After writing about his Native students, professor Andrew Gulliford later described that task as being a “convoluted world” full of pitfalls.
Indeed, it took him to the edge, and cost him his job.
His article, “Kokopelli Conundrum: Lessons Learned from Teaching Native American Students,” was recently published in the American Studies International academic journal.
The writing outraged Native students. They argued Gulliford, director of the Center for Southwest Studies at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, perpetuated stereotypes, mischaracterized their culture and violated their privacy.
These are pitfalls that can befall any journalist when reporting on the unfamiliar, or indigenous peoples and issues. It’s not an easy topic when considering there are more than 560 tribes in the United States with distinctive cultures and languages. Consider Europe.
Yet, even prize-winning investigative journalists like Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele can fall victim — yet reap journalism awards — to painting Natives with a single brush, a primary color.
To many outsiders, an Indian is an Indian. And one so-called Indian expert is as good as the other.
Gulliford’s writings about Native students might have escaped media attention had he not sparked student ire with his Kokopelli conundrum article. His insight held true when he wrote about the challenges facing “an Anglo or non-Native teaching Native students, especially about Indian issues,” which, “can be both difficult and rewarding. There are frequently cross-cultural complications and conundrums.”
The conundrums he encountered were covered in several newspapers and online publications, including the Chronicle of Higher Education, The Durango Herald, the Daily Times, Denver Post and Reznet News.
Gulliford took center stage after he was asked to write “a public history of life in the Southwest,” which became a personal account of teaching Native students. He later said he couldn’t adequately explain his topic in the available space.
His story became personal for Native students. Gulliford used their first names, and took information from their classroom discussions, private conversations and final exams to write his journal article. He never asked for the students’ permission.
Gulliford also used cultural information about their spiritual beliefs, and included details about sacred ceremonial objects the students shared with him. Additionally, he lumped all his Native students together by labeling them as “quiet almost to a fault, slow to speak up, reticent to challenge professors, Indian students can also be motivated to push the boundaries of academic discourse over issues of authority and authenticity.”
Of the latter, Native students — many of those quoted in the journal had already left the school — proved him right in ways he likely never imagined. They created an organization called SAARS, or Student Alliance for Appropriate Representation, pressed for an investigation and brought the matter before college president Brad Bartel. The students argued successfully the professor violated federal law. Bartel announced that Gulliford would be removed from his teaching-director position, and become a fundraiser for the college effective April 1.
Professor Gulliford brings two specific issues to light when covering Native peoples.
First, he raises the question of who should be considered a reliable source in Indian Country. On the surface, Gulliford might appear to qualify. After all, he was in charge of the college’s prized Southwest studies department, and spent the last 25 years teaching at Fort Lewis College where 18 percent of the 4,400-member student body is Native American. The school is also ranked as the second most diverse campus in the country for public, liberal arts and sciences colleges, according to U.S. News & World Report.
“I see Andrew Gulliford as an ambassador and a bridge builder in our community. You can’t be in a room with him without knowing how much he values and respects the Native American culture,” said Paula Church in the Daily Times of Farmington, N.M.
Second, when writing about Natives, it’s too easy to generalize. One must first recognize the great diversity of indigenous people in this country. It’s a world where Indians live in urban areas and remote reservation land bases; some tribes operate profitable casinos, some barely break even and some tribes have no casinos; some tribes have developed a diversified economy while others’s unemployment rates reach upwards of 80 percent; where some tribes remain dependent on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and some fully embrace self-governance; where there are linguistically grounded tribes and those with only one living fluent speaker.
For his perfidies, Gulliford was ultimately labeled a racist in several newspapers. Still others rose to his defense.
A Denver Post columnist said: “Gulliford’s prejudices — such as they are — don’t seem intended to limit his students. And I don’t think a racist would work at a school that offers tuition-free education to American Indians and where 18 percent of students are Indians.”
That’s like saying, “I don’t think a racist would work in Alabama where 26 percent of the population is black.”
To support his innocence, the columnist further argued that Gulliford donated money to the National Museum of the American Indian, helped set up an exhibit there featuring the jewelry on retired Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and had written a book about Native sacred objects and places that was in its second printing.
“If I mentioned sensitive subjects, I apologize for my ignorance,” Gulliford said, in the online Reznet news site. “I beg forgiveness of anyone I’ve hurt.” It took him more than a month to express regret.
Historically, Indian Country has been inundated by professor Gullifords, paternalistic non-Natives who represent a wide range of professional disciplines, those who have postured themselves as experts on indigenous peoples.
Indian Country is diverse, but it’s also close-knit. On that note, it’s not difficult to check the authenticity of sources. A safe bet? Talk to people who experience life as a Native, or work directly for them. Local tribal colleges, governments, newspapers would serve as reliable check points, as would a phone call to organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, or the Governor’s Interstate Indian Council.
Among Gulliford’s pitfalls: He took the common leap of being overly romantic about his subject matter.
“My intention was to describe teaching Native students to a group of people who may have never been around them,” he said in a public apology. “But trying to describe something like this adequately is difficult, and I was sloppy in my writing technique.”
Yes, he was.
Instead of trying to appeal to a larger audience, Gulliford would have best spent his last 25 years getting to know Native students instead of observing them from an ivory tower.
“He says he loves Indians, that he cares for Indians,” said Lakota student Bill Mendoza. “But he doesn’t understand us. He doesn’t know anything about us.”
Jodi Rave covers Native issues for Lee Enterprises, a chain of 44 newspapers in 19 states.
