Pretendians in the Academy: Issues and Solutions

Pretendians, that is, individuals claiming to have Native heritage who in fact have none, are a matter of serious concern. They effectively steal resources from Native American scholars. These resources may include fellowships intended for scholars from groups that have historically been underrepresented in the academy and tenure-track positions. Also, they may claim to speak for a Native American community when they have no such authority to do so. As a result, the interests of a given Native American community may be misrepresented. They may publicly discuss matters a given Native American community may not want to made public, including sacred knowledge. They may violate the sovereignty of Native nations to decide for themselves who can claim citizenship in the given nation. So, the activities of Pretendians may be considered ethnic fraud and tribal identity theft. Because they are being dishonest about their heritage, they may also be violating the American Association of University Professor’s code of ethics that call for academic honesty. So, the issue of Pretendians in the academy is a matter of grave concern and it deserves open, frank, and serious discussions. This roundtable will start that process for the American Academy of Religion.

This matter is also timely. Pretendians have been in the news lately. Two of the most recent and important cases involve Andrea Smith and Buffy Sainte-Marie. Smith recently resigned her position at the University of California, Riverside, after charges had been filed that she engaged in academic dishonesty in claiming Cherokee heritage when the Cherokee people did not recognize her as Cherokee. The situation with Sainte-Marie is more complex. The historical record indicates she may not be Native American. However, members of the Cree community in Canada have adopted her and as such consider her to be Native American. A more recent case appeared in the Los Angeles Times that involved members of the American Academy of Religion.

On Friday, February 23, 2024, the Los Angeles Times published a story titled, “A scholar’s Native American heritage was questioned. Who gets to decide her identity?” The story involved a case of tribal identity theft. Lawrence Gross was editing a book on Native American rhetoric. One of the contributors, Alesha Claveria, claimed to be Crow, Chippewa, and Sioux (her words) from Montana. Some of the other contributors raised concerns about her claim, saying she had not in the past claimed any Native heritage at all. Given the competing claims, Gross had to adjudicate the situation under a tight publication deadline. He used three criteria in making his determination: tribal enrollment, ancestry, or connection to a Native American community. His best information came from the Crow tribe. He was able to secure a letter on official Crow tribal letterhead saying neither Claveria nor her parents were enrolled. Genealogical research also indicated Claveria did not have any Crow ancestors. Finally, a trusted Crow Indian colleague told Gross that Claveria and her family had no connection to the Crow people. As result, acknowledging the sovereignty of the Crow people to determine for themselves who was Crow and finding no other supporting evidence, Gross concluded that, in his opinion, Claveria’s claim to being Crow Indian was false. He removed Claveria’s chapter from the book because in his opinion she violated both the code of ethics for the American Association of University Professors concerning academic honesty and the same injunction against academic dishonesty in the student code of ethics for the University of California, Santa Barbara, where Claveria was a doctoral candidate at the time. So, Gross did not remove Claveria’s chapter from the book because of Claveria’s race. He did so because in his opinion, Claveria had violated the code of ethics for both the American Association of University Professors and the student code of ethics for the University of California, Santa Barbara.

This roundtable discussion will bring together individuals who were directly involved in the Claveria case or who have a vested interest in the issue of ethnic fraud concerning Native Americans. We will address questions such as the following, although the final list of questions is yet to be determined:

1. Aside from the Claveria case, what other experiences have you had with false claims of Native American identity?

2. Should identity be “policed” in the academy? If so, by whom?

3. What are legitimate circumstances to investigate an individual’s background?
4. What due process rights, if any, should people whose Native American identity has been questioned have?

5. What criteria should count in identifying oneself as Native?

6. How does the fact Native Americans are both a racialized class and a political class make ethnic fraud different for Native Americans compared to other racialized groups?

7. If scholars who are invested in Native American studies do not hold each other accountable for instances of tribal identity theft, who will?

8. Should false claims of Native American heritage be viewed as academic honesty? If so, what are the suitable consequences.

9. Does the American Academy of Religion have any responsibility to bar or remove individuals committing ethnic fraud from the American Academy of Religion?

We do not plan to develop definitive answers to the questions posed to the panel. However, we hope the discussion will begin the process of assisting individuals deal with instances of ethnic fraud they may encounter. Further, we intend to bring this matter to the attention of the American Academy of Religion so that the Academy may develop a statement on the issue of ethnic fraud and develop a policy involving consequences for those who engage in academic dishonesty in making false claims of Native American identity.