University of Arizona faculty say administrator causing severe harm to Native students
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
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Inuit leader sees opportunities in the new faces of Mark Carney's government
OTTAWA — Trust is not something Natan Obed, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, often associates with Ottawa. 'The federal government writ large, whether or not we're talking about a political party or the institution itself, has never shown itself to be trustworthy to Inuit,' Obed said in an interview with the Star on Friday. Following a closed-door meeting on Thursday with Prime Minister Mark Carney, nearly a third of Carney's cabinet and other Inuit leaders about the Liberals' major projects law and other priorities, Obed said new faces can sometimes lead to new opportunities. 'I would say that we have a lot of really trustworthy people at the table, and that came through quite clearly,' he said, naming cabinet newcomers like Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty, Northern and Arctic Affairs Minister Rebecca Chartrand and Crown-Indigenous Affairs Minister Rebecca Alty as the members of Carney's front bench responsible for the relationship between Inuit and the Crown. Obed also said he was satisfied by Carney's assurances that modern treaties, and the processes tied to those agreements, will be respected following the rushed passage of the Building Canada Act, which allows Ottawa to temporarily bypass certain environmental laws and regulations to fast-track 'nation-building' projects like ports and pipelines. 'That is a statement that's powerful and one that we have chosen to trust the prime minister on, and we really hope that he lives up to his word on it,' Obed said. The ITK president co-chaired a meeting Thursday of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee — a group that convenes Inuit leaders and the federal cabinet three times a year — with the prime minister, as part of a series of summits Carney is holding with Indigenous leaders after the controversial law prompted backlash for its potential to steamroll Indigenous rights and environmental protections. At the gathering in Inuvik, N.W.T., Carney announced the appointment of Nunavut's Virginia Mearns as the country's official Arctic ambassador. She now has a mandate to liaise with Arctic and non-Arctic partners and protect Arctic sovereignty. Other challenges raised in the meeting included the health and social disparities experienced across Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland that spans four regions in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Quebec and northern Labrador. 'The prime minister himself said that these issues would not be left behind,' said Obed, who also spoke with Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne about his expectations for this fall's federal budget. 'We talked about … our budget submission, and our hopes for this budget, especially in regards to health, education, infrastructure, housing,' he said. 'And I hope that we can find a common path where we can make the proper investments and still build our communities at the same time, and be incredibly supportive and work on these nation-building projects as well.' Last month, Obed warned the Senate that it is 'Canada's weakness that it pats itself on the back for being a great champion of Indigenous Peoples, an upholder of the rule of law and respect for Indigenous Peoples' rights, while at the same time acting very differently through its legislation and practices.' He was speaking to senators about the 'unintended consequences' of the proposed law, then known as Bill C-5, including potential infringements on Inuit-Crown treaties. 'Not only does this not live up to Canada's obligation to respect rights, but it creates the possibility of national interest projects ending up before the courts, with litigation causing significant delays in the national interest projects moving forward,' Obed said at the time. He told the Star that Inuit groups looked at 10-year infrastructure needs and identified 79 projects, which they discussed with ministers on Thursday with the goal of drawing up a shorter list of feasible goals. 'Our communities are saying we still need essential infrastructure. We need roads. We need ports. We need the ability to land on runways that have lights, or that are paved. We still have essential concerns around health and education, around food security,' he said. 'And so these national projects are a part of a larger whole.' He named several projects, like the Grays Bay Road and Port project, a transportation corridor to Arctic shipping routes, and the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project, which would connect part of Nunavut to Manitoba's power grid, as Inuit-led initiatives that would benefit Canada's economy. ' So that's part of the next step, is to really co-ordinate as best we can, not only with our communities, but also with public governments to ensure that the listed projects under C-5, meet the needs of Inuit, meet the needs of public governments, and are in the national interest.'
Fox Sports
4 hours ago
- Fox Sports
Trump's demand for Washington NFL team name change ignores years of psychological data, experts say
Associated Press This week, President Donald Trump threatened to hold up a new stadium deal if Washington's NFL team did not restore its name to a racial slur, despite decades of psychological research showing the negative mental health impacts of Native American mascots. The president is demanding a private company change its name to something that researchers have linked to a variety of negative mental health outcomes, particularly for children, said Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians. The organization has been pushing back on stereotypes of Native Americans since the 1950s, including Native sports mascots. 'This is a big reminder with this administration that we're going to take some backward steps,' Macarro said. 'We have our studies, we have our receipts, and we can demonstrate that this causes real harm.' More than two decades of research on Native mascots have shown they lead to heightened rates of depression, self-harm, substance abuse and suicidal ideation among Indigenous peoples, and those impacts are the greatest on children. Citing this data, the American Psychological Association has been recommending the retirement of Native mascots since 2001. The president believes that franchises who changed their names to 'pander to the Woke Left' should immediately restore their original names,' White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'Thanks to President Trump, the days of political correctness and cancel culture are over,' he said. Some teams change names while others resist Under pressure from decades of activism, the Washington Redskins — a racial slur and arguably the most egregious example — retired the name in 2020, eventually settling on the Commanders. Later that year, the Cleveland Indians changed its name to the Guardians. Two major league teams, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, continue to resist calls to change their names. The Chiefs have banned fans from wearing headdresses or face paint meant to depict Native Americans at games but has resisted prohibiting the use of the 'tomahawk chop', which critics have long called derogatory. More than 1,500 grade schools across the country — a decrease over the past few years — still use Native mascots, according to the National Congress of American Indians, using names like 'Savages' as well as the slur that Trump aims to bring back to the Washington team. Experts say Native mascots reinforce racial bias Native American people, activists, and leaders have been asking for the retirement of Native mascots for generations. Popular arguments defending the mascots have been that they 'honor' Native people or that it simply boiled down to people being 'offended," said Steph Cross, a professor of psychology and researcher at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of the Comanche Nation. But now we have decades of data that agrees on the negative mental health impacts, she said. 'Being offended is not even really the problem. That's a symptom,' Cross said. She noted that Native mascots aren't just harmful to Indigenous peoples, they also reinforce racial prejudices among non-Natives, including people who will work directly with Native people like health care professionals and teachers. 'I think about these people who are going to be working with Native children, whether they realize that or not, and how they may unintentionally have these biases," Cross said. Stephanie Fryberg, a professor at Northwestern University, who is a member of the Tulalip Tribes and one of the country's leading researchers on Native mascots, said, 'The ultimate impact, whether conscious or unconscious, is bias in American society." Her work has also shown Native mascots increase the risk of real psychological harm, especially for young Native people. 'Honoring Native peoples means ending dehumanization in both imagery and policy," she said. "Indian Country needs meaningful investment, respect, and the restoration of federal commitments, not more distractions or excuses for inaction.' Several states pass Native mascot bans In recent years, several states — including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws or issued directives that ban or require districts to change Native mascots. A law prohibiting them in Illinois stalled this year in the state Senate. The Trump administration has interjected into other efforts to change Native mascots. This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into a Long Island public school district working to retire its Native American-themed mascot. 'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools," said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. When it comes to grade schools specifically, the negative impacts on children's mental health is compounded by the fact that U.S. history standards largely ignore Indigenous history and rarely frame Native Americans as modern people, said Sarah Shear, a professor and researcher at the University of Washington. In 2015, she was part of a study that found 87% of schools in the U.S. teach about Native Americans in only a pre-1900 context. That hasn't improved much in the decade since the study, Shear said. Most curriculum also doesn't present the arguments against harmful stereotypes, like Native Mascots. 'Just on the standards documents alone," Shear said, 'I'm not surprised that Trump and other folks continue to advocate that these mascots are celebratory when they're not.'
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's demand for Washington NFL team name change ignores years of psychological data, experts say
This week, President Donald Trump threatened to hold up a new stadium deal if Washington's NFL team did not restore its name to a racial slur, despite decades of psychological research showing the negative mental health impacts of Native American mascots. The president is demanding a private company change its name to something that researchers have linked to a variety of negative mental health outcomes, particularly for children, said Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians. The organization has been pushing back on stereotypes of Native Americans since the 1950s, including Native sports mascots. 'This is a big reminder with this administration that we're going to take some backward steps,' Macarro said. 'We have our studies, we have our receipts, and we can demonstrate that this causes real harm.' More than two decades of research on Native mascots have shown they lead to heightened rates of depression, self-harm, substance abuse and suicidal ideation among Indigenous peoples, and those impacts are the greatest on children. Citing this data, the American Psychological Association has been recommending the retirement of Native mascots since 2001. The president believes that franchises who changed their names to 'pander to the Woke Left' should immediately restore their original names,' White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'Thanks to President Trump, the days of political correctness and cancel culture are over,' he said. Some teams change names while others resist Under pressure from decades of activism, the Washington Redskins — a racial slur and arguably the most egregious example — retired the name in 2020 , eventually settling on the Commanders. Later that year, the Cleveland Indians changed its name to the Guardians . Two major league teams, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks, continue to resist calls to change their names . The Chiefs have banned fans from wearing headdresses or face paint meant to depict Native Americans at games but has resisted prohibiting the use of the 'tomahawk chop' , which critics have long called derogatory. More than 1,500 grade schools across the country — a decrease over the past few years — still use Native mascots, according to the National Congress of American Indians, using names like 'Savages' as well as the slur that Trump aims to bring back to the Washington team. Experts say Native mascots reinforce racial bias Native American people, activists, and leaders have been asking for the retirement of Native mascots for generations . Popular arguments defending the mascots have been that they 'honor' Native people or that it simply boiled down to people being 'offended,' said Steph Cross, a professor of psychology and researcher at the University of Oklahoma and a citizen of the Comanche Nation. But now we have decades of data that agrees on the negative mental health impacts, she said. 'Being offended is not even really the problem. That's a symptom,' Cross said. She noted that Native mascots aren't just harmful to Indigenous peoples, they also reinforce racial prejudices among non-Natives, including people who will work directly with Native people like health care professionals and teachers. 'I think about these people who are going to be working with Native children, whether they realize that or not, and how they may unintentionally have these biases,' Cross said. Stephanie Fryberg, a professor at Northwestern University, who is a member of the Tulalip Tribes and one of the country's leading researchers on Native mascots, said, 'The ultimate impact, whether conscious or unconscious, is bias in American society.' Her work has also shown Native mascots increase the risk of real psychological harm, especially for young Native people. 'Honoring Native peoples means ending dehumanization in both imagery and policy,' she said. 'Indian Country needs meaningful investment, respect, and the restoration of federal commitments, not more distractions or excuses for inaction.' Several states pass Native mascot bans In recent years, several states — including Maine, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws or issued directives that ban or require districts to change Native mascots. A law prohibiting them in Illinois stalled this year in the state Senate. The Trump administration has interjected into other efforts to change Native mascots. This month, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into a Long Island public school district working to retire its Native American-themed mascot. 'The Department of Education has been clear with the state of New York: it is neither legal nor right to prohibit Native American mascots and logos while celebrating European and other cultural imagery in schools,' said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. When it comes to grade schools specifically, the negative impacts on children's mental health is compounded by the fact that U.S. history standards largely ignore Indigenous history and rarely frame Native Americans as modern people, said Sarah Shear, a professor and researcher at the University of Washington. In 2015, she was part of a study that found 87% of schools in the U.S. teach about Native Americans in only a pre-1900 context. That hasn't improved much in the decade since the study, Shear said. Most curriculum also doesn't present the arguments against harmful stereotypes, like Native Mascots. 'Just on the standards documents alone,' Shear said, 'I'm not surprised that Trump and other folks continue to advocate that these mascots are celebratory when they're not.' 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 .
