general, other studies need to be conducted in order162to provide a basis for generalization about the Alaska Native/NativeAmerican/First Nations/Aboriginal/Indigenous experience with Western Euro-American Educational systems. In addition, further research is needed on therelationship between land and education, and governance and education. Asrevealed in this study, an important approach for further research in this areawould be to build on this discussion of alternate world views and the failure ofstructural responses to address the needs of Native Americans and other minoritypopulations.This study provides a baseline upon which future work in this area needs tobe developed. Attention to curricula which acknowledges alternateconceptualizations or world views is necessary. In order to achieve this goal,attention must also be directed toward teacher preparation and inserviceprograms. Building from this study, the most obvious work that could be done isin the area of educational re-design. Such studies conducted by Native Americanson not only the structure of educational systems but also on related issues ofteacher preparation, curriculum development/design, and shared educationaldecision making between educational professionals and the Native communityoffers concert alternatives to present educational delivery systems. Suchresearch is needed to begin the process of reconceptualizing currenteducation/educational structures to meet the needs of minority populations. Assuggested by this study, such an alternative conceptualization offers the ability tohumanize the educational enterprise and to improve retention/graduation ratesfor Native American students.163REFERENCESPrimary SourcesInterviewsAnderson, Ralph, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, 1990, interview by author,Barrow.Berry, Franklin, SeAlaska Incorporated, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Dementiff, Mitch, Tanana Chiefs Corporation, 1990, interview by author, Nenana.Demmert, Dennis, SeAlaska Incorporated, 1990, interview by author, Fairbanks.Furgeson, Frank, Bering Straits Incorporated, 1990, interview by author,Kotzebue.Hensley, Willie, NANA Incorporated, 1990, interviews by author, Fairbanks &Anchorage.Holman, George, Calista Corporation. interview by author, Bethel.Ketzler, Al, Tanana Chiefs Corporation, 1990, interview by author, Fairbanks.Kito, Sam, Doyon Limited, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Mallot, Byon, SeAlaska Incorporated, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Notti, Emil, Doyon Limited, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Sackett, John, Doyon Limited, 1990, interview by author, Fairbanks.Schafer, John, NANA Incorporated, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Shively, John, NANA Incorporated, 1990, interview by author, Anchorage.Thompson, Morris, Doyon Limited, 1990, interview by author, Fairbanks.Wallis, Tim, Doyon Limited, 1990, interview by author, Fairbanks.University of Alaska Archives, FairbanksAlaska Native Foundation, December 1974, “Higher and Adult Education Needs inRural Alaska: A Report by the Alaska Native Foundation to the PolicyCouncil of the Alaska Native Human Resource Development Program,”University of Alaska Fairbanks.Defoe, Don, Executive Vice President, undated, Hand written “notes” to PresidentHiatt.164Fairbanks Campus Space Committee, 20 April 1976, Internal Memorandum, Subject:Office Space for Central Staff of REA (V.P. Ramos), to Howard Cutler,Chancellor, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Gruening, Clark, University General Council, 6 November 1976, Hand writtenconfidential memo to President Hiatt.Helms, Andrea, Associate Professor of Political Science, 27 November 1975,confidential memorandum to Dr. Robert Hiatt, President of the Universityof Alaska.Hiatt, Robert , President of the University of Alaska, 17 November 1975,confidential memorandum to the University of Alaska Board of Regents.Jennings, Michael, Internal memoranda to President Barton, 28 May 1981,“Chukchi Situation Paper,” Fairbanks.Jennings, Michael, 1980-81, Report to President Barton.Merdes, Ed, attorney at law, 4 December 1980, Letter to Astrid de Perry, generalcouncil for the University of Alaska.Metty, Mike, President of Nome Community College, 8 April 1981, Memorandum toPresident Jay Barton.Metty, Mike, “Rural Educational Delivery,” December 1982, report to Jay Barton.President’s Files, 1975; 1976; 1977; 1979; 1980; 1981; 1983; 1984, University of Alaska,Fairbanks.Reed , Jan. 1983, Confidential letter to the University President, 21 September 1977.“Rural Education Status Report,” University of Alaska, Fairbanks.Rural Education Status Report, 1983, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.SOS Progress Report, Dec. 1971, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks.United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region X, Seattle,Washington, 5 September 1975, Letter to Dr. Robert W. Hiatt, President ofthe University of Alaska.University of Alaska Board of Regents Minutes, 9 May 1975; 2-3 March 1977; 28June 1977; 7-8 September 1977; 1 October 1977; 1-2 December 1977; 16 May1978; 2-3 March 1977; 16 May 1979; 1978; 26 June 1980, University of Alaska.State of Alaska Archives, JuneauAlaska Bi-LingualJBi-Cultural Act, 1974.Alaska Statutes, Chapter 75, 1962.Alaska State Legislative Digest, May 1980.165Community College Interim Committee Community Colleges: A Report to theTwelfth Alaska State Legislature, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau.February, 1981.Free Conference Committee of the Alaska State legislature, 16 June 1976, Juneau.House Bill 144House Concurrent Resolution 56, 1967Laws of the State of Alaska, 1953Laws of the State of Alaska, 1955Laws of the State of Alaska, 1962.Legislative Affairs Summary of Legislation, June 1980.McLean and Associates, “Higher Education in Alaska: A Report Based Upon Follow-up Visits to Sitka, College and Anchorage,” 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, & 1978,Alaska State Legislature, Juneau.Molly Hootch case, 1976.Senate Bill 162Senate Bill 267State’s subsistence law, 1978.Territorial Laws of Alaska, Chapter 57 and 58. 1953.Native Organizations ArchivesA Program for the Alaska Native Human Resource Development, Program GrantProposal. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation, 22 August 1973.Alaska Federation of Natives, Committee on Higher Education. Position Paper andRecommendations. Anchorage, 1972.Alaska Native Human Resource Development Council. Minutes of the PolicyCouncil. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation, 18 December 1974;November 1975; January, 1976; 22 February 1976.Alaska Student Higher Education Services Proposal. Anchorage: Alaska Federationof Natives, 1971.Berry, Franklin. Program Grant Proposal. Alaska Native Human ResourceDevelopment. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation, 1973.Currier, Janice A. and Gay Pulley. A History of Alaska Native Human ResourceDevelopment Program. ANHRDP, Alaska Native Foundation, 1981.166Demientief, Mitch. Letter to ANHRDP policy council, Tanana Chiefs Conference,Fairbanks, June 1974.Ekvall, Eric, Director of ANHRDP memo to Roger Lang, President of AFN and EmilNotti, President of ANF, Alaska Native Foundation, 20 February 1975.Estus, Jauqlin and Choate, Glenda , Curry-Weissbrodt Papers of the Tlingit-HaidaIndian Tribes of Alaska: An Inventory. Juneau: Central Council of theTlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, 1983.Jacquot, Louis. “Position Paper and Recommendations.” In Alaska Federation ofNatives. Anchorage: Committee on Higher Education, 1972.Jacquot, Louis. Cover letter to Kellogg Foundation, first year progress reportANHRD Program. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation, 10 December 1973.Jacquot, Louis. director of the ANHRD policy council, 6 August 1974.Kito, Sam. “Higher Education and Alaska Natives Workshop.” Speech to theAnnual Conference of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Anchorage, 1991.Mayo, William. “Opening Remarks.” Annual Convention of Alaska Federation ofNatives. Anchorage, 1993.Needs Assessment Survey. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation, 13 September1974.Notti, Emil, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Letter to JamesMatthews, Director of the Cooperative Extension Service of the Universityof Alaska, 11 July 1972.Paul, William L. . Memorandum, William Paul Papers. Sitka: Alaska NativeBrotherhood, 12 December 1948.United States Government DocumentsAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1971.Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1980.American Indian Policy Review Commission, Final Report. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1977.American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1978.Drucher, Phillip. The Native Brotherhoods: Modern Intertribal Organizations onthe Northwest Coast. Bulletin 168, Washington D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1958.167Ellis, Anderson. Alaska Natives: Sociological and Educational Status. WashingtonD.C.: US. Department of the Interior, 1932.Fletcher. Indian Education and Civilization. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1888.Indian Child Welfare Act, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.Indian Education Act, 1972, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,amended 1974Indian Financing Act, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974.Indian Self-Determination Act and Education Assistance Act, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1975.Kennedy, Theordore. “Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A NationalChallenge,” Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969Merriam, Lewis. “The Problem of Indian Administration,” Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 21 February 1928.Nathan, Robert R. Associates, Inc., 2(c) Report: Federal Programs and AlaskaNatives, Introduction and Summary. Prepared for the United StatesDepartment of the Interior. Washington, D.C.: United States GovernmentPrinting Office, 1975.Newman, Frank. “Report on Higher Education,” Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1971.Title IX of the United States Civil Rights Act, Educational Amendments of 1972,Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972.United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. EducationReports on Education in Alaska, 1894-1918, Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1918.US. Department of Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs Education Reports on Alaska,1884-1944. Washington D.C.: Department of Interior, 1945.United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. EducationReports on Alaska, 1884-1944. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1944.Newpaper ArticlesBigjim, Fred. “Editorial,” Tundra Times, Fairbanks, 20 August 1977.“Bush University’s Bill Gets Hiatt’s Support,” Anchorage Daily Times, 27 March1975.“Center for Northern Educational Research Holds Meeting in Anchorage,” TundraTimes, 15, Fairbanks, January 1975.168Johnson, Dennis. “Pressure Politics Do Not Belong In Rural Education,” TundraTimes, 3 August 1977.Keepers, Cheryl. Guest editorial, Tundra Drums, 28 September 1979.Rock, Howard. Editorial, Tundra Times, 1 November 1962.Rock, Howard. Editorial, Tundra Times, March 1963.Sackett, John. “Editorial,” Tundra Times, 16 January 1972“Natives Look to the University for Educational Opportunity,” Tundra Times,January and March, 1974.Tundra Times, December 10, 1975.Secondary SourcesAbrams, Phillip. Historical Sociology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.Almond, Gabriel A. and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. Comparative Politics: System,Process, and Policy. 2nd ed., Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1978.Anders, Gary. “Alternative Perspectives on Alaska’s Rural Development.” InAlaska’s Rural Development, eds. Peter G. Cornwall and Gerald A. McBeath.187-201. Boulder: Westview Press, 1982.Apter, David and Harry Eckstein, eds. Comparative Politics. New York: Free Press,1973.Arnold, Robert D. Alaska Native Land Claims. Anchorage: Alaska NativeFoundation, 1976.Arnold, Robert D. Alaska Native Land Claims. Anchorage: The Alaska NativeFoundation, 1978.Atwood, Evangeline and Robert N. DeArmond. Who’s Who in Alaskan Politics: ABiographical Dictionary of Alaskan Political Personalities, 1884-1974.Portland: Binford and Mort, 1977.Bailyn, Bernard. Education in the Forming of American Society. New York:Vintage Books, 1960.Barnhardt, Carol. Historical Status of Elementary Schools in Rural Alaska, 1867-1980. Fairbanks: Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, 1985.Batzell, E. Digby. The Protestant Establishment. New York: Vintage Books, 1966.Benally, Elaine Roanhorse. Trends in American Indian Education: ASynthesis/Bibliography of Selected ERIC Resources. Las Cruces: ERICClearing House on Rural Education and Small Schools, 1981.169Black, M. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.Boeri, David. People of the Ice Whale: Eskimos, White Men, and the Whale. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1983.Bolt, Christine. American Indian and Reform. London: Unwin Hyman, 1987.Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York:Basic Books, 1976.Brooks, Paul. The Pursuit of Wilderness. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1971.Burns, Tom, and G.M. Stalker. “Mechanistic and Organic Systems.” In Classics ofOrganization Theory, eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. 207-211. PacificGrove: Cole Publishing Company, 1961a.Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation. London: TavistockPublications, 1961b.Canby Jr., William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 2 ed., St. Paul: WestPublishing Co., 1988.Case, David S. Alaska Natives and American Laws. Fairbanks: University of AlaskaPress, 1984.Cawelti, Gordon. “Key Elements of Site-Based Management.” In EducationalLeadership , ed. Larry W. Hughes. 29-53. MacMillan College Publishing Co.:New York, 1989.Chance, Norman A. The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography ofDevelopment. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990.Chavers, Dean. Funding Guide for Native Americans. Broken Arrow: Broken ArrowPress, 1988.Chevigny, Hector. Lord of Alaska: Baranov and the Russian Adventure. New York:Viking, 1944.Chevigny, Hector. Russian America: The Great Alaskan Venture, 1741-1867. NewYork: Viking, 1965.Churchill, Ward. Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide Ecocideand Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Monroe: CommonCourage Press, 1993.Coates, Peter. “Project Chariot: Alaskan Roots of Environmentalism.” AlaskaHistory 4 (Fall 1989): 1-32.Cohen, Sol. “The History of Education in the U.S.” In Urban Education in theNineteenth Century, eds. D. Rider. London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1977.Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington D.C.:Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Government, 1966.170Coleman, Michael. “Christianizing and Americanizing the Nez Perce: Sue L.McBeth and her Attitudes to the Indians.” Journal of Presbyterian History53 (Fall 1975): 67-82.Coleman, Michael. “Problematic Panacea: Presbyterian Missionaries and theAllotment of Indian Lands in the Late Nineteenth Century.” PacificHistorical Review (1985).Coleman, Michael. “The Mission Education of Frances La Flesche: An AmericanIndian Response to the Presbyterian Boarding School in the 1860s.”American Studies in Scandinavia 18 (1986a): 67-82.Coleman, Michael. “The Response of American Indian Children to PresbyterianSchooling in the Nineteenth Century: An Analysis through MissionarySources.” Paper presented at annual Meeting of the Organization ofAmerican Historians and the National Council on Public History, Portland,Oregon, 1986b.Collingwood, R.G. “An Essay on Metaphysics.” In Introduction to ModernPhilosophy, eds. A. Castell. 2d ed., New York: Macmillan, 1963.Committee, Community College Interim. Community Colleges: A Report to theTwelfth Alaska State Legislature. Juneau: Alaska State Legislature, 1981.Cornell, Stephen. The Return of the Native: American Indian PoliticalResurgence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.Cornford, F.M. From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of WesternSpeculation. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.Cremin, Lawrence. The Transformation of the School: The National Experience.New York: Vintage Books, 1961.Cremin, Lawrence. The Wonderful World of Ellwood Cubberly. Columbia: New YorkTeachers College, 1965.Cremin, Lawrence A. The Transformation of the School: Progressivism inAmerican Education, 1876-1957. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.Cremin, Lawrence A. American Education: The Metropolitan Experience, 1876-1980. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.Cubberly, Ellwood P. Public Education in the United States: A Study andInterpretation of American Educational History. 1947 ed., Cambridge:Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947.Culley, Clarence. Alaska: Past and Present. 3rd ed., Portland: Binford and Mort,1970.D’Oyley, Vince D. “A Few Issues and Ideas in Re-planning Education, Comments onEducation.” 3 (April 1973): 3-9.Darnell, Frank. Alaska’s Dual Federal-State School System: A History andDescriptive Analysis. Unpublished Ed. D. diss., Wayne State University, 1970.171Darnell, Frank. “Education Among the Native Peoples of Alaska.” Polar Record. 19,122, Finland: Finland (1979): 431-446.Daugherty, Leon C. “The Political Power Struggle in Alaska Native Land Claims.”unpublished Master’s thesis, Syracuse University, 1970.Debo, Angie. A History of the Indians of the United States. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, 1988.Deloria, Jr., Vine. Indian Education in America. Boulder: AISES, 1991.Denhardt, Robert B. Theories of Public Organization. Belmont: WadsworthPublishing Company, 1993.Drinnon, Richard. Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire-Building. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980.Dunning, William A. “Paying for Alaska: Some Unfamiliar Incidents in theProcess.” Political Science Quarterly 27 (1912): 24-37.Ellis, William W. White Ethics and Black Power: The West Side Organization.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969.Erichman, John I. Who’s Who in Alaska: 1895-1965. Juneau: Bureau of IndianAffairs, 1967.Farella, John R. The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy. Tucson:University of Arizona Press, 1987.Feinberg, Walter, H. Kantor, Michael Katz, and Paul Violas. Revisionists Respond toRavitch. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, 1980.Fishman, Joshua. “Language Loyalty.” Social Problems XV (Winter 1968): 67-79.Foote, Charles Don. Project Chariot and the Eskimo People of Point Hope, Alaska.U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1961.Gaibraith, Jay. “Information Processing Model.” In Classics of OrganizationTheory, eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. 308-315. Pacific Grove:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992.Gardner, John. Excellence: Can We be Equal and Excellent Too? Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, 1961.Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies forQualitative Research. Chicago: Adline, 1967.Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1964.Gridley, Marion E. American Indian Women. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.,1979.172Ernest Gruening. An Alaskan Reader: 1867-1967, New York: Random House 1968Harrison, Gordon, S. and Thomas A. Morehouse, eds. Rural Alaska’s DevelopmentProblem. Alaska Public Policy: Current Problems and Issues. College:University of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic, and GovernmentResearch, 1971.Haycox, Steven. “William Paul Sr. and the Alaska Voter’s Literacy Act of 1925.”Alaska History 2 (Winter 1986-87): 12-24.Haycox, Stephen. “Alaska Native Brotherhood Conventions: Sites and GrandOfficers, 1912-1959.” Alaska History 4 (Fall 1989a): 38-47.Haycox, Stephen W., ed. “Racism, Indians, and Territorial Politics.” InInterpreting Alaska’s History: An Anthology. ed. Mary Childers Mangussoand Stephen W. Haycox. Anchorage: Alaska Pacific University, 1989b.Henderson, Lester. “Should Alaska Establish Junior Colleges?” UnpublishedMaster’s thesis, Stanford University, 1930.Henriksson, Markku. The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation and the UnitedStates Congress; 1862-1907. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988.Henry, Jules. On Education. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.Hinckley, Theodore. C. “The Presbyterian Leadership in Pioneer Alaska.” Journalof American History 52 (March 1966): 742-743.Hinckley, Theodore C. The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897. Palo Alto: PacificBooks, 1972.Jackson, Ian C. “The Stikine Territory Lease and its Relevance to the AlaskaPurchase.” Pacific Historical Review 36 (August 1967): 289-306.Jacquot, Louis. Alaska Natives and Alaska Higher Education, A Descriptive Study:1960-1972. Anchorage.: Alaska Native Human Development Project, 1974.James, Thomas. “Rhetoric and Resistance: Social Science and Community Schoolsfor Navajos in the 1930s.” History of Education Quarterly 28 No. 4 (Winter1988): 44-68.Jencks, Christopher, Marshall Smith, Henry AeLand, Mary Jo Bane, BarbaraHeyns, and Stephen Michelson. Inequality A Reassessment of the Effect ofFamily and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Jennings, Michael L. “The Study of the Impact of Local, State and National PoliticalSituations on Legislation Pertaining to the Education of Native Americans.”Annual Report. New York: Ford Foundation, 1973.Jennings, Michael L. “Rural Education.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Universityof Alaska Fairbanks, 1987.173Jones, Richard C., Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: History and Analysis.Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 1972.Jorgensen, Joseph. Oil Age Eskimos. Berkeley: University of California, 1990.Kaestle, Carl. Pillars of the Republic: Schools and American Society, 1780-1860.New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.Kahn, Robert L. and Daniel Katz. “Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivityand Morale.” In Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior, ed. J. StevenOtt, 283—298. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992.Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. “Power Failure in Management Circuits.” In Classics ofOrganization Theory, eds. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott. Pacific Grove:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1992.Katz, Michael M. The Irony of Early School Reform: Innovation in Mid-NineteenthCentury Massachusetts. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1968.Kawagley, Oscar Angayuqaq. “A Yupiaq World View: Implications for CulturalEducation and Technological Adaptation in A Contemporary World.”Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of British Columbia, 1993.Koponen, Nib E. The History of Alaska. Unpublished Ed.D. diss., HarvardUniversity, 1964.Korsmo, Fae L. “Problem Definition and Alaska Natives: Ethnic Identity and PolicyFormulation.” Policy Studies Review 9 (2 1990): 294-306.Larson, Robert L. “Small is Beautiful: Innovation from the Inside Out.” In PhiDelta Kappan 71 (1991): 550-54.Lazerson, Marvin. “Revisionism and American Educational History.” HarvardEducational Review 43, 3 (May 1973): 269-283.Lyons, Oren and John Mohawk. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, IndianNations, and the US. Constitution. Sante Fe: Clear Light Publisher, 1992.Mantz, Angela A. “A Study of Secondary and Higher Education in Alaska.”Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 1933.McBeath, Gerald A. North Slope Borough Government and Policymaking.Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1981.McGregor, Douglas M. “An Analysis of Leadership.” In Classic Readings inOrganizational Behavior, ed. J. Steven Ott. Pacific Grove: Brooks/ColePublishing Company, 1992a.McGregor, Douglas M. “The Human Side of Enterprise.” In Classic Readings inOrganizational Behavior, ed. J. Steven Ott. Pacific Grove: Brooks/ColePublishing Company, 1992 (1957).McNamara, Patricia Porter. American Indians in US Higher Education. LosAngeles: Higher Education Research Institute, 1984.174McNeley, James Kale. Holy Wind in Navajo Philosophy. Tucson: University ofArizona Press, 1981.Mims, J.R. American History and Imigration, Bronxville: Sara Lawrence College,1950.Mishler, Eliott. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1986.Mohawk, John, ed. Indians and Democracy: No One Ever Told Us. Exiled in the Landof the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the US. Constitution. Sante Fe:Clear Light Publisher, 1992.Morehouse, Thomas A., Gerald A. Mc Beath and Linda Leask. Alaska’s Urban andRural Governments. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984.Naske, Claus M. An Interpretative History of Alaskan Statehood. Anchorage:Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1973.Newman, Frank. “The Second Newman Report.” National Policy and HigherEducation, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1973.Nichols, Jeanette Paddock. Alaska: A History of Its Administrations, Explorations,and Industrial Development During the First Half Century Under the Ruleof the United States. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1924.Noriega, Jorge. “American Indian Education in the United States: Indoctrinationfor Subordination to Colonialism.” In The State of Native America: Genocide,Colonization, and Resistance, ed. M. Annett Jaimes. Boston: South End Press,1992.Ogbu, John U. Minority Education and Caste. Orlando: Academic Press, 1974.Ogbu, John U. The Next Generation: An Enthography of Education in an UrbanNeighborhood . New York: Academic Press, 1978.Oppelt, Norman T. The Tribally Controlled Indian Colleges: The Beginnings ofSelf-Determination in American Indian Education. Tsoile: NavajoCommunity College Press, 1990.Paddock Nickols, Jeannette. Alaska: A History of its Administrators, Explorations,and Industrial Development During the First Half Century Under the Ruleof the United States. Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1924.Peshkin, A. “In Search of Subjectivity: Ones Own.” Educational Researcher 17(July 1988): 17-21.Pierce, Richard A. “Prince D.P. Maksutov: Last Governor of Russian America.”Journal of the West 6 (July 1967): 403-411.Prucha, Francis Paul. The Indians in American Society: From the RevolutionaryWar to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.175Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and theAmerican Indian, abridged ed. Lincoln and London: University ofNebraska Press, 1984 & 1986.Prucha, Francis Paul. The Indians in American Society, From the RevolutionaryWar to the Present. Berkeley: University of California, 1985.Putnum, Neal. The Beliefs of Politicians. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973.Ravitch, Diane. The Revisionists Revisited: A Critique of Radical Attack on theSchools. New York: Basic Books, 1978.Ray, Charles K. A Program of Education for Alaska Natives. Fairbanks: Universityof Alaska, 1959.Richards, Eva Alvey. Arctic Mood. Caldwell: Coxton Printers, 1949.Roethlisberber, Frederick J. “The Hawthorne Experiments.” In Classic Readings inOrganizational Behavior, ed. 3. Steven Ott. Pacific Grove: Brooks/ColePublishing Company, 1992.Rogin, Michael Paul. Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugationof the American Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975.Scott, Peter.Strategies for Postsecondary Education. New York: John Wiley andSons, 1975Selznick, Philip. “Foundations of the Theory of Organization.” AmericanSociological Review 13 (1948): 25-35.Shafritz, Jay M. and Steven J. Ott. eds. Classics of Organizational Theory, PacificGrove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1992.Shepro, Carl. “Native American Participation in Local Political Structures: AnAlaska Native Case.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, New Orleans, L.A., 1985a.Shepro, Carl E. “Culture, Ideology, and Organization: Popular Participation andPolitical Change.” Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Washington,1985b.Smith, John. “The Evaluator/Researcher As Person Versus the Person AsEvaluatorfResearcher,” Educational Researcher 17 (February 1988): 18—23.Spindler, George. The Transmission of American Culture. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1959.Spradley, W. and David McCurdy, eds. The Cultural Experience: Ethnography inComplex Society. Chicago Science Research Association, 1972.Spring, Joel. Education and the Rise of the Corporate State. Boston: Beacon Books,1974.176Stanton, Patty. “A Conference with the Tanana Chiefs.” Alaska Journal (Spring1971).Szasz, Margaret. Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination Since 1928. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,1974.Taylor, G.D. The New Deal and American Indian Tribalism: The Administration ofthe Indian Reorganization Act, 1 934-45. Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, 1980.Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: H. Holt &Company, 1931.Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Significance of Sections in American History. NewYork: P. Smith Co., 1932.Tyack, David B., and E. Hansot. Managers of Virtue. New York: Basic Books, 1982.Tyack, David B., and H. Kantor. Work, Youth, and Schooling. Palto Alto: StanfordUniversity Press, 1982.Tyack, David B. George Ticknor and the Boston Brahmins. Cambridge: OxfordUniversity Press, 1976.Tyack, David B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1947.Weber, Max. The Methodology of Social Sciences. Glenco: The Free Press, 1949.Weber, Max. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. Translated by R.I.Frank. London: NLB, 1976.Welsh, Jr., Richard. “American Public Opinion and the Purchase of RussianAmerica.” The American Slavic and East European Review 17 (December1958): 22.Whorf, Benjamin L. Language, Thought and Reality. ed. John B. Carroll.Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1956.Wirth, Louis. “The Limitations of Regionalism.” In Regionalism in America, ed.Merrill Jensen. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952.Witherspoon, Gary. Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1977.Young, Michael. The Rise of Meritocracy. New York: Vintage Books, 1959.Zeitlin, Irving M. “Saint Simon.” Ideology and the Development of SociologicalTheory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.177APPENDIX ASAMPLE OF INTERVIEW DATAAN INTERVIEW WITHWILLIE HENSLEYBy Michael Jennings179This was back before big oil when I pushed for what became ChukchiCollege in Kotzebue and back then we simply didn’t have any real entry in to theuniversity system, that is any real power in tenns of the regents and affectingtheir, I mean, trying to change academic institutions is one of the most difficultthings there is.So basically, to try to get something significant going within our ownregion we basically had to do an end run around the system. And that’s notunusual in the sense that it’s this whole move in the post secondary area is notmuch different than a lot of the other things that we’ve had to try to do with thesystems that weren’t responsive. And we’ve had to do this sort of thing in a wholevariety of areas, (so its one piece of the strategy?) Ya well, just like with thepioneers homes when I got to Juneau in the sixties there was a specific clause thatprecluded Natives from being able to enter the pioneers homes. It was right inthe statute. So I fiddled around and finally got it eliminated because it wasobviously discriminatory.Then that’s how I got the pioneers home funded in Kotzebue, whicheventually became the senior center. We don’t run it as a pioneers home (that’ssort of a discriminatory term in itself). That’s right. So, the university systemwas.. .until you have people who have a mentality and consciousness of placesoutside of the traditional thought patterns of urban academic structure it is almostimpossible to make any changes. And it takes a lot of force and a lot of effort to dothat.So, the bush caucus.. .how did that work? Well, actually the bush caucus atthe time I got there was not a functioning entity on any major scale. I mean,there was a bush block before we got there and there was a few of us that gotelected in the 60’s and 70’s, but it was only in the seventies and thereafter whenthe big bucks started rolling in, in the mid to late seventies--actually the pipelinewasn’t done until the seventies, but only then, when there was a lot of big dollarsat stake the bush caucus really effective. And we became effective, because thegroup was able to be the balance of power (I’ve heard it described as a thirdpolitical party). Well, in a sense it has been, although the Republican-led effortto scuttle the subsistence priority amendment will make it very difficult for the180rural areas to make any deals with the “reps” to arrange power in the houseespecially.. .it is an effective group if it holds together. But it has had it’s problemsrecently.I wish you would talk a little bit about what you remember about GeorgeHolman. Part of this whole thing is that this is not a traditionalinterview,yeah. See, George was my roommate in my first session in Juneau backin the mid-sixties and he was first elected as well.. .of course, Sackett was alsoelected at that time, Johnny Westal of St. Mary’s, I think Frank See was there fromHoonah, I think Ray Criss was there on the Senate side and George was a formerBIA teacher. A lot of people don’t remember that, but that’s what he did, and hehad, I mean he was a hard-working legislator back in the days when thereweren’t a lot of hard working legislators around. George and I more or less had tostart from scratch ‘cause neither of us had any experience to speak of . ButGeorge had a lot of dedication to his constituency which was basicallyvillages...and we worked pretty closely together.During those initial years until I worked in the senate in seventy, Georgehad a part in almost everything we did, including what became the AlaskaEducational Broadcasting Commission. In funding KYUK, which was the first one,he and I and George, Charles took a trip back to Montreal to look at the CanadianBroadcasting Systems programming network that they had for the northern partof the country. That was in the days before satellites, so we worked real hard totry to get communications into the rural areas and of course, Mike Gravel wasinvolved in communications then too, which seemed at the time to be space agetype stuff in contrast to what we had been used to up here. These satellites dishesand what not. Of course, George and I were involved in trying to get schools andhigh schools in the rural areas. At that time they were still shipping the highschool students outside or to Edgecomb or to Oklahoma or Oregon and we began the181big push which resulted in the boarding home program and then, of course, webegan pushing for high schools in the rural areas. I remember they werepushing very hard for a school in Bethel. Back in those days the BIA ran theschools out in the rural areas and the state was reluctant to do anything that costany money because there wasn’t enough money to run the state then.So they had to come up with all kinds of justifications to build a state highschool in Bethel. I, on the other hand, ended up lucking out and finagling threehigh schools within a fifty mile radius of each other.. .back in the pre-pipelinedays. The only was we used to get money for these kinds of programs wasgenerally by bonding, basically borrowing, so getting in a bond bill was a majorproposition so my strategy in our area was I was trying to get some additionalhigh school space in Kotz and Barrow, which I thought could be used as sort of aregional school in each location. My strategy was to try to fund that extra spacethrough the state--in fact I had secured an extra million for Barrow and a millionand a half for Kotz, which in those days was a lot of money, with the idea in mindof having the state________thefacilities, the classrooms, and have the BIA fundthe operation (the teachers and whatnot). And I was beating them over the headpretty heavily, trying to get them to come into some cooperative agreement, and Ithink I was making some headway there. So I had that two and a half milliondollars but one time why I was invited was a quarterly meeting of the FriendsChurch in our region in Narvik, which was one of the few real big meetings wehad in those days. A number of people got together, a few hundred got together,so I invited Jim Harper, who ran the boarding home program to come up tobasically talk about high schools and how important keeping kids in high schoolis--to try to convey that idea to the parents and, lo and behold, he sat there andsaid, “Well, everybody, we’re going to build you a high school here in the Kobukarea. All you got to do is decide where to put it”.182Well, I was shocked but I wasn’t about to argue with him because I was onthe Senate Financing Committee at that time and I knew there was no money.I went back to Juneau and sat Harper down and Bob Issacs and ranconstruction...I said, “Airight, Harper, you promised my people a school. Nowwhere is the money?”Well, there was no money. What they were planning to do, strangelyenough, was that they were going to take my two million bucks for Barrow andKotz and they were going to try to build a dormitory in Anchorage for theboarding home program, just on their own. so said, “No way”. ..and what we didwas set it aside for a Kobuk valley high school, and that’s when they...That was thefirst time that I can recall wherein rural communities were polled and visitedwith and asked what kind of schools they would like to have, both in terms ofdesign and curriculum.They had a contract with some fellow to do that and it started with the bigwar between towns as to where the school would end up. Well, what we finally didwas Ferguson and I got an extra million bucks in another bond so we ended upthree and a half million dollars and ended up with a high school in Norvik,Selawik, and Kiana as a result of one bureaucrats screw up, right? But that was wehad any significant amount of oil money. So those schools..Prior to the Hootch case.. Oh yeah, see so that was my, of course George Holman, Ialways maintained that the reason--that screw-up was the reason Hammond gotelected Governor, because, see, George got real incensed at Governor Egan forstealing money that was supposed to go to his villages that presumably ended upin my villages and consequently he backed Hammond in that election. Was itHickel vs. Hammond in the primary? And then Hammond won the primary andwho’d he run against, Egan? So that’s a little history of that area.183Kind of interesting.. .1 didn’t realize that.. .that way ‘Course Chukchi College,I was so ticked off at the University ‘cause, you know, they have. .every time youprovide any money for them, they swipe a whole bunch, a huge percentage offthe top for all kinds of planning and design and god-only-knows what and thebuilding they built was a disaster, so I never went in it for years because it wassuch a scrawny facilityDid you decide to build it or did they decide to build it? well, I don’t know,well, no, they--I got the appropriation and they built, it but they built a realinadequate facility.Did they request it or did you initiate it? No, I initiated it. I mean, of course,that was the way it was with lots of other community colleges as well.Did the impetus come out of the villages rather than out of the legislativerepresentation? They always had a hang-up about this...they wanted their ownvisions sort of set into law. In the meantime, we began to have some clout in theboard of regents because it was a focal point of some energy...But then Sam got appointed...Sam and then Shaffer, then myself, Shivelywas there for awhile...Morris was on. ..Morris is on now, and but still it’s a constant struggle.When I got on the budget, I mean, onto the Board of Regents back in the mideighties, maybe ‘84, I think they were still going around having these charettes,you know, meeting with the community and traveling en mass with their hugestaffs of planners, designers and architects and curriculum specialists andbasically saying “what would like to have here in this facility, this university?”until they just created these visions, these fantasies in their minds in they, youknow, we were doing all these sketches, what they were doing, they were buildingthese images in their heads about what they would like to have. That in my mindwas way out of reason from a pure dollar standpoint. Well, in Southeast Alaska, it184was prior to the restructuring, and so you had Juneau and Ketchikan and Sitka allbattling for students since there wasn’t enough students. ..I kept saying, “whereare the students?” to fill this 100 mu thing in Juneau and anyway, fortunately, Ithink the drop in revenue sort of brought people back to reality but in my mindnot soon enough so the university had to sort of redo itself and of course, one ofthe strong contingencies was that we wanted the rural college to have a strongemphasis, we needed emphasis in the rural college.University is fulfilling that mission... I haven’t paid as close attention to itsince I was in the senate. I tried to insure that by providing more staffing when Iwas on the finance committee but I got bounced out of the conference committeeand didn’t get a chance to.. .1 mean it’s sustaining itself but I haven’t been thatinvolved to know whether or not they’re really meeting that mission since theywere restructured.Would you talk a little bit about how the determination was made to put onein Kotz, one in Nome, and one in Bethel, and nothing in Barrow and nothing inFort Yukon...! mean, initially, in the early days. Well, it was sort of dependent onwhose priority was what, right? If a legislator didn’t have a priority we wouldn’tbe pushing for something in somebody else’s region because we didn’t what theirpriorities were and if it didn’t come through in the process then it didn’t happen.Well, in our part of the world, I mean, education has always been one of my biginterests and so we concentrated on that...You had Barrow as part of your electoral district... Yeah, that’s true.. .butyou see, well, if they did during my tenure, which was eight years, and that waslong before the big bucks, it never came through to me in those early days,before the big dollars. I think it is testament to our efforts to get anything backthen because there wasn’t very much money and then, of course, later on the185borough got formed in the 70’s and they did in fact try to form their own entity,right?It’s still running but as a different name. Yeah, the Yup’ik University ofthe Arctic...so they had the wherewithal, they had a humungous tax base there sothey were able to maintain something.. .now they have some cooperative thinggoing with the University--that’s why they didn’t go something that was statefunded.Any idea why we never requested any Indian Community College Actmoney? I have no idea. I have talked with some individuals, some Indians aboutthat, in fact, Senator Inoue’s staff, Pat. ..and Alan Parker, but why that has nevertaken place, I have no idea.I always though it was kind of an anomaly, Morris was Commissioner andwe were building community colleges and it just kind of...it seemed to me therewas real opportunity there and we dropped the ball and went somewhere else.Could be, could. ..maybe we just didn’t have enough educators then. ..We have morenow because.. .we didn’t have too many then.. .we just didn’t have all the specialtieswe needed in the native community and I think the number of native teachers,native administrators, that are in the works.. .others that are getting moreexperience, I think there will be more concentration on that.Do you see the development of community colleges as an extension of theREA;s as a way to develop rural Alaska. ..was that a conscious decision that wastalked about by the bush caucus? I think we weren’t thinking so much in termsof development as we were in terms of social cohesion--not having to sendstudents out at their tender ages. It was partly a human reaction, I think. Theother’s the fact that, of course the boarding schools have been used historically todeculturize young native people and maybe make them more alienated and so wejust didn’t see a great benefit in sending the kids out to the lower 48 or even to186southeast Alaska for that matter. Although, as I see it, I’m not so sure that therural leadership and communities would have gone along with the whole Hootchapproach that was taken as a result of that settlement. It wasn’t has if theleadership out there kind of sat down and had a chance to really think aboutwhether this was the kind of policy we should have. That is, can a child geteducated with only two high school teachers in the village? So in my mind itmight have been a different picture if it hadn’t been an out of court settlementand the state said we’re gonna build high school in every village of so manypeople with so many students. And I don’t think it’s sustainable, but nobody wantsto face it. What was the big amount?178 million.., some huge amount but from an operational standpoint we’relooking at a reduction of somewhere between six and eight per cent oil productionper year, and the revenue picture is real grim. We’re looking at maybe a billionless within the next ten years and completely subject to world oil prices and evenbeyond that, of course, less unless there is oil in the wildlife refuge it is going tobe hard for us to sustain the kind of governmental costs we got unless we starttalking in terms of raising revenues somehow.Taxes... Yeah. So and nobody wants to face that.I raise the question because Senator Sackett inferred that part of thediscussion that went on amongst the bush caucus was the State’s commitment onceyou build an infrastructure and he suggested I look at the bills that passed interms of electrification, water, sewer projects, airports and road improvementsthat come in the same era as the building of the community colleges and ruralhigh schools and there is the fact that they also provide jobs, and you’re talkingabout five or six jobs in a village of 120 people, that a fairly major impact. So Iwas just wondering what your perceptions were that part of what John’srecollections were. Well, see my involvement was prior to big oil and only a187couple of years beyond that. We were thinking in terms of academic terms, not somuch in terms of employment, at least in my own mind.It had more to do with implementing land claims and the needs of thecorporations? Yes...when I got there a dozen years later in ‘86 we were justtrying to hold our own back then and by then there were all these socialproblems that we were trying to deal with, and also I had a different emphasis inthat couple of year session I had there and one was suicide prevention, the otherwas school performance, did you ever see my report?No I haven’t looked at it. You haven’t looked at it and you got it?No, I haven’t seen it... .How could you have avoided it? The thing that struckme was that here we were spending umpteen million and hundreds of millionsover time on education and the learning of the students was dropping or stayingthe same yet here we were with huge construction, huge numbers of principalsand administrators and teachers with rather decent salaries, and yet the kidsweren’t doing any better. I wanted to try and focus in on that and some of thethings that were being implemented, including the creation of a specialcommittee on school performances. Some of the things that I was suggestingwere not really expensive propositions because it’s not necessarily the number ofdollars that affects what’s going on in the classroom, people like to say that’s thecase..Well, we went through that in the 70’s.. .that is throw dollars at it... and thenwe had money to throw at it... Yep..so I concentrated on that subjection suicideprevention, on labor issues that I’m still paying for with the labor leadership.That’s always been an uneasy relationship with native leadership andlabor. It ought to be a two way street then.We made that argument during the pipeline, trying to get people to work,but we did not get a real supportive audience. I think the way labor leadership188was also wanting I think there is also some opportunities there --they’re all instate of decline. Oh, boy, they are and the thing is that I’m being able to put thiscampaign together without them and some of them are realizing that and they’vetried to make me out to be anti-labor when in reality I’ve had a strong laborrecord over the years and if I owed anybody in the my race for congress it waslabor. But see, I disagree with them over the little Davis-Bacon wage scale. Inever said to repeal it, said it has got to be rational, it’s got to show the realprevailing wage rate, not some fantasy of some commissioner. Because to me theState shouldn’t be required to pay any fore than the prevailing rate....can’t understand name.., always said in the 70’s that you made alot ofsense. Well, I got into this over Red Dog because I didn’t want the wage scale to beso out of kilter that the whole State kind of focused in there and then it just made awhole lot more competition for own people in the region. So they’re what tryingto say is that WILLIE HENSLEYis only trying to be paid only $10 per hour landthat’s B.S. One of the points I made is that often time there is so little constructionactivity in a community that if the community had their way they would ratherpay 20 people $10 hr rather than 10 people $20 hr.It’s a whole different notion of community. Sure. But they’ve never seenfit to accommodate our special problems there. At Red Dog it eventually workedout. We had to work very hard and closely with the Commissioner of Labor, oncewe got the Governor to agree to put this distressed economic zone under the localhire law, so that half the jobs would go to this zone by job category and then ifthere wasn’t somebody skilled there, then they could bring up somebody fromoutside. So we had to do it that way. This is part of the basis for the thinking atleast of we know what to do about trying to do but what happens on the postsecondary is that the system forgets it generally speaking. ..once they get themout of the schools they’re not worth a dime to them anymore and the system189doesn’t really care how well they’ve done, they’ve pushed them along, they’re notreally qualified to graduate, alot of them, then the university has to ask for awhole bunch of money to bonehead this bonehead that, right? When they shouldhave done it to begin with...So the secondary school people, they don’t know what they are doing tohow they’re doing it. ..we found that within our own region that we didn’t know,that’s why we started funding that NANA Dorm to try to keep some connectionbetween us and our students and keep encouraging them. So there’s lots to bedone and more and it’s going to be harder because there is less money and, but,yet I sometimes wonder --I spoke to the St. Mary’s graduation one time beforethey disintegrated even back in the early sixties, there was some of the best of thebest rural graduate came from St. Mary’s. But when I was out there they hadvolunteer teachers, and their beds were as wide as this board and as hard. Theroom was just about this wide. It’s not the dollars, somehow or other there has gotto be something more than, I don’t know what it is but they had something thenthat the public schools don’t offer. Speaking of which, I ordered this, did you seethis, ah, on to where the spirit.. .problems of the Arctic school, but today all myrelative belong to Klukwan, and they’re pulling up and here I sit on at largeDoyon. So, but I really can’t remember holding them hostage, forgot what dorm-I think it was Moore Hall.I think how I got into it was kinda funny because everybody likes to listento the radio, but they went through and but in the back of my mind I’vealways seen somethingIt was wonderful leadership.Unscheduled follow-up talk with Willy Hensley at UAF August 20, 1990 - BreakfastMeeting (7th Annual Inupiat Conference)190WILLIE HENSLEY: Your paper was interesting, why didn’t you just askyour questions directly? I didn’t think I gave you much you could use in our talkin Anchorage.MICHAEL JENNINGS: Well, Senator, I just wanted you to tell me what youthought was of importance: you know the stories and people and events youthought were interesting to you.WILLIE HENSLEY: To start with, the U of A never did us any favors, andhas not done a very good job of educating Native youth--at least from ourperspective. What help we got we found the dollars for and gave it to them withstrings attached.MICHAEL JENNINGS: By “we”, who do you mean?WILLIE HENSLEY: The Native leadership, specifically those Native whowere in the legislature (Hensley, Sackett and Ferguson) and those who wereappointed to the B.O.R., and those who were running the corporations.MICHAEL JENNINGS: Why the big push in the early 70;s for post-secondaryed. in rural areas and then little opposition to the restructuring in the late 80’s?WILLIE HENSLEY: Initially we believed we could convince the Universityto deliver useful education programs out in the regions, job skills, business skillsand things that would be of use to the regional and village corporations. To help191us get up and running (after ANSCA); as time passed, we discovered that theUniversity was not going to provide those type of courses, so we shifted our focusto elementary and secondary education (settlement of the Hootch case and thecreation of REAS’s, they had the potential for greater influence over educationthat the CC councils). Besides, other issues were demanding the time and energyof Native leadership.MICHAEL JENNINGS: What sort of issues?WILLIE HENSLEY: We all know that ANCSA was designed to insure thefuture of the corporations--we had very few educated leaders and almost no onewith any sort of corporate management background. We needed land planners,finance people, resource people, but most important was the change needed in theAct itself (1991--stock alienation ???? and land transference clauses) those andthe day to day operations of the corporations took ever increasing amounts oftime, energy and capital (both economic and political).MICHAEL JENNINGS: So, did the C.C.’s in Nome, Kotzebue, and Bethel do whatyou wanted them to and if so, what was it? If not, why?WILLIE HENSLEY: That’s a big question. Basically, the university systemhas never been attuned to Native needs and wants; we put the C.C.’s out there in aneffort to provide education in the local community in hopes that it would becomemore sensitive to Native needs. I don’t believe that has occurred. The Westernview of education in the local community seems to be an end mean that nonNative’s believe that education is itself a product, while Native tend to view it moreas a tool--it has to have use, application. The University is not really geared to192produce courses that are more vocational. They are set up to deal in academic,abstract knowledge which is viewed as the product, while we see it more as aprocess to achieve other ends than just the acquisition of knowledge; theknowledge must be usable within our world view. This has and continue to be areal sore point between the University and the Native communities and I don’tthink the University will be able to address Native needs until there are moreNative in the system.MICHAEL JENNINGS: If we could change hears a bit, I’d like to talk about theway Native leadership goes about making decisions.WILLIE HENSLEY: Each corporation is a bit different in it’s managementstyle. Some, like Sealaska are much more western in structure and philosophythan NANA, which has tried to blend the traditional use of elders and the westerncorporate model mandated under ANCSA. So I don’t think I can speak for thewhole Native community.MICHAEL JENNINGS: What I’m interested in, Senator, is how the leadershipworks with each other, such as the Bush caucus or the AFN board, as it or theyrelate to the non-Native policy folks, such as the State, the University or the Feds.WILLIE HENSLEY: As you know, Michael, we talk to each other. In the olddays we held retreats once or twice a year where we worked out which regionsneeded or wanted what. Sackett, Ferguson, myself and others who served inJuneau tended to know what was economically feasible within the State budgetsand we built on that. Depending on their regional needs and the strengths of thepeople from the regions, different people would assume the lead; for instance193Sackett was the budget person; John served on Senate Finance fore almost 20years and therefore could push for funds for projects in various rural areas.Other people did other things; myself, I was good at getting projects going,making deals and setting things up for the other people to run or manage, so Itended to assume a more visible public role. The point is, we tried to avoidconfrontation, we tended to take a longer range view which helped us avoidconflict within and without the leadership. The other ???? was we presented aunited front. We worked out strategies in private and stuck together publicly, andwe had the seniority and votes to get what we wanted.MICHAEL JENNINGS: I know you need to get over to the conference, but ifyou could just answer a couple of more questions, I’d appreciate it. First, . .WhyNome, Bethel, and Kotzebue, why C.C.’s there and not Barrow, Ft.. Yukon orSandpoint?WILLIE HENSLEY: Basically, it was because of the priorities of eachregion. I’ve always been a big supporter of education. That’s why Kotzebue got aC.C. George Holman was under some pressure from AVCP to improve social andeconomic conditions in Bethel, so he held the state budge hostage until theUniversity and the urban legislators, particularly Anchorage, agreed to give hima C.C. Nome was also a case of local demand. The ??????? hammered FrankFerguson and the BOR for one until they got it.MICHAEL JENNINGS: But other places also tried to get one and still don’t haveone--Barrow, for instance.194WILLIE HENSLEY: Ya, well, Barrow always had it’s own money, it startedit’s own University and is currently running a resurrected version of InupiatUniversity--the NSHEC, so Frank and I didn’t worry too much about them. Theycould afford to build their own, which they did. As for other sites, I can’tremember specifics, but basically it was always a matter of state budget limitationsand the interest of the particular rural legislators and whether they were willingto do battle with the University and the State to get one, or whether they wouldrather address other priorities for their regions.MICHAEL JENNINGS: Last question--was the ultimate reason for putting C.C.’sin rural Alaska education or economic, or what--and what future do see, given the‘88 restructuring?WILLIE HENSLEY: I think we talked about that a bit already, but basically , yes,we though in the early 70’s that we could get the University to provide aneducation that would be culturally sensitive if we put them in rural schools, butthe people who came to teach in the C.C.’s bring other understandings of theworld with them and try to recreate their view of what Native’s need, not what wetell them we want or need, so in that sense the C.C.’s were a failure. On the otherhand, by their building they insured a long term commitment, on the part of theUniversity and State to rural Alaska. So in part, they were part of an economicinfrastructure that provided the basis for further development--road, power,sewer and water, etc....which now exist in those villages with C.C.’s while otherrural communities still lack these basic services.As for what I see of the University after restructuring, it appears that littlehas changed. Things are back to being run from UAF. There are still no Nativesin policy positions in the system, very few in academic or teaching (faculty)195positions in the system and not much interest in rural education on the part ofthe administration. WE just hired another president from the east coast to run theshow and so it appears that things have come full circle, back to the future, so tospeak--perhaps subsistence will provide the unifying point needed to energizethe Native community.MICHAEL JENNINGS: What do you mean?WILLIE HENSLEY: We did much better when there was a common threat toour land., we worked together as a community. I think the threat to subsistencemay provide, in the 90’s , the unifying force that land claims provided us in the60’s and 70’s.MICHAEL JENNINGS: What about education?WILLIE HENSLEY: I think we’ll focus more on elementary and secondaryeducation than university. We need to start turning out better graduates fromhigh schools before we worry too much about the UAF. Besides, NANA spendsabout $70,000 a year on scholarships to send our children outside to majoruniversities in addition to funding a dorm on UAF for NANA students there, toinsure a warm, comfortable environment. I really do have to go now...let meknow if you need anything else.End of Interview--Willie Hensley196AN INTERVIEW WITHSAM KITOMichael Jennings197October 28, 1990AnchorageWhat I’m looking at is the formation of the rural community colleges. I’mdoing a policy history and what I’m interested in is the Native leadershipinvolvement, not rally looking at the institutional’s response because I think it’salready biased. My basic line of argument is that there would be no C.C. system ifthe leaders hadn’t pushed it. I’m interested in at one level, what was going on inAFN and the regional corporations; your position on the Board of Regents, andhow it evolves into and how the bush caucus was instrumental over the long viewover 1972 to 1988 and why there seems to be very little resistance to the U’srestructuring.I guess the issue of U of A and rural C.C. has been an issue that developedduring the time frame you talked about. 1972 to 1974 was a major indication thatthe Univ. wasn’t responding to the educational needs in the post secondary areasof the state. The Board of Regents believed they had a way of resolving that issueunder the leadership of Dr. Hyatt at the time. What they did was create a positionthat Elaine Ramos was in, which was VP for Rural Education. As such, the VP forrural education was a director level position that did not sit in on anydeliberations of the president’s cabinet. Therefore, it was a step away from thedecision making and the development of monetary and budgetary plans for theuniversity.When I was appointed to the board there was a concentrated effort bymyself and when John Shively was appointed we worked in concert with eachother to find a way for the university to get into rural ed.198What we did was first to review what was on going at the U and found outthat there was basically a minimal amount of budget allocated for Native studiesand that on the main campus the rural ed. position was held by Elaine, the VP, wasbasically an extension of the main campus of Fairbanks.So what we did to accomplish change was to create on the Board of Regentsa committee that was called the Community College Committee. What we intendedto do with that committee was two focuses. The community of Anchorage was inturmoil because they had what they called the two plus two system, and insoutheastern there wasn’t enough students to drive a four year institution and aC.C.What we did was to force the issue and the Board of Regents then createdthe C.C. subcommittee which I was named the chairman, I’d have to go back in therecords or you could do that to find out who was on the committee, but ourmotivations were to address the issue of rural ed. and at the same time to solve theproblems in Anchorage and Juneau.So we were able to piggyback ourselves to a major re-organization of thesystem and be able to accomplish what we wanted which was a C.C. system in ruralAlaska.The first issue, not the first issue, but I’ll take them in three phases: how wedealt with the Juneau issue was to create a combined system that is now the UAJand the UAJ was a combination of a C.C. and a 4 year institution. In retrospect Ithink that was an error on our part because what it did was open the doors for thesame system to be implemented 15 years later in Anchorage when they decided tomerge a 4 years system with the two year institution. There are not enoughstudents even now that more money is spent transferring to Juneau to keep itaccredited, so that the cost for education is exorbitantly high. So what Juneau199should have is a C.C., in my opinion , now. So you go back and figure out, do youmake mistakes and that was a mistake, to create the combination in Juneau.The next issue I’ll talk about is the creation of UAA. In order to create theAnchorage C.C. as an independent institution, we spoilt the U that existed inAnchorage, which was a two-plus-two system, whereby we created a full fledgedC.C. that was called the Anchorage C.C., and we created the 4 year institution thatwas called the UAA. Two totally separate entities, with their presidents andchancellor of the C.C. and the chancellor of the UAJ. At this time we were able tothen create the UA rural C.C. system with its own chancellor. That system was onewhere there was some conflict because we had a VP for Rural Ed., but in creatingthe full system, we created a chancellorship position for all the C.C.’s and then wewrote into the budget, I don’t know the time frame, we created the vice-chancellor and we had a commitment from the president, at the time the ViceChancellor would in fact be--would represent the Native rural interests of thestate.You can realize our dismay when we found out that that position wentunfilled even though it was budgeted for a number of years afterward.So the commitment, to the rural C.C. delivery system was there but it wasalways one that they did not fill to lose control of it. So the first chancellor was agood chancellor because he was from Fairbanks; and that was Pat O’Roark. If youcan see the rise of Pat O’Roark over period of time started from we on the boardhad a lot of confidence in him because he started in Bethel and moved his way tochancellor the Rural C.C. system and then on to chancellor of the UAF. When oneof the problems we’ve had with the Fairbanks campus is illustrated by what hashappened to the whole system as we move into the 80’ and 90’s when Pat ORoark,who was a champion for rural education, became enmeshed in the internalpolitics of the University system. Now we come back to 1990 in a delivery system200for rural ed. that emanates from Fairbanks, which is the same thing that wefought fourteen years ago. We’re right back where we started.The delivery system, even though you now have a system that’s called ruraleducation if you look at it, it all comes out of Fairbanks. The rural college and it’sall driven Out of Fairbanks and it is the same thing that we moved away from andit is the same thing of a non-responsive system. It’s ironic that the chancellor ofFairbanks is one that received his learnings and education in the system. As wetook the system apart to further provide for rural education opportunities andthat was his rise in the ladder.Now he runs it again but he runs it like you’re looking at a rear viewmirror, that his rise i learning and the whole process is run out of the sameinstitution that he had to fight against when he was in Bethel, because there wasno input for policy from the local level. I would say that even now the systemsays that they may want changes but they are not going to get them.Another illustration would be the transferability of credits from oneinstitution to another. It doesn’t work.None of the systems will come up with a primary system that says if youwill go to a college in the first two years in Bethel or Prince William Sound thatthose credits will transfer to any other institution in the State. What theyconsistently go back on and rely on is the articulation guide that says this is aguideline for all the deans and all the directors of the programs to review andmake a determination whether or not these credits transfer. Which means youdon’t know.That’s not an integrated system in my view. Even though now we take thenew system and put it under the UAF and they still can’t transfer their credits inthe same institution under the same chancellor. At any rate that was, but we didcreate a rural CC system and we were able to force three decisions, two of which201have been turned around in the past few years to the detriment of ruraleducation, and that is the integration of UAA and Anch. C.C. and the creation ofthe rural Ed. system that emanates from the UAF.The only one of the three that still remains is the UA Juneau and to thisday, I do not believe it is serving the needs of Southeastern Alaska, especially therural communities as much as it did when they were a C.C. in southeast Alaska.Time heals and the great outcry for the great restructuring of the systemwasn’t felt because they were pretty smart in dealing with communities to providefor their needs. The University was smart. The Univ. went into SE. Alaska andthey hired probably the greatest person to be able to develop the SE system underthe new structure, Marshall Lind, and if you look at the staff, it’s a coalition ofpeople who have a very strong allegiance to Marshall and they, who has had a lotof bush experience, in building coalitions. So it was become a feeding system.Everything is SE Alaska feeds Juneau even though they all think they are gettingthe piece of the pie. If you ever look at the pie, the feeding is done in Juneau, andthe other communities are back to, I’d say probably more on a community schoolsbasis than a community college.Out of it will rise another movement some time in the near future pushingfor C.C. throughout the state and I don’t think the end result is they are going tobe denied. I think that the U. system is now finding they are in deep trouble withtheir negotiations with the teachers union and arbitration about how theycreated the system.It is ironic that the question now, is now that they integrated the systemand they thought that they could just do away with the bums, the bargaining unitmembers, a.... arbitrator overturned that. .1 find it ironic that, being on the board,watching the system that I helped craft that I thought was good for ruraleducation falling apart. Given the opportunity now to represent an organization202that I had some difficulty dealing with at the time, was the bargaining unitmembers, when I was on the board, I now represent in Juneau.My mission for them and with them from another point of view is topreserve the mission of the community college system in the State of Alaska. It’sironic I find myself doing it on behalf of the union that is the only organizationleft that still has a statewide system constituency based in community colleges, orwith the ideals and the ideas of community colleges. So people were kind ofsurprised that an ex-board of regent member could end up lobbying for thepreservation of community colleges with the unions, but I think that what theyare is the beginning of the new drive for a community college system. I thinkeventually another system of community colleges will emerge. When people findthat students get out of high school, that their desires of having their student goto school is not going to result in them choosing to go to a four year institution. Ifyou talk to parents, natives, too, AFN board members, the first question you askthem is what is your child going to do; they are going to say “my child is going tocollege.”In state or out of state? Out of state or in state, they will always say they aregoing to college. It is not realistic to make decisions on what you want, but it is onwhat happens. You find that 35% of students go to college, but what happens tothe other 65%?We lose a lot of them.We lose them, too. I guess the idea is that you need a system that can makethe transition like C.C.’s can do because they can shift their programs very fastand that’s what we need. We need to be able to have more programs on acommunity basis, that allows a person to get enough education to function in theenvironment that they choose, which may be Nome, Kotzebue, Barrow, Bethel orwherever it is.203Do you think that UAF has ever understood? No. I think for one time theydid, when O’Roark was president or chancellor of the Rural C.C. system. There wasa real set of values in responding to this type of an educational opportunity, but itwent away when he went away. Now, he has it back again, but it three levelslower so that he gets a glancing view of the rural system while he focuses on thebig picture. The other example of lack of initiative on the part of the Universityof Alaska was Senator Sackett and Senator Ferguson and Rep. Adams. I workedwith them with Willie Hensley to put the RAHI program together. That was whenO’Roark was just newly a chancellor up there. Open for ideas so we came up withthis idea and this program, with Chukchi. We got his attention and we went in tocreate an attitude on the campus up there with the rural Alaska Honors Institute.That’s been a very successful program and I’ll be the first to admit that. But myproblem with it is that it hasn’t shown any growth since the initial infusion ofmoney which was $750,000, it’s come into a line item where they do bring studentsfrom all over the state. It is an exemplary program but there hasn’t been anygrowth. It’s still the RAHI, and there are no other ideas that have come from itand even more than that, I find it just totally objectionable to me.Willie says that the university has always been real good at...if the nativecommunity decides to want something they turn around they say “you go find themoney for it,” and we give them the money for it, then they have a tendency tosiphon off a bunch of it. Well, they, even after they implement they siphon it off.You know this RAHI program is one that. ..just as an example, we put $750,000 wecreated an institution, but because that was the basis for running it, was the ruraleducation, what’s the name of that program?Alaska Native Studies. Yeah. The problem is that the ANS doesn’t, its notinterdependent with the University. It is a “stand alone” program and theproblem with a stand alone program is that the students have some difficulty204when you position them out here and say, “Okay, all you natives stand over here.”But I think that instead, what they should have had was an interdisciplinaryprogram.That was what I...my BA. is in Alaska Native Studies. But you should havebeen able to work within all the other systems. Instead of being our here all byyourself so that you dealt with everybody at arms length because there...Its the old BIA separate people. ..that’s what it amounts to. Just let you knowthat with that background and knowledge I did go and spend three years at APU asdirector of their ??? and created their Alaska Native Institute program. What wedid was create, on a budget of $50,000 an institute and we created an AlaskanNative Studies program, but we worked with every department in the Universityso we could consolidate a degree in programs that had a relationship to AlaskaNative issues. You could graduate with a degree in Alaska Native Studies. But youcould also graduate with a degree in economics. We created it on $50,000 atutoring and counseling program. We didn’t hire. ..We created volunteer tutoringand counseling programs. By this we meant we never used a professionalcounselor. I had my deputy, who was the only full time person under me, ‘cause Iwas just part-time. That’s all the money we had ‘cause they wanted to pay mesomething, so I took some of it, but not very much of it. The full paid staffmember was my assistant who didn’t have a college degree, but was more of aperson who was able to communicate with the kids. But she never interfered withkids. She was a traditional guidance. What we did was taught the peer counselorshow to spot the problems. We didn’t do what the university of Alaska does, go outand buy them a car to transport them around town and make them dependent onthe transportation system. We gave them the bus schedules and told them to usethe buses. We taught them how to help each other, if one of them was downtownand one of them went and got drunk or went out and partied, to go down and help205them out and if it continued it got brought to our attention, but we didn’t hear iton the first problem. You’d be surprised how they because dependent on eachother and supported each other.Then our tutoring money, which was $4000, we put into the tutoringprogram for the whole university. We meshed it in there. We took our smartestand put them in to the tutoring program so we had natives tutoring non-nativesand non-natives tutoring natives and this way it wasn’t “Hey, you dumb natives,we’ve got this tutor over here,” or “you go over here and they’ll take care of you”..You go over here and you’re not a dumb native, what you are is a student then.So there are times when you want to bring them together, like the fifthfloor of the Gruening Building, but that’s the time when do that is during thecultural times, when you develop the ties. Then you invite people outside intoyour community on a social level but not on a. ..you work in both environments inan academic level. That’s what the university of Alaska has missed.I’d like you to talk about the leadership, both the corporate leadership andthe bush caucus in relationship to the university. I’ll quickly tell you that theretention of students at the APU, fourth year retention was higher than theaverage at the university for native students that matriculated as freshman.Bush caucus. Bush caucus has been involved with the university issues aslong as I’ve been around and they are really the driving force for change in theinstitution. External pressures make the institution change, not internal. It hasconsumed many natives that have gone into the system. Because, they can’t fightthe change, the resistance to change in the university. So the bush caucus hasbeen a fundamental force in allowing for change to happen in the universitysystem. Drive it with the budget first and policy changes later. You drive it in thesecond year by putting the money into the base, into the university base and youforce it into the base and they are required to keep it. I think if you go here or to206Anchorage and talk to Kathy Johnson, you’ll find out how, after the second yearthey are able to funnel money out of a system. Because, we’ve just raised an issuewith Morris Thompson who is on the boards of regents now, about them takingsome of Della Keats money and moving it over to hire a minority for allminorities, not native minority which the money was published for, but to hire aVice or assistant director in human affairs or something like that, which we findout was a response to some pressures from the black community. So now we got togo fight another battle, the black community and the university says “we wantmore money,” so they take it from the native program.So it is an internal battle, and when you get in there you can’t fight themoff, because you don’t have anybody driven high enough in the system that willrespond to you. So you train somebody else and you train Pat O’Roark from acommunity college professor all the way to the chancellor of UAF and you havesomebody who knows the system and knows your system and they know theirsystem and you end up having to fight them even though he will deny there is adifference in educational philosophy or goals, but there historically is.And AFN has probably not spent enough time on educational issues, butthey have become a smaller staff. What they have done--have relied on thepolitical process for change so they end up working with the bush caucus.So there is a lot of consensus building and then they get with the bushcaucus and then they go to the university. Barton never understood that. That’sright. He stayed there much too long for rural education. But the real devastationhappened when O’Dowd came. The end result is.. .to cause the demise of a systemand walk away and think you have accomplished something is not a believer.Whoever supports what was done to the university in the last three yearsdoes not support a community college system, in my view.207INTERVIEW WITHJOHN SCHAFERBy Michael Jennings208What is your recollection of the development of the Community College inBethel, Nome and Kotzebue? I think prior to the development of the C.C. you hadrural resource centers or whatever they were being called at that time. It is myunderstanding that was set up through the legislature. The key players from thebush were Sackett, Hensley, Ferguson. Outside the legislature, Sam Kito, Sam hadbeen involved in education for some time by then, at the local level in Fairbanksand then statewide. Eventually then on the Board of Regents.Getting from rural resource center to C.C. status was done by rather...Iwasn’t involved in a lot of that happening late, when Kotzebue’s request tobecome a C.C. was here in town. At that point the board of regent, I had just gottenon the board, developed the policy that no more C.C.’s would be started. Theadministration was against anymore C.C.’s and really were not even supportive ofthe ones they had. At that point what I did was get somebody to work with whathappened in Valdez, they were also interested in a C.C.. ..and had the wherewithal,the financing to not have to depend of the University system to have a C.C. Sowhen they were turned down, I encouraged the city manager to solicit proposalsfrom outside of the state to establish an outside C.C. that was affiliated with anoutside university. Then bring that back to the Board of Regents. He actually didthat. There were three colleges that were interested.Brought back to the Board of Regents. They decided to waive their policyand a motion was made to establish C.C. in Valdez at which time I had one of myfriends to amend the motion to add Kotzebue, and by then it was impossible to notvote for the motion. So Valdez and Kotzebue got their C.C.’s.To my knowledge they were the last that were established, because theUniversity system has been trying to play with C.C.’s, really unsuccessfully, untilrecently when they combined the C.C. and the University system. Between theAnchorage C.C. and the University system it made them difficult to work with209other C.C.’s because they were working with the same union, so it made it difficultfor them to do that.It has been the native leadership’s position that college services should beas close to the village as possible. That’s what has kept the C.C. system alive in myestimation, not just in the Native communities but in non as well.Just the one comment on the bush caucus. The bush caucus was actuallystarted as the ice block prior to the bush caucus by non-natives from the Nomearea, who were...Thoughts as to why the Borough requested a C.C. early on? Well I know Iknow something about it, but not to the extent...at the time I was getting a C.C. forKotzebue, at least that was my goal...Barrow wasn’t interested. They didn’t wantanything to do with the University system. What they wanted to do was establishtheir own university. Which they did.This was Inipuit U. Yeah. They worked that for awhile, by the time thathad failed, they had a desire for a C.C. after that. Probably did but by then I wasoff the board.It is an interesting political anomaly that Kotzebue from a political sciencestandpoint... Well, Frank Ferguson would not have been able to do that if he couldhave pushed for the C.C. There was a lot more support, he wasn’t that powerful.He had to have been capable of holding hostage the University budget in order toget something he wanted,As Hohman did... Right. But that wasn’t all the case every year. In thosetimes he could do that be he would not push for anything in Barrow that he didnot have the majority support, and the majority could be where he thought wasimportant.If they split then he could get away with not supporting it, which is what Iwould assume the case was. Frank actually did his best to take care of those people210up there. They had a lot of money and they really never asked for very much andwhen they asked for so much that it was difficult to provide. They were on a scaleof operation that is different than the rest of the bush put together.When they needed something they needed millions, as opposed to a fewhundred thousand like the rest of the villages.In conversations with other folk it has been indicated that theestablishment of community colleges in rural Alaska has served a multitude ofpurposes. . . ,Has indicated that at least for his part of his contention was to buildan infrastructure and the best way to do that was to build a C.C. and about the sametime period the REA’s come about. A lot of accompanying legislation that thenbecame possible because of that. A lot of water, harbor, airport improvements,etc. Were you part of the leadership? I was not involved in that type of planning.In a smaller sense we probably fed that from the Nana region. Actually, that’sKotzebue and I did. But that was an aside. So I guess in a sense I’ve been skirtingthe areas you’ve been talking about, the planning for all this.We’d planned for a C.C. for Kotzebue. That was always our local goal andthat fit into Sacketts plan for the rest of the state. Not going through thatplanning with them I ended up assisting them in achieving some of that by beingon the regency board, being able to take advantage of that. But I don’t know aboutwhat we were doing from there as well and fit into that plan. That would besomething that Ferguson would have sat down with Sackett on, the only reason Igot involved at all was because Gov. Hammond saw that he had a big problem withthe University that he had. An unknown deficit and they didn’t seem to be able tosolve it, and one of them was to be able to get me on the board. And I said I wouldsit on it until we solved the fiscal problem. So that’s how I got on there and I wason there for a year and a half, and when the problem was solved I got out. It wasduring that period that I had an opportunity to get community college status for211the statewide planning, I didn’t get involved with that. Except to the extent thatwe would discuss these issues at AFN. We’d have leadership retreats every year.We’d discuss all issues. But education wasn’t an area that I worked in or wasinterested in.Was it important to the leadership? Yes, it was. But there just others. Inour region, Willie Hensley has always been the education guy. He’s the one thatworked with and pushed on a statewide level, so he would, if they needed a guywho was not in the legislature to come in they would have conferred with Willie,not me.Talk about the NANA Spirit Movement... Frank Ferguson and two others.Those were the two guys who were actually talking and working out a plan toincorporate a C.C. Chukchi with the high school and the vocational center, andthe disagreement occurred, and somebody, I can’t recall, from the Kotzebueposition, ?????, didn’t pick up his position, he reneged on something and not toldhim, which is why ???? Barton and Ferguson. The two guys who created it...wereO’Roark and White. We basically had a couple of people which we had to change,before we change that around. It was easy to change because Ferguson was notdirectly involved in the party more. Both of those people could have caused it.‘Cause I had to go in and undo it, put it back together again. It wasn’t hard onceGeorge was gone, and I had dealt with Pat before.I was working for Barton at the time and I was being shuffled off to Juneaualot. I think that I worked with both. I know George, too. O’Roark to, after hereneged on a deal he made with us when I was on the Board of Regents. Sam Kitoand I were able to work that out. I guess that they were both involved in bad faithnegotiations.The spirit movement. What we tried to do in Nana was to evaluate thesettlement and even though we were involved to a great deal because Willie was212involved in the negotiations right from the start, right through the passage ofthe act. He had first hand knowledge, and our attorney, who was from DC., alsohad first hand knowledge. The rest of us kind of stayed home and worked themeetings up here. When we got done with the act, we didn’t know what we had.The Natives did not know what we were after. Specifically. We knew we wantedland rights. But we didn’t know the difference between 10 mil and 80 mu. Whoare we to know those kinds of things. If any of the Native leadership said thatthey knew at the time. Who are we to know those kinds of things. If any of theNative leadership said that they knew at the time, they were lying. ‘Cause none ofthem had any concepts like that. We didn’t know the difference between a miland a bil dollars. Sure, we had some idea but we didn’t have those kind of details.We were trying to do some stuff and we accomplished some it and we lost somethings in the process. And we all knew that. The act passed and even the AFNmeeting to vote on the act was phony. Two hours before the meeting had startedthe President had already signed the act so it was already law. But they hadworked it in Washington by a radio link that you were talking to the Presidentbefore he signed the bill...This was the meeting out at AMU? Yeah.So all of that was, we had a big fight, who was supporting it and who wasn’tfor nothing basically. But we had it. We could not have turned it down becausewe did get something. We sat down and evaluated that act out in NANA. We spentthree days, just the board and the lawyer and a communication consultant, whowe brought in, because we had to go back out and try and explain this s...to ourshareholders. We didn’t know how.So we sat down and went through this thing word by word. When they gotdone we said “What are they trying to do to us. This act is written to fail.” So wesaid, “OK, we have to live with it, how can we get around so it works for us.”213Some things we couldn’t fix ourselves, we couldn’t do something that wouldchange because it was the law. So we had to get back and change it. So right offthe bat, we had a list of things we needed to do. The most important of which wecould look like we had lost our aboriginal rights to subsist off the land...for thiswas fee simple land we were going to get. In most cases it wasn’t enough, becausewe had used about three quarters of Alaska to subsist and they had given us onetenth, that wasn’t enough, we couldn’t continue our lifestyle like that. Next thingwe went to work on was to get some amendments to the act. Back then, this was‘72, we couldn’t get any support from any of the other regions. It took some ofthem 3 or 4 years of political bickering before they finally got a board that couldsit down and do what we were doing. There had to be some catch-up’s. it was ‘76before we finally got support enough from regions to start working onamendments, except those ones that everybody knew that were triggered bydeadlines. That we had to change right away.What we did was try to do that. In our board we looked after that we lookedafter our operations, we went to retreat, with selected board members and staffand sat down. We had Lee Gorsuch was through his parent company working forus at that time, were the consultants we brought in for that.The founder of his consulting company was an old guy who had been incharge of mobilization of industry to support the company in W.W.II and aconsultant to countries in third world nations he could develop economically. Hethought his approach was the kind of approach we could take. Not strictly abusiness approach, a holistic approach. Look at the whole country, the Nanaregion and tribe. We worked with him for a day and a half, then we threw thesystem out and started from scratch and built essentially what Nana is today.That was back in ‘73, I think. Next year all we did was go out and...we had alot of opposition anyway, just like everybody else. In that process, we looked at214ourselves, not as a normal corporation, right from the start, rally a tribe havingcorporate standards that we had to maintain to maintain the most importantaspects of culture. The land and that sort of thing.We said, “OK, that’s what we’re going to do.” A lot of consensus building...Alot of meetings. We were always having meetings. We had these eleven separatetribes essentially that we were dealing with within NANA. We had to buildconsensus amongst all of them because in our area the village had to be treatedlike a separate tribe. We worked with them that way. To the extent we could wedelegated right off the bat. A lot of board authority to primarily IRA councils,that’s what we used. Councils are the backbone of our land selection committees.Then after we got land they’re the ones that reserved veto power, which we evenput into federal law, when we merged our villages with NANA. the had veto powerover development on their former lands.That’s unusual given the structure of the other corporations. Right. Wewere trying to maintain this nativeness in our corporation. After ten years ofthis , trying to take a holistic view of this we had also developed Maniliuq, thenative non-profit corp. for services in the area, the had the REAA’s thanks toFrank Ferguson. The people in Kotzebue voted to keep the BIA so we had toadministratively kick them out because the BIA did not want to stay, we cut a dealwith the Dept. of Education even after the Kotzebue people voted to keep them. Sowe ended up doing things like that but we worked on and set up these entitieswould handle certain aspects of the holistic approach we were taking. The tribaleducation and other things, we divided up the responsibilities and then I had toestablish a system where we could talk and work together and make sure we’re allheading in the same direction.We had to call our region ????? I don’t usually come up with new ideas, Ijust go find somebody almost everything has been tried before. In this case HUD215was trying to invent this wheel and they had a new program that they weretrying called “regional strategies” and they were going to try it. They had a testplace someplace in Pennsylvania that they were trying to hold people together.So we tapped it it and they gave some funds to the state and particularly what itwas we got all players together for whatever reason ?? ally, and would go over allthe plans the villages had developed with the town meeting style of approachwhere all the organizations got together and had a public meeting and theydecided what things were important for them. I really wasn’t a very supportivesy stern.For instance, Ferguson and all the other legislators didn’t like it. ‘Cause, wewere taking away their pork barrel ability, or some of it. We were setting uppriorities for them, as opposed to them doing it from Juneau where they couldextract favors in return which was the political spoil system at the time.Eventually, they saw the benefit to it and went along because we could reallysupport them when they were going to go fight for legislation because we had allthis consensus built already and we could go prove it. Initially.We brought this together and we had the heads, we had this littlecommittee, that was in charge of the strategy and it consisted of myself and thepresident of Maniluq and the head of the school district. The key players in theregion. We would orchestrate the strategy that allowed us to share goals andsupport each other even with funds, support a program. We started all that andwe were able to take, after the first ten years of the program,, and go back andtake a look at what we accomplished. So we did. We took a holistic look, notalthough from my standpoint , well, lets take a look at what we’re responsible for,etc. Education of shareholders through our scholarship program, jobopportunities. We pulled all this together and my, god, we’re failing. Things areworse then they were ten years ago. We can develop the statistics. In fact, there216were some studies going on that were done with regional strategy that showedthat although we were making some progress in some areas, primarily those areasthat NANA could specifically apply time, money and resources to, and some healthareas, everything else was worse. Going to pot. So we said, “Wait a minute,something’s wrong here.”I started to take a look at what could be done and asked all these peopledoing the studies, they were a bunch of well-qualified social scientist’s doing thework, plus we had contact with some other and asked them the question “What’swrong here? They keep giving us their institutionalized answers, that you needsome more of people like them to come in and develop these programs. We say wealready got one. And it isn’t working. And they say you got to have more. Wait aminute...Pour good money after bad.In ‘76 we started elders conferences up there and had one going again. Agood opportunity to ask the elders what they think. Well, I asked them what’swrong. They said we have a lack of values. People aren’t learning values and notliving values. That’s it. We asked them what are the values. Then we went intowhat ended up being about a two day conference where they tried to tell us whatwere our traditional values. And then we went into a four month period where wehad to try to translate from Eskimo to English.And some of it was not totally translatable. We ended up with 17 values andsome of them basic human values and different values and the same thing youfind in most cultures, that are culturally oriented. Some things were importantculturally, like losing the language, and added them back in. Then we tried tobuild a program which was difficult. The only role models we had were ruraldevelopment projects, internationally, which is like that. Since I was doingbusiness in Korea I latched on to the .. .Dung program which is ???? values andvery successful at it. Only three values which made it easier. They were basically217modernizing their entire rural economy and they were very successful at it. Butour people wouldn’t accept foreign aid so we didn’t do very good but we diddevelop this program can inupuit ????? or as we call it, the Eskimo Spiritprogram. The program had several components. A major component of it was toestablish elders councils in each village and each region and figuring out what itwas they were responsible for and getting them to operate. NANA underwrote thecost of that and still does.Like those consultants? More than that because we figured that again, andthat’s why I gave you such a long background, and we were looking at this tribeagain, so actually the tribal stuff or the state or the federal government as far aswe’re concerned. Because we chose to take the long view and the long view is asfar back as...end of tape.. .tape runs out at this point218

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055466/manifest

Comment

Related Items