University of Arizona faculty say administrator causing severe harm to Native students
Photo by University of Arizona
After several Native students at the University of Arizona expressed their concerns about student safety regarding an assistant vice provost, multiple Native faculty members are calling for immediate action from university leadership to ensure that Indigenous students receive the support they need for success.
The Native American Faculty Group wrote in a letter to UofA President Dr. Suresh Garimella and other top administrators that 'Tessa L. Dysart is actively causing and has caused severe harm to the UA Native American community' since she was appointed assistant vice provost for the Office of Native American Initiatives (NAI) in 2024.
Six Native faculty members wrote that students have approached them since the fall of 2024 to voice their concerns about their safety on campus.
'In our culture, we allow our children to speak, and we listen,' the group wrote.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The faculty members who signed and sent the letter include Karletta Chief (Diné), Andrew Curley (Diné), Stephanie Russo Carroll (Ahtna-Native Village of Kluti-Kaah), Jameson D. Lopez (Quechan), Sheilah E. Nicholas (Hopi) and Valerie Shirley (Diné).
As professors, they said that they have witnessed 'disturbing events' that do not align with leading protocols to support Indigenous students in higher education.
The letter outlines the concerns raised by students since Dysart took office, including her lack of support for student-led academic work on the Land Back movement, community panels and discussions, and her physical attempt to silence a student during the Tribal Leaders Summit.
Nearly 100 people — some faculty, some students, some alumni — have signed onto the letter to back the faculty calling on the university to remove Dysart as assistant vice provost.
'We find Dysart's actions to be unprofessional, misaligned with the interests of students, and, at times, clear attempts at intimidation — behavior that is unbecoming of a senior administrator who claims to advocate for Native American students,' the letter states.
Several Native students and staff have shared with the faculty group how Dysart is 'sowing harm, district and division within the UA Native community.'
Dysart lacks the qualifications to be the assistant vice provost, according to the faculty group, because she has never worked with Native American student admissions, retention or service programs in higher education, nor has she published any work related to Native American student retention or advancement.
During Dysart's interview process, the faculty group alleged that she claimed to have longstanding relationships with Native law students, but they had consistently heard otherwise from the Native law community.
'Dysart's portrayal of her experience is misleading,' they wrote, adding that she has worked at UofA since 2017 but only became involved with the Native Faculty Group within the past three years.
Dysart has no prior connection with the Native American communities at UA, in Tucson, Arizona or the Southwest, according to the faculty group.
The faculty group also expressed concerns about leaders in the Native American Advancement and Tribal Engagement (NAATE) office, including Levi Esquerra and Kari McCormick.
Due to the ongoing concerns involving NAI and NAATE leadership, the faculty group said they cannot in 'good faith' recommend UofA to Indigenous students.
The group wrote that they would rather refer Indigenous students to Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University due to the well-qualified administrators running their Native American initiatives.
Dysart lacks the stellar reputation and qualifications of the Native Higher Administrators at ASU or NAU, according to the faculty group, and she does not possess the qualifications of many researchers in Native American education.
'Dysart earns $167,116 per year, yet there is no accountability, review, or annual reports showing her performance serving Native American faculty and staff,' the letter states. 'We have no confidence in Tessa Dysart.'
The Arizona Mirror reached out to UofA and Dysart for comment, but did not receive a response.
As part of the letter, the faculty group shared their disappointment in the consolidation of the Native American Student Affairs cultural center and the termination of its director, Julian Juan.
Under Juan's leadership, the faculty group said that the Indigenous community at the University of Arizona has had only positive experiences.
'As a tight-knit community, we have consistently witnessed Juan's advocacy in fostering a safe and supportive space at NASA even as Dysart, Esquerra and McCormick contribute to a climate of hostility,' the letter said, noting that Juan is one of only three Tohono O'odham directors in the history of Native American Student Affairs, which is commonly referred to as NASA.
'In contrast to Dysart, Juan has deep connections and experience with tribal leaders and the local community,' the faculty wrote. 'Juan understands the importance of creating culturally appropriate programs and activities that create a sense of belonging for Native American students struggling to find their place and belonging within the Wildcat community.'
UofA fired Juan on May 27. The university wrote in his termination letter that he failed to fulfill his duties as director.
The faculty group expressed appreciation that NASA will continue to exist, but they 'adamantly oppose' moving it under Dysart's supervision at NAI, citing students' consistent concerns about their safety around her and her limited experience in student affairs.
The faculty group is calling on Patricia Prelock, the new provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at UofA, to return NASA under the office of the provost, remove Dysart, reinstate Juan, reopen the NAI assistant vice provost position, create a Native American Faculty Council and maintain the Native American Community Council.
'As members of sovereign tribal nations that have nation-to-nation relationships with the United States federal government, we ask you to respect our sovereignty and fulfill our requests,' they said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Sir John A. Macdonald statue back in view at Queen's Park after five years boarded up
TORONTO - The Sir John A. Macdonald statue outside the Ontario legislature is back in full view after spending the past five years in a box. The statue of Canada's first prime minister has been under hoarding since 2020, when it was vandalized with pink paint. The monument was one of many that were targeted across the country amid anti-racism protests and as Canadians grappled with the history of residential schools. Macdonald is considered an architect of the country's notorious residential school system, which took Indigenous children from their families in an effort to assimilate them. Progressive Conservative and Liberal members of a non-partisan board of the legislative assembly agreed earlier this month on a motion to remove the hoarding after the statue is cleaned. Speaker Donna Skelly says she recognizes the sensitivities surrounding Macdonald and welcomes Ontarians to come and share their views peacefully. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Major projects will be slowed by court challenges if rights are violated: B.C. chief
OTTAWA - The regional chief for British Columbia said Wednesday that governments should not speed up major projects at the expense of First Nations rights — and warned that projects will be slowed down by court challenges if First Nations are not consulted from the start. 'We're asking the government to follow your own laws,' Terry Teegee said, citing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the federal government adopted. The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney introduced major economic legislation last week. The bill has two parts — one to break down federal barriers to internal trade and the other to fast-track major projects. It sets out five criteria to determine whether a project is in the 'national interest.' Those criteria include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous Peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. But First Nations leaders say their interests weren't considered when the legislation was being drafted and they were given just one week to review and bring comments forward on a briefing document on the bill. 'It's probably going to take a lot longer to get approval for some of these projects because we're going to end up in court,' Teegee said. 'This is where we end up.' The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations agreed. 'It's not about the bill itself. It's about the process. And I think that ramming something through when you should be hearing from Canadians, from industry, from First Nations … is the wrong way to go,' Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'You don't want to end back up in court. You don't want to have civil unrest. Why not just invite us to the table?' First Nations leaders have warned that widespread protests and blockades are possible if governments don't obtain affected Indigenous communities' free, prior and informed consent, as required by the UN declaration. The federal government has said that declaration doesn't amount to a veto — a statement Justice Minister Sean Fraser walked back last week following criticism from Woodhouse Nepinak. Teegee said 'no government has a veto, meaning that when we come to a decision, all governments come into the room to make a decision together.' 'First Nations, certainly as a part of this, need to be part of the decision-making process,' he added. Even groups that generally support development are raising concerns about the federal government's plan. Mark Podlasly, CEO of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, said he was 'surprised' First Nations were only given seven days to review parts of the legislation before it was introduced. 'The answer will not automatically be 'no' from First Nations when a project comes along. It's just that Indigenous rights and involvement has to not only be included, but respected. That hasn't happened a lot in the Canadian past,' he said. 'There's also a question on the environment, and there's a question about who bears the impact of these projects if they're rushed through. It's going to be Indigenous Peoples, especially in parts of the country where there's mining or energy sources (on lands) that are integral to our lifestyle, our cultural practices.' Podlasly said that while the federal legislation 'seems to have Indigenous participation at its core,' it's not clear what that participation will look like, especially under the tight two-year approval timeline the government seeks. He said First Nations can support projects and many do — but they don't want to be 'caught at the back end' of decisions made without their knowledge or consent. 'We're all operating with seven days' notice. That's what we're operating with. And time will tell,' he said. The Assembly of First Nations is holding an emergency chiefs meeting on Monday to discuss what to do next. Woodhouse Nepinak vowed to follow their direction and said a legal review of the legislation is ongoing. 'We need time,' Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'And we're not being given that time.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
President Donald Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments protected by his predecessors, the Justice Department recently said. In a legal document dated to May 27, the department overturned a nearly 90-year-old opinion that said presidents did not have that ability, saying that its conclusions were 'wrong' and 'can no longer be relied upon.' 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a president to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument,' the Office of Legal Counsel's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote. ' The contrary conclusion of the Attorney General in Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 185 (1938), was incorrect.' The document specifically refers to former President Joe Biden establishing California's Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. The monuments, that have particular significance to Native American tribes and extend over some 848,000 acres of land, barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining there. The Trump administration told The Washington Post in March that it has plans to eliminate them. In April, the paper reported that Interior Department Officials were studying whether to scale back at least six national monuments, and a person briefed on the matter said the aim was to free up land for drilling and mining. Biden established 10 new monuments during his tenure. 'America's energy infrastructure was on life-support when President Trump got into office; and in nearly six months, the administration has shocked this critical industry back into life, making good on another promise to the American people,' the White House's Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, told The Independent in an emailed statement responding to question about the Justice Department's opinion. 'It's imperative that the Senate passes OBBB to completely end Biden's war on American energy, and will liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Independent's request for comment on the matter. While this opinion does not overturn any national monument, it hints at future action. Trump has taken steps to shrink monuments in the past. During his first administration, he moved to slash Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments: the first such move of its kind in more than 50 years. Biden reversed Trump's decision before the courts could make a final ruling on the matter. Earlier this year, Trump opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument to commercial fishing while leaving the monument in place. The Interior Department is weighing changes to monuments across the country as part of the push to 'restore American energy dominance.' The National Park Service alone manages more than 100 national monuments established under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Some are also co-managed by the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of those include the Statue of Liberty, the Stonewall Inn, the Grand Canyon, Sequoia National Forest, and the Lincoln Memorial. While Congress must approve the designation of national parks, a national monument is designated by a president via the Antiquities Act. Around half of the nation's national parks were first designated monuments, and all except three presidents have used the act to protect areas both offshore and on land. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, have also diminished monuments. Responding to the document, environmental advocate groups have asserted there might not be much legal standing and that moves to eliminate or shrink monuments would be less than popular. "There's no reason to think the OLC opinion should make much difference to the White House. National monuments have broad public and political support, and shrinking or revoking them will only damage the Trump Administration's popularity,' Aaron Paul, the staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust, told The Independent in an emailed statement. 'Besides, if the president tries to shrink or eliminate monuments, it would send the question to the courts, which is the real test of whether the OLC's views have any validity or not." 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she said. With reporting from The Associated Press
