Native American Land Recognition in Academia

Many people have encountered the concept of Native American land recognition at university events, on websites, or even while wandering around city parks. These statements, much like incense at a ceremony, are intended to convey moral clarity but often feel conceptually muddled.

At Arizona State University (ASU), where I teach philosophy, these recognitions are prominently featured on specific pages related to the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the Hayden Library. The library even proclaims, “We are on Achimel O’odham land, and this awareness should always guide our thoughts.”

The implications of these statements can feel quite substantial. They raise questions about American sovereignty, a central concern for those involved in the academic decolonization movement. In essence, these recognitions attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the United States.

For the past six years, ASU’s New College has mandated that faculty members acknowledge this land at the beginning of all meetings.

You might think of this as just a harmless ritual. Or perhaps a meaningful way to show respect? I had my doubts until I tried an experiment.

Initial Tests

At a recent faculty meeting, I posed a simple question: “Given our commitment to diversity, could I share my own land acknowledgment at each meeting?”

My acknowledgment was straightforward. I expressed gratitude to the generations of settlers and others who made the Salt River Valley what it is today, underscoring that our aim is to support all students.

I then moved to formally propose the idea. The discussion didn’t even take a second—it wasn’t about approval or endorsement, just a willingness to have a conversation.

Strangely, not a single person seconded the motion.

I never pushed for my colleagues to agree with my viewpoint; instead, I simply invited them to consider it. I even encouraged everyone to read relevant materials for themselves. Why limit diverse perspectives to just one?

Nonetheless, records reveal that my proposal for increased diversity garnered no support among the faculty at ASU’s New College.

What Seems vs. What Is

This episode highlights a distinction that should be clear: the difference between appearance and reality. While the faculty preaches linguistic diversity, it often turns into ideological uniformity. Many struggle to articulate opposing viewpoints without reducing them to a narrative of oppressors and the oppressed.

My request pushed against the boundaries of this ideological framework. From a decolonizing perspective, my acknowledgment is often seen as tied to “settler guilt” and oppressor identities. Ideologies can be narrow, unable to conceive of anything outside their prescribed boundaries.

In its current state, true pluralism gives way to a stage-managed one: you either adhere to the prescribed narrative or you stay quiet.

While the academic left gained traction through promoting inclusivity and tolerance, once in a position of power, it seems to exempt itself from those same principles. Tolerance doesn’t extend to those it labels as “bigots,” nor does inclusion apply to those called “fascists.”

Ideological Roots

Some might dismiss these land acknowledgments as merely a harmless gesture, but that’s far from the truth. They emerge from decolonization theories that advocate for the dismantling of settler societies. Authors like Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang assert that true decolonization requires a significant shift.

These acknowledgments do not simply outline history; they propagate a specific ideology. They often depict land as inherently linked to racial or ethnic identities, a contradiction to the very principles many claim to reject. They challenge notions of private property and the legality of American governance.

When viewed from this angle, the reaction to my modest request becomes somewhat predictable. Ideologies categorize the world into victims and perpetrators, so my acknowledgment could be seen as a threat to the prevailing narrative.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Educators who wish to avoid conflict now confront a reality: the ideologies they champion fundamentally undermine the pluralism they profess to uphold.

Critical Theory’s Constraints

One might hope that academics, trained to assess arguments, would be able to step away from their ideological leanings long enough to challenge their assumptions. My previous job demanded it. Yet, critical theory, often taught in many institutions, seems to stifle that possibility, requiring that every discussion fits a predefined narrative.

Intellectuals have shifted away from explaining the world as it is, opting instead to advocate for a society remade, which complicates genuine debate.

Broader Perspectives

Critical theory posits that people are victims of established systems, while certain religious views suggest that humans are inherently flawed and in need of redemption. This conflict underlines a deeper human condition, where mere structural change cannot address our most significant issues.

Jesus emphasized a necessity for rebirth, suggesting that our greatest struggles are not rooted in flawed systems but in the human heart. Ideologies that promise liberation often lead to new forms of oppression.

Human challenges run deeper than political constructs, and solutions are far more intricate than any educational framework might suggest. This is the broader acknowledgment that we seek in our academic settings—recognition of a more profound reality.