Opinion: UC, CSU must comply with Native American repatriation laws

The Bay Area is home to three California State University campuses — in San Francisco, San Jose and the East Bay — and two University of California campuses, in Berkeley and San Francisco. The campuses are located in the ancestral territory of the Ohlone and an area that became a center for Indian relocation in the 1950s and 60s.

Yet these educational institutions, which were centers of Native American activism, have, in large part, failed to comply with federal and state laws concerning the repatriation of Native American human remains and objects of cultural patrimony.

NAGPRA, the federal Native American and Graves Repatriation Act, signed into law in 1990, established a process for federal agencies and federally funded institutions to repatriate the remains and objects to federally recognized tribes. The state, in 2002, enacted the California Native American and Graves Repatriation Act, requiring state agencies and state-funded institutions to repatriate human remains and cultural items to federally recognized and non-recognized tribes.

In two reports, from November and last week, the state auditor found that UC and CSU have failed to comply with the federal and state laws.

More than three decades after the passage of the federal law, the state auditor concluded that UC had not adequately ensured the timely return of human remains and objects of cultural patrimony to tribes and that it would take a minimum of a decade to repatriate all holdings. The CSU was also found to have not complied with the laws, with most campuses not prioritizing compliance, lacking dedicated funding and personnel to carry out repatriation, and not having policies to guide and ensure compliance.

Of the Bay Area institutions, San Jose State University stood out as having completed the required reviews of their collection. The auditor commended the university and CSU Chico and San Diego for prioritizing compliance. SJSU prioritized its commitment to its relationship with tribes and Indigenous people by assigning dedicated personnel to ensure compliance with the two laws. This prioritization took place in the face of internal opposition from those who argued that doing so favored religion over science and would undermine scientific inquiry to the first inhabitants of what is now the United States.

In response to the state auditor’s findings, the UC Office of the President issued a directive in December to all UC campuses to have the required reviews completed by Jan. 31 and full-time compliance coordinators in place by July 31. The statement from the CSU Chancellor’s office, issued last week, affirmed the CSU’s respect for tribal sovereignty and to repatriate human remains and objects of cultural patrimony to tribes. Yet, CSU plans to wait until a new permanent chancellor is appointed to address the systemwide shortcomings.

As UC and CSU plan their start-of-the-school-year welcome events, they would be well served to consider how they will move beyond the performative act of reading a land acknowledgment to demonstrate their commitment to tribes and tribal sovereignty by taking concerted and intentional action to comply with the federal and state laws.

The time has come for UC and CSU to allocate dedicated funding, hire personnel and remove the administrative barriers to come into compliance with the intent and spirit of the laws.

Kerri J. Malloy is an assistant professor of Native American and Indigenous Studies at San Jose State University. He has 15 years of experience working with federally recognized tribes and seven years of teaching in Native American Studies. He is an enrolled member of the Yurok Tribe.