By Richard B. Williams, Stephen M. Gavazzi, Michael E. Roberts, Marti L. Chaatsmith, Casey Hoy, John N. Low, and Brian Snyder

In 1862, the U.S. House of representatives granted land to states for the express purpose of supporting the development of public universities. In turn, states were given the responsibility for providing the land upon which these universities would be built, as well as contributing monetarily to their ongoing development. Known as the Morrill Act, this congressional action was designed to support at least one institution of higher learning in each state that would offer access to an affordable and practical college degree, opening the door to the American dream for the “industrial classes” (as working-class families were known at the time).

Last year, the publication of the Land-Grab Universities report (Lee & Ahtone, 2020) blew the doors off the central narrative surrounding the foundation of America’s original Land Grant universities. This compendium provided exact details regarding amounts of land taken from specific tribal nations and meticulously documented sums of monies raised in the sale of those territories. In short, the bill designed to create public universities in each state— sponsored by Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln—gave away territories taken from Native nations typically by brute force or lopsided treaties. Hence, the Land Grant mission was founded on distortions, violence, and the ongoing suffering of dispossessed people.

OPENING A DIALOGUE ON REPARATIVE ACTIONS

Sparked by the Land-Grab Universities report, a faculty and staff group from the Ohio State University (OSU) created the Stepping Out and Stepping Up (SOSU) racial justice project to address the dispossession and sale of tribal lands used to fund the establishment of OSU. The SOSU initiative was developed in partnership with First Nations Development Institute (FNDI), the largest Native-controlled economic justice organization in the United States that provides economic development assistance, research, and advocacy for reservations and tribal communities.

Historical and unjust actions taken against these tribal nations were conceptualized as having contributed to a wide range of economic, educational, and health disparities experienced by past and present American Indians across the nation. Displacement and exclusion from traditional territories as well as ongoing discrimination has denied the American dream to Indigenous peoples, particularly the accumulation of wealth, food sovereignty, and progressive improvement in quality of life across generations. Hence, the main task at hand was to facilitate the beginning of a restorative dialogue between Native peoples and the SOSU project team members in service to two main objectives: 1) developing a shared understanding of the injustices experienced by tribal nations, both past and present; and 2) co-creating a plan of specific reparative actions to resolve inequities experienced by Native communities due to land dispossession.

To meet these goals, FNDI staff members were designated as the “honest brokers” of information to be gleaned from tribal nations leaders through the utilization of semi-structured interviews. The generation of qualitative data regarding the lasting effects of the land dispossessions and the most meaningful steps that OSU can take toward both acknowledgment (truth) and reparative activities (reconciliation) is now ongoing.

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS AMONG SISTER LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS

In their recent article, “The Future of Land-Grab Universities,” McCoy, Risam, and Guiliano emphasized that vastly improved associations between the 1862 and 1994 Land Grant institutions were among the most important restorative actions that could be taken in response to circumstances surrounding the founding of the “land-grab universities.” One component of this argument centers on the huge resource imbalance that exists between the 1862 and 1994 Land Grants. Contemplating these imbalanced resources, Phillips (2003) argued for a “fundamental shift” in 1862-1994 relationships, wondering whether “the 1994 Land Grant institutions represent models of community engagement that have implications for mainstream universities, foundations, and government agencies.” In essence, the argument held that certain strengths displayed by the 1994 Land Grants—a deep embeddedness inside of the communities they serve through a guiding framework that focused on the sacredness of land, food, and cultural identity, among other holistic values associated with Indigenous ways of knowing—were exactly those characteristics that 1862 Land Grants can most benefit from if they were to form partnerships.

Regrettably, little has changed in terms of these funding inequities, as noted in a recent article by Martin and Hipp (2018). However, Cheryl Crazy Bull and Emily White Hat (2019) pointed to the growth and development of the 1994 Land Grant institutions over the years, especially in areas focused on the sustainability of land and water resources. Interestingly, at least two 1862-1994 partnerships were highlighted in this article: 1) the Fort Peck Buffalo Project that united Fort Peck Community College and Montana State University in partnership with the Assiniboine and Sioux Nations; and 2) the restoration and protection of wild rice of the Ojibwe people undertaken by Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in cooperation with the University of Minnesota. Clearly, these institutional collaborations can and do take place when the activities are seen as mutually beneficial. Because one of our SOSU team members has extensive experiences working with tribal colleges, we decided to include leaders from 1994 Land Grant institutions in our data-gathering efforts. As the 1994 Land Grants serve many members of those tribal nations impacted by land dispossession, our team believed their voices also needed to be heard. To date, we have gathered information from 10 out of the 35 1994 Land Grants. Our aspirational goal is to gather information from the remaining tribal colleges before concluding this component of our project.

Among other questions posed to the 1994 Land Grant leaders, we asked for information about past and present partnerships with 1862 Land Grant institutions. While we have heard from approximately 30% of the 1994 Land Grants, there are nevertheless some emerging trends we wish to highlight. So far, some 1862-1994 collaborative activity has been reported in areas concerning teaching, research, and community engagement (the three components of the Land Grant mission). At the same time, we recognize that this activity seems sporadic, and not at all what it can or should be both quantitatively and qualitatively given the resources of the 1862 Land Grant institutions.

On the “glass half full” side, we mention one example from each of the three Land Grant mission areas reported to date. In the area of teaching, the New Beginning for Tribal Students competitive grants offered through the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) was highlighted as having had an impact on recently formed academic partnerships. In turn, the requirement for 1862-1994 collaboration within NIFA’s Tribal Colleges research Grants Program was reported to have jumpstarted several innovative research partnerships. And in the realm of community engagement, a variety of extension-based initiatives were given emphasis as examples of both ongoing and new 1862-1994 cooperative efforts. Any “glass half empty” statements will be determined through the additional voices of 1994 Land Grant leaders we hope to contact.

CODA

We recognize that dialogues with tribal nations and partnerships with tribal colleges described here represent only the beginning phases of the work ahead. In Ohio and other states (especially east of the Mississippi river), university campuses exist on land seized from tribes that were forcibly removed and relocated, making them distinct from those tribes whose land was sold to endow the universities. Additionally, there are Native American citizens who remain largely ignored by the universities of the states in which they reside. The marginalization of all these Indigenous groups must end.

In sum, we believe it is long past time for 1862 Land Grant university personnel to step out of their comfort zones and step up to the responsibilities inherent to the immense wealth transfer their institutions received at the expense of American Indians. This action is nearly two centuries overdue. And yet, there may be no time quite like the present. The specific confluence of a pandemic, ongoing economic disparities, and the current social unrest connected to racial injustice may make this third decade of the 21st century an ideal inflection point. To realize this potential, the 1862 Land Grant institutions must redouble their efforts to reach out and partner with Native nations and tribal colleges in ways that lead our national consciousness toward a higher and more honorable path.

Richard B. Williams (Oglala Lakota, Northern Cheyenne), is the Indigenous consultant for the Johnson Scholarship Foundation; Stephen M. Gavazzi is a professor of human sciences at Ohio State University; Michael E. Roberts (Tlingit), is president and CEO of First Nations Development Institute; Marti L. Chaatsmith (Comanche, Choctaw) is the associate director of Ohio State University’s Newark Earthworks Center; Casey Hoy is a professor of entomology at Ohio State University; John N. Low (Pokagon Band Potawatomi) is an associate professor of comparative studies at Ohio State University and director of the Newark Earthworks Center; and Brian Snyder is the executive director of the Initiative for Food and AgriCultural Transformation at Ohio State University.

REFERENCES

Crazy Bull, C., & White Hat, E.r. (2019). Cangleska Wakan, The Ecology of the Sacred Circle and the role of Tribal Colleges and Universities. International Review of Education, 65(1), 117-141. retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11159-018-9760-8

Lee, r. & Ahtone, T. (2020, March 30). Land-Grab Universities: Expropriated Indigenous Land is the Foundation of the Land-Grant University System. High Country News. retrieved from: https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/ indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities

Martin, M.V., & Hipp, J.S. (2018). A Time for Substance: Confronting Funding Inequities at Land Grant Institutions. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 29(3), 50-51.

McCoy, M., Risam, r., & Guiliano, J. (2021). The Future of Land-Grab Universities. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 8(1), 169-175. retrieved from doi:10.5749/natiindistudj.8.1.0169

Phillips, J.L. (2003). A Tribal College Land Grant Perspective: Changing the Conversation. Journal of American Indian Education, 42, 22–35.