Posts

Posted on

“An Outsider’s Thoughts on ANCSA” by Emeritus Professor Jenny Bell Jones

ANCSA changed the lives of everybody in Alaska. Whether you are Alaska Native, non-Native, or some “other” kind of Native as I am, your life has been affected by ANCSA if you have spent any length of time at all in the state. Alaska would not look the way it looks today were it not for the Act and the Corporations it created. ANCSA is woven throughout everything that happens in the state today and we cannot really understand what is going on unless we understand ANCSA.

Now for a disclosure, I am not an ANCSA shareholder. I am however an example of some of the many ways that non-shareholders have benefited from the legislation. I have a number of relatives and many friends who are shareholders.  I have been a scholar of the Act for a long time and I want to say “thank you” to all of those whose hard work made ANCSA possible.

ANCSA marked the beginning of a new chapter in my life. The very first class I ever took at UAF was an Alaska Native Studies course about ANCSA. This was in 1999 and, for the next 22 years, I would study ANCSA from every imaginable angle. Subsistence, law, the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, economics, finance, land management, tribal law, climate change, culture, ANCSA was always there. ANCSA guided my studies through 3 different degree programs. It provided me with the backdrop for all of my studies in Rural Development, and international indigenous law. Jobs with three different Regional Corporations helped me pay my way through school. I would go on to teach courses on the Act, and continue to study it today. I could not have had the successful academic career that I enjoyed without the help of ANCSA.

As I learned about the land claims period during the 1960s I was struck by how easily those who were fighting to protect the land could have failed. Their cause was not popular in Alaska which had a significant non-Native population that opposed any form of settlement. My study of territorial history found anti-Native racism so deeply embedded as to be invisible to much of the population that were perpetuating it.[1] A settlement was never a given. The men and women who fought for it are to be commended for succeeding against incredible odds. And we must remember that what they got was an Act of Congress, not a treaty or a negotiated settlement. It was not perfect but it was the best they could get: a tool to be used for the future. And an amazing achievement given what they were up against!

The 1990s/early 2000s was an exciting time to be a part of the Rural Development program at UAF. Through coursework, guest speakers and seminars, students had the incredible privilege of meeting many of the amazing people who, through hard work and sacrifice, had made ANCSA happen. Dr. Emil Notti, Dr. Willie Hensley, Dr. Gordon Pullar, Miranda Wright, Fred Bigjim, Jim LaBelle, Dixie Dayo, Darlene Wright, Alfred Ketzler Sr. and many others. Some are gone now:  John Borbridge, Senator John Sackett, Dr. Walter Soboleff, Byron Mallott, Alice Petrivelli, Charles Etok Edwardson Jr, but they shared their wisdom before they left us. These were people who played active parts in the land claims movement of the 1960s and then the implementation of the Act that followed. They gave generously of their time and encouraged us all to continue our studies and I for one am very grateful for their input.

It did not take long however for me to see that not everything in the ANCSA rose garden was perfect. As I became more assimilated into the Alaska Native community I realized that all was not well. I attended an unreasonable number of funerals. I comforted far too many friends who had lost children to suicide and accidents. There was poverty in many communities along with a lack of basic developments like water and sewer systems and responsive law enforcement. The State had unreasonably high levels of drug and alcohol abuse and I became very aware of the extreme levels of violence and sexual assault that persisted. In 2013 the Indian Law and Order Commission deemed public safety to be such a concern in rural Alaska that they devoted an entire chapter of their Report to Alaska.[2]   

Unemployment and homelessness rates were disproportionately high for Alaska Natives throughout the State. In many villages, unemployment topped 50% and what jobs there were skewed towards “government work” indicating a lack of private investment. Incarceration rates were also disproportionate and I observed some blatantly unjust court decisions that harmed Alaska Natives. I personally experienced the biased justice system on more than one occasion.

I learned that tribal governments had been omitted from ANCSA leaving them with very little in the way of resources to provide governance in their communities. I saw that there was often little in the way of partnership between ANCs and Tribes even though they served the same population. Tribes lacked the kind of territorial jurisdiction they needed to provide effective governance. Not everyone agreed about the kinds of development that were needed and who should pay for them.

There was active war ongoing between Tribes and the State of Alaska. The state of Alaska was spending large amounts of money disputing with tribes over the most basic parts of tribal sovereignty. These protracted legal battles consumed limited funds and energy from Tribes that could have been better spent in their communities. The state was spending public money to fight against its own citizens at the same time that it cried poor when asked to fund services in their communities.[3]

Today, subsistence continues to be a legal battle field. At least 60 disputes regarding subsistence went through the court systems during ANCSA’s first 50 years. And there are more coming. The extinguishment of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights in section 4(b) of ANCSA[4] has never been resolved in a way that worked for Alaska Native communities and the cost has been huge for everyone involved.

I understood then why some of the people I met were not happy with ANCSA and said that ANCSA was intended to terminate their very existence. Clearly there was still more work to be done. How might these conditions be improved?

Do I think that all the shortcomings I have noted are solely the fault of ANCSA? No, of course not.  there is far more to it than that. For instance, Congress could have passed legislation to correct the subsistence problems it failed to correct within Title 8 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).[5] The State could have worked to develop subsistence law that would withstand legal challenge, perhaps learning from Hawaii’s Constitution.[6] The State of Alaska could have long since chosen to recognize Tribes and partner with them instead of fighting expensive court battles. There was nothing in ANCSA that forbade better working relationships between ANCs and Tribes. If the State had been able to meet its obligations in terms of law enforcement in the villages we would not be in the unenviable position of having our own chapter in the Indian Law and Order Commission’s Report. Obviously ANCSA was not the sole culprit but it did include a mandate to address “the real economic and social needs of Natives,”.[7] Could it actually do this? Were there tools hidden within the Act that were not being fully utilized and/or content that could be further amended that would go a long way to addressing some of the complaints.

The next 50 years.

When the Dawes General Allotment Act was passed in 1887 there was an expectation that assimilation would be complete within twenty-five years and Lower 48 Indian lands would become available to non-Indian buyers.[8] (This was supposed to benefit Indians both economically and socially). Things did not work out that way. Millions of acres of Indian lands were lost, and tribes were impoverished, and it has taken over 100 years for some Lower 48 tribes to recover while for others the work is still in progress. Those tribes did not give up, they did not just let go, and they used all the tools available to them to survive, but it took another Act of Congress, the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, to slow the destruction. ANCSA has only been around for 50 years so, before we wonder why everything is not yet perfect, we might compare where we are now with where Lower 48 tribes were 50 years after the Dawes Act.  Alaska Natives have been using the tools, and in some areas the progress has been remarkable. Other areas still need work but we are in a much better place than the Lower 48 was 50 years after the Dawes Act.

When we look at the wording of the original ANCSA it seems remarkable that we are celebrating the 50th birthday. It was not intended to be this way. Hidden away in Section 7 was the following termination language:

“Sec. 7. (h)(3) On January 1 of the 21st year after the year in which this Act is enacted, all stock previously issued shall be deemed to be canceled, and shares of stock of the appropriate class shall be issued without restrictions required by this Act to each stockholder share for share.”[9]

This language would have removed all the restrictions on the ANCSA shares after 20 years and placed them on the open market at which time they could have been freely sold by the Native shareholders, and bought by anybody who wished to participate. If this would’ve happened we can be sure that the landscape would look very different today and it would not have been positive for Alaska Native cultural continuity. Thanks to the “1991 Amendments”[10] the shares remain in restricted status today. The statute looks very different now and readers are encouraged to compare the original Section 7 with its update in the U.S. Code.[11]

It is tempting to take the position that because this sunset clause was amended to protect the Native ownership of the corporations, there is nothing more to worry about and we can simply move on. If we look carefully though, this is not the case. There have been numerous amendments to ANCSA but, most of these involve property rights. With the exception of these amendments, we still have a piece of legislation that has been in place for 50 years that was originally crafted around speedy assimilation if not outright termination. There are still many of the parts of ANCSA that are not working well in terms of the social and economic well-being of Alaska Natives today which can be traced back to the expectation of speedy assimilation and the understanding by Congress that Section 7 (h)(3) would be implemented.

Shareholder Continuity: If Sec. 7 (h)(3) had not been amended enrollment would have not been an issue after 1991. Thirty years later continuing enrollment is very important if the ANCs are to continue their work. ANCSA was amended to allow shareholders from each Corporation to vote to issue shares to Natives born after the December 18th 1971 cut off date. To date, six Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and some Alaska Native Village Corporations (ANVCs) have voted to do this.[12]

Blood quantum requirements are often raised as a complaint about ANCSA but these were actually addressed in the 1991 Amendments. Section 2, Definitions, now includes:

“(r) “Descendant of a Native” means

  • a lineal descendant of a Native or of an individual who would have been a Native if such individual were alive on December 18, 1971, or (2) an adoptee of a Native or of a descendant of a Native, whose adoption (A) occurred prior to his or her majority, and (B) is recognized at law or in equity;”[13]

Shareholders can vote to enroll “new Natives” using linear descent rather than blood quantum, but only a couple of the ANCs (ASRC and Calista) have chosen to do this.[14] So, shareholders do have an option to vote to both enroll new Natives, and to remove the blood quantum requirement if they so choose. There are tools there to insure shareholder continuity if Corporations and shareholders want to use them however there could be future downsides to eliminating the blood quantum requirement that would need to be considered. If, for instance, a large percentage of current shareholders reside out of state as indicated in a 2012 GAO report,[15] their children who would qualify to be shareholders via lineal descent might have little or no connection to the land and see no reason to retain it in the future.

Tribal governance: ANCSA was silent on tribal governance in spite of having been presented by some as self-determination legislation. The Native leadership pursuing land claims could only do so much. Their primary focus was on securing the land. The omission of provisions for governance was unexpected. In Alaska Native Rights, Statehood, and Unfinished Business, Robert Anderson states:

“It is understandable that Native leadership at the time would not have seriously considered that settlement of land claims necessarily diminished the authority of Native tribal governments. There were over 70 villages organized under the Indian Reorganization Act at the time, and most others operated under some form of traditional council governance.”[16]

Why did Congress ignore these governments? ANCSA’s failure to provide for self-governance speaks to the reality of the legislation as a property rights settlement, as well as to how Tribes were viewed in Alaska in 1971. Whatever the thinking may have been 50 years ago, it is now time to correct this and support the Tribes so that they can provide better governance. While in theory, a Village Corporation can convey some (or even all) of its land to a Tribe, this may not be the best solution. It leaves the land without the protections against alienation that ANCSA provides, and the Tribe may or may not be able to place that land into trust to gain Indian Country status and regain the protections.

It is up to Tribes and Corporations to come together and decide what they want for the next 50 years. There is no one size fits all so amending ANCSA cannot be the only solution. It should however at least be considered. Is Sec. 14 (c)(3) working to the best interests of the Native beneficiaries of ANCSA? If not, what would a better arrangement look like? Tribes, Municipalities, and Corporations need to work together to craft a workable amendment, and then gain the support of our congressional delegation to get the Act amended.   

Subsistence: This is perhaps the biggest failing of the Settlement and the hardest to fix. As noted earlier, there have been more than 60 subsistence related cases argued in court since the passage of ANCSA. This is a glaring failure of one of the mandates of the Act calling for the settlement to be “accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives, without litigation,”[17]  (bold font added). Subsistence is vital to both the social and economic needs of many Native communities. The existence of so many court disputes shows how badly ANCSA has failed in this area. Interestingly, very few of the court battles include ANCs or ANVCs as litigants; this expensive and time-consuming work has been left up to Tribes and individuals.

The courts are not the right place to obtain permanent protection for subsistence. A favorable court decision is only protective until it is overturned later on. Legislation at both the state and federal levels is needed. ANCSA has provided Alaska Natives with considerable political power but that power has not been sufficient yet to obtain meaningful changes to Alaska’s laws. Congress needs to take action but to get that action the ANCs, the ANVCs and the State will need to get behind that effort. And everyone will need to be on the same page in regards to what the fix will actually be.

Settlement Trusts and Endowment Models: What about the economic future for shareholders? What will we do when one or another ANC fails? Robert Sniggeroff and Craig Richards discuss this possibility in a 2021 Law Review article pointing out that all businesses have a natural lifespan and therefore we cannot expect them to support cultural continuity indefinitely.[18] The authors discuss the dual missions of ANCs to both create shareholder wealth and promote cultural continuity, and present some interesting options for the use of settlement trusts and other forms of trusts that some corporations are beginning to explore. Maximizing shareholder profit and wealth is not the only objective of an ANC.[19]  Sniggeroff and Richards suggest an endowment model similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, noting that:

 “Operating business models are inconsistent with the very long-term life cycle of cultures. Endowment models are more consistent in terms of risk and longevity and are equally if not more consistent in terms of immediate cultural impact.”[20]

ANCSA made provisions for the establishment of Settlement Trusts as part of the 1991 Amendments but there was not a lot of interest until the 2017 Tax Act opened the possibility of using them to reduce tax liability.[21] Since then some ANCs and ANVCs have encouraged shareholders to vote for their establishment. Sniggeroff and Richards note that Settlement Trusts will need to be used for more than the pass-through of corporate profits for tax purposes if they are to survive into the future as a support for cultural continuity and shareholder economic well-being.

Benefit Corporations: Could an ANC change its corporate structure to allow it to better support cultural continuity? In 2016, William Robinson discussed the possibility of the Benefit Corporation or B-Corp model for ANCs.[22] Proposed legislation to allow Alaska businesses to incorporate as B-Corps in 2017 did not move forward, but there is interest in the state and it is likely that Alaska will eventually join the majority of states that already have similar statutes. If we do, then this option would be available to shareholders if they decided to choose that route. B-Corps continue to operate businesses for profit but are also legally obligated to consider how their activities will benefit the public. A B-Corp could, for instance, do more to help Native communities maintain their subsistence lifestyles or provide funding to Tribes to build infrastructure in a community where not all the residents were shareholders. If Alaska enacts a benefit corporation statute this would provide ANC and ANVC shareholders with an alternative legal entity to consider.[23]

We should note that ANCSA already includes language that allows an ANC to lean towards what a B-Corp might provide should they wish to do so:

“(r) Benefits for Shareholders or Immediate Families. The authority of a Native Corporation to provide benefits to its shareholders who are Natives or descendants of Natives or to its shareholders’ immediate family members who are Natives or descendants of Natives to promote the health, education, or welfare of such shareholders or family members is expressly authorized and confirmed. Eligibility for such benefits need not be based on share ownership in the Native Corporation and such benefits may be provided on a basis other than pro rata based on share ownership.”[24]

A change to B-Corp structure could not take place without a majority of shareholders voting for it and it would require a significant education effort in advance of that vote.

 Conclusion

Yes, the ANCs are doing very well in the business world. They are making great contributions to the state, paying dividends to shareholders, supporting scholarships and other forms of philanthropy, and providing funds to the various nonprofit organizations. They are employing Alaskans, both shareholders and non-shareholders. In these areas ANCSA continues to be a success. As noted in the GAO report for 2011, “The regional corporations provide a wide variety of benefits to their shareholders and other Alaska Natives. Under the Settlement Act, the corporations are authorized to provide benefits to promote the health, education, or welfare of shareholders and other Alaska Natives, but they are not required to do so.”[25] (bold font added) In some cases, ANCs and ANVCs  are doing these things in ways that are not obvious to all.

But there is more to life than money. Social conditions in many of Alaska’s Native communities continue to be sub-standard. Alaska’s tribal governments struggle without a land base and are overly dependent on federal funding. Communities lack proper law enforcement. There are continuing questions about the future of younger Alaska Natives who are not shareholders and how they will participate in the Settlement in the future. ANCSA was not designed to last forever in its current form and it is now time for young shareholders and tribal citizens, who are sometimes but not always the same people, to come together and decide what they want for the future and how to achieve it.

[1] Cole, Terrence M. Jim Crow in Alaska: The Passage of the Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945. The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1992), pp. 429-449

[2] Indian Law and Order Commission releases final report. November 13, 2013. https://www.narf.org/indian-law-and-order-commission-releases-final-report/

[3] Hogan v. Kaltag Tribal Council Decision. October 5th 2010 https://www.narf.org/hogan-v-kaltag-tribal-council-decision/  and  State of Alaska v. Native Village of Tanana https://www.narf.org/cases/state-alaska-v-native-village-tanana/

[4] 43 U.S.C. § 1603 (b)

[5] Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act PUBLIC LAW 96–487—DEC. 2, 1980 94 STAT. 2371 Title VIII Subsistence Management and Use.

[6] Hawaii State Constitution Article XII Traditional and Customary Rights Section 7  https://lrb.hawaii.gov/constitution#articlexii

[7] Congressional findings and declaration of policy 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b)

[8] General Allotment Act of 1887 Public law: Pub.L. 49–105 25 U.S.C. ch. 9 § 331 et seq Statutes at Large: 24 Stat. 388

[9] PL- 92-203. December 18th 1971. Section 7 (h)(3)

[10] https://firstalaskans.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ANCSA-the-1991-Amendments_The-Basics4.pdf

[11] P.L. 100-241, 101 Stat. 1789, February 3, 1988. See also 43 U.S.C. § 1606

[12] Ahtna, ASRC, Doyon Limited, Sealaska, NANA and Calista

[13] 43 U.S.C. § 1602 (r)

[14] Email conversation with Aaron Schutt, 11/17/2021. Calista Storyknife May 2015, page 5. 2018 ASRC Annual Report, page 44

[15] United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. REGIONAL ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS Status 40 Years after Establishment, and Future Considerations. December 2021. Page 16

[16] Anderson, Robert. Alaska Native Rights, Statehood, and Unfinished Business. 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 17 (2007), page 36, https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/387

[17] Congressional findings and declaration of policy 43 U.S.C. § 1601(b)

[18] Sniggeroff, Robert and Craig Richards. Alaska Native Corporation Endowment Models. Alaska Law Review Vol. 38:1 2021

[19] Id at page 2.

[20] Id at page 35

[21] Edwards, Bruce N. The 2017 Tax Act and Settlement Trusts. Alaska Law Review Vol. 35:1 2018

[22] Robinson, William. The Benefits of a Benefit Corporation Statute for Alaska Native Corporations. Alaska Law Review Vol. 33:2 2016 page 330

[23] Id page 350

[24] Regional Corporations 43 U.S.C. § 1606 (r)

[25] United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. REGIONAL ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS Status 40 Years after Establishment, and Future Considerations. December 2021. Page 38, citing Pub. L. No. 105-333, § 12 (1998), codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. § 1606(r).

Posted on

ANCSA at 50 on the DANSRD Blog

On December 18, 2021 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) turns 50. To mark the occasion, the Department of Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development will publish a series of blog posts from faculty and graduates discussing ANCSA at 50: The Next 50 Years. Posts will be related to the history of the law, the changes it has wrought, personal experiences with ANCSA, or ideas for the next 50 years. We will also be posting pieces from our past newsletters, links to the Department’s ANCSA at 40 video series, and information on historical sources. Please join us in looking at the Act that changed Alaska.

Our first repost comes from the DANRD 25th Anniversary Newsletter and describes the relationship between the rural development program and ANCSA.

“The History of Rural Development”

Reprinted from the Department of Alaska Native and Rural Development 25th Anniversary Newsletter, Fall 2009 1

THE “ROOTS” OF THE CURRENT B.A. DEGREE in Rural Development go back to the mid-1970s when Mike Gaffney and other faculty along with students and community members involved in UAF’S rural field-based Cross Cultural Education (XCED) teacher training program saw the need for some type of an additional degree option beyond classroom teaching that related to the development training requirements brought about by the passage of ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act). With the 1971 passage of ANCSA Alaska Native self-determination was dependent upon the success of the resulting profit corporations (based on a western financial market environment) and not-for-profit organizations that depended upon federal and state government funds (and westernized reporting requirements). The need for trained Alaska Native personnel was not a part of the settlement provisions and few Alaskan Natives were prepared for this level of professional management. The resulting Human Resource Development degree option within the B.ED degree program was an initial step to address these needs.

In the late 70s as the ANCSA situation continued to unfold and self-determination efforts began to accelerate, it increasingly became evident that the Human Resource Development orientation of the B.ED degree needed to be significantly modified so that individuals would have the knowledge and skills needed to be able to multi-task between “running the business” while maintaining the community’s cultural identity and control over these processes. The B.A. degree in Rural Development was designed with this end in mind.

The structure and content of the initial RD degree was shaped by desire to train human resource generalists that could address a variety of administrative duties and responsibilities based on familiarity with the general context of socio-economic development (RD core) and then approach specific issues from an inter-disciplinary specialty concentration or area of expertise (applied emphasis). Through internships, course projects, grant writing exercises and a required senior project, the curriculum included real-life, applied experiences in order to prepare the graduates for the immediacy of the development environment in rural Alaska. Pat Dubbs, the first department head for the Rural Development program, was one of several key faculty that designed and nurtured the creation of the B.A. degree at UAF. Some of the others with early long term involvement were Ray Barnhardt, Rick Caulfield, Lary Schafer, Nick Flanders, and Taylor Brelsford.

From its official inception in 1984, Rural Development attempted to offer its degree to both on-campus and off-campus students. It had a network of rural based faculty members who, along with Fairbanks faculty members, offered degree courses via distance delivery methods throughout much of rural Alaska.

Today’s Rural Development degree has stayed true to this foundation. Its focus on recruiting, retaining and graduating Alaska Native and rural students continues in the mission of the RD program. The major’s core courses offer the generalist orientation, the required Concentration Area incorporates an interdisciplinary skill area of expertise and the graduates have the experiences of a required internship [the internship course is still available, but no longer required] and senior project. Student advising remains a cornerstone of each faculty’s role and the department now offers a whole new level of growth for students who have achieved their bachelor degree by offering the distance delivered M.A. in Rural Development.

1 https://uaf.edu/dansrd/overview/newsletters/2009_25thAnniversaryIssue_DANRDnewsletter.pdf

Posted on

DANSRD Graduate Continues to Lead

Barbara ‘Wáahlaal Gíidaak Blake

DANSRD would like to congratulate former faculty member Barbara ‘Wáahlaal Gíidaak Blake on her successful bid for a seat on the Juneau Assembly. Barbara is a graduate of the RD MA (2013) and BA programs and taught for DANSRD 2013 through 2014. ‘Wáahlaal Gíidaak is of Haida, Tlingit and Ahtna Athabascan descent and belongs to the Káat nay-st/Yahkw ’Láanaas (Shark House/Middle Town People) Clan.  She is the daughter of Sandra Demmert (Yahkw Jáanaas) and Kenneth Johnson (Naltsiina), and the granddaughter of Frances Demmert Peele (Yahkw Jáanaas), Franklin Demmert, Sr. (Teeyeeneidi), Irene Johnson (Naltsiina)  Walter Johnson (Norwegian), and mother to two amazing kids.  She currently serves as the Director of the Alaska Native Policy Center with First Alaskans Institute, where she promotes the self-determination of Alaska Native peoples through strengthening opportunities for indigenous voices to be at the forefront of leading, solving, confronting, and advocating for Indigenous communities. She will be a strong voice for equity and justice for all on the Assembly.

We are very proud of her achievements and hope that other RD and ANS graduates will follow in her footsteps to provide strong leadership for Alaska.

Posted on

RD BA graduate Nicholes on how DANSRD prepared him for international graduate school success

At the end of Spring 2022, I will submit my graduate thesis on social movements and cultural trauma as part of the Human Security Master’s Program at Aarhus University in Denmark. Five years ago, I could not have imagined myself nearing the completion of a graduate degree or even the type of person applying to doctoral programs. Academia, in general, was outside anything I could really have imagined. All of this taken into consideration — I can only give gratitude for what feels like an endless number of people willing to put in the effort supporting me throughout my academic career. A significant amount of that effort rests with the excellent faculty and staff at the Department of Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development.

Nicholes (back row, second from the right) with DANSRD faculty, staff, and fellow graduates, May 2019.

I first began my studies in the Rural Development Bachelor of Arts program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 2017, leaving my home in Seattle and heading north to Alaska. I was nervous and excited about my transition to Alaska as anyone will be when taking the leap to somewhere new. I should not have worried in the least however, as the support I received from my professors and staff was fantastic from day one. All my needs as I settled into my new home were met without issue and the university environment was undoubtedly one of the most welcoming I had ever experienced. Once my studies began, I found that the topics covered were comprehensive in scope and intensive in their depth. The Rural Development program covered topics ranging from law, public policy, project development, environmental crises, history, ethics, business planning, and human development theory.

Following my UAF graduation, I applied and was accepted into Aarhus University in 2020. One more move taking me further and farther than I had been on my own. Surprisingly, I found little to no issues adapting to postgraduate education. My Rural Development degree had prepared me. Frankly, I should have realized that fact from the first class I ever took at UAF, Rural Alaska Land Issues. I still remember the first day and walking into Professor Kathleen Meckel’s class — Not only one of the most welcoming professors I ever had the opportunity to meet, but also an excellent guide into what would be an entire semester covering Alaskan land laws and policy. There was never a separation between what I studied and how it impacted Alaska, which helped me develop a skill set used throughout my master’s program today — particularly in research.

Moesgaard Campus (MOCA) where the Anthropology, Human Security, Archaeology and Sustainable Heritage Management Programs are held at Aarhus University.

On the practical side, I also learned various skills essential to anyone’s academic career. I learned how to produce written work and deliverables at the postgraduate level. More than that, I was given a practical education on project design, presentation, grant writing, and research development that I had never learned outside of university. When diving into our final semester, I received in-depth support on developing a thesis and research methods while covering criticism and theoretical developments in research methodology.  At the end of the program, I felt more than capable of discussing theory with my professors, covering figures like Amartya Sen and Paulo Freire, depopulation theory, and many others. I also found myself throughout the program learning through discussions with my classmates and peers as the diverse cohort I studied with all had experiences reached outside the classroom. Even though my studies in the master’s program have shifted their focus outside of the Alaskan context, I still find my research revolving around many of the same topics I studied in the Rural Development program. Issues of inequality, ecological crises, food scarcity, public policy, and law are not only limited to Alaska. Additionally, the focus in Alaska didn’t restrict me in the least; Instead, it allowed me to delve deeper into the topics at hand around real issues felt in the region. Ultimately, as a master’s student, research and my thesis are the final goals; I would have been on a less sure path if not for the Rural Development program and everyone involved.

Rooftop view of Aarhus, Denmark.
Posted on

DANSRD Tribute to Senator Albert Kookesh by Jenny Bell Jones

DANSRD staff, students and faculty, were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Senator Albert Kookesh. We extend our condolences to his family and to the communities of Angoon, and Manley Hot Springs where his wife of 51 years, Sally Marie Woods is from.

Senator Kookesh was born in Juneau in 1948. Senator Kookesh was Eagle of the Teikweidí (Brown Bear) clan, Child of the L’eeneidí (Dog Salmon) clan. His Tlingit name was Kaasháan, and he also had the name Yikdahéen. He was a 1967 graduate of Mt. Edgecumbe High School, earned his undergraduate degree in 1972 from Alaska Methodist University (now Alaska Pacific University) and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Washington School of Law in 1977.

Senator Kookesh served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1997 to 2004 and the Alaska State Senate from 2004 to 2012. His life time of exemplary public service included over 40 years on the Sealaska Corporation Board of Directors, 16 years as co-chair on the Alaska Federation of Natives Board, leadership positions in the Alaska Native Brotherhood, First Alaskans Institute, and work in the Knowles and Walker administrations and much more.

Senator Kookesh provided valuable mentorship to a number of Rural Development students over the years including Barbara Blake, Veronica Slajer and Nancy Barnes. He was generous with his wisdom and once braved the difficulties of parking at the Brooks Building and navigation of snow and icy walkways to deliver a wonderful guest lecture on subsistence law to the ANS 425 Federal Indian Law class. His advice at the time, to keep a close eye on water law and water rights in Alaska is being followed to this day.

Senator Kookesh stayed close to his roots in Southeast and when the time came to defend subsistence fishing rights in court he stepped up to the plate and took his case all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court. In his own words from the Salmon and Society Meeting in 2016:

“I didn’t do it to break the law. I didn’t do it to offend anybody. I did it to challenge that premise, 15 fish per family per year…that is one and a half fish a month, or less…Let me see any of you try and live the life of a whole salmon season, a whole winter on 15 fish. Especially if you have a family of ten or five…I wanted to challenge that forever…The progress of an Alaska Native in Alaska can be measured by our success in the courts. Nobody ever gave us anything. We had to sue for it…I hope you can understand as to why I challenged it. I thought that wasn’t fair. I thought it was not right. I feel, being a senator and former representative of the house, that laws are going to continue to evolve in Alaska. Everything you all do, everything we all do collectively is going to help get us to a place where we want to be eventually, especially when it comes to our salmon. So, these kinds of cases aren’t mean cases, they are trying to develop the law to where it should be.”

Let us honor this warrior and his family by remembering his words and carrying on his work in law and policy!

Posted on

Senator John Sackett: Leader and Mentor by Emeritus Professor Jenny Bell Jones

DANSRD staff, students and faculty, were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Senator John Sackett. We extend our condolences to his family and Tribe.

Senator Sackett was born June 3, 1944 at spring camp, up the Huslia River, a tributary of the Koyukuk River. When he was six, he attended St. Mark’s mission in Nenana for a year after which a school was built and the Territory sent a teacher to Huslia. Later he went to Sheldon Jackson High School in Sitka and graduated in 1963. He studied at Ohio University for a year before returning to Alaska to attend UAF.

At 21, in 1966, he was the youngest person ever to be elected to the Alaska Legislature and he won his seat by two votes. He was involved with the early development of Fairbanks Native Association in 1965 through 1967. He also served as President of Tanana Chiefs Conference from 1966 to 1968 and as President of Doyon Limited from 1972 to 1976. He received an honorary doctorate of laws from UAF in 2013.

Senator Sackett filled many important leadership positions over his years of service to Alaska including two terms in the State House serving on the House Finance Committee and fourteen years in the Senate.

After two terms in the House, he took a break from politics and completed a degree in Business Administration (Accounting with a minor in Political Science) from UAF in 1972, after which he returned to the Alaska Senate where he served on the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Sackett was a strong voice for Alaska Native land claims and made sure that the State of Alaska paid its share into the Alaska Native Fund as required by ANCSA. He used his power as chairman and co-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to make sure that rural priorities were properly financed and services were provided.

In later years he was incredibly generous with his knowledge in participating in the DANSRD leadership seminars. He showed many of us an incredible example of how to successfully combine traditional and modern lifeways. That knowledge was foundational for many DANSRD graduates who benefited from his kindness in sharing what he knew, and he will be missed by us. We encourage you to take a little time to learn more about Senator Sackett by listening to his 1991 interviews with the late Dr. Bernice Joseph on the Fairbank Native Association Project Jukebox at https://jukebox.uaf.edu/fna/htm/sackettpg.htm

You can also read his own story, written in 2010 online at https://uaf.edu/dansrd/files/Sackett_NOVEMBER2010.pdf This story is an education in itself!

John Sackett with DANSRD faculty and students at the 2010 leadership seminar. Senator Sackett is in the center with the red pullover.

Posted on

DANSRD, Development, and Education: Professor Carroll visits Finland

Beautiful curtains of lights in downtown Helsinki.

We often forget just how unique the Department of Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development (DANSRD) is in the world of Indigenous higher education and how fortunate we are to have programs that emphasize Alaska Native and rural student needs and perspectives as learners, researchers, and development practitioners instead of objects of study or top down planning.   Last year I started looking closely at our graduates’ senior and master’s projects and theses to understand what areas DANSRD students are most interested in and why, and with the budget crisis this summer I began also gathering information about the impacts of DANSRD graduates in their communities. So, this fall when I saw the call for papers for the Northern Political Economy Symposium in Rovaniemi, Finland I decided to put some of the work I’d been doing together and submit an abstract.

The author and a friend siting at a restaurant table in front of a window looking out onto a community square in Helsinki.
Irja took this beautiful photo of Hanna and me at a local restaurant. One of my favorite things about being in Finland was that northern foods like reindeer, lingonberries (our lowbush cranberries) and tart northern blueberries were a part of everyday food even at restaurants.

I spent a week in Finland in mid-November, first in Helsinki and then on to Rovaniemi to present at the Northern Political Economy Symposium at the University of Lapland. In Helsinki Saami linguist Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, my excellent host, introduced me to her friends and colleagues, including Hanna Guttorm and Pirjo Virtanen, at the University of Helsinki Indigenous Studies program and we spent a lovely two days visiting and talking about Indigenous issues in Finland. I was able to speak to Professor Virtanen’s Introduction to Indigenous Research Methods class about my teaching and research at UAF and listen to some of their collaborative discussion presentations of different Indigenous research methods from around the world (if I can figure out a way to copy that assignment in a mixed face-to-face and distance class I will, so students be prepared!). I also attended their lecture series on “Sacred Spaces” – starting with presentations on sacred trees in the Amazon and in Estonia.

Sunset in Rovaniemi walking back to the hotel from the University of Lapland.

Then it was off to Rovaniemi for the Symposium. The Symposium theme asked, “What is left of development in the Arctic?’ and called for topics related to the potential (or lack of potential) for sustainable development in the Arctic. My paper, “Development Dilemmas: Rural Development Students Imagining a Sustainable Future in Alaska,”   looked at the projects and theses produced by University of Alaska Fairbanks Rural Development Master of Arts students as a reflection of changing attitudes towards development in rural Alaska. Our students’ work illustrates how the program has helped increase Alaska Native and rural peoples’ ability to participate in dialogues and negotiations about development in rural Alaska, brought Alaska Native perspectives into these development dialogues, and helped students generate self-defined visions of what development means. I think more than anything, attendees at the Symposium were impressed to hear about educational programs focused on Indigenous needs and perspectives and whose graduates (for the MA) are 65% Alaska Native.

The trip reminded me of how special our programs are, but it also reminded me that DANSRD faculty and students have not been very active in sharing and communicating our scholarship with people outside of Alaska and our immediate community and we do not pay enough attention to some of the ideas being developed in other parts of the world. Here are just a few of the interesting people, publications, and ideas from my trip.

  • Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, Pirjo Virtanen, Hanna Guttorm, and their colleagues have a new book on Indigenous research methodologies coming out next year, but in the meantime their Encyclopaedia of Saami Culture is a great resource for learning about Saami people.
  • Symposium keynote speaker Reetta Toivanen of the University of Helsinki discussed the concept of “Arcticism’ (modeled after Said’s “Orientalism’ – the way in which various discourses inform Western perceptions of the Arctic) in her presentation entitled “Whose development are we talking about? European fantasies on the Arctic.’ The term was originally coined in Arctic Discourses (2010), available at Rasmussen Library.

Frontier aesthetics: *Natural sublime to technological sublime. *God-like perspectives, bird-eye camera angles, long shots. *Straight lines, intense colors, high contrast. *Backgrounding of nature, diminution of human agency. *"Arctic: colors - visual freezing of the frontier. Shows colors moving from grays to browns to blues.
“Frontier aesthetics.” Slide from Liubov Timonina’s presentation, November 14, 2019.

  • As many of my students know, I love visual analysis and am still waiting/hoping for a student to do a visual analysis project. The Arctic Institute’s Liubov Timonina’s “Imaging and narrating development in the Arctic: Visual storytelling in times of Capitalocene’ looked at the way images shape conceptions and marketing of oil and gas development in the Yamal Peninsula. Google “Yamal’ and see if you can see the “frontier aesthetic’ she describes. How do these images compare to the images you get when you search for “Prudhoe Bay’?
  • Gerard Duhaime of Université Laval looked at how public policies reproduce or amplify inequalities in his presentation “Market inequalities and the reproduction of unsustainability in Nunavik.’ It made me think about the ways our laws around subsistence also reproduce unsustainability in rural communities. I’m also going to check out Arctic Food Security (2008), edited by Duhaime and Nick Bernard, also available at the Rasmussen Library.
  • We often talk about Canada in my classes on the circumpolar north, but it can be hard to grasp the variability in the Indigenous settlements across the country and how they have responded to colonialism. Philippe Boucher of Concordia University focused on understanding Inuit voices and leadership in “Sustainable development through the Inuit cooperative movement.’
  • In his presentation “’North Plan’ — What’s left for Northern Indigenous communities? Can the North bring its riches back?’ Mathieu Boivin, University of Montreal, looked at how Quebec’s “Plan Nord’ prioritized non-Indigenous peoples in planning and development and its impacts on Indigenous peoples. I enjoyed speaking to Philippe and Mathieu about the Indigenous response to colonialism and Indigenous educational opportunities in Canada.
  • Susanna Pirnes, University of Lapland, presented on “History as a resource in Russian Arctic politics,’ looking at the use of historical imagery to establish Arctic identity. The presentation is from her chapter in Resources, Social, and Cultural Sustainability in the North (2019). The book was edited by Symposium organizer Monica Tennberg, Hanna Lempenin, and Susanna Pirnes, all of the University of Lapland and includes chapters from several presenters at the Symposium.
  • I had a great time talking to Frank Sejersen, of the University of Copenhagen about development and Indigenous approaches and perspectives. His article “Brokers of hope: Extractive industries and the dynamics of future-making in post-colonial Greenland‘ (2019) looks at how mineral extraction relates to ideas of national independence and is available online to UAF students if you sign in through the Rasmussen Library.
Posted on

Rural Development = Boots on the Ground: A guest post by Emeritus Professor Jenny Bell Jones

As I observe all the problems surrounding State governance and the budget, it has become clear to me that this is absolutely the time to emphasize the development potentials of the Rural Development (RD) Program. The State and its leadership need help and the RD program and its students are uniquely positioned to provide some of that assistance.

While there is no doubt that the Governor’s cuts to the budget are draconian and unworkable, this does not remove the reality that the State is in financial trouble. The time has come when everyone will have to pull together to address the budget shortfalls. Alaskans will have to accept that taxation is a part of modern life. We will have to reduce dependency on transfer payments and find ways to increase community and individual self-sufficiency. And, most of all, we must diversify our economy while at the same time retaining control over it.

Economy is crucial, and development strengthens local economies if it is done right. We can have positive development, but only if we get behind it and make it work. If we sit and wait for “development’ in the form of large private resource extraction projects, then we can expect to be harmed, but it does not have to be that way. Consider this: those mega-scale development projects that so many people do not like, gain traction in small communities because they promise jobs. But what if people in those communities already had jobs and decent incomes because other more modest development projects were already in place? Would there still be support for the mega-projects?

Nowhere is the need for a stronger and more diverse economy obvious than in Alaska’s Native villages. In these tribal communities, unemployment is the highest in the state, with numbers as high as 24% in the Kusilvak census area in 2017.[1] Not only are unemployment and “under-employment’ unacceptably high, but in addition a disproportionately high number of jobs are in “government.’[2] There is nothing inherently wrong with a government job but the problem here is that very few of Alaska’s tribal governments are self-supporting. They have no land bases to develop, no revenue sources from taxes and licensing, and almost all of their funding comes from the federal or state governments. If too large a proportion of the community is employed by a government that depends on another government for its revenue, that employment is not very stable. We must come up with ways to make village economies more diverse and self-sustaining.

Diversification of the Alaskan economy provides all kinds of avenues for Rural Development students, and the program should be a natural home for rural residents who care about the long term future of their communities. Now is the time to pursue partnership with entities outside of the university like tribes, ANCSA Corporations (ANCs) and private entrepreneurs that can fund student projects and research, and help students get involved in work that will produce meaningful sustainable economic development in their communities. Now is the time to encourage student interest in the economic and financial aspects of development, and explore ways to have development that is both a good cultural fit and something that produces positive change. If we miss this opportunity we will be selling both the students and the communities that we serve short.

All manner of development challenges and projects exist out there, both those we want to promote and those we want to prevent. Let’s focus on those we want to promote first because if we do this, we may find that doing so takes care of the prevention piece for us. How can we think outside the box and come up with ways to increase village sustainability. How can we grow local economies and prevent disasters like communities running out of water. How can we work with migration and make it work as a positive rather than a negative. How do we use local resources in a truly sustainable manner without depletion and cultural offence?

We cannot expect the State, under the current administration to do any of this for us. Likewise, the current federal administration is not one that understands phrases like “local control’ “sustainable uses’ or “culturally appropriate’ very well at all. What we can expect from them are developments we do not like if we sit back and do nothing. If we allow those schooled in traditional western business practices to take the lead, then we should expect to see a continuation of the colonial extraction-based model that has brought us to where we are today. Only when we begin to actively implement changes in how business is done, will we start to see long-term local improvements.

Development is going to come to rural Alaska regardless of whether people want it. That is simply a part of ongoing human change. There are plenty of aspects of development that improve the quality of life for residents, like newly paved roads in Elim[3] or battery storage projects in Kwethluk and Kongiganak.[4] Development has many faces and variations, and many benefits if it is done with the involvement of local communities. But that involvement is critical: if we are not involved we will not get what we want.

Rural Development graduates can put “boots on the ground’ in Alaska Native and rural communities to help guide developments and make sure they are place based and appropriately sized for each location. They can and must plan for the future growth of their communities and implement projects that will contribute to economic stability and independence from state and federal funding. They can build the bridges that are needed between tribes and ANCSA Corporations (ANCs), and they can develop relationships with private entrepreneurs who are willing and able to contribute positive investment in their communities. These graduates are vitally important to the future of Alaska Native and rural communities!

[1] https://labor.alaska.gov/trends/sep17.pdf

[2] https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/details.cfm?yr=2016&dst=01&dst=03&dst=04&dst=06&dst=07&r=3&b=29&p=20

[3] https://www.knom.org/wp/blog/2019/08/21/elim-residents-ride-on-new-roads-kawerak-says-theyll-improve-quality-of-life/

[4] https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/09/04/kwethluk-gets-new-battery-storage-project/

Posted on

DANSRD Fall Update: Planning for our future

The Department of Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development met August 14 through 16 to discuss and plan for the upcoming academic year and beyond. We know that the budget issues this summer have caused a lot of uncertainty for students, faculty, and staff, but we want to assure you all that the Alaska Native Studies BA, Rural Development BA, and Rural Development MA remain fully available to students.

Here are some of the highlights and important information for students.

  • There will be budget cuts, but they will have limited impact on DANSRD program or course offerings at this time and DANSRD is offering a full slate of courses this fall. We expect to continue to offer full schedules in spring and into the future.
  • We are putting our community development toolbox and skills to good use with internal department strategic planning to strengthen our position within the university system so that we will continue to offer strong programs to students across the state. We don’t just teach it, we use it!
  • We met with fellow Indigenous focused programs Indigenous Studies and Tribal Management to find ways to strengthen our programs and course offerings and make the linkages and course progressions between our programs more seamless and clearer for all of our students.

We have seen some speculation that Alaska Native Studies and Rural Development will be “dissolved’ under the “New UA’ proposal. “Although we also have questioned why the New UA planning process does not have a formal place to consider Indigenous programs, we have heard nothing that indicates that our programs will be dissolved. A statewide Alaska Native Workgroup has met to synergize and plan around our shared goals, Alaska Native serving mission, and programs.

We must all remain engaged and vigilant. Please register for the courses you need this fall AND keep advocating for our programs and all Indigenous focused programs and services across UA.

Posted on

Alaska in the Upside Down Expanded Version

This is an expanded version of the community perspective I wrote that was published in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on July 21, 2019 in response to the budget crisis and cuts to the University of Alaska. I thought it was worth putting a version on the blog that provided a bit more context and extended quotes from Frederick Jackson Turner on the importance of State Universities.   Jennie

Alaska in the Upside Down, or Stranger Things in Alaska

In the spring of 1989, I was a junior at Harvard College looking for a senior thesis topic when the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, spilling approximately 11 million US gallons* of oil into Prince William Sound. Topic acquired, I returned home over the summer to travel through Alaska interviewing Alaskans from all walks of life: miners, teachers, fishermen, biologists, sales associates, homemakers, and politicians, including longtime Alaska State Senator Jack Coghill, later Lieutenant Governor (1990-94), and Governor Wally Hickel (1966-69 and 1990-94). All in all, I interviewed 47, mostly non-Native, Alaskans. Collectively they had lived an average of 31 years in the state, ranging from one year to seventy-five years. Twenty-three percent were born in Alaska.

I asked them what made a person an Alaskan? What kind of development was appropriate for Alaska? What was the role of government? How should we protect the environment? Had the Exxon Valdez oil spill changed their views? Throughout these interviews Alaskans used the language of the “frontier’ — what it means, how it should or should not change — to frame, explain, justify, and sometimes paper over their conflicting feelings about independence and governance, development and environmental protections.

These Alaskan’s perspectives mirrored those put forth in historian Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis, first published in 1883. Turner argued that the unique characteristics of American democracy were developed through the frontier experience. Individuality, independence, egalitarianism, faith in the common man [Turner excluded women and minorities from his analysis], all were forged through the pioneer experience. While there is much to dislike about Turner’s Thesis, particularly his views toward Native Americans and his celebration of unbridled opportunism and exploitation,** his ideas also express some of the best of the frontier spirit that has flourished in Alaska.

Listening to the current budget conversation in the State, I am reminded of Turner and of the conversations I had with my fellow Alaskans in 1989. I hadn’t realized just how much of those frontier ideals are missing from the current discourse. For sure, some threads of the conversation have remained the same. Many Alaskans retain the distrust of government and over-regulation of industry expressed by my interviewees. On the other hand, some foundational values expressed then seem to have all but disappeared, particularly when it comes to ideas about Alaskan self-reliance, hard-work, and neighborliness. No topic illustrates that change more clearly than how some Alaskans now view the PFD.

Alaskans in 1989 weren’t complaining about the “free money,’ but they weren’t about to depend on it either. As one person told me, “We’ll take it while it’s here, but we don’t rely on it.’ Now, as some Alaskans argue that the PFD has become sacrosanct, it feels like the key Alaskan values I was raised with have been turned on their head. The PFD has gone from a tool to an entitlement and we have become more like “food stamp pioneers,’ the term one of my interviewees gave to people who wanted to have the Alaskan experience without the actual work. So, now we have PFD pioneers who believe it is more important than education, medical care, or public safety; more important than taking care of each other. Alaska is in the Upside Down and the PFD is our Demogorgon.

Turner didn’t just look at how the frontier shaped the American democratic character, he also looked at how we could retain it even in the absence of the seemingly endless and free resources of the frontier. His answer to that was the State University. In his essay “Pioneer Ideals and the State University’ Turner argues that State Universities are a critical tool for advancing and preserving American democracy and supporting sound governance and development of resources. State Universities unite “vocational and college work in the same institution’ and train people in “service to democracy rather than of individual advancement alone.’

His arguments rest on two basic premises; first, that education is necessary for sustainable development and growth in modern societies, and second, that education must be provided to all people of talent and interest, not just the wealthy and powerful. Turner’s essay is filled with the language of optimism and hope, and no paraphrase can do them justice so here are a few excerpts.

“In the transitional condition of American democracy which I have tried to indicate, the mission of the university is most important. The times call for educated leaders. General experience and rule-of-thumb information are inadequate for the solution of the problems of a democracy which no longer owns the safety fund of an unlimited quantity of untouched resources. Scientific farming must increase the yield of the field, scientific forestry must economize the woodlands, scientific experiment and construction by chemist, physicist, biologist and engineer must be applied to all of nature’s forces in our complex modern society. The test tube and the microscope are needed rather than ax and rifle in this new ideal of conquest. The very discoveries of science in such fields as public health and manufacturing processes have made it necessary to depend upon the expert, and if the ranks of experts are to be recruited broadly from the democratic masses as well as from those of larger means, the State Universities must furnish at least as liberal opportunities for research and training as the universities based on private endowments furnish. It needs no argument to show that it is not to the advantage of democracy to give over the training of the expert exclusively to privately endowed institutions.’

To do this work, he argues, universities must act as pioneers, free to investigate and follow new ideas.

“That they may perform their work they must be left free, as the pioneer was free, to explore new regions and to report what they find; for like the pioneers they have the ideal of investigation, they seek new horizons. They are not tied to past knowledge; they recognize the fact that the universe still abounds in mystery, that science and society have not crystallized, but are still growing and need their pioneer trail-makers. New and beneficent discoveries in nature, new and beneficial discoveries in the processes and directions of the growth of society, substitutes for the vanishing material basis of pioneer democracy may be expected if the university pioneers are left free to seek the trail.’

Cutting the University of Alaska leaves the State without this important driver of innovation and development. It abandons the citizens of Alaska, taking away their opportunity for education and leaving them at the mercy of outside experts, politicians, and economic interests. It is the opposite of the ideals and values that Alaskans have worked towards for over 50 years. We must not give up on our university, our young people, or our right and ability to chart our own course. I leave you with Turner’s final words on the subject:

“The pioneer’s clearing must be broadened into a domain where all that is worthy of human endeavor may find fertile soil on which to grow; and America must exact of the constructive business geniuses who owe their rise to the freedom of pioneer democracy supreme allegiance and devotion to the commonweal. In fostering such an outcome and in tempering the asperities of the conflicts that must precede its fulfillment, the nation has no more promising agency than the State Universities, no more hopeful product than their graduates.’

If you want to read more from Turner his full collection of Essays, “The Frontier in American History,’ is available online as a Project Gutenberg eBook.

*My original community perspective said 10.1 “billion barrels” – quite a typo! The 10.1 number was the estimate from 1990 when I completed my senior thesis. Estimates today are around 11 million US gallons.

**Some people may wonder about using Turner given some of the problematic aspects of his theory. I’ll write about that in a later post.