[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING HOW THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IGNORED CRIES FOR HELP FROM
STUDENTS
AT HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-137
(Committee on Natural Resources)
Serial No. 118-59
(Committee on Education and the Workforce)
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
and http://edworkforce.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-359 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, C ACNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LARuben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin MulliVal T. Hoyle, OR
Lauren Boebert, COn, CA Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Seth Magaziner, RI
Matt Rosendale, MT Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU Susie Lee, NV
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
VACANCY
Carson Middleton, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BURGESS, OWENS, Utah, Chairman
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana PRAMILA,JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Northern Mariana Islands
VACANCY SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... vii
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 23, 2024........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Owens, Hon. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 2
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 3
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 4
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel I:
Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 14
Elliott, Matthew, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Questions submitted for the record....................... 21
Panel II:
Graham, Ronald J., Former President, Haskell Indian Nations
University, Lawrence, Kansas............................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Martin, Emily, Chief Program Officer, National Women's Law
Center, Washington, DC..................................... 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Mayes, Clay J., Head Coach, Track and Field and Cross
Country, Haskell Athletic Department, Haskell Indian
Nations University, Lawrence, Kansas....................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Lexie Follette, Letter to the Committees dated July 22,
2024................................................... 90
Venida S. Chenault, Ph.D., Letter to the Committees dated
July 19, 2024.......................................... 92
Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman
Tierra Standing Soldier Thomas, Letter to the Committees. 95
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations staff, Michelle
Lane ([email protected]) and Lucas Drill
(Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov)
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2024
Subject: Oversight Hearing on ``Investigating how the Biden
Administration Ignored Cries for Help from Students at Haskell
Indian Nations University''
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations and the House Committee on Education & the
Workforce, Subcommittee on Higher Education & Workforce Development
will hold a joint oversight hearing titled ``Investigating how the
Biden Administration Ignored Cries for Help from Students at Haskell
Indian Nations University'' on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, at 3:15 p.m. in
1334 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Cross Thompson
(Cross.Thompson @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 22, 2024,
if their member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU or ``Haskell''),
the only four-year university operated by the Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE), with federal support from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has been plagued by reports
of widespread dysfunction and serious misconduct--including
theft, fraud, and sexual assault--at the university.
Haskell students' pleas for justice have been ignored by
Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Deb Haaland,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs
Bryan Newland, and other officials from the BIA and BIE.
The students and faculty at HINU deserve a safe learning
and working environment. Secretary Haaland's DOI, BIE, and
BIA have utterly failed to provide that environment and
protect Haskell's community of Native American students and
employees.
A BIE investigation and report, detailing serious
allegations and findings of wrongdoing at HINU, was buried
until the agency was legally compelled to publicly produce
it. Even then, BIE produced a heavily redacted version.
Until Secretary Haaland, BIE, and BIA are held responsible
for Haskell's mismanagement, Native American students and
faculty at HINU will continue to suffer.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I:
The Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Mr. Matthew Elliott, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Panel II:
Dr. Ronald J. Graham, Former President, Haskell Indian
Nations University, Lawrence, KS
Ms. Emily Martin, J.D., Chief Program Officer, National
Women's Law Center, Washington, DC. [Minority Witness]
Mr. Clay Mayes, Head Coach, Track and Field, Cross
Country, Haskell Athletic Department, Haskell Indian
Nations University, Lawrence, KS
III. INTRODUCTION
President Biden's nomination of U.S. Representative Deb Haaland to
serve as the Secretary of the Interior was lauded as an historic
moment: Deb Haaland would be the first Native American Cabinet
Secretary.\1\ Secretary Haaland's confirmation was viewed as an
opportunity to right past wrongs, stamp out previous and ongoing
mistreatment of Indian youth in schools, and combat pervasive sexual
assaults of Indian women.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Cara Korte, What Deb Haaland's historic confirmation means
to Native Americans, CBS NEWS (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/deb-haaland-native-american-confirmation-interior-secretary/.
\2\ See Casey Cep, Deb Haaland Confronts the History of the Federal
Agency She Leads, THE NEW YORKER (Apr. 29, 2024), https://
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/06/deb-haaland-confronts-the-
history-of-the-federal-agency-she-leads.
Since her confirmation, Secretary Haaland has voiced understanding
of her leadership's importance for Native Americans.\3\ In April of
2024, Secretary Haaland wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Korte, supra note 1.
This National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, it
is imperative we do all we can to support Indigenous survivors
by holding perpetrators accountable, and bringing an end to a
culture that has allowed sexual assault to occur for far too
long.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Secretary Deb Haaland (@SecDebHaaland), TWITTER (Apr. 1, 2024,
12:34 PM), https://x.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1774837761037520983.
Despite Secretary Haaland's words and position of power, under the
Biden administration's watch malfeasance has plagued HINU--the
institution meant to be the pinnacle of BIE-operated schools. In 2022,
BIE investigated assertions of misconduct at Haskell reported by
students and faculty. BIE's investigation concluded with the Haskell
Indian Nations University--Administrative Investigation Report (BIE
Report), which detailed serious widespread allegations of sexual
assault, harassment, bullying, nepotism, theft, retaliation, waste,
fraud, and abuse.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION,
HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY--ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT
(2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The students and faculty at HINU deserve a safe learning and
working environment. Secretary Haaland's DOI, BIE, and BIA have utterly
failed to provide that environment and protect Haskell's community of
Native American students and employees.
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Bureau of Indian Education Cover-Up
HINU has a well-documented history of mismanagement, misconduct,
and retaliation against students and employees brave enough to report
wrongdoing. In November of 2018, the DOI Office of Inspector General
(OIG) published a report highlighting significant allegations of
official mishandling of complaints, bullying, nepotism, employee
favoritism, fraud, and sexual assault.\6\ Since the publication of this
report, allegations of misconduct, dysfunction, and retaliation have
only increased. Because of these issues, HINU cannot retain
leadership--Haskell's latest President, Frank Arpan, is the
university's eighth president in six years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AT HASKELL INDIAN
NATIONS UNIVERSITY (2018). This report did not sustain every allegation
but highlighted serious issues dating back to at least 2014. For
example, Haskell officials underreported crime statistics and failed to
follow the university's own guidelines for addressing misconduct
complaints as serious as sexual assault. The report also highlighted
instances of bullying, intimidation, and nepotism.
\7\ See Max McCoy, Report reveals `dysfunction' at Haskell
University. We owe the past--and future--much more., KANSAS REFLECTOR
(Apr. 28, 2024), https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/28/report-reveals-
dysfunction-at-haskell-university-we-owe-the-past-and-future-much-
more/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps no example is more illuminating of the pervasive issues at
Haskell than that of cross-country running coach Clay Mayes. From the
moment Mr. Mayes accused two colleagues of wrongdoing, namely theft and
sexual assault of a student, he faced severe retaliation from other
members of the faculty and staff.\8\ Mr. Mayes' accusations were later
substantiated and retaliatory allegations against him were proven
false.\9\ In November of 2021, after Mr. Mayes reported misconduct,
HINU ordered an investigation of Mr. Mayes.\10\ This investigation was
carried out by the United States Postal Service (USPS) office in
Massachusetts.\11\ Mr. Mayes' repeated requests for a DOI OIG
investigation were denied,\12\ and the USPS investigation concluded
after eight months.\13\ In April of 2022, HINU terminated Mr. Mayes'
employment contract.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ See ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT, supra note 5.
\10\ Letter from Clay J. Mayes to Anthony Dearman, Director, Bureau
of Indian Education, Dept. of the Interior (July 28, 2023), https://
lawrencekstimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/
ReinstatementPetitionMayestoDearman1-1_Redacted.pdf.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Mr. Mayes' termination, Haskell students came forward to
report that they were coerced into sign no-contact orders that
restricted their ability to discuss their experience with Mr. Mayes at
Haskell, even with their parents.\15\ Despite the threat of retribution
by HINU officials, several students nevertheless publicly defended Mr.
Mayes. Students made clear that Mr. Mayes ``stood up for us against
this abusive clique [of faculty] that has been both wicked and vengeful
while everyone else stood silent.'' \16\ Those same students also
highlighted that Mr. Mayes then ``became a victim of these attacks,
abuse, harassment, by the same group [of HINU faculty].'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Austin Hornbostel, A campus `in disarray': Report on
investigation of misconduct allegation at Haskell to be released after
more than a year of secrecy, LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD (Apr. 21, 2024),
https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2024/apr/21/a-campus-in-disarray-report-
on-investigation-of-misconduct-allegation-at-haskell-to-be-released-
after-more-than-a-year-of-secrecy/.
\16\ Letter from Haskell Indian Nations University Students, Cross
Country Running Team, to the Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, Dept. of
the Interior (Jan. 16, 2023) (on file with the Committee on Natural
Resources).
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the outcry, BIE ordered an investigation into the students'
claims and the circumstances of Mr. Mayes' termination.\18\ Although
BIE's investigation was meant to last two weeks, the investigators
remained on campus for six months as they worked to untangle the web of
issues at Haskell.\19\ Students who were interviewed as part of the
investigation requested copies of the final report; the investigators
promised that the report would be publicly released.\20\ Yet, the
report was not published by BIE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Hornbostel, supra note 15.
\19\ See McCoy, supra note 7.
\20\ See Letter from Haskell Indian Nations University Students,
supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the lack of transparency, in January of 2023,
Haskell cross country running student-athletes sent a letter to
Secretary Haaland formally requesting the BIE Report's release.\21\ In
the letter, students wrote that ``Haskell's response is non-existent''
and that they believe ``the investigation's findings are 100% covered
up.'' \22\ The students' letter was published by a local newspaper in
March of 2023 in an attempt to draw more attention to the students'
message.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
\23\ See Austin Hornbostel, In letter to U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, Haskell students claim a 6-month investigation took place on
campus but hasn't been made public, LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD (Mar. 10,
2023), https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2023/mar/10/in-letter-to-u-s-
secretary-of-the-interior-haskell-students-claim-a-6-month-
investigation-took-place-on-campus-but-hasnt-been-made-public/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the day of the letter's publication, students received an email
from former BIE Human Resources Officer Jackie Shamblin which informed
the students that they would ``never know what actions are being
tak[en] to address specific findings from these investigations.'' \24\
In response, students sent another letter to Secretary Haaland. The
students wrote that they ``reported `systemic abuse, and neglect of
victims'' but that ``Shamblin declares such abuse will continue to be
protected and victims will continue to be disavowed all right to
information . . ..'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ E-mail from Jackie R. Shamblin, Human Resources Director,
Bureau of Indian Education, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, to Haskell
Indian Nations University Students, Cross Country Running Team (Mar.
10, 2023) (on file with Committee on Natural Resources).
\25\ Letter from Haskell Indian Nations University Students, Cross
Country Running Team, to the Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, Dept. of
the Interior (Mar. 15, 2023) (on file with the Committee on Natural
Resources).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Haaland never responded to the HINU students' pleas for
justice. Unfortunately, HINU, BIE, and BIA officials have all joined in
the Secretary's nonfeasance.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Hornbostel, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Freedom of Information Act Requests and the Switched Report
Prying the BIE Report from BIE's fingers proved immensely
difficult.\27\ In April of 2023, Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request to BIE, requesting the public release of the BIE Report.\28\
Four Haskell students who were interviewed as part of BIE's
investigation also filed FOIA requests in September of 2023.\29\ After
being legally compelled to comply with the FOIA requests, BIE finally
released a 528-page redacted report.\30\ However, the report released
by BIE was not the one requested by PEER or the HINU students. Shortly
thereafter, PEER filed suit to force BIE to produce the correct BIE
Report, which was released with heavy redactions in November of
2023.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Jeff Ruch and Laura Dumais, Report on Abuse of Indian
Students Finally Surfaces: Lawsuit Pried Haskell School Probe Out of
Bureau of Indian Education, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSIBILITY (April 22, 2024), https://peer.org/report-on-abuse-of-
indian-students-finally-surfaces/.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information provided to the Committee on Natural Resources
(Committee) indicates that the BIE Report may have been altered between
the time it was submitted on November 7, 2022, and dated on January 13,
2023.\32\ In July of 2024, the Committee sent a letter to BIE Director
Tony Dearman seeking information explaining BIE's numerous failures
related to HINU and the BIE Report.\33\ The Committee's letter and the
requests therein went unanswered.\34\ The Committee is dismayed that
Secretary Haaland and other DOI, BIA, and BIE leaders have entirely
failed the students and faculty of Haskell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT, supra note 5.
\33\ See Letter from Rep. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Natural Resources, et al., to Tony Dearman, Director, Bureau of Indian
Education, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (July 2, 2024), https://
naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
ltr_to_doi_regarding_haskell_univ_letter .pdf.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Report: Allegations of Misconduct Against Employees and Students
The BIE Report--even as released--includes damning information
highlighting the myriad issues at Haskell, including extensive abuse
and criminal activity.\35\ At its core, the report is a shocking
indictment of a university that has allowed a group of faculty members
to install a culture of sweeping misconduct and retaliation against
students and employees under the rug.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT, supra note 5.
\36\ See Hornbostel, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIE Report describes an unacceptable response to students
reporting sexual assault, as faculty members repeatedly disregarded
allegations, did not provide sufficient care and support for survivors,
and failed to notify law enforcement.\37\ One student, Tierra Thomas,
reported sexual abuse on more than 30 occasions, but was ignored by
HINU staff.\38\ Ms. Thomas publicly asserted that her attacker was not
removed from campus and allegedly committed another assault.\39\ Rather
than support her, Haskell staff tormented Ms. Thomas as retaliation for
speaking out about her experience. Ms. Thomas' grades slipped as a
result, and she was suspended from HINU before Mr. Mayes helped her
appeal the decision.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
\38\ See Austin Hornbostel, Haskell student speaks out about
alleged sexual abuse on campus, says she has reported what she's
experienced `over 30 times', LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD (Sep. 21. 2023),
https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2023/sep/21/haskell-student-speaks-out-
about-alleged-systematic-sexual-abuse-on-campus-says-she-has-reported-
what-shes-experienced-over-30-times/.
\39\ Id.
\40\ See Shannon Najmabadi, The Federal Government Runs a College.
It Has Had Eight Presidents in Six Years., THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
(Feb. 15, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/the-federal-
government-runs-a-college-it-has-had-eight-presidents-in-six-years-
1646cf46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Thomas is not alone. Other HINU students who have reported
sexual assaults did not receive support from the HINU faculty.\41\ In
one case, a student allegedly sexually assaulted another and, although
the abuser's housing privileges were revoked, there is no record of the
meeting taking place.\42\ In another case, a coach who allegedly
touched a female student inappropriately was reprimanded only by being
told to work remotely.\43\ At least three other students were raped or
sexually assaulted during separate off-campus university events.\44\
The BIE report makes clear that Haskell's own sexual assault reporting
procedures--if and when they are followed--are insufficient and
dangerous.\45\ Absurdly, the report points out that the university does
not believe it is necessary to forward student sexual assault reports
to local law enforcement because students are adults.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Hornbostel, supra note 15.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Jeff Ruch et al., Report on Abuse of Indian Students Finally
Surfaces: Lawsuit Pried Haskell School Probe Out of Bureau of Indian
Education, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Apr. 22,
2024), https://peer.org/report-on-abuse-of-indian-students-finally-
surfaces/.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the BIE Report exonerates Mr. Mayes and demonstrates
that he was wrongfully terminated because he reported misconduct.\47\
The BIE Report suggests that at HINU, ``Mayes was set up for failure .
. ..'' \48\ Due in large part to the BIE Report's publication, it is
the Committee's understanding that Mr. Mayes was recently reinstated as
a coach at HINU.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION REPORT, supra note 5.
\48\ Id.
\49\ Document on file with the Committee on Natural Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the BIE Report could not substantiate every claim of
malfeasance--due at least in part to the sheer number of claims--the
report is a positive first step toward untangling the web of
dysfunction at HINU that has been ignored by those government officials
who claim to care most.
V. CONCLUSION
Secretary Haaland delivered the 2022 commencement address to
graduating HINU students in which she described the Biden
administration's commitment to help tribal communities. Yet, Secretary
Haaland and other Biden administration officials have turned their
backs on the students and faculty at HINU by allowing dysfunction and
misconduct to go unchecked. Until Secretary Haaland, BIE, and BIA are
held responsible for Haskell's mismanagement, Native American students
and faculty at HINU will continue to suffer.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON INVESTIGATING HOW THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
IGNORED CRIES FOR HELP FROM STUDENTS AT HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS
UNIVERSITY
----------
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources, joint with the
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Owens, Grothman, Good,
Collins, Rulli, Foxx, Westerman, Hageman, Mann; Stansbury,
Takano, Jayapal, Leger Fernandez, Manning, Bonamici, Adams, and
Scott of Virginia.
Mr. Westerman [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Development will come to order.
Without objection, the Chairs are authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittees at any time.
The Subcommittees are meeting today to hear testimony on
investigating how the Biden administration ignored cries for
help from students at Haskell Indian Nations University.
Under House National Resources Committee Rule 4(f), any
oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman
and the Ranking Minority Member. For purposes of this joint
hearing, that will also be extended to the Chair and Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Development of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with House Natural Resources Committee
Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing. The
gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Mann, and the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BURGESS OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Committee gathers
today to address the many scandals plaguing Haskell Indian
Nations University. This institution is one of two post-
secondary schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education,
tasked to provide high-quality education to Native American
students. Instead, it is plagued with a history of
mismanagement, abuse, and corruption.
The issues we are discussing today are not only a disgrace
to the university and the Federal Government entities
responsible, but also to students and faculty harmed due to the
lack of metrics and accountability. This permissive and toxic
mindset has thrived for too long and has negatively impacted
numerous Native American lives. For too long, this community
has suffered from a lack of true and accountable oversight. For
too long, the soft bigotry of low expectations has prevailed
when it comes down to the Native American community.
This widespread dysfunction at Haskell is not an isolated
incident. It is a symptom of systematic failures, particularly
within the Bureau of Indian Education. The Bureau's oversight
has been inadequate, allowing problems to fester unchecked.
The failures that will be addressed today rest squarely on
the shoulders of the Bureau, Secretary Haaland's oversight, and
by extension President Joe Biden.
The investigation, started with President Trump, should
make it a priority to rectify the gross neglect of Haskell. The
students at Haskell have been deprived of what should be the
No. 1 guarantee in our educational system, a safe learning
environment. The allegations in the recently released
investigative report are startling. They include bullying,
harassment, multiple failures to address sexual assault cases,
and a general culture of unresponsiveness to student
complaints.
Perhaps more troublesome is that the report's eventual
product was delayed. Evidence points to possible omissions and
alterations to the final, publicly available copy. With each of
these new developments, the academic integrity of the
institution has been severely compromised.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We will hear
from individuals who experienced things that no one should have
to experience at a school or in the workplace. The Bureau of
Indian Education will be asked to explain why a Bureau-operated
school tolerates the exploitation of its students. In part,
Haskell's institution code states to be accountable for words,
thoughts, and deeds, and engage in the conduct and behavior
that reflects the institutional values of the university. This
code cannot just be words.
This Committee must oversee the implementation of reforms
that will prevent future generations of Native American
students from being harmed.
With that, I look forward to the hearing and yield back to
the Chairman.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Stansbury for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by
saying thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I know
that for many who are here to tell their stories, it is with
great personal sacrifice. And you are here to tell very
difficult stories about the trauma that you have experienced.
So, I want to say thank you for your bravery, thank you for
your service, and thank you for being willing to tell your
story publicly.
It is important that we are having this hearing on a
bipartisan basis, and we are grateful to also have officials
from the Administration and from Department of the Interior. We
have been working across both sides of the aisle to come to the
same goal, which is to host a hearing with the support of our
Education and Workforce Development Committee and the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, to really understand what is
happening at this institution, why have there been continued
failures across the many years that these egregious abuses have
been happening, and what can we do to address these problems
going forward?
So, just a little bit about what we are going to hear
today. In 2018, and I think it is important to identify that
this was during the last administration, the Director of the
Inspector General issued a scathing report about Haskell, which
included multiple cases of sexual assault, domestic violence,
and victimization of students. The university president tried
to cover it up by under-reporting the statistics. Employees
felt intimidated and bullied by the president at the time, and
that president used their influence to help get a family member
hired.
This year, in 2024, under pressure from a lawsuit, the
Bureau of Indian Education finally released a highly redacted
report issued over a year earlier that raised even more
concerning findings. There was non-responsiveness to student
grievances, there was student harassment, bullying of
administrators, allegations of theft, nepotism, sexual assault,
workplace harassment, fraud, waste, and abuse. And multiple
administrative failures, including harassment and bullying,
that were ignored by the university president and others.
The university leadership worked to manipulate the outcomes
of these investigations, and we see allegations that go back at
least 17 years.
The Department of Education conducted its own investigation
that substantiated claims of academic fraud dating back to
2007. And just last week, a former Haskell regent was federally
indicted on multiple counts of felony assault resulting in
substantial bodily injury.
There have been eight presidents in 6 years. So, clearly,
we have a leadership problem at Haskell.
The Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian
Education, Indian Affairs, and Haskell administration have
taken some steps to remediate these issues. We have a new
permanent president after several years of an acting president.
They updated their sexual misconduct and student rights and
conduct policies. They are offering regular trainings for
students, staff and faculty, expanded behavioral health
services, added a campus advocate coordinator. But clearly, it
is not enough.
These actions are the floor, not the ceiling. And we are
here today to really understand what has been going on and how
Haskell can be turned into a place where students feel safe,
where they can bring their whole selves to school, and the
culture of this institution from the top to the bottom can be
reformed.
We know that in order to do this, it takes leadership, it
takes time, it takes persistence, it takes prioritization.
And we know that it is going to have to take vision. So, I
look forward to the conversation today. I look forward to
hearing from those who have come to testify, and to the
bipartisan work ahead across both committees to address these
concerns.
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Thank you. I am going to recognize
myself for my introductory statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to thank
the witnesses for traveling here today for this important
matter. And I would like to extend a special thanks and welcome
to our colleagues from the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Development, who have been our partners on this
issue.
And I also appreciate our Democrat colleagues' engagement
on the issue. Everyone here recognizes that change must come to
Haskell Indian Nations University.
Our hearing today will discuss how the Biden administration
has turned their backs on the students at the Haskell Indian
Nations University, a Bureau of Indian Education school with
students from federally recognized tribes across the nation.
Haskell University is a critical educational resource for
Indian youth. And as you will hear today, has so much potential
to make a difference for Indian students.
Unfortunately, this administration has allowed misconduct,
including but not limited to issues from reporting of sexual
assault, fraud, and nepotism on campus to continue under her
watch. Secretary Haaland has failed students at Haskell
University.
Though Secretary Haaland has stated her commitment to
improving Indian education and addressing the sexual assaults
of Indian women, she has done nothing to address these issues
at Haskell University, despite desperate pleas from the student
body and from certain faculty. The students there deserve to
feel safe while pursuing their education. They deserve to learn
and grow in a community that is free from criminal activity and
the threat of retaliation for just speaking out.
The misconduct at Haskell University is not new. Back in
2018, the DOI Office of Inspector General issued a report that
uncovered under-reporting of crimes at Haskell and how faculty
failed to follow established protocols for reporting. However,
today's hearing addresses an investigation that took place in
2022 over the serious instances of misconduct reported by
students and faculty, and the wrongful termination of cross
country coach Clay Mayes, one of the witnesses here today.
When he was hired, Coach Mayes observed misconduct, and he
decided to do the right thing, report it. In response to his
concerns, he was retaliated against and removed from his
position. During this time, students on the cross country team
were forced to sign no-contact orders with Coach Mayes. The
orders signed under duress prevented them from speaking to
their parents about what they had witnessed or undergone. Yet,
the students made the hard decision to speak out, despite the
possibility of facing retaliation for doing so.
The Bureau of Indian Education initiated an investigation
into these allegations funded for 2 weeks. However, 2 weeks
quickly became 6 months, as investigators uncovered issue after
issue after issue, scandal after scandal.
When the investigation completed, the AIB report was not
publicly released and students were stonewalled by the BIE
human resource officer at the time, who said, ``You will never
see this report,'' is the quote.
After a lengthy legal battle over the release of the AIB
report, and after being compelled to do so, BIE released their
report, but it was the wrong report. This was no mistake. Then
finally, BIE released the AIB report, but it was heavily
redacted.
The deceptive conduct by the Bureau of Indian Education
regarding the AIB report is ongoing. Despite a recent request
from our Committee, BIE has yet to hand over the unredacted
report. This is a very simple request for the Department to
fulfill, and I expect to see the unredacted AIB report very
soon.
Make no mistake. Members and staff understand that a report
of this nature would likely contain highly sensitive
information. That is no excuse. There are ways to review that
material that would not reveal the identity of the individual
publicly and could ensure that the AIB report would not have to
be shared with the general public.
The Biden administration and Secretary Haaland's Department
have turned their back on the students and the faculty under
threat, rather than bringing true accountability and change to
the university. The students at Haskell Indian Nations
University and the American people deserve answers for the
allegations of misreporting of sexual assault, nepotism, fraud,
theft, and so much that goes on.
Haskell University should be a safe place for Indian
students to grow, learn, and prepare themselves for the next
step in life. I am confident this can still be achieved, but it
will require hard work and true accountability.
Today, the Committee will hear from the individuals whose
lives have been changed by their experiences at Haskell
University. Despite the challenges that they have been through,
they agreed to come before this Committee because they too
believe that change must come to the university. Indian
students across the nation deserve better.
I am committed to real accountability at the university and
the Department of the Interior for their repeated failure to
address the dysfunction and misconduct at Haskell Indian
Nations University.
I now observe the Ranking Member from the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you also Chairman Owens and Ranking Member Stansbury.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I
appreciate for many of you this might be difficult, especially
when we are asking you to publicly reshare what may be personal
and sometimes traumatic stories.
I want to start by acknowledging our country's shameful
history of mistreating and forcibly assimilating Native people.
In the past years, we have gone to great lengths to attempt to
rectify a fraction of these injustices. I am grateful to the
Department of the Interior for its work to address the wrongs
many Native students experienced in boarding schools, after
many were forcibly removed from their families, communities,
languages, religions, and cultural beliefs.
In 2021, Secretary Haaland announced the Federal Indian
Boarding School Initiative, an effort to recognize the
concerning legacy of Federal Indian boarding school policies,
and to address the intergenerational impact.
I am also pleased to see that the Department invested
funding in the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian
Education, which they had indicated had been inactive for
decades.
Haskell Indian Nations University was established from what
once was an Indian boarding school, where Native children were
forcibly assimilated for decades, an issue I am familiar with
because I represent Oregon, where we have Chemawa Indian
School. Haskell University can and should be a safe space for
Native students to learn, while embracing and uplifting their
culture. This is a noble goal and with support it is
attainable.
Unfortunately, the reality of Haskell University is a sharp
contrast to this goal. All academic institutions are
responsible for creating safe and supportive learning
environments. In the unique case of Haskell University, the
burden falls on the Department of the Interior and the Bureau
of Indian Education to provide resources and guidance to
facilitate a safe school environment.
We have heard of instances on campus that have indicated
failure after failure of the university and the bureau to
provide the leadership, transparency, accountability, and
management, despite reports of a hostile campus environment
rife with academic fraud, nepotism, neglect, and tragically, in
some cases, sexual misconduct and abuse.
I want to emphasize, this is not a new issue. There have
been reports of misconduct for years. Student survivors report
sexual assault and say they were met with indifference and a
lack of consideration for their privacy and their mental
health. The Inspector General has confirmed accusations of
nepotism and bullying, as well as cases of academic fraud.
The sitting university president directed the editor of the
Indian Leader, a student newspaper, to not contact any outside
government agency or the police regarding university matters
without first getting permission. The students deserve better,
the faculty deserve better, and the community deserves better.
Haskell University provides education to a population that
has historically been underserved in higher education, and it
must improve. The Bureau of Indian Education must hold Haskell
University accountable for strict academic accountability and
transparency standards. The Bureau must also be forthcoming
with Congress about whether those standards are met for the
health and well-being of Haskell's students.
And finally, I want to emphasize accusations of misconduct
have gone on for years. It may be tempting to try to point
fingers at a single administration to pick where it all went
wrong. But the reality is that the systemic issues plaguing
Haskell University have happened for years under multiple
administrations, both Democratic and Republican. Our task today
should not be to engage in a partisan blame game, but instead
commit ourselves to bettering the lives of students and faculty
and the Haskell Indian Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
I am now going to introduce our witnesses for the first
panel.
First, we have the Honorable Bryan Newland, Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.
And second, Mr. Matthew Elliott, Assistant Inspector General
for Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. But your entire
statement will be in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, just press the button and you will
see the green light go on. When it hits yellow, you have to
start summing it all up. And when it hits red, cut it short
because we have lots of questions.
I now recognize Mr. Newland for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and
members of the Committee, [speaking Native American language].
My name is Bryan Newland. I have the privilege and honor of
serving as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the
Department of the Interior, and I want to thank you for
inviting me before these Committees today to discuss our
important work at Haskell University.
Haskell occupies a special place in Indian Country. It
began as a boarding school designed to carry out the Federal
Government's policy of forced assimilation of Indian children.
It has since become a respected university that has educated
Native students from across the country for generations.
The community of Haskell Rascals really represents all of
Indian Country. Haskell alumni can be found in most tribal
communities, and nearly everyone in Indian Country knows
Haskell, celebrates the achievements of its students, faculty,
and staff. And their accomplishments make all of us proud.
But as has been noted already, Haskell has had more than
its share of challenges in recent decades. A lack of investment
from the Federal Government has allowed facilities on campus to
deteriorate and led to the closure of sports programs like
football. High turnover in leadership at the Bureau of Indian
Education and in Haskell's administration have made campus
governance difficult and has fostered cliques amongst the
staff. Federal employment laws designed for Federal agencies
are not suited to running a university and present challenges.
And there have been many other challenges as well.
In 2022, I learned about allegations of sexual assaults
against students by other students or young people in and
around the Haskell community. I also learned about allegations
that the Haskell athletic staff had inappropriately touched
students. At the same time, there was a series of allegations
and counter allegations involving student athletes, coaches,
staff, and administrators. Most of those allegations related to
workplace conduct and management of sports programs.
Before I describe our response, I want to make two points
very clear. Everyone who steps foot on Haskell's campus should
feel safe and supported. And I expect every member of our staff
to treat people with compassion and respect.
We know all too well the disproportionate rates of violence
that is committed against Native women and girls. And fear of
that violence should not follow people to Haskell's campus.
In addition, we want to hold members of Haskell staff to
standards as high as any other institution of higher learning.
And they should not be subject to bullying or harassment while
doing their jobs.
In response to these allegations, our team worked to
respond quickly by referring some matters to the Office of the
Inspector General. And we also sought independent
investigations of these allegations and independent reviews of
Haskell's student support policies and processes.
Following those investigations, the BIE worked to help
students and staff improve reporting and response to sexual
assaults. In coordination with independent reviewers, Haskell
designated an interim campus advocate coordinator in October
2022. That position handles allegations and began revising the
student code of conduct and other campus policies relating to
student support. With respect to other allegations involving
workplace conduct and sports programs, Haskell also took
administrative and disciplinary action involving a number of
employees and contractors.
Since the start of my tenure, I have made improving
Haskell's operations a priority. Early on in 2021, we began the
process of elevating the position of the Haskell president to a
senior executive service position. It has previously been a GS-
15, a university president. Our goal was to attract more
talented candidates to lead Haskell and to promote stability in
its leadership. We have also asked Congress to provide
increased funding for Haskell and we have had some success in
that over the last 3 years.
I visited campus several times as Assistant Secretary. I
have met with students, faculty, staff, and the college's board
to learn more about their goals and their concerns. And I also
meet weekly with BIE leadership, including the Haskell
president, to stay connected in our work. While we have made
improvements and increased their student enrollment, we have
many challenges to address.
With my limited time, Chairman, I just want to take this
opportunity to speak to everyone in the Haskell community.
Haskell is a place that we are proud of. And we are working
every day to make everyone's experience on campus as safe and
as positive as possible for everyone. I want it to be memorable
for the reasons it should be when people come to Haskell, young
leaders who learn and grow to prepare for a successful life.
And I want students to receive a world class education and have
access to the same experiences and resources as students on
other campuses here in our country. And I want our faculty to
be safe, successful, and united in supporting our students. And
I am going to work with the Secretary and with this Committee
and Congress every day to make sure that happens.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairpersons, Ranking Members, and Members of the Subcommittees,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department or DOI) regarding Haskell Indian
Nations University (Haskell). My name is Bryan Newland, and I serve as
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I am here to discuss the
measures we have taken to improve the safety and well-being of the
students and staff at Haskell. I want to address at the onset that our
staff may not have provided the clearest information regarding the
matters at hand. However, know that the Department takes any allegation
of misconduct of a sexual nature seriously and takes immediate
appropriate actions to protect the safety and wellbeing of students.
My goal today is to help provide clarity around the actions both
the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Haskell took in relation to
the BIE Human Resources (HR) Administrative Investigation Board (AIB)
investigation into allegations of misconduct. I also wish to confirm
that the BIE did not eliminate any findings or conclusions from the
initial draft report submitted by the AIB in November 2022 when BIE HR
finalized the January 2023 final report (Report). The BIE and Haskell
have used the Report and other third-party expert recommendations to
improve student safety-related staffing and support services, as well
as policies and procedures at Haskell.
Haskell Background
Haskell plays a unique role in Indian Country. When Haskell opened
in 1884, it was known as the Indian Industrial Training School at
Lawrence, KS and was among the first of the U.S. government's off-
reservation boarding schools for American Indian children. Based on the
Carlisle School model in Pennsylvania, with its creed to ``Kill the
Indian, Save the Man,'' Haskell was one of a network of boarding
schools that worked to destroy Tribal cultures by enforcing Euro-
American standards of appearance, thought, and behavior. The cultural
and moral injury inflicted by such institutions affected generations of
Indigenous families and still reverberates today through historical,
generational trauma and Tribal wealth depletion.
As evidenced by the Secretary of the Interior's Federal Indian
Boarding School Initiative, the Federal government established
comprehensive policies through institutions like Haskell to assimilate
Indian children. While our generations are still grappling with the
historical traumas of this past, Tribal nations and Indian people are
strong and have effected positive change to Federal policies and
institutions as a result of that strength. In 1992, after a period of
planning for the 21st Century, the National Haskell Board of Regents
recommended a new name to reflect its vision for Haskell as a national
center for Indian education, research, and cultural preservation. In
1993, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs approved the change,
and Haskell became Haskell Indian Nations University.
More recent generations of American Indian and Alaska Native
families have been proudly sending their students to Haskell from all
over the country for a quality and culturally inclusive education.
Haskell is a place that provides an inter-Tribal cultural experience.
Many of us have grandparents, parents, nieces, nephews, and cousins who
currently attend or once attended Haskell. To be part of the ``Haskell
Rascal'' family is something that is held in pride across many Tribal
communities. It would be hard to find a Native person who does not have
some tie or story about a relative who attended Haskell at some point.
It is part of the fabric that makes up Indian Country. The Department
is dedicated to making Haskell as strong and as safe an institution as
possible to reflect the strength of our people and Tribal nations.
As a cornerstone of higher education for American Indian and Alaska
Native students, Haskell now serves approximately 1,000 students.
Haskell offers a range of rigorous academic programs and provides a
culturally rich and transformative educational experience. It is
critically important to the Department, BIE, and Haskell leadership
that we support Haskell in being recognized as one of the best
institutions of higher learning in the country. From a personal
standpoint, supporting BIE schools and Haskell is one of the top
priorities I have as the Assistant Secretary. So, when allegations,
such as those that arose at Haskell, come to our attention, I want your
Committees to know we take them seriously and act.
Allegations Background
In 2021, the BIE received a series of complaints from students and
staff at Haskell. These complaints highlighted various concerns about
the university environment, including allegations of misconduct and
inappropriate behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations
and maintaining a desire to responsibly address the issues raised, the
BIE contracted with an independent third-party administrative
investigator to gather evidence regarding these allegations. Consistent
with DOI policy, BIE also contacted the DOI Office of Inspector General
(OIG) to report additional allegations. When the OIG referred the
matters back to BIE, BIE assembled an internal administrative
investigative board (AIB) to conduct further investigation.
Additionally, where appropriate, students were referred to local law
enforcement to make criminal reports.
As preventative interim measures to safeguard against misconduct of
a sexual nature and to protect the integrity of investigations, Haskell
issued no-contact orders while the matters were being investigated.
Once the investigations were completed, BIE took appropriate
administrative and formal disciplinary actions.
Even though BIE investigated the allegations it received, the
Bureau did not stop there. BIE continued to look for ways to better
protect the safety and security of our students.
Initial Allegations (Late Fall and Early Winter 2021)
Incident: In late 2021, the BIE received a series of
complaints from students and staff at Haskell. These
complaints highlighted various concerns about the
university environment, including allegations of misconduct
and inappropriate behavior. Between late fall and early
winter of 2021, the BIE received a total of 28 separate
allegations and cross-allegations of wrongdoing.
Action: Each of the 28 allegations was promptly submitted
to the U.S. Postal Service's National Equal Employment
Opportunity Investigative Services Office (USPS NEEOISO)
for independent investigation to inform further action, as
needed. USPS NEEOISO has ongoing interagency agreements
with DOI, providing services such as Harassing Conduct
Investigations (HCIs) for DOI and all of its sub agencies,
including BIE.
The USPS NEEOISO produced three separate investigative
reports, delivered between May and July 2022. I want to
emphasize the swift and thorough response to each
allegation. Contrary to inaccurate press or accusations
that these allegations went unaddressed for months, the
Department and Haskell leadership took immediate action to
investigate these concerns.
Sexual Harassment Allegation (December 2021)
Incident: 27 of the 28 allegations provided to the USPS
NEEOISO in the late fall and early winter 2021 were non-
sexual in nature. One complaint, however, was sexual in
nature. On December 18, 2021, a parent reported that a
Haskell staff member had inappropriately touched their
daughter at a basketball game. The student filed a written
statement on December 20, 2021.
Action: On December 21, 2021, Haskell and BIE issued a no-
contact order to the staff member pending further
investigation and submitted the allegation to USPS for
investigation. The USPS NEEOISO investigation was completed
by May 2, 2022. BIE HR determined that the May 2, 2022
report did not support further action.
Subsequent Allegations, Including Sexual Assaults (April-May 2022)
Incident 1: On April 14, 2022, a student reported to a
Haskell employee an alleged sexual assault that occurred on
April 3-4, 2022. The student could not recall the location
where the alleged assault took place. The Haskell employee
contacted local law enforcement.
Incident 2: On April 21, 2022, and again on April 26,
2022, a student reported to two Haskell employees a
separate alleged off-campus sexual assault that occurred on
April 11, 2022. One of the Haskell employees contacted
local law enforcement.
Incident 3: On May 14, 2022, another student reported to a
Haskell employee a separate alleged off-campus sexual
assault that had occurred in April 2022. The Haskell
employee issued a no-contact order and recommended the
student to report the alleged off-campus sexual assault to
local law enforcement. The Haskell employee had a follow-up
meeting with this student on May 16, 2022, and learned the
student had not reported the incident to local law
enforcement. According to Haskell's policies at the time of
this incident, Haskell staff would only assist an adult
victim in contacting law enforcement if specifically
requested and provided permission by the alleged victim.
Action: On Monday, June 13, 2022, members of the Haskell
community reached out directly to the BIE HR Officer
regarding new allegations of misconduct, including those
sexual in nature. On Tuesday, June 14, 2022, students
submitted a Personnel Bulletin (PB) 18-01 Complaint to BIE
HR. BIE HR assigned a team to review the allegations and
worked with the Department's Solicitor Office on next steps
by Friday June 17, 2022. The submitted PB 18-01 included
new allegations of ``physical and sexual abuse''. By
Wednesday June 22, 2022, BIE submitted the allegations to
the Department's OIG. OIG referred the complaints unrelated
to ``physical and sexual abuse'' allegations to BIE on
Wednesday July 6, 2022. Following the July 6, 2022 referral
by OIG, BIE organized the HR-led on-the-ground AIB on July
7, 2022 to arrive at Haskell by Sunday July 10, 2022 to
investigate the allegations. On July 25, 2022, OIG referred
the allegation back to BIE HR regarding ``physical and
sexual abuse'' contained in the PB 18-01 submitted by BIE
on June 14, 2022, to investigate. While the initial on-site
investigation began on July 10, 2022, the AIB continued
their investigation beyond that initial date. While the
initial on-site investigation began on July 10, 2022, the
AIB continued their investigation beyond that initial date.
Additional Allegations (Summer 2022)
Incident: Upon arrival on campus, the AIB received
additional allegations of wrongdoing, including theft of
athletic equipment, nepotism, bullying behavior, conflicts
of interest in personnel decisions, and fabricating
grievances against contract employees.
Action: These allegations and subsequent AIB conclusions
were included in the AIB Report. The BIE HR AIB provided an
initial draft of its report in November 2022 to the BIE HR
Officer for review and finalization to inform appropriate
action at Haskell. During this timeframe, HR made edits to
the draft in an effort to improve the report's clarity,
readability, and ensure completeness in its analysis and
conclusions. Importantly, the edits made during this time
period did not eliminate any findings or conclusions of the
AIB. The BIE HR Officer signed the AIB Report, dated
January 13, 2023. Based on the AIB conclusions, BIE
initiated administrative and formal disciplinary actions
against ten individuals, including supervisor counseling,
suspension, reassignment, and termination of contract. Two
additional staff members involved resigned from their
positions at Haskell prior to receiving formal disciplinary
actions.
Independent Stafford Review and Haskell Reforms
To complement the BIE HR AIB, Haskell secured the services of D.
Stafford & Associates (Stafford) in August 2022. Stafford is an
independent consultation firm specializing in campus safety and
security, sexual misconduct response and investigation, and post-
secondary institution law enforcement issues. Over the summer 2022,
Stafford conducted a comprehensive review of Haskell's policies and
procedures and provided its independent report to Haskell leadership on
September 11, 2022 with recommendations to bolster student support
services. Stafford reviewed Haskell's existing Sexual Misconduct,
Student Rights, and Student Conduct policies and procedures. Stafford's
independent report contained 13 recommendations for programmatic and
policy improvements at Haskell. Stafford continues to provide ongoing
guidance to Haskell regarding its recommendations and guidance
implementation.
Implementation of Stafford Recommendations: Pursuant to
these recommendations, Haskell has completed or is in the
process of completing the following reforms:
Campus Advocate Coordinator: Hired a newly
established Campus Advocate Coordinator position, encumbered as
of May 20, 2024. This position is designed to address both
Stafford's recommendations regarding sexual misconduct
reporting and student support policies, as well as BIE HR AIB
conclusions regarding the role and expectations of the Haskell
employee managing student support services for the institution.
New Policies: Drafted new Sexual Misconduct
Policies and Procedures and related documents needed for
implementation. These will be ready for the beginning of the
2024-25 Academic Year on August 26, 2024.
Reporting Procedures: In consultation with
Stafford, Haskell developed new reporting procedures and forms
for intake.
Student Code of Conduct: Developed a new Student
Code of Conduct and provided the Code to the Haskell Student
Government Association for review.
Training Programs: Established a regular and
ongoing annual sexual assault awareness training in partnership
with Stafford, the Douglas County District Attorney's Office,
the Lawrence Police Department, the Willow Domestic Violence
Center, and the Sexual Trauma and Abuse Care Center. The first
of this regular joint annual training was held on November 29,
2023.
Website Refresh: Initiated a website refresh and
hired a full-time iNet/Webmaster position tasked with
maintaining Haskell's web and social media sites. Once
finalized, Haskell's newly developed Sexual Misconduct Policies
and Procedures will be added to the website for the 2024-25
Academic Year.
Student and Faculty Resources: BIE expanded
behavioral health services offering on-campus and virtual
mental health support, including group and individual therapy
and 24/7 crisis support.
Department Support for Haskell: To increase oversight and
accountability at Haskell, the Department elevated the president
position of the college from GS-15 to Senior Executive to increase
competitiveness in filling the role with other postsecondary
institutions. This new SES position was encumbered May 21, 2023.
Additionally, the Department recently approved two Senior Executive
positions within the BIE organization to provide guidance and oversight
on performance and accountability as well as post-secondary education
functions. This builds on the BIE reform initiated in 2014 and
continued in subsequent administrations. These leaders will increase
support for Haskell, BIE's Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in
New Mexico, and Tribal Colleges and Universities around the country, as
well as provide oversight to BIE's scholarship program.
Allegations and Investigations Timeline
To provide a clearer picture, I will detail the timeline and
responses to each major set of allegations:
Fall and Winter 2021 Initial Allegations
Late Fall/Early Winter 2021: BIE received 28 allegations.
December 2021: All allegations were submitted to USPS
NEEOISO for investigation.
May-July 2022: USPS NEEOISO delivered three separate
investigative reports.
December 2021 Sexual Harassment Allegation
December 18, 2021: Parent reported the incident.
December 20, 2021: Student filed a written statement.
December 21, 2021: Haskell and BIE issued a no-contact
order and submitted the allegation to USPS NEEOISO.
May 2, 2022: USPS completed the investigation and provided
the report to BIE HR with no conclusive findings or
recommendations. BIE HR determined that the May 2, 2022
report did not support further action.
April-May 2022 Sexual Assault Allegations
April 14, 2022: First assault reported to Haskell staff.
April 21 & 26, 2022: Second assault reported to Haskell
staff.
May 14, 2022: Third assault reported to Haskell staff.
June 13, 2022: BIE HR made aware of new allegations of
misconduct, including those sexual in nature.
June 14, 2022: Members of the Haskell community submit a
Personnel Bulletin 18-01 complaint, and BIE HR team
assigned and prepared for submission to OIG.
June 17, 2022: Legal advice sought from Solicitor's
Office.
June 22, 2022: Allegations submitted to OIG.
July 6, 2022: OIG referred complaints unrelated to
``physical and sexual abuse'' allegations back to BIE.
July 7, 2022: BIA HR initiated an AIB investigation on-
site at Haskell.
July 10, 2022: BIE HR AIB team arrived on-site at Haskell.
July 25, 2022: OIG referred back to BIE HR the allegations
related to ``physical and sexual abuse'' contained in the
PB 18-01 submitted on June 14, 2022 for investigation.
Summer 2022 Additional Allegations and Independent Review
Summer-Fall 2022: BIE HR AIB team investigates 16 new
allegations, including Haskell's response to the three
allegations of off-campus sexual assault.
Summer 2022: D. Stafford and Associates conduct
comprehensive policy review and deliver a final report with
recommendations.
September 11, 2022: D. Stafford and Associates provides
its recommendations to Haskell.
November 7, 2022: BIE HR AIB provides draft AIB report to
the BIE HR Officer for finalization.
January 13, 2023: BIE HR Officer signs the AIB report to
inform appropriate action at Haskell.
Other Reports, Reforms and Improvements
2018 OIG Investigations
In a pair of 2018 reports, the OIG found that Haskell officials did
not consistently follow Haskell's guidelines for handling complaints of
misconduct and that Haskell's administration inaccurately reported
crime statistics in 2014 and 2015. OIG also found that Haskell
employees felt bullied and intimidated by the Haskell President at the
time, finding that the President's presence in a meeting influenced a
family member's appointment to a high-level position. OIG did not find
evidence that the President at the time showed favoritism or that
computers were purchased improperly as originally alleged.
However, during the course of OIG's investigation, OIG learned of
an allegation that a Haskell instructor sexually assaulted a student.
OIG referred the allegation to the Lawrence Police Department.
Additionally, OIG found that employees of the Haskell Foundation
(Foundation), a nonprofit corporation, utilized office space on the
Haskell campus and managed the proceeds of grants to Haskell, but that
Haskell and the Foundation had no written agreement governing their
relationship, which created a significant risk for potential legal
violations.
In addition to responding swiftly to allegations, BIE and Haskell
have taken significant steps to reform its policies and procedures,
increase capacity for oversight, and use the findings and
recommendations for improvement to improve student and campus safety.
Conclusion
I appreciate the Committees' time to highlight the Department's
work and hear your concerns about this important issue. While imperfect
at communicating the work completed, this Administration's efforts are
improving the safety and well-being of students and staff at Haskell.
We are also making long-term organizational improvements at the BIE and
Haskell, so Haskell can compete with other colleges and live up to its
storied legacy. Haskell Indian Nations University and all of our
students across the country have been one of my top priorities. We
recognize the courage of our students and staff who have come forward
with their experiences, and we are committed to improving our
shortcomings to create a safe and supportive environment that prepares
our students to become the leaders Tribal nations deserve.
On May 13, 2022, I met with students at Haskell alongside the BIE
Director. That audience was one of the toughest crowds for which I
presented and heard during my tenure because our Haskell students are
so smart. Our students know what they deserve and challenged us to do
better. We are dedicated to doing better. As Haskell finalizes its
policies and procedures before the upcoming academic year, I plan to
meet with Haskell students again to receive input and speak to them
directly as a follow-up to my prior engagement. I also want to
acknowledge the presence of members of the Haskell community today,
including students past and present. For those that were not treated
appropriately, I extend my deepest empathy and assure them that their
safety and well-being are paramount. We are committed to ensuring that
their voices are heard and that their concerns are addressed with the
utmost seriousness and sensitivity.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, in collaboration with BIE and
Haskell leadership, is dedicated to addressing the concerns and
improving the safety of those both on and off campus to our upmost
ability. We have taken swift and decisive actions in response to
allegations and continue to implement reforms to foster a safe and
supportive environment at Haskell. Thank you for your attention to
these critical issues. I am prepared to answer any questions you may
have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
The Honorable Bryan Newland did not submit responses to the Committee
by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. Why did the Bureau of Indian Education refuse to
release the 2023 Haskell Indian Nations University--Administrative
Investigation Report (AIB Report), despite BIE investigators agreement
with Haskell students that the AIB report would be publicly released at
the culmination of the investigation? Please provide a detailed account
of the decision by BIE to not publicly release the AIB Report, and to
resist FOIA requests for the release of the AIB Report.
Question 2. When BIE was legally compelled to release the AIB
Report, instead, they initially released a totally different report--
the wrong report. How did this happen? The request could not have been
clearer.
Question 3. What specific changes have been made in response to the
findings in the AIB Report regarding the handling of sexual assault
cases at the University? Please list each one.
3a) Are you now confident that established procedures for handling
sexual assault incidents are being followed at the University, as
identified in the AIB Report?
Question 4. During your visits to Haskell Indian Nations
University, did you meet with any of the victims of sexual assault or
other potential crimes? If not, why not?
Question 5. On July 18, 2024, the Lawrence Journal Reported that
Lester Randall--a member of the Haskell University Board of Regents--
was indicted on 4 counts of assault.
5a) Was a background check conducted for Mr. Randall? And if so,
were there no red flags?
5b) Do you know Lester Randall? If so, please describe your
interactions with Mr. Randall.
5c) How will you ensure that the Board of Regents conducts regular
background checks, so this does not happen again?
Question 6. As you may know, Dr. Graham sought to fix dysfunction
at Haskell University during his tenure, however his time at the
University was cut short before he could finish the job.
6a) If you had no involvement in the termination of Dr. Graham,
when did you first learn about it?
6b) Were you informed that, in 2024, the Office of Special Counsel
concluded that Dr. Graham was retaliated against by BIE and HINU?
Question 7. Dr. Graham's supervisor was BIE Director Dearman. Were
you aware that Dearman did not sign the termination letter, but Tamarah
Pfeiffer, then BIE Chief Academic Officer and not in Graham's Chain-of-
Command, signed the termination letter?
7a) Is it standard protocol at BIE for someone not in a Chain-of-
Command to order a termination?
Question 8. The BIE May 7, 2021, BIE Termination letter for Dr.
Graham states ``the trial period is intended to give an Agency an
opportunity to assess an employee's overall fitness and qualifications
for continued employment.''
8a) Was such an assessment--in this instance a Federal Annual
Evaluation--conducted by Director Dearman on December 8, 2020?
8b) When were you briefed and/or received a report or copy of the
Graham assessment?
8c) What superseding events or circumstances occurred that
nullified BIE's ``Exceeds Expectations'' overall fitness determination
between December 8, 2020 and May 7, 2021?
Question 9. In your testimony, you stated, more than once, that
student letters to you submitting complaints and seeking relief did not
reach you because the students used the wrong email address.
9a) When did you learn that emails were sent, but not received?
9b) When you learned that emails were not received, what did you do
about it?
Question 10. When Dr. Graham learned that donated funds were not
accounted for, $500,000 contracts were mismanaged and more than 350
counts of alleged payroll fraud (among other financial irregularities)
he reported each situation to Director Dearman and HR Director
Shamblin. Audits and investigations were recommended and then
initiated. There is no public record of the disposition of any of these
audits and/or investigations.
10a) Were these audits and/or investigations completed?
10b) If not completed, who ordered that these audits and/or
investigations be halted, stopped or otherwise ignored?
10c) Did BIE report any of these matters to Congress? If so, when?
Questions Submitted by Representative Owens
Question 1. In a sworn statement a Haskell Indian Nations
University (HINU) faculty member described a complaint made by two
female interns from the University of Kansas against an employee for
engaging in inappropriate conduct [Exhibit A]. HINU conducted a joint
investigation with the Kansas law school. Further in the statement, the
faculty member went on to describe the level of disciplinary action
taken as ``maybe five-day suspension because he (the alleged predatory
Haskell employee) had gotten a reprimand letter in the past.''
1a) Why was this employee allowed to continue working at Haskell?
1b) What actions did the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) take after receiving the AIB Report?
1c) Provide for the Committees documentation of the actions taken
after you received the AIB Report.
Question 2. According to the Haskell student handbook, ``Pending
final outcome . . . Haskell will take steps to protect the complainant
from any further harassment or retaliation.'' Sworn statements have
given us shocking insight into how your university protects
complainants. Your university allowed a female student, accused of
drugging and assaulting four individuals on four separate occasions, to
continue living in the same dorm with her alleged victims.
2a) What steps were taken, per the student handbook, to protect the
complainants in this case?
Question 3. How does HINU ensure that reports of sexual assault are
properly investigated and that victims receive adequate support?
Question 4. In a sworn statement, a student athlete spoke about a
coach that gropes and inappropriately stares at students [Exhibit B].
When she voiced her concerns an older coach explained ``how it is, it
is normal for [the predatory coach] to stare at girls.'' What has been
done in response to this statement to eliminate this predatory
behavior?
4a) Is the coach who stated that ``it's normal for a coach to stare
at girls'' still employed by HINU or the Department of Interior?
4b) Is the coach who ``gropes and inappropriately stares at
students'' still employed by HINU or the DOI?
Question 5. Your testimony states, ``The BIE and Haskell have used
the Report and other third-party expert recommendations to improve
student safety-related staffing and support services, as well as
policies and procedures at Haskell.'' (page 1) Who were the third
parities and what were their recommendations?
Question 6. What is the DOI policy you are referring do when you
state in your testimony, ``Consistent with DOI policy, BIE also
contacted the DOI Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report
additional allegations.'' (page 2)
Your testimony states, ``Additionally, where appropriate, students
were referred to local law enforcement to make criminal reports.''
Please provide us with the number of referrals made to law enforcement
and for what incidents the referrals were made.
Question 7. Your testimony states, ``As preventative interim
measures to safeguard against misconduct of a sexual nature and to
protect the integrity of investigations, Haskell issued no-contact
orders while the matters were being investigated.'' (page 2)
7a) Provide the no-contact orders mentioned above and the emails
transmitting the no-contact orders.
Question 8. Your testimony states, ``Once the investigations were
completed, BIE took appropriate administrative and formal disciplinary
actions.'' (page 2) What were those administrative and disciplinary
actions?
Question 9. Your testimony states, ``BIE continued to look for ways
to better protect the safety and security of our students.'' (page 3).
Please provide a further explanation of the specific actions BIE took
to ``better protect the safety and security of our students?''
Question 10. Your testimony states, ``Each of the 28 allegations
was promptly submitted to the U.S. Postal Service's National Equal
Employment Opportunity Investigative Services Office (USPS NEEOISO) for
independent investigation to inform further action, as needed. (page 3)
10a) Who made the decision to report the allegations to the USPS
NEEOISO?
10b) Why were the allegations reported to the UPS NEEOISO?
10c) Provide the transmittal communications used to submit each of
the 28 allegations to the USPS NEEOISO.
10d) List all BIE related investigations that were reported to the
USPS NEEOISO from 2020 to the present.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Newland.
I now recognize Mr. Elliott for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW ELLIOTT, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
INVESTIGATIONS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I am pleased to stand in as the designee for
Inspector General Greenblatt, who is testifying this afternoon
before the House Oversight Committee.
Every day, DOI employees and private citizens reach out to
our complaint hotline to share information about potential
fraud, waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement. The OIG also
receives complaints directly from department officials. Based
on the information submitted, the OIG evaluates the complaints
and can open a criminal, civil, or administrative
investigation, conduct an audit, inspection, evaluation, or
review, refer the complaint to the appropriate DOI bureau or
office, or refer the complaint to another Federal or state law
enforcement agency, or electronically file the information for
future reference.
Our office has a proven track record of assessing
complaints, opening investigations, and issuing public-facing
reports as appropriate. The 92 employees that I lead in our
Office of Investigations remain responsive and capable of
investigating a full range of alleged misconduct.
Relevant to the discussion here today, between 2018 and the
present, we received 68 complaints related to issues at
Haskell. We opened 5 investigations, initiated 1 review,
referred 32 of the complaints to the Bureau of Indian
Education, and referred 1 complaint to the Assistant Secretary
of Indian Affairs.
The remaining 29 complaints were electronically filed for
information, often because they were duplicative or lacked
specificity or actionable information.
Three of the five investigations that we opened during this
time period involved allegations of misconduct by Haskell
employees not related to sexual harassment or misconduct. In
each of those cases, we did not substantiate the allegations.
The fourth investigation involved allegations that Haskell
employees covered up students' complaints of sexual misconduct.
During the course of that investigation, we learned of BIA's
own investigative report into these allegations. Therefore, we
closed our investigation into those matters in August 2023.
The fifth investigation stemmed from 13 complaints
regarding allegations of mismanagement by Haskell's senior
administration and president, focused primarily on the
administration's handling of misconduct complaints. In
addition, we investigated allegations that the president
bullied employees, committed nepotism, and demonstrated
favoritism. We also investigated allegations that the
administration misused Title III funds.
During the course of our investigation, we received an
allegation that a Haskell instructor sexually assaulted a
student off campus. Because local law enforcement had primary
jurisdiction, we immediately referred that matter to the
Lawrence Police Department and offered our assistance.
At the conclusion of our investigation, we transmitted our
findings to the Directors of BIE and BIA and publicly issued an
investigative report in November 2018. In that report, we found
that university officials did not consistently follow Haskell's
guidelines for handling complaints of misconduct, and that
Haskell's administration inaccurately reported crime statistics
in 2014 and 2015. We also found that Haskell employees felt
bullied and intimidated by the Haskell president, and we found
that the president's presence in a meeting influenced a family
member's appointment to a high-level position. We did not,
however, find evidence of favoritism or improper use of funds.
Because of the history of complaints related to mishandling
allegations of sexual assault and the finds from our 2018
report, in 2022, I directed OIG's Special Investigations and
Reviews to initiate a review to determine whether BIE-operated
post-secondary institutions were appropriately following laws
and policies relating to complaints of sexual harassment and
misconduct. This review is currently ongoing. We look forward
to providing our report to Congress and the public when it is
complete.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elliott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Elliott, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gosar, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Stansbury, Ranking
Member Wilson, and Members of the Subcommittees:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the
Interior (DOI) Office of Inspector General's (OIG) work regarding
Haskell Indian Nations University (Haskell). The Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, established a unique relationship between IGs and
Congress, requiring IGs to report both to the head of their respective
agencies and to Congress. DOI OIG's leadership and employees take this
obligation seriously, and we appreciate your continued interest in and
support for our fair, independent, and objective oversight.
Background
DOI OIG's Mission and Operations
DOI OIG's mission is to provide independent oversight to promote
accountability, integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
within the DOI. Our work can be grouped into two general categories:
(1) investigations on the one hand, and (2) audits, inspections, and
evaluations on the other. The OIG's less than 300 employees oversee the
programs and operations of the DOI, which has more than 70,000
employees, 11 Bureaus, Offices, and a range of diverse programs,
including roughly $10 billion in grants and contracts, $20 billion in
natural resource revenues, Federal trust responsibilities to 574
federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages,
stewardship of 20 percent of the Nation's land, and management of
lands, subsurface rights, and offshore areas that produce approximately
17 percent of the Nation's energy.
Our Office of Investigations investigates allegations of criminal,
civil, and administrative misconduct involving DOI employees,
contractors, grantees, and programs. These investigations can result in
criminal prosecutions, fines, civil monetary penalties, administrative
sanctions, and personnel actions. DOI OIG investigators have statutory
law enforcement authority, including the power to make arrests, execute
warrants, and carry firearms. When an investigation is complete,
investigators prepare a Report of Investigation (ROI) detailing our
findings. If there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the
investigators work with Federal or state prosecutors as appropriate. If
an investigation shows evidence of administrative wrongdoing on the
part of a DOI employee, the ROI is presented to the Department, which
will take whatever action it deems appropriate. In these cases, the OIG
does not recommend discipline or other action to the Department.
Our Office of Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations (AIE) conducts
independent reviews that measure DOI programs and operations against
best practices and objective criteria to determine efficiency and
effectiveness. They also audit contracts, examine financial statements,
and conduct cyber security audits, to name a few examples. AIE's work
results in actionable recommendations to the Department that promote
positive change in the DOI.
DOI OIG's Complaint Hotline
Every day, DOI employees and private citizens reach out to our
complaint hotline to share information about potential fraud, waste,
abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement. The OIG also receives complaint
referrals directly from Department officials outside of our hotline.
Based on the information submitted, the OIG evaluates the complaints
and could open a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation;
conduct an audit, inspection, evaluation, or review; refer the
complaint to the appropriate DOI Bureau or Office; refer the complaint
to another Federal or state law enforcement agency; or electronically
file the information for future reference.
Our hotline is staffed by trained professionals who review every
complaint we receive and determine what action the OIG will take. Given
our mission, jurisdiction, budgetary resources, and unique position in
the Department, we typically investigate criminal matters such as
contract and grant fraud, energy royalties fraud, embezzlement, and
financial conflicts of interest. We also investigate administrative
misconduct by DOI employees, such as ethics violations, whistleblower
retaliation, and sexual harassment by senior-level officials. We
generally don't investigate allegations involving traditional
management or workplace problems or individual allegations of
discrimination. Typically, we refer those complaints to the Department
for its consideration and action.
In Fiscal Year 2023, we received 886 DOI-related complaints and
opened 60 investigations; that is, 6.7 percent of the DOI complaints
that we received were converted to OIG investigations. Of the 886
complaints that we received, 418, or 47 percent, were referred to the
appropriate DOI Bureau or Office for action.
Between 2018 and the present, we received 68 complaints related to
issues at Haskell. We opened 5 investigations, initiated 1 review,
referred 32 of the complaints to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),
and 1 complaint to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. Twenty-
nine of these complaints were electronically filed for information.
Prior DOI OIG Investigations Involving Haskell
DOI OIG's November 2018 Investigative Report of Misconduct Allegations
at Haskell
After receiving complaints from Haskell students, faculty, and
personnel alleging mismanagement by Haskell's senior administration and
President, we opened an investigation that focused primarily on the
administration's handling of misconduct complaints. In addition, we
investigated allegations that the President bullied employees,
committed nepotism, and demonstrated favoritism. We also investigated
allegations that the administration misused Title III funds.
During the course of our investigation, we received an allegation
that a Haskell instructor sexually assaulted a student off campus.
Because local law enforcement had primary jurisdiction, we immediately
referred the matter to the Lawrence Police Department.
At the conclusion of our investigation, we transmitted our findings
to the Directors of BIE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
publicly issued an investigative report in November 2018.\1\ In that
report, we found that university officials did not consistently follow
Haskell's guidelines for handling complaints of misconduct and that
Haskell's administration inaccurately reported crime statistics in 2014
and 2015. We also found that Haskell employees felt bullied and
intimidated by the Haskell President, and we found that the President's
presence in a meeting influenced a family member's appointment to a
high-level position; however, we did not find evidence of favoritism or
improper use of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://www.doioig.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
migration/WebRedacted_Haskell Univeristy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOI OIG's October 2018 Management Advisory Regarding Absence of Clear
Boundaries Between Haskell Indian Nations University and
Nonprofit Haskell Foundation
Our 2018 investigation yielded additional findings about
inappropriate boundaries between Haskell University and the Haskell
Foundation, a non-profit organization with the stated mission of
seeking, encouraging, receiving, and managing gifts, grants, and
bequests for the benefit of the university. We issued a management
advisory to the Director of BIE, alerting him to the potential of legal
violations arising from the lack of clear boundaries between Haskell
and the non-profit.
Unsubstantiated Allegations
In 2021 and 2022, we investigated additional allegations regarding
misconduct by Haskell employees, not related to sexual harassment or
misconduct. None of these allegations were substantiated.
Complaints to OIG Related to Haskell Indian Nations University in 2022
and 2023
Partly at issue today are allegations that were referred to the OIG
by BIE in June 2022. These wide-ranging allegations included an array
of complaints including theft of Federal property, intimidation of
student athletes, bullying, violation of students' due process,
inappropriate touching of student athletes by a coach, and others.
Consistent with our office's usual process and practice, we closely
reviewed the allegations and vetted them, including by reaching out to
the five individuals whose contact information was provided, eventually
reaching one. We interviewed that individual by phone on June 30, 2022.
Based on the initial complaint and the additional information provided
in our interview, we determined that the allegations would be best
addressed by the BIE. We referred the allegations to BIE on July 6,
2022, and requested a response in 90 days. We received the BIE response
on January 25, 2024.
Subsequently, in April 2023, the OIG received an anonymous hotline
complaint, alleging that employees at Haskell covered up students'
complaints of sexual misconduct. After reviewing this anonymous
complaint, our office opened an investigation. During the course of our
investigation, in June 2023, we learned of BIE's investigative report
addressing the allegations that predicated OIG's investigation;
therefore, we closed our investigation in August 2023.
OIG's Ongoing Review
Because of the history of complaints related to mishandling of
sexual assaults and the findings from our 2018 ROI, in 2022, I directed
OIG's Special Investigations and Reviews \2\ to initiate a review to
determine whether BIE-operated postsecondary institutions were
appropriately following laws and policies related to complaints of
sexual harassment and misconduct. Originally focused solely on the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), we expanded the scope
of our review to include Haskell, given the history of complaints that
our office had received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Special Investigations and Review Division (SIR) is a
division in the Office of Investigation staffed by attorneys and
investigators. SIR conducts programmatic reviews as well as certain
types of investigations, often focused on senior level DOI officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review is currently ongoing. We look forward to providing our
report to Congress and the public when it is complete.
DOI OIG's Evaluation of the DOI's Efforts to Address Sexual Harassment
Across the Department
This is not the first time that our office has addressed sexual
harassment and misconduct at the DOI. In September 2014, we received a
complaint that led to a series of investigations that uncovered a long-
term pattern of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in the
NPS' Grand Canyon National Park River District. The Grand Canyon
investigation led to others. In total, the OIG opened over 20 sexual
harassment investigations between 2016 and 2019. As a result, the OIG
confirmed allegations of sexual harassment in other NPS worksites; the
OIG also confirmed similar allegations of both sexual harassment and
mishandled sexual harassment investigations within BIA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Specifically, in May 2017, we confirmed that a BIA employee
harassed employees and tribal members by sending unwanted (and often
sexually explicit) texts and Facebook messages. Summary: BIA Employee
Sent Unwanted, Sexually Explicit Messages, available at https://
www.doioig.gov/reports/investigation/bia-employee-sent-unwanted-
sexually-explicit-messages-0. In September 2017, we found that a Human
Resources official incorrectly advised a BIA manager that an employee
accused of sexual harassment could not be disciplined because the
complaints were not U.S. Government employees and the harassment did
not appear to be connected in the workplace. Summary: Insufficient
Actions by BIA Management and Human Resources Officials in Response to
Sexual Harassment Reports, available at https://www.doioig.gov/reports/
investigation/insufficient-actions-bia-management-and-human-resource-
officials-response-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the heels of these investigations, in December 2017, the OIG
initiated an evaluation of the DOI's steps to address sexual harassment
at the Department. Our work culminated in a report, issued in July
2019: Opportunities Exist To Improve the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Efforts To Address Sexual Harassment.\4\ We found that
although the Department had taken steps to address and prevent sexual
harassment, opportunities existed to improve sexual harassment
investigations. Specifically, (1) ROIs did not always contain the
necessary information for decisionmakers and advisors to make
comprehensive decisions about potential corrective action related to
sexual harassment, (2) the DOI and its bureaus did not track the
timeliness of investigations in a consistent manner, and (3)
investigation costs may have prevented employees from reporting an
incident. We also found that anti-sexual harassment training and DOI-
wide misconduct tracking could be improved. We made 11 recommendations
to help the DOI prevent and address sexual harassment. At this time,
all recommendations from our 2019 report have been resolved and
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available at doioig.gov/sites/default/files/2021-migration/
FinalEvaluationE_DOISexual Harassment_Public.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In October 2019, Inspector General Mark Lee Greenblatt testified at
a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
hearing entitled, ``Sexual Harassment at the Department of the
Interior.'' His testimony covered the OIG's investigations of specific
misconduct and our broader evaluation about the steps DOI had taken to
address sexual harassment at the Department. During that hearing, IG
Greenblatt committed that the OIG would continue to aid the Department
in its efforts to foster a safe environment free of sexual harassment
and assault. Since that time, we have continued to receive, evaluate,
and act upon all incoming complaints, including those that implicate
sexual misconduct. We have a proven track record of opening
investigations and issuing public-facing reports as appropriate, and we
remain responsive and capable of investigating a full range of alleged
misconduct. Our currently ongoing review, discussed previously today,
is another important part of the OIG's efforts in this regard.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Matthew Elliott, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations, Office of the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. What is the role of the Office of the Inspector General
regarding oversight of Haskell University?
Answer. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides independent
oversight to promote accountability, integrity, economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness within the bureaus and offices of the U.S. Department
of the Interior (DOI), including the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
BIE funds and manages 183 elementary and secondary schools; in
addition, Haskell Indian Nation University (HINU) is one of two post-
secondary schools directly operated by BIE. Our statutory oversight
authority therefore extends to HINU.
Question 2. Why did the OIG decline to review the wrongful
termination of Mr. Mayes?
Answer. It was within BIE's discretion to terminate Mr. Mayes's
contract. Additionally, there are no laws, regulations, rules, or
policies that prohibited BIE from terminating Mr. Mayes contract
because of the allegations he reported to our office and BIE
leadership. As a contractor, Mr. Mayes was not covered by the
protections codified in the Whistleblower Protection Act or Section 828
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and
therefore falls outside of available protections. Mr. Mayes, however,
did have contract and civil remedies he could have pursued. It is also
our understanding that Mr. Mayes is once again a coach at HINU.
Question 3. Why did the OIG decline to investigate the claims
brought forth by students, that kicked off the 2022 investigation?
Answer. The OIG has oversight responsibility for DOI's 11 bureaus
and offices, and we receive approximately 2,000 contacts annually to
our hotline. We must triage those contacts to determine how to maximize
the impact of the approximately 90 OIG employees dedicated to our
investigative mission. Like most investigative entities, we simply do
not have the capacity to investigate every complaint that is made
through our hotline and, consistent with the best practices of the
Inspector General community, we routinely refer administrative
complaints and allegations of non-criminal misconduct to the
responsible bureaus or offices. If we identify a pattern or trend of
complaints that, taken in the aggregate, indicate an investigable
matter, we may also decide to open an investigation. For example, we
initiated the OIG's 2018 investigation that I discussed during my
testimony \1\ due to a pattern of complaints received by our office.
Additionally, we have a strong record across our broad portfolio of
exploring sexual misconduct issues, which Inspector General Greenblatt
discussed at a hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources
on October 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Investigation of Misconduct Allegations at Haskell Indian
Nations University/Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the
Interior (doioig.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2022, HINU students reported allegations of harassment,
nepotism, contract mismanagement, and improper hiring practices. We
carefully reviewed and vetted the allegations. We determined that the
theft allegations were speculative and that the sexual assault
allegations were off campus and therefore outside of our jurisdiction.
Based on the nature of the remaining allegations, the limited number of
field agents we have for our broad portfolio, and our case load at the
time, we referred them to the BIE or the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs. The claim that HINU mismanaged allegations of sexual assault
is included in the scope of an ongoing review.
Question 4. What misconduct has OIG identified in the past as
taking place at Haskell Indian Nations University?
Answer. In the past 10 years, we have conducted five investigations
of potential misconduct and mismanagement at HINU. The allegations in
three investigations were not substantiated and we closed one
investigation after learning the allegations had already been addressed
by BIE. We reported the results of our fifth investigation in our
November 2018 report of investigation, which can be found on our
website at this link: Investigation of Misconduct Allegations at
Haskell Indian Nations University (doioig.gov).
While not related to specific misconduct, we also issued a
management advisory in 2018 regarding the absence of clear boundaries
between HINU and the nonprofit Haskell Foundation, which is available
here: Management Advisory--Investigation Reveals Absence of Clear
Boundaries Between Bureau of Indian Education Post-Secondary
Educational Institution and Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. OI-SD-17-
0074-I (doioig.gov).
4a) What recommendations have been put forward to Haskell Indian
Nations University and the Bureau of Indian Education to resolve these
issues?
Answer. As is typical with reports of investigation (ROIs) in the
inspector general community, we did not provide recommendations in our
2018 ROI on HINU. Rather, like all of our ROIs, we provided it to the
Department for any action it deemed appropriate.
In our 2018 management advisory, we made two recommendations that
we consider implemented and closed:
1. Consult with the Office of the Solicitor to establish the scope
of the Foundation's authorized activities, including its
authorization to occupy Federal facilities, the proper
roles and responsibilities of Foundation employees
regarding grants, and the payment of any compensation to
the Foundation.
2. Memorialize the determination in a written partnership agreement
with the Foundation as provided in Department Policy 301 DM
5. Signed MOU provided through BIE/Haskell.
4b) To your knowledge, what steps has Haskell Indian Nations
University taken to address issues identified by the OIG previously?
Answer. In response to our 2018 report, BIE reported to the OIG
that it: (1) provided all Haskell staff with Equal Employment
Opportunity and workplace harassment training; (2) reassigned one
Haskell employee; and (3) took disciplinary action against another
Haskell employee. The action taken against the employees and the
employees' identity is protected by the Privacy Act and cannot be
disclosed publicly.
Separate from issues identified in our 2018 ROI, in the past 10
years, the OIG referred eight complaints to BIE that required a
response. The referred allegations and BIE's responses are summarized
in the chart below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegation referred by OIG to BIE BIE response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of nepotism against the In response, BIE created a new
HINU President policy requiring an additional
level of supervision when hiring a
Vice President of Academic
Affairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of mismanagement and BIE investigated and did not
waste of funds substantiate the allegations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of financial BIE investigated and did not
mismanagement by the President of substantiate the allegations.
Haskell University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations a Haskell employee had BIE investigated and took
a sexual relationship with a disciplinary action against the
student subject of the investigation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations a coach violated BIE investigated and terminated the
National Association of coach's contract.
Intercollegiate Athletics policies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of misconduct and BIE investigated and terminated a
mismanagement in the cross-country coach's contract and took
running program. disciplinary action against a
Haskell employee. BIE also rewrote
the position description for the
Athletic Director and changed the
coach positions from contractors
to full-time employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of theft, harassment, BIE investigated and took
and due process violations disciplinary action against three
Haskell employees and did not
renew an additional subject's
contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of sexual misconduct BIE investigated and took
disciplinary action against the
subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. Since 2021, how many requests for (a) audits or
investigations; (b) reports of fraud, waste and abuse; and/or
whistleblower complaints/reports has the OIG received concerning
actions, activities or circumstances involving the Bureau of Indian
Education or its leaders, staff or faculty?
Answer. Between January 1, 2021, and July 31, 2024, we received one
congressional request for an audit of Chemawa Indian School. We
completed the requested audit in July 2023. That audit resulted in this
report that is available on our website: The Chemawa Indian School Did
Not Account for Its Financial Resources, and the Bureau of Indian
Education Did Not Provide Financial Oversight.
During the same time period, the Office of Inspector General
received 187 complaints related to BIE. Some of these complaints were
duplicative, did not contain specific requests, or did not contain
actionable information.
5a) Since 2021, how many requests for (a) audits or investigations;
(b) reports of fraud, waste and abuse; and/or whistleblower complaints/
reports has the OIG received concerning actions, activities or
circumstances involving the Haskell Indian Nations University or its
leaders, staff or faculty?
Answer. Since January 2021, the Office of Inspector General has
received 46 total complaints related to Haskell Indian Nations
University. We consider every complaint a potential request to
investigate or audit.
5b) How many current investigations does OIG have under way related
to Haskell Indian Nations University?
Answer. During my testimony I confirmed that we have an ongoing
review examining how HINU and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
manage complaints of sexual harassment and misconduct. I am available
to meet with the Committee to discuss these issues further.
Question 6. In late May, 2021, Dr. Ronald J. Graham, the then just-
terminated President, Haskell Indian Nations University, filed
Whistleblower Reprisal Complaint Form (E004957) alleging retaliation
for (a) mismanaging grant funds; (b) payroll fraud; (c) possible
misappropriation of $1 M in donated funds; (d) $500,000 misspent; and a
list of other issues. OIG designated the Complaint OI-HQ-21-0616-R. Dr.
Graham reported these and other matters as they occurred and requested
audits and investigations to which BIE Director Dearman and BIE H.R.
Director Shamblin, at the time, concurred. Almost immediately after Dr.
Graham submitted complaints and reporting irregularities, he was
terminated without notice or discussion. The DOI OIG intake officers
took the Graham report by telephone in late May. On June 2, 2021,
approximately 12 days later, OIG stated to wrote ``Mr.'' Graham ``DOI
OIG reviewed the allegation in your complaint. OIG will not open an
investigation into your termination during your probationary period.''
Explain why the OIG rejected this complaint.
Answer. Please see our response to 6(b) below.
6a) Pursuant to the complaint filed by Dr. Graham, did the OIG
conduct an interview with him? If not, why not?
Answer. On May 25, 2021, the OIG interviewed Dr. Graham as part of
our standard complaint vetting process.
6b) Dr. Graham reported donated funds unaccounted for,
misappropriation of Federal Funds, financial malfeasance among other
issues. Exclusive of the Graham complaint, what did the OIG do about
the issues identified by Dr. Graham submitted report?
Answer. Consistent with OIG's policies and procedures, we evaluated
the complaint and determined the allegations were better addressed at a
management level above BIE. We therefore referred his complaint to the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs on June 8, 2021, for any action
deemed appropriate and did not require a response.
6c) The OIG e-mail rejection to Dr. Graham stated that their office
would refer Graham's whistleblower report to ``the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs for review and action they deem
appropriate.'' When--on what date--did the OIG refer the Graham
whistleblower report to the Assistant Secretary?
Answer. We referred the allegations to the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs on June 8, 2021.
6d) Did Assistant Secretary Newland provide the OIG with an update
or report on action(s) taken and findings rendered? If so, when?
Answer. We did not request a response and Assistant Secretary
Newland has not provided one.
6e) Did the OIG follow up and request a report on actions taken
and/or findings rendered? If so, when?
Answer. We did not request a response and closed the complaint on
June 14, 2021.
Question 7. After Dr. Graham was terminated and after the OIG
rejected his petition your agency, Chief Glenna Wallace, Eastern
Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, submitted a detailed eight(8) page letter to
Inspector General Greenblatt in which she concluded: How can any Tribe
or any parents entrust either (BIE or Haskell) with our young men and
women? And, how can we trust the Interior Department when the Office of
Inspector General--you and your office--when you reject responsible
requests for an investigation in the face of overwhelming
contradictions, misrepresentations, omissions, financial irregularities
and/or even criminal misconduct? Why did Inspector General Greenblatt
fail to acknowledge or respond to this letter?
Answer. The OIG did, in fact, acknowledge and respond to this
letter. The facts regarding our interactions on this letter are
reflected below:
The OIG received a complaint letter from the Chief of the
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma that was emailed to our
office by the Executive Administrative Assistant to the
Chief. The letter alleged that Ronald Graham, former
President of HINU had been wrongfully terminated and that
the OIG failed to properly investigate.
Within days of receiving the letter, we attempted to
interview Chief Wallace.
In response, the Executive Administrative Assistant
reported via email that Chief Wallace would be out sick for
quite some time and did not know why we were reaching out
for an interview.
We explained that the OIG received Chief Wallace's letter
about Ronald Graham's termination and offered to discuss
her concerns.
The Executive Administrative Assistant then confirmed via
email that the letter to IG Greenblatt was to document her
concerns and an interview was not necessary.
7a) What is the OIG's policy for addressing misconduct issues
reported if they come from an individual on probation?
Answer. All complaints are processed and evaluated in accordance
with our policies, procedures, and practices regardless of the
complainant's employment status.
Questions Submitted by Representative Takano
Question 1. I have a BIE-run school, Sherman Indian High School, in
my district. You can understand why I am very troubled by the
Department of Interior's failure to follow through when a complaint is
made.
My staff and yours have been in contact about the abysmal
conditions of this school--and I thank Secretary Haaland and her team
for coming to visit the facility. Her commitment to improving BIE
school conditions is laudable.
Nonetheless, there are chronic issues that span administrations.
Teachers have described persistent flooding in classrooms from old
pipes. Staff and students alike report mold in the classrooms and
dormitories. My own staff has found dangerous electrical wiring,
buildings in severe disrepair, and a host of other serious safety
concerns--as well as substantial concerns involving the oversight of
the school.
Mr. Elliott, there are serious institutional issues with the BIE
that will need restructuring, which will take years--but these students
need help now.
1a) What immediate steps will the Department of Interior take to
improve oversight of BIE schools and ensure student and teacher safety?
Answer. BIE manages a system of 183 elementary and secondary
schools that provide educational services to one of the most vulnerable
populations in the United States--approximately 45,000 Native American
students in 23 States. The poor condition of Indian school facilities
has been reported for nearly 100 years. For this reason, our office has
prioritized oversight of the BIE. While I cannot speak to the immediate
steps that the Department is taking to improve oversight, I can share
that the OIG is currently conducting an ongoing series of health and
safety inspections of BIE schools. Our objectives are to determine
whether each school has addressed deficiencies found during required
annual safety and health inspections conducted by BIE, developed an
emergency action plan or program, and, if the school is BIE-operated,
developed a security plan, in accordance with applicable requirements.
We are prioritizing inspections of the 183 Indian schools based on
risk, and are analyzing risk by taking various data into account,
including:
Safety and health inspection reports from the last three
years,
Operations and Maintenance budget obligations,
Facility Condition Index,
Number of students,
Age of main school building,
Number of open work orders for safety and health
corrections, and
OIG hotline complaints and single audit data, where
applicable.
In addition to these ongoing inspections, we have also recently
completed reviews related to other health and safety matters related to
BIE-funded and-managed schools. For example, during our evaluation on
Indian Affairs' (IA) management of deferred maintenance at school
facilities, we found 1,056 work orders had not been completed for over
20 years since first requested.\2\ Some of these related to safety
deficiencies, including an inoperable fire alarm system, existing
asbestos flooring, and missing exit signs. Some of these deficiencies
remained unresolved because the schools lacked staff to oversee
projects which led to delays in funding and completing projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Indian Affairs Is Unable To Effectively Manage Deferred
Maintenance of School Facilities/Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior (doioig.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, we conducted an inspection of Pine Hill Boarding School's
facilities and found that the school had an inoperable fire system as
well as several major facility deficiencies and safety and health
concerns.\3\ In 2020, we followed up on the health and safety issues
found during our 2016 inspection and found while overall facility
conditions improved, some deficiencies remained unresolved. In
addition, we also found other safety, health, and security concerns
that were not identified in 2016, including a lack of inspections of
critical equipment and potential indoor environmental contaminants,
unauthorized access to potentially dangerous areas, inoperable or
missing exterior security cameras, and dilapidated portable buildings
regularly used by children and staff. These deficiencies remained
unaddressed in part because IA said it was not tracking deficiencies
identified during safety and health inspections to confirm they were
being addressed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Condition of Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities at the Pine
Hill Boarding School/Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
the Interior (doioig.gov)
\4\ Facility Improvements Still Needed at Pine Hill School/Office
of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior (doioig.gov)
1b) Unfortunately, it is no secret that BIE schools struggle with
staff recruitment and retention. Can you describe the impact that
inadequate staffing has on BIE's ability to conduct proper oversight? I
am a fervent supporter of the mission of these institutions, but I fear
for the safety of students and faculty that have to live and work in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
such dangerous conditions.
Answer. We have noted BIE's struggles with hiring and retaining
staff as a concern in several of our prior reports on the Department of
the Interior's major management challenges \5\ and the issue of
staffing has come up in recent work. For example, our audit of the
Chemawa Indian School found staffing shortages contributed to
mismanagement of its Student Enterprise account and its inventory.\6\
As a result, Chemawa was unable to account for hundreds of thousands of
dollars of students' personal funds. Also, in our March 2024 report on
deferred maintenance of BIE-funded schools, we noted that BIE officials
said that staffing has been a challenge in standing up its facility
management program.\7\ Finally, during an ongoing health and safety
inspection of a BIE school, we have found indications that staffing
shortages are preventing the effective resolution of health and safety
issues. We will be issuing the final report on this inspection to
Congress and the public in the coming months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Inspector General's Statement Summarizing the Major
Management and Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Report No. 2019-ER-052 (oversight.gov)
\6\ The Chemawa Indian School Did Not Account for Its Financial
Resources, and the Bureau of Indian Education Did Not Provide Financial
Oversight/Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior
(doioig.gov)
\7\ Final Evaluation Report--Indian Affairs Is Unable To
Effectively Manage Deferred Maintenance of School Facilities, Report
No. 2022-CR-036 (doioig.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While our body of work has not addressed the specific issue of the
impact that inadequate staffing has on BIE's ability to conduct proper
oversight, it does show that inadequate staffing is hampering BIE's
operations in several areas.
Questions Submitted by Representative Owens
Question 1. The OIG investigated HINU in 2018, and their findings
included that HINU officials did not consistently follow their
guidelines for handling complaints of misconduct, employees felt
bullied and intimidated by the HINU President, and that an instructor
sexually assaulted a student and was not reported to the authorities by
the university. So, when Dr. Graham and Coach Mayes submitted multiple
allegations against HINU, the OIG's response was to refer these matters
involving a BIE-operated school to the BIE to investigate itself.
1a) Why were these matters referred to the agency that is directly
condoning, ignoring, or not even aware of serious problems to
investigate itself?
Answer. The OIG has oversight responsibility for DOI's 11 bureaus
and offices, and we receive approximately 2,000 contacts annually to
our hotline. We must triage those contacts to determine how to maximize
the impact of the approximately 90 OIG employees dedicated to our
investigative mission. Like most investigative entities, we simply do
not have the capacity to investigate every complaint that is made
through our hotline and, consistent with the best practices of the
Inspector General community, we routinely refer administrative
complaints and allegations of non-criminal misconduct to the
responsible bureaus or offices. If we identify a pattern or trend of
complaints that taken in the aggregate indicate an investigable matter,
we may also decide to open an investigation. For example, we initiated
the OIG's 2018 investigation that I discussed during my testimony \8\
due to a pattern of complaints received by our office. Additionally, we
have a strong record across our broad portfolio of exploring sexual
misconduct issues, which we also discussed at a hearing in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Investigation of Misconduct Allegations at Haskell Indian
Nations University/Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the
Interior (doioig.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mayes' complaints were against HINU staff and administrators
and were non-criminal in nature. We therefore referred the allegations
to BIE, the bureau responsible for HINU. Mr. Mayes' reprisal complaint
was not actionable by our office because as a contractor, Mr. Mayes did
not have the protections codified in the Whistleblower Protection Act
or Section 828 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013.
Similarly, Dr. Graham alleged ethics violations and financial
mismanagement that was best addressed by Department-level leadership
rather than the OIG. We therefore referred the allegations to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Regarding Dr.
Graham's allegations of reprisal, we referred him to the Office of
Special Counsel, the independent federal investigative and
prosecutorial agency that safeguards the merit system by protecting
federal employees, like Dr. Graham, from prohibited personnel
practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.
Question 2. Your testimony states that, ``Between 2018 and the
present, we received 68 complaints related to issues at Haskell. We
opened 5 investigations, initiated 1 review, referred 32 of the
complaints to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and 1 complaint to
the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. Twenty-nine of these
complaints were electronically filed for information.''
2a) How many of the 68 complaints involved anything related to
sexual assault or rape? How many involved financial mismanagement?
Answer. Nine of the 68 complaints involved sexual assault or rape
and 19 involved financial mismanagement. We investigated or referred to
BIE for investigation all nine of the complaints involving sexual
assault, rape, or harassment.
2b) How many of the 32 complaints mentioned in your testimony that
you referred to the BIE involved anything related to sexual assault or
rape? How many involved financial mismanagement?
Answer. Two of the 32 complaints referred to BIE involved sexual
assault or rape and nine involved financial mismanagement.
2c) How many of the five investigations you opened involved
anything related to sexual assault or rape? How many involved financial
mismanagement? What is the status of these investigations?
Answer. Two of the investigations involved sexual assault or rape
and three involved financial mismanagement. All five of the
investigations are closed.
2d) Your testimony states that ``between 2018 and the present . . .
29 of these complaints were electronically filed for information.''
Explain what you mean by ``filed for information.''
Answer. ``Filed for Information'' means we took no specific action.
This could occur due to a number of factors--the complaint being a
duplicate submission, the issue having been previously reported, or a
lack of actionable or verifiable information. However, we retain these
complaints in our electronic case management system for potential trend
analysis or future risk assessment.
Question 3. When do you expect to be done with your review of
whether BIE-operated postsecondary institutions were appropriately
following laws and policies related to complaints of sexual harassment
and misconduct? Regarding the BIE and HINU, are you getting the
information you need from them in a timely manner?
Answer. The objective of our ongoing review is to determine whether
BIE-operated post-secondary schools' sexual misconduct policies
complied with Executive Order 13160, whether the schools' response to
complaints complied with their own policies, and whether employees
received adequate training. We recognize the Committee's strong
interest in this matter and therefore OIG staff will continue to
communicate with you regarding the status of our ongoing work. Once our
report is completed, we will issue it to BIE for review and response.
We will then consider BIE's response and finalize a public report that
we will transmit to Congress and post on our website. Throughout our
review, BIE and HINU officials consistently provided information to our
office in a timely manner.
Question 4. In your testimony, you state, ``During the course of
our investigation, we received an allegation that a Haskell instructor
sexually assaulted a student off campus. Because local law enforcement
had primary jurisdiction, we immediately referred the matter to the
Lawrence Police Department.''
4a) Did the Lawrence Police Department keep you updated on the
investigation? If so, provide the updates.
Answer. The Lawrence Police Department declined to investigate the
allegations citing a lack of actionable evidence.
Question 5. When a sexual assault case is severely mishandled,
explain the process of notifying the OIG?
Answer. On October 4, 2021, the Inspector General issued a memo to
the then Deputy Secretary and Chief of Staff stating in part that the
OIG ``reserves the right of first refusal to investigate complaints
that fall within its primary jurisdiction, namely, integrity matters
and those that pertain to potential fraud, waste, abuse, or
mismanagement (355 DM 2 at 2.4(B)). Integrity matters concern
'[a]llegations of serious matters which could compromise the
Department's mission, receive public attention, or threaten the
integrity of DOI programs' (355 DM 2 at 2.4(B)(1)). Investigation
matters that are uniquely within the OIG's jurisdiction include those
'that give the appearance of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement in
Departmental programs and operations' (355 DM 2 at 2.4(B)(2)),
including 'actual or suspected criminal activity or other wrongdoing by
Departmental employees, contractors, grantees, lessees, or any other
persons doing business with the [DOI]' (110 DM 4 at (4.6)(D); see also
[5 U.S.C. Sec. 407(a)]). Referral of any matters within the OIG's
primary jurisdiction `should be made within 48 hours of discovery' (355
DM 2 at 2.4(A)). If the OIG declines to initiate an investigation, it
will remand the matter to the appropriate bureau or office for
action.''
The Department Manual further requires that ``Assistant Secretaries
and heads of bureaus and offices are responsible for ensuring that
procedures exist within their organization for immediate reporting to
the Inspector General'' (355 DM 1 at 1.3(C)).
Allegations of sexual assault against Department employees and
contractors would be included in the definition of ``actual or
suspected criminal activity.'' In conducting investigations related
allegations of sexual assault, it is the OIG's practice to also review
the actions taken by Department management in response to those
allegations. As mentioned previously, the OIG does not have
jurisdiction to investigate student on student sexual assault
allegations that occur off-campus.
Finally, any individual may report allegations of misconduct within
the DOI to the OIG by contacting our Hotline via web (https://
www.doioig.gov/hotline), or by phone, fax, or mail (https://
www.doioig.gov/contact-us). Each bureau and office also have an
assigned liaison who coordinates routinely with our Investigative
Support Division and Intake Management Unit.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott.
I am now going to recognize Members for their 5 minutes. I
am going to go first to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Mr. Newland, in a sworn statement, a
Haskell faculty member described a complaint made by two female
interns from the University of Kansas against an employee for
engaging in inappropriate conduct. Haskell conducted a joint
investigation with the Kansas Law School. The level of
disciplinary action that was taken was ``maybe 5 days'
suspension, because he had already gotten a reprimand letter in
the past.''
Why would you continue to employ an individual who admitted
to sexually inappropriate behavior?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, thank you for that question. Can
you clarify for me what report you are referring to?
Mr. Owens. I do not have the details. You are not familiar
with this report?
Mr. Newland. I am not familiar with a University of Kansas
investigation.
Mr. Owens. OK, so you are not familiar with this particular
action then at all?
Mr. Newland. I am not.
Mr. Owens. An AIB report?
Mr. Newland. Our internal report?
Mr. Owens. AIB report.
Mr. Newland. Yes, the Administrative Investigation Board
report.
Mr. Owens. Yes.
Mr. Newland. We have a couple that are flowing out of I
believe all of these. Are you referring to the January 2023?
Mr. Owens. I am asking you, so you are saying that you are
not familiar at all with this report I am talking about, you
have not heard about it? We are talking about an employee of
Haskell. You have not heard about the disciplinary action taken
that maybe 5 days' suspension because he has gotten a reprimand
letter before? This is the first time you are hearing about
this?
Mr. Newland. I am sorry, I could not hear you.
Mr. Owens. Is this the first time you are hearing about
this?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I can tell you from our
Administrative Investigation Board and our report, our internal
investigations led to administrative----
Mr. Owens. I am just asking a real quick question. Are you
saying you have never heard about this particular incident that
now has been investigated between Haskell and the Kansas Law
School?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I am not aware of the Kansas
University Law School investigation.
Mr. Owens. It is a Haskell employee.
Mr. Newland. Correct. I understand. I hear you.
Mr. Owens. OK. And you have no idea what this is all about?
Mr. Newland. That is unfamiliar to me, anything involving
Kansas University.
Mr. Owens. I have a letter from the Haskell Cross Country
Team addressed to you. In the letter, the team speaks about the
concerns about Haskell's and the Bureau's, ``lack of
leadership, toxic, bullying nature, the nepotism involved with
ongoing issues that have been outright neglected.''
In their words, ``Our voices are not being heard, our well-
being ignored, and our fears pushed aside.''
Did you see or read this letter?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I saw a copy of that letter
attached to our internal report. I know that in that
investigation, it says that that complaint was referred to me.
In preparing for this hearing, Congressman----
Mr. Owens. OK, I do not want to take too much time. So, you
are aware of it. And my question is, did you respond to the
letter?
Mr. Newland. What I was getting to, Congressman, is that in
preparing for this report and going back through my records, I
did not find a copy of that letter.
What often happens, people will email me sometimes at an
email address that is wrong.
Mr. Owens. OK, thank you so much.
Mr. Elliott, do you have an agreement between the Office of
Inspector General and the Department of the Interior, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, and
Haskell about reporting sexual assaults to the Office of
Inspector General?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, we do not have a specific
agreement. We do essentially maintain a first right of refusal
on all allegations of significant sexual misconduct. We would
view allegations, especially involving instructors or employees
at Haskell University as meeting those standards for first
right of refusal.
Mr. Owens. OK. And your 2018 report findings included that
Haskell officials do not consistently follow their guidelines
for handling complaints of misconduct and employees felt
bullied and intimidated by the then-Haskell president. You also
learn that a Haskell instructor sexually assaulted a student at
the organization, that your organization, not Haskell, referred
to the Lawrence Police Department.
Fast forwarding, you have a letter received from Dr. Graham
and Coach Mayes.
Given the report, why did you not investigate these
allegations about the university with a history of not
following their own rules and possibly repeating the troubling
actions you found in your 2018 report?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, I think as evidenced in my
written testimony and in my oral testimony, we considered all
68 complaints on their merits and did open 5 separate
investigations into various matters, some involving allegations
of sexual misconduct, some allegations of mismanagement,
mishandling of contracts.
We are in a position where we oversee the 11 bureaus and
offices of a rather large department and have to be particular
about how we leverage our investigative resources. It is not
uncommon, as it was in this case, for us to refer what we
consider to be matters of management grievances or management
issues that are better handled by the bureaus, so that those
issues can be more directly addressed.
Mr. Owens. OK, thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by
noting that Director Dearman is here today, and I certainly
hope that that is an indication that the Bureau of Indian
Education is taking this issue seriously.
I appreciate the testimony, but I still remain troubled by
reports of institutional inaction at Haskell Indian Nations
University. Failing to take student grievances seriously is
unacceptable, as would be any effort to hide a final report
about grievances from students and the public.
It is my understanding that in November 2018, the
Department of the Interior's Inspector General's report found
that Haskell leadership did not handle sexual assault
allegations in accordance with the school's guidelines. It also
found that the school's mishandling of allegations that an
instructor had sexually assaulted a student likely resulted in
the revictimization of that student.
Five years later, in 2023, we saw another report from the
Bureau of Indian Education highlighting failures on the part of
school administrators to respond to similar allegations.
So, Mr. Newland, how did the school respond to the 2018
report? And has anyone in a position of authority informed
staff of the proper procedure for handling complaints? And the
second part of the question is, what is the Department of the
Interior doing today to make certain that the school is
following guidelines when there are reports of sexual assault
or sexual harassment?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. With respect to the
2018 IG report, I cannot speak to what actions my predecessors
took immediately in response. And I think as has been noted
already, Haskell has had several presidents since then.
I can speak to the 2023 report and the sexual assault
allegations there. I think it is important to note here that in
response to all of this, we undertook on our own an independent
review of our own policies and procedures to make sure that our
staff as well as the students on campus had a clear
understanding of the response. And it is very clear to me that
our staff could have done a better job at exhibiting more
compassion while also making sure they are respecting the due
process rights of people involved. These are struggles that
every university in this country is having. Haskell is no
different.
What I want to make sure that we are doing going forward is
taking that independent review and providing clarity to our
staff and clarity to our students. The independent report that
we commissioned laid out for us that some of our processes were
overly legalistic. So, if you were a student turning to Haskell
staff for help and support, it would be very difficult to
figure out what to expect from that process.
So, one of the things that we have set out to do is to
create a student code of conduct as well as a Title IX
compliant or consistent process at Haskell that people can
understand. And that is something that we are working to put in
place. I hope that answers your question.
Ms. Bonamici. Partially. Have the students and faculty been
informed of this, and what are you doing today to make sure
that the school is following the guidelines?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. One of the things
that we have done already last fall is engage local law
enforcement in Lawrence, Kansas, as well as local organizations
on facilitated training for our staff at Haskell to understand
how to respond and how to conduct our process. And that is
something that we are looking to do on an ongoing basis, and
that came out of these recommendations from this independent
report, to make sure that we are doing this every year.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And it is my understanding that
the BIE finalized its investigative report into Haskell in
January 2023, but the agency did not release that report to the
public. And it is also my understanding that the agency did not
release the report even after a Freedom of Information Act
request was filed. Apparently, the requester had to file a
lawsuit and still was not even given the correct report. And it
was not until a year later that BIE handed over a redacted copy
of the report.
So, Mr. Newland, why did the agency not turn over the
report when it was released, and how will the BIE be more
transparent moving forward?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. I, too, am
frustrated by how that was handled. I could give you all of the
bureaucratic language. The bottom line is that our team did not
handle that as well as we should. And I know we have sent an
offer to the Committee to make available copies of that report
with minimal redactions, only those necessary to protect the
identity of students named in that report.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that, Assistant Secretary
Newland. I think that would be helpful for the Committee to
have that information.
And I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. The Chairman for the Full Committee, Mr.
Westerman, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. And I also want
to thank Chairman Foxx for having this joint hearing today. And
to follow up on Ms. Bonamici's comments, Mr. Newland, on June
11, the Committee sent a letter requesting information on fee
to trust decisions as they relate to the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. That deadline for response was June 28. And we
have since sent a follow-up letter, which has also passed its
response date.
In addition, both this Committee and the Education and
Workforce Committee requested an unredacted copy of the BIE
report we are discussing today, and only late yesterday did we
get a response from the Department offering an in camera review
of the document, which I will note did not commit to being
fully unredacted.
With the oversight function of Congress, do you understand
that when you withhold data from us and withhold information
from us, it automatically creates an air of distrust when you
come to a hearing?
Mr. Newland. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect and
appreciation for the oversight role of your committee and
Congress. And I am working to get you information response to
the requests that you laid out about gaming.
With respect to----
Mr. Westerman. The message of not getting the information
we request is that you do not respect Congress and you do not
care whether we are upset that you do not give us the
information.
So, with all that behind us, when can we expect to get
fully responsive documents from you?
Mr. Newland. With respect to the BIE report, the January
2023 report, I anticipate we can make that in camera review
available rather quickly. I do not have a date----
Mr. Westerman. We did not ask for an in camera review. We
asked for the unredacted report.
Mr. Newland. Mr. Chairman, we are working to provide that
to you. And I want to make sure that I am being clear that one
of the reasons why we believe there will be some redactions
still necessary is to protect the students that we are here
talking about. There is information in there that the release
of that would potentially be embarrassing and harmful to their
interests and----
Mr. Westerman. When were you first made aware of the issues
related to Mr. Mayes' termination and the students at Haskell,
as outlined in the 2023 AIB report?
Mr. Newland. I think I was made aware of Coach Mayes'
termination around the time that his contract was terminated.
It may have been shortly after or the week that it happened.
Mr. Westerman. And please describe in detail what immediate
steps you took in that moment?
Mr. Newland. In that moment, when I was informed, I
typically, as Assistant Secretary, would defer to the Haskell
administration to make the determination about coaching of
Haskell sports.
Mr. Westerman. When did you first discuss this issue with
Secretary Haaland?
Mr. Newland. Discuss which issue, Congressman?
Mr. Westerman. The 2023 AIB report.
Mr. Newland. I cannot give you a date on when I would have
raised----
Mr. Westerman. Do you remember if you received any
directives from Secretary Haaland after discussing the report
with her?
Mr. Newland. Directives such as?
Mr. Westerman. Actions to take.
Mr. Newland. I do not anticipate, or I do not recall
receiving directives, because this would have been my
responsibility as Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Westerman. So, if it is your responsibility, what
actions have you taken to address the findings of misconduct in
the AIB report?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There have been
several actions taken. As I mentioned, we took disciplinary or
personnel actions against 10 members of our staff and
contractors flowing out of this. There have been subsequent
personnel actions that have flowed out of this. We made the
initial referral to the Office of Inspector General. We
commissioned the USPS to conduct an investigation, and we
commissioned our own independent review of our policies and
procedures. We did all of this on our own.
Mr. Westerman. Have you been satisfied with the response of
the Department to the report?
Mr. Newland. Mr. Chairman, none of this satisfies me. What
I would tell you is that I am optimistic about our ability to
make things better. And a lot of that comes from many of these
recommendations that have been provided to us.
Mr. Westerman. I have a lot more questions but not time to
ask them. Please, going forward, when we ask for information,
please provide it to us in a timely manner. And I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
witnesses for being here.
I have to say I am frankly appalled by the lack of
transparency and accountability that BIE schools are subjected
to.
Mr. Assistant Secretary, the 2023 Administrative
Investigative Board report detailing the failures of the BIE to
respond to alleged abuse indicates that students reported
serious grievances to BIE Director Tony Dearman and yourself
via email and letters. The board could not find any evidence
that any official recognized or responded to that outreach,
even to let them know their concerns would be investigated.
You are aware that the report did say that?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I am aware that the report said
that.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. My question to you is, why did your
office fail to respond to these very serious allegations? Not
even to let the senders know that their concerns would be
addressed?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I became aware, as I have
indicated, in late June, early July 2022 regarding some of
these. In preparation for this hearing----
Mr. Takano. My question is, why was there a failure to
respond, even to let them know that their concerns would be
addressed? They did not even receive that.
Mr. Newland. I am working to answer your question. I am
trying to answer your question, Congressman.
I became aware in late June, early July 2022. In
preparation for this hearing, I went back into my emails to see
if I could find a copy of the letter referenced in the AIB
report. I could not.
What often happens is people sometimes email me at my name,
first name, dot last name, at BIA. That is not my email
address. And I do not recall receiving those letters directly--
--
Mr. Takano. I will be interested to read more detail in the
BIE report. Because the BIE report apparently reflects that
emails and letters were sent to you. So, you are telling me
that those letters never got to you because they were sent to a
different address; is that right?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I think the internal report
reflects that the students believed that they sent the letter
to me.
Mr. Takano. So, the students were under a misimpression
that letters arrived to you?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, what I am trying to say is that
oftentimes, people send things to me at the wrong email
address.
Mr. Takano. All right. Well, we will have to ascertain a
little bit more about that. I want to figure that one out.
Why did it take multiple Freedom of Information Act
requests to produce the final 2023 BIE report detailing the
allegations at Haskell Indian Nations University?
Mr. Newland. That report should have been disclosed
earlier.
Mr. Takano. Thank you very much. The report came to a
number of very concerning conclusions, including that the
school's sexual assault policy and processes were not applied
consistently, and that the procedures regarding sexual assault
were insufficient.
What type of oversight does the Department of the Interior
provide to ensure that Haskell is protecting its students?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. As I have indicated,
what we are trying to do is to put in place clearer policies
and procedures for our students, our faculty, and staff.
I meet regularly with the BIE Director, on a weekly basis,
in fact, and I meet on a weekly basis with the Haskell
president, and we talk about all manner of issues that affect
the BIE, including Haskell. So, we are working to make sure we
have clear processes in place, training for our staff, support
for our students. And I work to create a culture within our
organization and expectations of excellence.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Assistant Secretary Newland, I have
a BIE-run school, Sherman Indian High School, in my district.
You can understand why I am very troubled by the Department of
the Interior's failure to follow through when a complaint is
made.
My staff and yours have been in contact about the abysmal
conditions of this school. And I thank Secretary Haaland and
her team for coming to visit the facility, and her commitment
to improving BIE school conditions is laudable.
Nonetheless, there are chronic issues that span
administrations, not just this administration but across
administrations. Teachers have described persistent flooding in
classrooms from old pipes. Staff and students alike report mold
in the classrooms and dormitories. My own staff has found
dangerous electrical wiring, buildings in severe disrepair, and
a host of other serious safety concerns, as well as significant
concerns involving the oversight of the school.
I had questions for the Inspector General, but my time is
running out and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from California.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Good, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Newland, the Bureau of Indian Education, or BIE,
under the Department of the Interior receives over a billion
dollars in annual funding from hardworking taxpayers and is
responsible for operating Haskell Indian Nations University. In
Fiscal Year 2024, BIE used nearly $20 million in Federal funds
to operate Haskell. Do you believe the Federal Government has
been effective at running the school where this has been a
satisfactory return on investment?
Mr. Newland. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
believe that historically, we have under-invested in Haskell.
Mr. Good. You think the taxpayers, after all we have heard
today on a bipartisan basis, questioning all the concerns here,
that this has been an effective use of taxpayer dollars, which
should actually warrant more spending?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, what I am trying to tell you is
that historically, and I acknowledge in my testimony,
historically, Haskell has had a lot of challenges. Some of the
things that we have been working on since coming into office--
--
Mr. Good. Let me pause you. So, you feel like this has been
a good return on the taxpayer investment of $20 million that
has been specifically directed to Haskell?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I would tell you that the people
who have graduated from Haskell are very proud----
Mr. Good. By what standard of measurement would you say it
has been an effective use of taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Newland. I do not know how else to answer your
question, other than to tell you that I believe we have a trust
obligation to do better.
Mr. Good. But you think the taxpayer should continue to
subsidize the failures that have been described today on a
bipartisan basis and that you have acknowledged in your
testimony?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I would reiterate that I believe
that we have a trust obligation to make these investments in
Indian education, and higher education. And to do that----
Mr. Good. Thank you for that statement. It is a trust
obligation.
You said in your initial testimony the No. 1 responsibility
is to provide a safe and secure learning environment for the
students and the staff. So, Haskell is operated by the Federal
Government and, as has already been noted today, has a pattern
of mismanagement, sexual assault allegations going back for
years. And it appeared that the BIE might finally provide
transparency with the investigation report that was published
in 2022.
But the students repeatedly asked for this report. And 2
years later, all they got was this heavily redacted version
with the mismatched dates. And it was only released under
compulsion from the FOIA requests. So, it appears that the
Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration, I should
say, is unable or unwilling to hold Haskell accountable.
In January of a year and a half ago, Haskell students sent
a letter to Secretary Haaland asking for the AIB report's
release and she never responded. Is she aware of this letter or
this request from the students?
Mr. Newland. I cannot speak to whether Secretary Haaland
read the students' letter. As I have explained a few times now,
Congressman, people often send us these to our emails and the
emails are often entered wrong----
Mr. Good. But what does that say about her if she does not
know about this letter from the students on such a serious
issue as is being discussed today for the purposes of this
hearing?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I will tell you from my firsthand
experience that Secretary Haaland's commitment to Haskell and
its students is probably greater than any of her predecessors
in her position.
Mr. Good. Well, who is taking responsibility for the
failures of transparency, and the justice for the victims that
have been talked about today? Who is taking responsibility for
that?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, in my role as Assistant
Secretary, I provide the leadership and oversight for the
Bureau of Indian Education.
Mr. Good. So, it is your responsibility, all these
failures?
Mr. Newland. It is my responsibility to set this
expectation and to create a culture at Haskell, and that is
exactly what I have sought to do.
Mr. Good. Is the Federal Government, and in this case your
department, fulfilling its responsibility to keep students safe
at Haskell?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I believe we should do better,
always, to keep people safe from sexual assault, abuse, and
bullying.
Mr. Good. What does it say about the school that there have
been six different presidents in 8 years? Why the continuous
change in leadership? Why such frequent change? Is that to
cover up the failures, to spare folks from responsibility? Why
would there be six different presidents in 8 years?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, prior to this President and this
Secretary, in my term as Assistant Secretary, the leadership
position at Haskell was a GS-15 position, which in the
executive branch pay scale is lower than other executive
leadership positions.
One of the first things I began working on----
Mr. Good. So, what is that pay scale?
Mr. Newland. The GS-15 pay scale? I do not know what the
exact salary is.
Mr. Good. You said it was lower.
Mr. Newland. It is lower.
Mr. Good. The people listening would like to know what that
is. What is that amount?
Mr. Newland. I can provide that to you. But we set out to
make it a senior executive service position because that is the
type of recognition and respect that is befitting a university
president.
Mr. Good. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlewoman Dr. Adams is recognized for her 5 minutes.
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Chair Gosar. And thank you, Mr.
Newland, for being here testifying before the Committee.
Mr. Newland, I was a college professor for 40 years, and I
know better than most that fostering a welcoming campus climate
is an essential responsibility for an institution of higher
learning, and it is a priority for its leadership.
We know that there have been many allegations of misconduct
at Haskell that could contribute to a lack of comfort and
safety on Haskell's campus. So, what steps have BIE and Haskell
leaders taken to create a safe and welcoming learning
environment for its students?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I appreciate
your experience. I know you have limited time. I want to share
I have also taught at colleges and law schools and served on
boards of two higher ed institutions, so I appreciate that.
Again, one of the challenges I have sought to address
immediately is to create stability in the leadership at
Haskell. And then in response to the independent report that we
commissioned ourselves, to make it clear to students on campus
what type of support they should expect to receive, and how
this process will work if there is an instance of sexual
assault.
We have also put in place a campus advocate coordinator.
Because Title IX does not directly apply to Haskell because of
the way it is crafted and Haskell's unique position, we had to
build a process that is similar to Title IX, and we put this
campus advocate coordinator in place shortly after we received
that initial independent report. So, these are some of the
steps that we are taking.
Dr. Adams. OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Newland, Dr. Ronald Graham, one of the former
presidents of Haskell, who also happens to be a witness on the
second panel, testified that he was told that student retention
and student population growth were major priorities for the
school to address. So, what are the major causes of these
issues? And has Interior dedicated resources to ensuring that
students have what they need to be successful?
Mr. Newland. I would like to address that in two parts, if
I can, Congresswoman. First of all, we have actually increased
enrollment at Haskell. The last academic year saw I believe it
was the highest enrollment at Haskell that we have had in 13
years. I can verify that after the hearing, if you like.
We also want to make sure that when students come to campus
that they have the support that they need. And, again,
providing stability in leadership and reducing some of the
infighting that has occurred over many, many years amongst some
of the cliques that I have identified at the Haskell staff is
really important to making sure that it is a stable learning
university community.
Dr. Adams. Can you point to one or two specifics that have
enabled you to increase this enrollment?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would point back
to some of those things that I mentioned. When you have eight
university presidents in 6 years, that does not signal to
people who want to come to your university that there are a lot
of good things going on. So, building in that stability of
leadership by creating a senior executive position for the
Haskell president and getting that position filled, getting the
campus advocate coordinator position created and filled. As
recently as the last month, we have created other oversight
positions within the Bureau of Indian Education to provide
support to Haskell and SIPI. This is all part of the
organization building that will ensure that we have stability
at Haskell, and to provide that consistent, high-quality campus
environment.
Dr. Adams. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, is
recognized for her 5 minutes.
Dr. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newland, you have implied that if you only had more
money and the position, and by the way, do not say thank you
for the question. We know that, OK? Do not waste my time.
You have implied that you need more money to hire people at
higher than a GS-15. Is it your position that people at a GS-15
level or lower have worse morals than people who get more
money? Is that your position, that you cannot get people with
good morality unless you pay them a lot of money?
Mr. Newland. No, Congresswoman, I am not saying that.
Dr. Foxx. Well, I am certainly glad to hear that.
You also mentioned you wanted to train people to understand
the process. I hate the word ``train,'' but that is not my
issue. You mean you have to bring people in to tell them the
difference between right and wrong? You cannot hire people to
start with who know whether to report rapes or not?
Mr. Newland. That is not what I said, Congresswoman.
Dr. Foxx. OK, well, that is what it sounded like you were
saying, is that you have to teach people to know the difference
between right and wrong.
Mr. Newland, we have sworn testimony from a contracted
adjunct instructor from July 22 stating, ``I would hope no one
is intimidated and afraid to report a rape. That seems a little
ridiculous.'' The inference here is that students are, in fact,
afraid or hesitant to report a rape on campus. What actions
have been taken to ensure that students are not actually
intimidated and afraid to report a rape?
Mr. Newland. Congresswoman, I have attempted to lay those
steps, those actions out in this hearing already. But I will
repeat myself. We have taken the independent review, which
included more than a dozen recommendations on how to improve
our policies and processes, to make it clear to our students
about how to seek support and what to expect in that process.
Dr. Foxx. You indicated that you think that letters that
were sent by the students never made it to you because they
were sent to the wrong email address, correct?
Mr. Newland. Congresswoman, that is in my view the most
likely explanation. I do not have a recollection of receiving
the letter that was in the AIB report.
Dr. Foxx. Would you object to allowing your email devices
to be searched to see if maybe they went into your spam or
somewhere else? Could those be searched? And without your
permission, we could use the addresses you think might have
been used to see if anywhere those emails are, but are you
absolutely certain that you did not get any of those emails?
Mr. Newland. Congresswoman, I would not come here and tell
you I am absolutely certain. I get hundreds of emails on many
days, and I do not have a recollection of that. In my
preparation for this hearing, I could not find any emails with
those names attached.
Dr. Foxx. Then you would not object to there being a
forensic search?
Mr. Newland. A forensic search?
Dr. Foxx. Yes.
Mr. Newland. Congresswoman, however we would respond to
that type of request for the Committee, my emails are often
subject to FOIA requests, my calendar is.
Dr. Foxx. OK, that is all I need to know.
Mr. Elliott, regarding the Haskell complaints referred to
you in 2022 and 2023, your testimony states that, ``Based on
the initial complaint and the additional information provided
in our interview, we determined the allegations would be best
addressed by the BIE. We referred the allegations to BIE on
July 6, 2022, and requested a response in 90 days. We received
the BIE response on January 25, 2024.''
What were the allegations?
Mr. Elliott. The allegations that we referred back were the
exact same allegations that came to the Bureau of Indian
Education from the group of Haskell students who submitted the
complaint through what is called Personnel Bulletin 1801. BIE
shared those allegations with us and, as I stated in my
testimony, we evaluated those thoroughly. We determined that
BIE was in the best position to investigate those allegations
and potentially take action. So, we referred the exact same
document back to them.
Again, as you heard me explain earlier, we want to make
sure that we exert that first right of refusal. And in this
case, we appreciated that they had provided those to us but
believed that BIE was in a better position to investigate----
Dr. Foxx. But it took BIE 572 days to respond to you.
So, Mr. Newland, would you please explain again, if you
have done it before, why it took the BIE 572 days to respond to
the OIG? And as my colleague from Arkansas said, it does not
indicate to us that you are appropriately concerned about what
is going on at HINU.
Mr. Newland. Congresswoman, with respect to the
finalization of that report, our investigative board was
working to make sure that their investigation was thorough. And
with respect to my sentiments regarding Haskell, again, I would
disagree with your characterization of my concern for Haskell.
I am proud of Haskell. It is one of the first things I asked
about when I started this job. I have been to campus, I have
met with their students, I have hosted interns on my staff, I
can go on. But Haskell is something----
Dr. Foxx. Just answer the question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. You are welcome.
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning, is
recognized for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newland, you have stated in your testimony that BIE and
Haskell are working to implement changes in response to many,
many allegations outlined in the 2023 AIB report. But you also
stated that the OIG investigated such allegations in 2018. And
I will add that the full timeline of similar allegations
against Haskell goes as far back as a Department of Education
investigation in 2007, as well as lawsuits and complaints
dating back to at least 2016. So, misconduct at Haskell is not
new.
Why did the BIE wait until 2023 to begin implementing
changes at Haskell?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. We did not wait
until 2023 to begin implementing changes. Again, I began my job
in February 2021. Within months of beginning my tenure, we were
working to elevate the president position at Haskell to an SES
position.
Ms. Manning. Let me ask you about that, because that has
come up several times. And you said that there have been eight
presidents in 6 years; is that correct?
Mr. Newland. That is what has been said here in the
Committee. I believe that is accurate.
Ms. Manning. OK. And you have mentioned several times that
the Haskell president is paid at the GS-15 salary level, which
I do not know by heart. But a quick Google search showed that
that is a maximum in 2024 of $191,900 a year. Is that about
accurate?
Mr. Newland. I do not have it in front of me, so I cannot
disagree with you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Manning. Well, I will note that that is more than we
make. However, is that on par with what the average college
president would make at a small college?
Mr. Newland. I cannot tell you that. But it is, if I may,
Congresswoman, it is----
Ms. Manning. But you have mentioned that over and over as
one of the reasons that there are problems, that the Haskell
president is paid at the GS-15 level.
Mr. Newland. I want to make sure I am clarifying and
speaking accurately. The salary is not the only piece of that,
Congresswoman. Having that SES position, being a member of the
executive service at the Department of the Interior carries
with it a designation of your role in the organization.
Ms. Manning. OK. But I assume what you are saying is one of
the problems that Haskell has had is they have had such heavy
turnover of presidents and they have not been able to attract
an appropriate president to clean up the mess that has been at
that school for year after year after year.
Mr. Newland. That has been one of the challenges, yes.
Ms. Manning. OK. You mentioned something else that I want
to go back to. And that was you gave us a list of how many
complaints that had been made, 138 complaints, but there have
only been five investigations. That sounds like a very low
number of investigations related to the number of complaints
made. Can you explain that?
Mr. Newland. I know in this instance, Congresswoman, a lot
of these complaints or allegations came in bunches. They were
one person filing a number or making a number of allegations
and counter allegations.
Ms. Manning. Can you tell me how many individuals filed
complaints, if you were to boil that down to how many
individuals filed complaints?
Mr. Newland. I can follow up with that number. I do not
have it in front of me.
Ms. Manning. OK. And you mentioned that one of the sexual
assault cases was by a student against another student, but it
was off campus. So, you turned that over to local law
enforcement; is that correct?
Mr. Newland. I am glad you asked that question,
Congresswoman. It is apparent to me that that was a source of
confusion amongst our staff.
Ms. Manning. But is that what happened? There was a sexual
assault by one student against another, it took place off
campus, so it was handed to local law enforcement? Can you just
say yes or no to that one?
Mr. Newland. There was a referral to local law enforcement,
yes.
Ms. Manning. OK. Well, did that assault victim have any
protection against running into the perpetrator while she was
on campus?
Mr. Newland. In that particular case, Congresswoman, I
believe there was an internal process on Haskell. There were
some other allegations that involved the same person.
Ms. Manning. The same perpetrator?
Mr. Newland. Correct.
Ms. Manning. So, to answer my question, did that assault
victim, was there any protection offered to her so that she
could continue her career at the school without having to run
into the perpetrator?
Mr. Newland. There were no-contact orders issued. And I
believe, Congresswoman, that the alleged perpetrator we are
talking about, as laid out in this report, was removed from
campus for other reasons.
Ms. Manning. All right, my time is about to expire. I yield
back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Newland, Dr. Graham was hired as
president by Dr. Dearman on February 20, 2020. And his first
day on campus service was May 11, 2020.
In December 2020, Director Dearman gave him an outstanding,
exceeds expectations evaluation. And he was terminated on May
7, 2021, allegedly 3\1/2\ days before his probation ended and
he became a merit system employee. There was no notice of
deficiencies or required improvements. He was given 1 hour to
clear his office and leave campus.
Why was Dr. Graham terminated from his position?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. I cannot speak much
about Dr. Graham's tenure as----
Mr. Collins. Do you not know the reason he was terminated?
Mr. Newland. I do not.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Were you informed that the three so-called failures cited
to justify his termination were actually each listed as
accomplishments in the BIE evaluation conducted shortly before
his termination?
Mr. Newland. I am not aware of that, Congressman.
Mr. Collins. Not aware of that either. You are not doing
too good here.
Were you informed that in the 90 days preceding the
termination of Dr. Graham that he reported an unaccounted for
donated funds exceeding a million dollars?
Mr. Newland. I have heard that allegation, Congressman.
Mr. Collins. What about there were in excess of 300 counts
of payroll fraud?
Mr. Newland. I am not familiar with those allegations.
Mr. Collins. What about a mismanaged $500,000 contract?
Mr. Newland. I believe that I have heard about that one.
Mr. Collins. I thought you were trying to change this
place.
Mr. Newland. As I indicated, Congressman----
Mr. Collins. You should know this stuff if you are trying
to change it. Because if you do not know what has happened,
then you do not know what to change.
What about an ethics violation by a member of the staff
that the BIE HR Director Shamblin informed Dr. Graham was a
termination offense?
Let me repeat that for you. An ethics violation by a member
of the staff that BIE HR Director Shamblin informed Dr. Graham
was a termination offense.
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I was not Assistant Secretary for
nearly all of Dr. Graham's tenure. I cannot speak to it.
Mr. Collins. I am not going to repeat myself again.
According to the AIB report, BIE investigators recommended
Mr. Mayes be reinstated. At the time, why was the explicit
recommendation to reinstate Mr. Mayes not followed through
with?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, my understanding is Coach Mayes
is back at Haskell.
Mr. Collins. Why did BIE and HINU fail to inform Mr. Mayes
of the recommendation for reinstatement?
Mr. Newland. I cannot speak to that, Congressman.
Mr. Collins. Why did BIE after Mr. Mayes wrote BIE Director
Dearman asking to be reinstated last July inform him last
August that he could not be reinstated because his contract had
expired, when the report recommended reinstatement 6 months
prior?
Mr. Newland. Again, I cannot speak to that, Congressman.
But I know, it is my understanding Coach Mayes is back at
Haskell.
Mr. Collins. Yes, but I think I laid out the groundwork to
all of that, too, and you do not have any answers for any of
that. I think that is what we are getting at. I think what I do
not understand, Assistant Secretary, is you lay blame on people
for not having the right email address. That is pretty poor.
Who is responsible for giving out their email address?
Mr. Newland. I am happy to provide anyone----
Mr. Collins. It is you. It is you.
Mr. Newland. Correct. And I am happy to provide it,
Congressman.
Mr. Collins. Well, apparently you are not doing too good
with your students.
How many students do you think have tried to email you and
did not get you?
Mr. Newland. I cannot speak to that.
Mr. Collins. No, you cannot. You really cannot, because you
do not know. It is almost like you do not know your job.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking
Member. And I want to thank in advance the witnesses that we
will be listening to in the next panel, especially given the
manner in which both being called, and it is going to be a bit
more hectic. I want to tell you that the fact that it is hectic
is not because we do not recognize how important it is to hear
your voices, but that is the manner in which the Floor schedule
interferes with so much important work.
Haskell and its students still feel the remnants of a
traumatic history and forced cultural assimilation. I have
staff who attended Haskell. And the problems that we are
talking about today, they were aware of. And they attended it
not yesterday, they attended it 4 years ago. The problems that
were set out in the report during the Trump administration were
not addressed.
The fact that the Trump administration and the prior
Secretary did not address those problems, however, does not
relieve this Administration from its obligations. I think that
is important. The Trump administration received these reports,
did not do anything about it, now we have more reports, and we
need to address it. It is simply not acceptable.
Victims should be listened to and not silenced. They should
not be disciplined for raising the issues that affect not only
their lives and their futures at the school, but everybody
else. The idea that this was well known among the student body
is problematic.
Assistant Secretary Newland, you mentioned keeping
leadership stability to foster trust and accountability for
staff and students, because we have had such a revolving door
over there. What resources are you providing to the current
administration to make sure there is leadership stability at
Haskell? Let us know what you are doing?
Mr. Newland. I am sorry, Congresswoman, I could not hear
the end of your question.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, let me get a little closer.
Usually, my voice resonates.
What resources are you providing to the current
administration to make sure there is leadership stability at
Haskell?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman. I have laid out some
of the structural things that we are trying to do at Haskell.
But I also believe that in my role as the appointed and Senate-
confirmed official overseeing the Indian Affairs Bureaus, it is
important to have that direct engagement with leadership in our
bureaus.
I meet weekly with Director Dearman, and that meeting
includes Dr. Arpan, the president of Haskell, where we discuss
all these issues. And as they come up, we can work on them in
real time.
In terms of other resources like funding, we have asked
Congress for increases in funding at Haskell to provide support
to our staff and, most importantly, our students on campus.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And did we provide that funding?
Mr. Newland. To some extent. Our appropriations request in
Fiscal Year 2024 was nearly $21 million and we were
appropriated flat that year.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Elliott, in your testimony, you
mentioned the Office of Inspector General's Special
Investigations and Reviews is reviewing whether the BIA-
operated post-secondary institution followed policies related
to sexual harassment and misconduct complaints. What is the
timeline for this to be public? And when it becomes public, how
does the DOI OIG enforce the corrective recommendations? And I
think you are going to toss it back over to him. But share with
us what you are doing.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congresswoman. If I speculated on
the timing, I would probably be lying. But what I can tell you
is that we are in the final stages of what we would consider to
be the fieldwork and moving towards report writing. Because it
is a review, the vast majority of our findings will be made
public. At this point, we do not know if or what
recommendations we might make to BIE. But if we do make
recommendations, we have a standard process by which we follow
up with the bureaus to assess whether or not they have complied
with those recommendations.
We provide that report in draft so the bureau can offer
some insight, concur or nonconcur with those recommendations,
and inform us on what their plan would be to implement those
recommendations if they concur.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And Assistant Secretary Newland, can
we get your commitment that you are going to take those
recommendations seriously and begin implementing them as fast
as possible?
Mr. Newland. Yes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing. And thank you all for being here today.
I am Congressman Mann. I represent the big 1st District of
Kansas. And while I do not serve on either of these committees,
Haskell Indian Nation University is in my district. These
concerns are serious. And it is important that we begin to get
answers today.
Haskell is the only tribal university in the world with an
entirely Indigenous population. It is a one-of-a-kind,
historic, and invaluable institution. And it should be a crown
jewel. However, and let me be clear, when it comes to Haskell,
the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian
Education has dropped the ball. Years of mismanagement, lack of
oversight, and cycles of misconduct have all compounded and led
us here today.
On June 14, I sent a letter to Interior Secretary Haaland
and you, Assistant Secretary Newland, raising issues I am
seeing, and requesting that you all commit to Haskell and
answering student and faculty concerns instead of sweeping them
under the rug. That letter has gone unanswered, although there
was a confirmed receipt of that letter.
So, my question for you, Mr. Assistant Secretary, do you
understand that we all are very concerned? That is why we are
here. Do you understand the level of concern that this
Committee has, I believe bipartisan? And what is going to
change moving forward after today?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I understand very
clearly that both of these committees are concerned about
Haskell and the students there.
Mr. Mann. And when are you going to answer my letter? We
sent it on June 14. We have gotten no response. It sounds like
that is a trend that we are hearing, these letters are being
sent, no response. When will you give me an answer to my June
14 letter?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, were there----
Mr. Mann. Can you get it by the end of next week?
Mr. Newland. I will work to get it to you ASAP.
Mr. Mann. I would greatly appreciate by the end of next
week you have a response to the letter I sent to you on June
14. It did get sent to the correct email address. Your office
confirmed that you received it.
How has this behavior gone on for so long without BIE
intervention?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, what behavior? I am sorry.
Mr. Mann. There just seems to be a culture of incidences
that are not being dealt with, multiple infractions. Why has
this gone on for so long?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. There have been a lot
of challenges on setting clear leadership expectations at
Haskell for many years. And as I laid out in my oral statement,
I believe because of the high turnover in Haskell presidents
and leadership over the years, that has allowed some of the
problem with these factions or these cliques on campus to
fester, which creates problems like has been outlined with
Coach Mayes' experience and the investigative report about
that.
I believe creating stable leadership with a very clear
vision is step one to getting our arms around that problem.
That is something that I have been focused on. I have been to
campus several times as Assistant Secretary, a number of times
before I took this job, and met with students, met with faculty
and staff, met with board members. Creating that stability, I
think, is the first step in quelling a lot of these factions
that have really created a lot, not all, but a lot of these
problems on campus. And that is something we are going to
continue to try to do.
Mr. Mann. I agree with you. Leadership is a big part of it.
Funding is part of it, leadership is part of it. I have been on
campus as well. I will just tell you, you are on campus for
just a few minutes, and you realize this institution is not all
that it could be or should be. And frankly, I am looking to you
to help right the ship and provide the leadership that has been
far too lacking at this institution for far too long.
I think our students that go there deserve better. I think
the country deserves better. And I think everyone on this
committee, I do not want to speak for everyone else, but it
appears to be after this hearing, everyone here understands and
agrees that we can and should be doing better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, is recognized
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Newland, you have been asked questions like you
are the chief executive officer. Who is the chief executive
officer of the college? Is it the president?
Mr. Newland. Correct. Dr. Arpan. He is sitting here.
Mr. Scott. Where is your office?
Mr. Newland. Where is my office? It is here in Washington,
DC.
Mr. Scott. Washington, DC? OK. Who does the president
report to?
Mr. Newland. The Director of the Bureau of Indian
Education.
Mr. Scott. Is there a board of regents or something?
Mr. Newland. The board of regents, because Haskell is a
federally run university, the board of regents is advisory.
Mr. Scott. So, the president reports to who?
Mr. Newland. The Director of the Bureau of Indian
Education.
Mr. Scott. And who does he report to?
Mr. Newland. Me.
Mr. Scott. OK, now after the third or fourth president
during this 6-year period, was any action taken to try to get
some stability?
Mr. Newland. Yes. Dr. Arpan has been both the interim, now
in the confirmed president of Haskell I believe since November
2022.
Mr. Scott. And you believe that he is going to be there for
a little while?
Mr. Newland. That is my hope.
Mr. Scott. You have had a lot of allegations of nepotism,
sex abuse, and whatnot. Regardless of the status of those
investigations, can you tell us what changes have been made?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. Going back to some of
these reports, there was disciplinary action taken against 10
employees and contractors flowing out of these allegations. And
I know some folks involved are no longer employed at Haskell.
And----
Mr. Scott. You fired some people. Have changes been made so
that we will not expect problems in the future?
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I am working really hard to make
sure that these types of factions, and these types of
allegations and activities do not happen at Haskell.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Elliott, have you seen, regardless of your
timetable, have you seen changes made at the college that would
lead us to believe that the problem is being addressed?
Mr. Elliott. That is essentially the purpose of our ongoing
review, is to take that opportunity to assess what changes have
been made, what changes are ongoing. And as I said earlier,
potentially offer some recommendations to the Bureau of Indian
Education.
Mr. Scott. Well, the fact that they know that you are
wandering around doing an investigation ought to get them to
tighten up a little bit, do you think? Have they made changes,
based on the fact that there is an ongoing investigation, so
that anything you find will be in the past, not in the future?
Mr. Elliott. It would be too early for me to speak
specifically to our findings, as it is still ongoing. But it is
not uncommon for changes to be made while the Office of
Inspector General has an ongoing investigation, evaluation, or
audit. There is real time back and forth.
Mr. Scott. Have you seen a difference in attitude?
Mr. Elliott. I cannot speak directly to that. Our
investigators in the field have had direct interactions with
Haskell staff, with BIE officials. And within our report, we
will speak to the substance of those interactions and
interviews.
Mr. Scott. Secretary Newland, all colleges got extra money
during the COVID period. What did the college do with the extra
COVID money?
Mr. Newland. I am sorry, Congressman, did you ask how did
Haskell use the rescue plan funding?
Mr. Scott. There were several bills. There was a lot of
money to colleges.
Mr. Newland. Congressman, I would have to give you a
follow-up answer in writing to lay out how those different
funding streams went. I am not trying to evasive; I just do not
want to mis-speak. I want to give you accurate information.
Mr. Scott. I appreciate that answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, the Ranking
Member, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
the Assistant Secretary and Inspector General for being here.
I also just want to address we are going to have to take a
recess because of votes. I want folks to understand we take
this very seriously, but unfortunately we are going to have to
take a little break.
But I do appreciate, Mr. Assistant Secretary, that you
addressed the community of Haskell in your remarks. And I want
to say this loud and proud for the Haskell community, we are
proud of you, we know that you are proud of your school. In
fact, Haskell has a long list of famous alumni, including
people like Jim Thorpe and our Congresswoman from Kansas No. 3.
So, we really are proud of this school.
But I think the comments that were made about it being a
crown jewel of the Federal system are really what we are
talking about. And how do we address systemic issues in the
management, and the way in which student issues are being
addressed?
I do want to take just a moment in that note to address
some of the comments that were made and clarify that the reason
why this is a Federal school is because of the history of the
Federal Government. And like all BIE schools, it stems from
this dark history of the Federal Government having a forced
assimilation program that was articulated through Indian
boarding schools.
But over the last several decades, the last half century,
these schools have been transformed into vibrant campuses and
community schools that are centers for Native education and
also leadership. So, I think that is important to recognize.
And the underinvestment is not just an issue of are we using
taxpayer dollars effectively, it is about actually making good
on treaty and trust responsibilities, because the U.S.
Government signed over 700 treaties with tribes, in which many
of them guaranteed the education, economic development, and
other resources would be provided to our Tribal Nations. So,
this is a Federal treaty and trust responsibility to our
tribes. And that is why the Federal Government funds these
schools. I wanted to really clarify that.
Now, Mr. Assistant Secretary, you have laid it out, I know
you have said it multiple times, but I want to break it down
into four categories of what we have heard here as problematic.
I think it is a little bit challenging to parse it out because
of the timelines, because of the history, so I really want to
break this down. And if you would please, even if it is
repeating things you have said, if you could kind of put it in
these four categories:
(1) We have identified there has been leadership, staffing,
and culture issues amongst the faculty. How have those been
addressed? Leadership, staffing, faculty?
(2) institutional controls. How are we dealing with the
issues that have been identified around waste, fraud, and
abuse, and the management of Federal resources?
(3) student supports. What has been done to address not
only sexual assault but also student complaints in general?
And I think obviously, from the conversation here today,
(4) what is the Department of the Interior, your hallway, and
BIE doing to ensure that there is effective communication to
the students, to the school, and to the public that you are
taking this issue seriously and you are addressing these
issues?
So, if you could please go in each of those categories, I
would really appreciate it.
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congresswoman, I will try to do it
in a minute and a half.
With leadership, as I have indicated, bringing stability to
that position on campus. Also within the BIE's leadership,
because turnover in the agency that operates it harms or does
not help. So, we have been trying to build that up. And I think
as we have seen, we have had a president now for nearly 2 full
years, which is progress at Haskell.
Institutional controls, again, as I have tried to indicate,
that starts with me and my direct communication with leadership
at the BIE and with Haskell. It also starts with, or it follows
from there, making sure that there are very clear objectives
and guidance for our faculty and staff and understanding what
their jobs are and what we expect of them.
With student support at No. 3, one of the first things we
did after we got the independent report back was to put in
place the campus advocate coordinator. That relates to sexual
assault and other things that might fall under Title IX.
But again, also student support, I will say, out of
frustration and out of candor, that includes making sure that
our leadership at Haskell has leadership control of the
university, and that these factions and cliques that have
formed on campus are not dragging students into their disputes,
which I think we have seen from some of these investigative
reports.
And I believe, Congresswoman, you said that you want to
know what we are doing or what I am doing. As I have said, I
have visited campus several times. I intend to visit again in
the fall to meet with student leadership, meet with faculty to
discuss some of these things, because it cannot be easy to be a
Haskell community member and be watching this right now, and
hearing this stuff. And I want to get onto campus and talk with
folks. But more importantly, to hear directly from them.
And I want to add that I have spent a lot of time at
Haskell, on campus, in the stands, walking the cemetery. I have
a young member of my family who starts in the fall. I have had
interns in my office from Haskell. This is a place I care
about. And it is hard to make that connection when I am in
Washington, DC, and you are watching in Lawrence, Kansas. But I
want to make sure that I am sending that signal through our own
staff but directly to students. And I am going to be back on
campus again this fall to do that.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I will just say
this, that as we welcome students back to campus, we do want to
assure them that it is a safe place, that it is a place where
they will have fantastic educational opportunities, where they
will thrive and be able to take their education forward, and
that we are taking these issues very seriously, all the way to
the top, to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, and as you
heard on both sides of the aisle here, in Congress. And also to
say, happy beginning of school.
And with that, I will yield back and go vote.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Secretary Newland, Dr. Graham describes in his testimony
how background checks for Haskell board of regents required by
Federal law, required by Federal law, had not been performed in
10 years or more, and in some cases even longer. When did you
first become aware of the last of the background checks that
had occurred at the board of regents at Haskell?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Chairman. I am not aware of
background investigations or the outcomes or the process for
any individual.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, now, have regular background checks been
instituted at Haskell since Dr. Graham raised these concerns?
And how often are they conducted?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Chairman. I cannot speak to Dr.
Graham's allegations or assertions. What I can tell you is that
my expectation is our requirements related to background checks
are followed and I am not aware of any issues with that.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Elliott, what is the process used to
determine whether or not a case is undertaken by the Office of
the Inspector General?
Mr. Elliott. We look at a number of different factors.
Preliminarily, we determine whether or not there is a very
specific nexus to a program, operation, office, bureau within
the Department of the Interior. Then we look at who the subject
is of that allegation. What is their level within the
Department or within their assigned bureau? We also look at the
substance of the allegation. If it is criminal in nature, we
are more likely to investigate because of the role that we play
having that kind of jurisdiction over Department of the
Interior employees.
If what we identify is predominantly what we would consider
to be a management grievance or an issue best managed by
management in place in that program or office, those are the
types of complaints that we would refer to a bureau. And that
is essentially what we did here.
As you have heard, a lot of the allegations were what we
would call finger pointing from different individuals within
Haskell that ultimately appeared to us to be as described
factions of staff not getting along with each other. The Office
of Inspector General is not in a position to step in and
essentially address those types of management issues, and that
is why we routinely refer those matters back to the Department.
Dr. Gosar. Where did you go to school, Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Elliott. Where did I go to school?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Elliott. My undergraduate is from a state college in
northern Vermont, and I went to graduate school at the
University of New Haven in Connecticut.
Dr. Gosar. Did you see any of this kind of stuff happening
in your time in school?
Mr. Elliott. To be honest, Chairman, I do not necessarily
know, given the number of years it has been since I was at
those universities, that it is necessarily relevant to the
discussion.
What I can say is we certainly recognized that, in
receiving 68 complaints in a relatively short period of time
about Haskell University, as a small component under the larger
umbrella of the entire Department of the Interior, that it was
critical that we hand that to those we thought were in the best
position to address it. And we also felt that it was important
for us to monitor how those allegations were being dealt with.
So, I think that is really the framework that we looked at
here, that certainly there were enough indicators that this
needed to be addressed and we needed to have oversight of how
it was being addressed.
Dr. Gosar. I am glad you could stay on it. Mr. Newland, I
am one of these people that it is about quality, not quantity.
So, real quickly, tell me what your vision for Haskell
University is. What is your ultimate vision for that school?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Chairman. My vision for Haskell is
as I think has been described by others on the Committee, is
that it is a crown jewel in the Federal Government's system.
Dr. Gosar. It is not right now.
Mr. Newland. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. So, leaders convey that conviction of what it is
they want to have. You can dance around this all you want, but
you have to go right at this monster.
If you think this is a crown jewel, make it your crown
jewel. It is frustrating to hear this over and over again,
because it seems like it is a broken record. We heard it from
2007, now it is back in 2024. It is going across party lines.
Something is wrong here. And I find it shameful.
But I think it starts with you. What is it that you see for
the school? What is your vision? And it has to be one sentence.
What is it? And then you make everybody conform to that. You
have to get these people engrained that they feel the same
passion that you do.
It is going to take some weeding out of some people. Yep.
Might not take a lot of money. But you have a difficult job
here. But you also have the best job here, because you can make
the changes.
What I heard today, I do not want to hear any more, ever
again. I want you to come back to this Committee and say, this
is what we instigated, boom, boom, boom. Here is how it went,
boom, boom, boom. And guess what? If you put those students
first, you are going to win.
I hope we never hear this again.
With that, I have to go run and vote. We are going to
adjourn for a couple of minutes here so we can get our second
panel involved.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. And
really give it some thought.
We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Dr. Gosar. Welcome back everyone, I will now introduce our
witnesses for our second panel, first we have Dr. Ronald
Graham, former President of Haskell Indian Nations University,
Lawrence, Kansas; Ms. Emily Martin, Chief Program Officer,
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC; and Mr. Clay
Mayes, Head Coach, Cross Country and Running, Haskell Indian
Nations University, Lawrence, Kansas.
Let me remind you our little lights are kind of different.
For the first few minutes, it is green. Then it will turn
yellow. And when you see red, you need to wrap it up. With
that, remember that your full testimony will be added to the
record, so if I must, I will try to cut it off. I am now going
to recognize Dr. Graham for his 5 minutes, thank you sir.
STATEMENT OF RONALD J. GRAHAM, FORMER PRESIDENT, HASKELL INDIAN
NATIONS UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
Mr. Graham. Folks, after listening to this testimony
earlier, I have changed my talking points a little bit, it
angered me. I was told what the problems were and I immediately
and unequivocally addressed those issues with action. I had
prepared a 5-year strategic plan that I had never done before,
outlining all the future plans of Haskell. I was rated with
exceeds expectations to outstanding 17 out of 20 points you
could get on an evaluation.
Let me tell you how the Department of the Interior
implements improvement. The first thing they did was reinstate
the very regents that I wouldn't let come on campus without
successful backgrounds. Two of those regents were felons, let
me rephrase it, are felons, and not just felons, violent
felons. One was for domestic violence for beating his wife,
another one had just been arrested here recently for attempted
murder and arson.
These are the regents that you want to put on campus for
the safety of our students? The other improvement they
implemented was the ethics violator that was mentioned earlier.
There was no investigation done on her, matter of fact, she's
serving today as the acting Vice President at Haskell.
These things need to stop. Something's terribly wrong at
the Bureau of Indian Education, and something is terribly wrong
at Haskell Indian Nations University and the Bureau of Indian
Education. I mean, it began long before I arrived, I uncovered
it, I reported it, and I was fired for it. It continues after I
left, and all indications are it still continuing to this day.
Humbly, I am here today at your invitation to talk about
BIE and Haskell, Chairman Foxx, Chairman Westerman, and all
members of both committees, thank you for the opportunity of
bringing me here to be able to tell my story. You are the first
people I have gotten to tell this story to, I have had all
these doors kicked in my face.
I am an enrolled member of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of
Oklahoma, 2019 BIE posted the position of President on USA
Jobs. I applied, February 21, 2020, and the same day I was
offered a position. Tony Dearman immediately gave me his
marching orders, put me to work. I started working on the
strategic plan, I worked on other things like retention. I am
putting all these things together before I even get to the
campus.
He also told me when I was sitting there my biggest
challenge at Haskell would be dealing with a runaway faculty,
let me rephrase that again, when I hit campus, I would be
dealing with a runaway faculty, and at that time I didn't know
what he meant. I didn't even slightly comprehend those words or
what was going on, I just knew there were problems that I had
to resolve when I got there.
Listen, I was one of those GS-15's that was put down here
today. My background has over two decades of education, I have
a law enforcement background, a counter terrorism background, a
military background, and I have served in combat zones at the
classified levels. That is what they hired.
The first thing I did was I created the 5-year strategic
plan, I did it with 40 faculty members, I had everyone working
for me and with me and different committees and we met weekly,
the second was establishing that chain of command, the third
was the chronic issue of student retention, and I developed a
plan and I increased that student retention and student
population with what I was doing with all of the projects I was
putting forward.
May 11 is when I actually arrived on campus and immediately
upon arriving, I learned I had some serious problems, COVID was
raging, I had the regents that I wanted to meet and I contacted
Shamblin to meet those regents because I know the importance of
trustees. I have worked with boards of trustees in other
universities, in other colleges, so I know the importance to
them, the guidance of a president and what they do for
accreditation, you must have them for accreditation.
I talked to Shamblin and I requested when were the
backgrounds done? And he blew me off, and basically, I pressed
the issue until I got the answers I needed, folks.
Dr. Gosar. We are going to have to wrap this up.
Mr. Graham. OK, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ronald J. Graham, Former President, Haskell
Indian Nations University (2020-2021)
I am Dr. Ronald Graham, a proud member of the Eastern Shawnee of
Oklahoma Tribe.
Members of the Committees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today regarding the ongoing fraud, waste, abuse, and criminal conduct
at Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU).
I come before you today with a deep sense of responsibility to shed
light on serious existing and continuing corruption and violations of
rights and accountability issues at HINU. These violations affect
students, workers, and the public, and they undermine the institution's
responsibility to the governmental agencies tasked with its oversight
and donors who have made significant financial contributions.
Before I proceed, I must express my profound concern about
potential retaliation for my testimony here today. I have already
experienced previous instances of retaliation, which have dramatically
affected my career as a college administrator, my personal life, the
safety of my administration, faculty, students and the public. I
respectfully request assurances from this Subcommittee that I will be
protected from any form of retaliation or adverse action because of my
testimony here today.
I understand that by testifying, I am performing my civic duty and
contributing to the essential oversight function of Congress. However,
I also recognize that my testimony may place me at personal and
professional risk. Therefore, I ask that this Subcommittee and Congress
use all available means to ensure my protection.
With these concerns noted, I am prepared to provide full and
truthful testimony about the issues at HINU, in the hope that my
disclosures will lead to necessary reforms and accountability to break
the cycle of corruption and retaliation that currently exists at HINU
and rebuild its public trust.''
Summary of Testimony--Background
My career includes military service, local law enforcement, and
education positions at multiple universities.
My tenure as the 8th President of Haskell began on February 21,
2020. I considered this appointment the pinnacle of my 20-plus years of
service as an educator, and, very personally, I was honored to follow
in my father's footsteps as he was an educator.
On the Job at Haskell
When I was hired, I was cautioned by BIE Director Tony Dearman and
BIE HR Director Jackie Shamblin that there were chronic problems facing
Haskell involving a ``runaway faculty'' and other institutional issues
that continued to plague this institution.
I came on board ready to face the challenges and make the
challenging decisions to enable Haskell to become an outstanding
institution of hiring learning for the American Indian community. From
the moment I stepped on campus on May 11, 2020, during the COVID 19
Pandemic, I worked hand-in-hand with BIE and the Haskell
Administration, faculty and Alumni to build a better Haskell. My
success in this regard was evidenced by my positive BIE Annual
Evaluation, December 2020, by Director Dearman who rated my performance
as ``Exceeding Expectations'' and above.
On January 1, 2021, to carry out the directives given to me by BIE
Director Dearman, I hired the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr.
Melanie Daniel who immediately implemented my policy directives and
communicated the same to administrators, faculty and staff through
regularly-schedule weekly meetings with faculty.
Disturbing Information Surfaces: Money--Irregularities Reported
From January to March 2021, I received information as to some of
the problem areas at Haskell, including gross mismanagement of
donations ($1+ Million unaccounted for); payroll fraud (some 350+
counts in a single year), abuse of authority and other irregularities.
Each of these problem areas were immediately disclosed upon
discovery to my immediate supervisor, BIE Director Dearman and his
surrogate, HR Director Shamblin.
Retaliation/Prohibited Personnel Practices
On April 1, 2021, the Haskell Faculty Senate voted ``no
confidence'' under highly questionable circumstances. Within days,
Dearman and Shamblin initiated a series of retaliatory actions. Both,
utilizing their respective positions and control over the assets and
personnel of the BIE assembled a biased and predetermined investigative
committee under BIE Chief Academic Officer, Tamarah Pfeiffer to ``. . .
examine allegations that, inter alia, Ronald Graham, Ed.D., President
of Haskell Indian Nations University (Haskell or HINU) engaged in
misconduct . . . '' The purpose of this investigative committee was
never disclosed to me and I was never given an opportunity to address
the specific allegations brought against me. This surreptitious report
was kept secret until the Agency disclosed it in a recent MSPB
proceeding.
This report was utilized by Tamarah Pfeiffer to terminate me 36
days later, on May 7, 2021, and Pfeiffer was named President of
Haskell.
At the end of the day, my tenure at Haskell revealed the major flaw
at Haskell--the systemic coverup of existing and on-going fraudulent
actions by those in power, which block and prevent Haskell from
carrying out its basic goal: Putting American Indian Students First and
me from carrying out my duties of transparency, accountability and
protection of Haskell Students, Employees, affiliated American Indian
communities and the general public.
Supporting Statement
As I come before you today, I have a case pending at the Merit
System Protection Board (MSPB) asking to be reinstated as President,
Haskell Indian Nations University. After I was terminated as President,
BIE posted the position on USAJOBS web site and I reapplied. I was
considered eligible, but was denied an interview. Due process failures
engulfed my termination.
Notwithstanding serial retaliation, absence of due process and a
long list of schemes, tricks and devices by numerous faculty members
and administrators, I was--and today am--committed to our young
American Indian students--our next generation of American Indian
leaders. I seek reinstatement to further the mission of making Haskell
a first-class educational institution and because our students deserve
a whole lot better.
Hired as President--Initial Marching Orders
On February 21, 2020, following the second of two interviews, BIE
Director, Tony Dearman offered the position of President of Haskell to
me, and on that same day, directed me to prepare a Five-Year Strategic
Plan for Haskell. He also told me that my biggest challenge would be to
deal with what he called a ``Runaway Faculty'' at Haskell and
specifically directed me to update personnel (Chain of Command) policy.
And finally, he identified student retention and student population
growth as a major priority.
On the Job--Addressing the Issues with Action
I approached my duties as President with the intent and commitment
to Put Haskell Indigenous Students First.
My vision for Haskell included improving our current degree
programs and, per Dearman's priority recommendation adding programs to
increase enrollment and add programs to meet the needs of our
stakeholders in Indian Country; to protect our students health, safety
and welfare while in our care on campus; updating and creating policies
and procedures to address system-wide fraud, waste, and criminal
conduct on campus; and to build Haskell into the leading educational
institution for Indigenous peoples here in the US.
On May 11, 2020, my first day on campus my position as President,
began as COVID exploded into a global crisis. By direction of the
Interior Department and BIE, Haskell closed its campus, and we were
operating in a ``crisis'' environment. Extraordinary challenges
existed. One example: the computer system at Haskell was so antiquated,
that faculty was unable to communicate with Haskell. Students were
unable to do the same. Distance learned was crippled. Emergency funding
was obtained to enable the University, its faculty and students to
communicate with one another.
BIE Evaluated My Performance Exceeds Expections
I progressed at Haskell for the first nine months without
significant issues. On December 08, 2020, BIE Director Dearman issued
my first Performance Evaluation in which I was graded, ``Exceeds
Expectations'' in four separate categories and awarded a cash bonus.
Significantly, in his Evaluation, Director Dearman expressly identified
and cited, 51 specific accomplishments. The highest grading was given
for my performance involving COVID. Inexplicably, several months later,
my termination declared my work on COVID to be a failure and
termination justification without explanation of the obvious
contradiction and/or absent any discussion.
DISTURBING NEW INFORMATION SURFACES
My relationship at Haskell with Director Dearman eroded shortly
after I reported various instances of fraud, waste and abuse during the
January to March 2021 period.
Beginning late December and January 2021, I learned:
That a $500,000 contract was being mismanaged.
From Haskell Alumni, I was informed that, as much as $1
million of donated funds was unaccounted for.
By an anonymous call, I was told that a member of the
Haskell staff was engaged in ethical misconduct.
From a senior member of the Haskell Administrative staff,
I learned that 14 instructors were submitting pay vouchers
for teaching a full load, Over the course of a year, that
amounted to more than 350 counts of alleged payroll fraud.
The Haskell payroll ledger, for instance revealed that in
one instance, an instructor was ``teaching'' four classes
as required, but the fourth had but a single student
enrolled.
In each instance, within 24 hours of learning of specific instances
of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and other criminal conduct, each
was reported to BIE Director Dearman and HR Director Shamblin as
required by law, policy and/or procedure. With their concurrence,
appropriate and necessary reviews, audits and/or investigations were
requested and, to the best of my knowledge, initiated. Later, I learned
that no affirmative actions were taken to address any of these issues
after my termination on May 7, 2021.
Specific Issues--Haskell Board of Regents
A robust and active Board of Regents, based on my experience, was
critical for any University President. As soon as I arrived at Haskell,
in May 2020, and only after pressing Shamblin for an explanation, he
revealed that the Regents only met twice a year and the Board had an
undisclosed problem--a major one.
Background checks for the Haskell Board of Regents, required by
Federal law, had not been performed in 10 years and, in some cases,
longer. Criminal background checks are required per 25 CFR 63 and BIE
personnel security regulations to ensure the safety and welfare of
persons on campus and at all BIE controlled schools.
I immediately banned all Board members from entering campus until
they successfully passed background checks. As a result, I was denied
the benefit of a Board's support, particularly acute during the COVID
shutdown. Shamblin did not agree but stopped short of prohibiting my
decision. Later in 2020, the new investigations revealed three Regents
who failed to pass, at least one of whom was a convicted felon. Four
passed the background checks, and two were still in progress upon my
wrongful termination. One who did not pass remained on the Board after
BIE terminated me.
The issues involving background checks were repeatedly raised with
Dearman and Shamblin numerous times. To protect Haskell's university
accreditation, I preemptively contacted the Higher Learning Commission
(HLC), Haskell's Accrediting agency, to ensure our accreditation would
be protected. I was accused of putting Haskell's accreditation at risk
by the Haskell Faculty Senate four months after Haskell hailed my
initiative with HLC was considered one of the 51 Accomplishments in my
Annual Evaluation.
Payroll Fraud
To prepare for the Fall 2021 semester, Haskell's Registrar provided
my office with projections for classes, instructors and students, a
normal and typical management action. In December 2020, at my request,
the Registrar prepared a report containing course loads for each
faculty member. The policy governing faculty course loads at Haskell
required every faculty member to teach at least four courses, or 12
credit hours each semester. The Registrar's report revealed 14 faculty
members who taught less than the required minimum but collected the
salary for teaching a full course load.
As Federal employees, we were paid bi-weekly. That amounted, during
my tenure, approximately 350+ violations or payroll fraud.
An existing process for faculty members to obtain ``Course
Release'' required approval from the Haskell Vice-President of
Academics which was, to the best of my knowledge, never requested by
any faculty member.
Director Dearman and HR Director Shamblin both were immediately
informed of these financial discrepancies based on falsified Haskell
payroll records. Shamblin requested the records and documentation be
provided to his office and advised that the over-payments had to be
reimbursed. Those records were assembled and immediately provided to
his office.
I reported the on-going violations to Director Dearman. As
indicated, for the one year I reviewed, the payroll malfeasance
amounted to more than 350 false document submissions. I requested that
Shamblin and Dearman authorize an investigation immediately. To the
best of my knowledge, that investigation had yet to commence by the
time of my wrongful termination.
Unaccounted for Financial Donations
During the first week of March 2021, I met with an alumnus and
former Board of Regents President who described how, before I arrived
at Haskell, four Tribal Nations donated over $1 million, possibly up to
$7 million, for the Haskell football program. I was told the former
President terminated Haskell's football program after donated funds
were received, but those funds, according to what I was told, remained
unaccounted for. The alumnus advised that the former President called
upon the Lawrence Police Department, which then executed a search
warrant at his home and confiscated those records.
Reported Unaccounted for Funds, Initiated Internal Investigation
I immediately reported the information to Dearman and Shamblin.
This matter became the subject of numerous discussions. I recommended
that BIE request assistance from the FBI. At Haskell, I directed
finance and grants staff to conduct a review. I began my internal
review but did not locate the funds or a paper trail regarding them
before my wrongful termination. Whether or not Dearman and Shamblin
actually initiated an investigation is not known to me. If an
investigation was ordered, all indications are that it was dropped
after my termination Shamblin did not investigate before I departed
from Haskell.
Retaliation for Prohibited Personnel Practices
At the time of my respective disclosures, I did not know my reports
of wrongdoing were met with silent, but defiant, opposition from BIE
administrators Shamblin and Dearman, who espoused their support for me
to my face and after certain faculty members became upset, than
knowingly and willfully took affirmative steps to undercut my position
as President due to my actions to report and correct illegal activity.
My professional dream began to turn into a nightmare
Death Threats
During this same January-to-March 2021, when wrong-doing was being
reported, I received two death threats, both my telephone. I reported
both to Director Dearman and HR Director Shamblin. Their response: they
did nothing.
Biased Investigation Ordered to Investigate Me for Reporting Wrong-
Doing
On or about April 1, 2021, BIE assembled an investigative committee
under BIE Chief Administrative Officer, Tamarah Pfeiffer to ``. . .
examine allegations that, inter alia, Ronald Graham, Ed.D., President
of Haskell Indian Nations University (Haskell or HINU) engaged in
misconduct . . .'' The purpose of this investigative committee was
never disclosed to me and I was never given an opportunity to address
the specific allegations brought against me. This surreptitious report
was kept secret until the Agency disclosed it in a recent MSPB
proceeding in July 2024.
Termination--One Hour's Notice, But Not By My Supervisor
On May 07, 2024, without notice, discussion, or any due process, I
received a hand-delivered fax copy of a termination letter signed, not
by Tony Dearman, the BIE Director and my direct supervisor, but by
Tamara Pfeiffer, BIE's Chief Academic Officer in Albuquerque, who is
not in my Chain of Command. Pfeiffer met me on one occasion, April 12,
2021, interviewed me but then excluded every single statement and
explanation. She then prepared a slanted report which I saw for the
first time only a few weeks before this hearing.
On May 7, 2021, without a single discussion and without any notice,
I was abruptly terminated and ordered off campus within the hour. Some
of my personal effects remain unreturned. I was smeared in the media
and subject to a vicious whisper campaign, I have suffered personally
and professionally.
Reported Misconduct--Reports to BIE Ignored, Unanswered Termination
Followed
BIE terminated my employment after I informed, alerted and
disclosed to the Director and HR Director serial violations of law,
regulations, and policies at Haskell. Despite the egregious nature of
the numerous issues at Haskell, my pleas for assistance went
unanswered. I lost my position as punishment for my assertiveness in
identifying and trying to correct the fraud, waste, abuse, and other
criminal conduct
Putting American Indian Students First
After my termination, Haskell readvertised the position. I applied.
In that application, I included a ``Supplemental Statement to Accompany
Application for President, Haskell Indian Nations University, Lawrence,
KS.'' That statement is attached to my testimony today. The concluding
paragraph reads:
``Notwithstanding retaliation, serial violation of my rights,
absence of due process, and a willful cover-up of financial
misconduct by numerous faculty members, I remain committed to
our American Indian Students--First, Foremost and Always. These
students--these young men and women deserve far better. My goal
was to rebuild am prepared to resume that effort, and, because
of the students, submit my application to serve as President.''
______
Dr. Gosar. Now, I would like to recognize Ms. Martin with
her 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EMILY MARTIN, CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER, NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Martin. Thank you Chairs, Ranking Members and members
of the Joint Subcommittees. I am Emily Martin, Chief Program
Officer of The National Women's Law Center, and I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today. The National Women's Law
Center was founded over 50 years ago, the same year that Title
IX was enacted. Since then, we have been committed to ending
sexual assault, sex harassment, and other forms of sex
discrimination in schools.
Study after study shows that students in college experience
extremely high rates of sexual assault. More than one in four
women are sexually assaulted in college, and Indigenous
students experience sexual assault at a higher rate than any
other racial demographic.
But students often tell us they are discouraged from
reporting sexual assault and harassment to their schools. When
they do report they tell us they are met with delays, that the
system is stacked against them, that the trauma they experience
both from their assault and from going through the reporting
and investigatory process stays with them.
Some are pushed out of school entirely by the ordeal, at
the federally operated educational program Haskell Indian
Nations University is legally required to protect its students
from sex discrimination including sexual assault. And Haskell's
leaders, like all school leaders, should commit to preventing
and remedying sexual assault, guided by Title IX's requirements
and safeguards.
And specifically the new, recently finalized Title IX
regulations promise to restore robust protections for student
survivors. They provide a solid foundation for schools crafting
strategies to end harassment and sexual violence. I don't have
time today to talk about all the steps that schools should take
but I want to highlight a few.
First, schools should focus on prevention, educating
students about what sex harassment is and how no one ever asks
for it, no matter what they wear, or what they drink, or how
they act. Schools should also teach bystander intervention to
disrupt harassment, to understand how prevalent sexual violence
is on campus and whether students feel supported when they
report harassment.
Schools should conduct campus climate surveys; these
surveys help schools better understand what their students are
experiencing and how their policies are working in practice.
Schools also must ensure that employees are trained in how
to appropriately respond to sexual assault, including
understanding what it is, what the school's policies are for
handling reports and the biases that they may need to unlearn
when responding. And when survivors report, they must be
treated seriously. Students deserve a prompt and effective
response, whether the assault took place on campus or off
campus, they must never be retraumatized by indifference or
worse, blamed by those from whom they seek help.
Instead schools should offer supportive measures that
preserve and restore survivors access to education as Title IX
requires. This could be as simple as letting a survivor change
a class to avoid their assailant or offering counseling, or
giving a survivor an opportunity to improve grades that have
fallen as a result of the assault. These supports should be
offered regardless of whether a survivor wants to have their
complaint formally investigated by schools or by the police.
Schools should also offer students the option to
participate in restorative practices which have roots in
Indigenous communities and traditions and center the victims
needs to repair the harm caused by the wrong doer.
If a survivor opts for a formal disciplinary school
investigation, instead, the process should be fair, prompt, and
equitable. Sexual violence complaints should never be held to a
higher standard than other student misconduct complaints.
The new Title IX regulations make clear schools must not
make it more difficult to discipline a student for raping
someone than for punching someone. And schools must provide
strong protection against retaliation. Student survivors were
often blamed or punished after coming forward. Only a small
minority of victims report sexual violence.
Retaliation against those who do ensures the other stays
silent. These protections are important for all survivors and
particularly for black, brown, and Indigenous women, who are
especially likely to experience suspicion, indifference, or
blame when they report.
And my last recommendation which underlies all the rest,
schools should listen to survivors and to the organizations
that serve survivors, especially organizations that serve the
communities their students come from. In the case of Haskell,
that means Indigenous serving survivor advocacy organizations.
It is time for schools to answer survivors courageous calls
for accountability and culture change, and I will note in
closing that law makers have an important role to play too. And
on that front, it is deeply disappointing the House Majority
recently voted to disapprove the new Title IX regulations that
strengthen survivor protections and support.
Survivors deserve much more, as do schools which need the
clarity provided by the regulations in order to take the
critical steps that I have named. Thank you for the opportunity
to be here today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily J. Martin, Chief Program Officer, National
Women's Law Center
I. Introduction
The National Women's Law Center (``NWLC'') is a nonprofit
organization that has worked since 1972 to combat sex discrimination
and expand opportunities for women and girls in every facet of their
lives, including education. NWLC is committed to eradicating all forms
of sex discrimination in school, specifically including discrimination
against pregnant and parenting students, LGBTQI+ students, and students
who are vulnerable to multiple forms of discrimination, such as Black
and brown girls and disabled girls. This work includes a deep
commitment to eradicating sex harassment, including sexual assault, as
a barrier to educational success. We equip students with the tools to
advocate for their own rights at school, assist policymakers in
strengthening protections against sex harassment and other forms of sex
discrimination, and litigate on behalf of students whose schools fail
to adequately address their reports of sex harassment. Founded the same
year Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was enacted, NWLC has
participated in all major Title IX cases before the Supreme Court as
counsel \1\ or amici.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005);
Davis v. Monroe Cnty Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As attorneys representing those who have been harmed by sexual
violence and other forms of sex harassment, we know that too often when
students seek help from their schools to address the harassment or
assault, they experience retaliation, including being pushed out of
school altogether. We also know how important it is for schools to take
action to prevent harassment and to intervene promptly and effectively
when students are sexually harassed, before it escalates in severity or
leaves students no longer feeling safe in school.
The sexual violence that students at Haskell Indian Nations
University (HINU) report having had to endure without meaningful
support or response from their school is precisely the kind of
discrimination NWLC has long been dedicated to fighting. When schools
fail to take steps to prevent and address sexual assault and other
forms of harassment, they deeply traumatize students, jeopardize their
education, put other students at risk of victimization, and fall short
of their legal and moral obligations to protect students from
discrimination.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the
Subcommittees to explain how schools should seek to prevent sexual
assault and other forms of sex harassment, should provide support to
students who experience such harassment, and should implement
procedures to promptly and effectively respond to harassment, so that
no student's education is derailed by it.
II. Campus Sexual Assault Is Common Yet Underreported, and Survivors
Are Often Ignored or Punished Instead of Being Helped.
Students in college experience high rates of sexual harassment and
sexual assault. More than one in four women, more than one in five
transgender and gender-nonconforming students, and one in 15 men are
sexually assaulted during their time in college.\2\ In addition, one in
seven women, one in 10 men, and more than one in five transgender and
gender-nonconforming students experience dating violence in college,
while one in 10 women, one in 33 men, and more than one in six
transgender and gender-nonconforming students are victims of
stalking.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David Cantor et al., Association of American Universities,
Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and
Misconduct ix (Oct. 15, 2019), https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/campus-
climate-and-safety/aau-campus-climate-survey-2019.
\3\ Id. at 52, 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American/Indigenous college students in particular
experience high rates of sexual harassment and assault. In a 2019
survey of students at 27 colleges and universities, 43% of Indigenous
women and men and 39% of transgender, non-binary, and gender
nonconforming Indigenous students reported experiencing sexual
harassment during college.\4\ Moreover, Indigenous students reported
experiencing sexual assault at a higher rate than any other racial
demographic surveyed.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at A7-83, A7-88.
\5\ Id. at A7-36 (14.7% of white students, 12.7% of Black students,
6.9% of Asian students, 18.7% of American Indian and Alaskan Native
students, 11.9% of Native Hawaiian students, and 14.5% of other or
multiracial students reported experiencing sexual assault).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite its prevalence, sexual assault is greatly underreported.\6\
Only 12% of college women who are sexually assaulted reported it to
their school.\7\ Students often do not report sexual assault to their
schools because they believe their abuse will not be taken seriously,
because they are embarrassed or ashamed, because they think the no one
would believe them, or because they fear retaliation, including
negative academic, social, and professional consequences.\8\ Common
stereotypes that blame victims for sexual assault because of how they
acted or dressed, or because they drank alcohol, only exacerbate
underreporting. Survivors may also be unwilling to report to law
enforcement because they believe the criminal legal process is unlikely
to lead to meaningful accountability or helpful solutions, or even
because they fear being retraumatized, abused, or otherwise victimized
by police officers when reporting.\9\ This fear may be especially
pronounced for Indigenous students, as Indigenous people are killed by
police at a higher rate than any other racial group--five times higher
than white people and three times higher than Black people.\10\
Perceived and actual non-responsiveness by law enforcement to violence
against Indigenous women may also lead to Indigenous women's reluctance
to report sexual assault to police.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 59.
\7\ Id. at A7-27, A7-30.
\8\ Id. at A7-27
\9\ Because survivors are so frequently disbelieved when reporting
sexual assault to law enforcement, many survivors have faced criminal
charges--including for filing a false report--when seeking help. See
Lisa Avalos, Prosecuting Rape Victims While Rapists Run Free: The
Consequences of Police Failure to Investigate Sex Crimes in Britain and
the United States, 23 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 1 (2016), available at
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=mjgl.
\10\ Ted McDermott, Native people killed by police 3-5 times more
than others, ICT (Apr. 26, 2024), https://ictnews.org/news/native-
people-killed-by-police-3-5-times-more-than-others (citing Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention data).
\11\ See, e.g., Peyton Cross, Governmental Inadequacies Concerning
Missing and Murdered Native American Women in the United States, 1
LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIV. L. REV. 10 (2022), available at https://
digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context
=lmulrev (explaining that, despite the epidemic of violence against
Native American women, law enforcement consistently fail to investigate
the hate rates of disappearances and murders of Native American women).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, those students who do report sexual assault to their
schools too often face hostility because of false and offensive
stereotypes about survivors. Schools often minimize or discount sexual
harassment reports because of the myth that survivors are to blame for
assault and other harassment they experience.\12\ The myth that it is
common for women and girls to make false accusations of sexual assault
\13\--when in fact men and boys are far more likely to be victims of
sexual assault than to be falsely accused of it \14\--can also lead
schools to assume that complainants are likely being less than truthful
and to dismiss their claims. Too often, when student report, they are
encouraged to leave school until their assailants have graduated,\15\
discouraged from filing formal disciplinary reports or telling others,
and denied essential accommodations like dorm changes to allow them to
live separately from their assailants.\16\ Survivors also sometimes
face severe retaliation when they report, such as suspension or
expulsion for speaking out about the abuse they faced or for fighting
back in self-defense.\17\ Schools also often fail to protect students
reporting sexual assault from retaliatory harassment by peers who are
loyal to the assailant. Furthermore, women of color (especially Black
and Indigenous women), LGBTQI+ students, and disabled students who
report sexual harassment are especially likely to be ignored, blamed,
or punished due to discriminatory stereotypes that label them as
``promiscuous,'' ``deviant,'' and/or less credible.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See e.g., Bethonie Butler, Survivors of sexual assault
confront victim blaming on Twitter, WASH. POST (Mar. 13, 2014), https:/
/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/03/13/survivors-
of-sexual-assault-confront-victim-blaming-on-twitter.
\13\ David Lisak et al., False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An
Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases, 16(12) VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
1318-1334 (2010), available at https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077801210387747.
\14\ E.g., Tyler Kingkade, Males Are More Likely To Suffer Sexual
Assault Than To Be Falsely Accused Of It, HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 8,
2014) [last updated Oct. 16, 2015], https://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2014/12/08/false-rape-accusations_n_6290380.html.
\15\ Dana Bolger, Where Rape Gets a Pass, N.Y. DAILY NEWS (July 6,
2014), http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/rape-pass-article-1.1854420.
\16\ Sage Carson & Sarah Nesbitt, Know Your IX, The Cost of
Reporting: Perpetrator Retaliation, Institutional Betrayal, and Student
Survivor Pushout 12, 15-16, 24 (2021), https://
www.advocatesforyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Know-Your-IX-2021-
Cost-of-Reporting.pdf [hereinafter KYIX Report].
\17\ Id. at 15-16.
\18\ Shiwali Patel, Elizabeth X. Tang, & Hunter F. Iannucci, A
Sweep as Broad as Its Promise: 50 Years Later, We Must Amend Title IX
to End Sex-Based Harassment in Schools, 83 LA. L. REV. 939, 961-64
(2023), https://bit.ly/3UZYpxk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When schools fail to respond promptly and effectively to sexual
assault, survivors' educations are often derailed. When student
survivors do not receive the appropriate support and responsiveness
from their schools, sexual assault and other forms of harassment cause
survivors to miss class, receive lower grades, withdraw from
extracurricular activities, abandon majors, drop to part-time
enrollment, drop to a two-year degree, pay extra tuition to retake
courses, graduate late, or leave school altogether.\19\ In fact, 34
percent of college student survivors of sexual assault withdraw from
school.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ KYIX Report, supra note 16, at 4-9, 11.
\20\ Cecilia Mengo & Beverly M. Black, Violence Victimization on a
College Campus: Impact on GPA and School Dropout, 18(2) J.C. STUDENT
RETENTION: RES., THEORY & PRAC. 234, 244 (2015), available at https://
doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. HINU Is Legally Required Protect Students from Sexual Harassment.
As a federally-operated educational program, HINU is legally
required to protect its students from sex discrimination, including sex
harassment.\21\ Executive Order 13160 requires federally-conducted
education programs to ``hold [themselves] to at least the same
principles of nondiscrimination in educational opportunities as [the
federal government] applies to the education programs and activities of
State and local governments, and to private institutions receiving
Federal financial assistance,'' under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX).\22\ Echoing Title IX, the Executive
Order states that ``[n]o individual, on the basis of . . . sex . . .
shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination in, a federally conducted education or
training program or activity.'' \23\ The Department of Justice's
guidance on how federally-operated educational programs should comply
with the Executive Order makes indisputable that it protects against
harassment on the basis of sex.\24\ In short, Executive Order 13160
requires institutions such as HINU to provide protections against
sexual assault and other forms of sex harassment that are at least as
robust as those required by Title IX.\25\ In addition, students at
federally-operated schools enjoy the right to be free from sex
harassment in their educational setting under the equal protection
guarantee of the Constitution.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ HINU is federally owned, funded, and operated. Parrish v.
MSPB, 485 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One federal court has held
that a Title IX lawsuit could not proceed against HINU because the
federal government has not waived sovereign immunity as to actions for
money damages under Title IX. Doe H. v. Haskell Indian Nations Univ.,
266 F.Supp.3d 1277, 1282 (D. Kan. 2017). The court did not address the
availability of injunctive relief against HINU pursuant to Title IX.
\22\ E.O. 13160, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race, Sex,
Color, National Origin, Disability, Religion, Age, Sexual Orientation,
and Status as a Parent in Federally-conducted Education and Training
Programs, 65 Fed. Reg. 39,775 (Sec. 1-101) (June 23, 2000) (emphasis
added).
\23\ Id. at Sec. 1-101, 1-102. Notably, the Executive Order's
language is almost identical to Title IX, which says ``[n]o person in
the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.'' 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681. This similarity in
language further underscores the similarity between the obligations of
a federally-operated educational program and recipient of federal
funding under Title IX.
\24\ Executive Order 13160 Guidance Document: Ensuring Equal
Opportunity in Federally-conducted Education and Training Programs, 66
Fed. Reg. 5398, 5398 (Jan. 18, 2001).
\25\ Id.
\26\ See, e.g., Strickland v. United States, 32 F.4th 311, 356-59
(4th Cir. 2022) (holding federal entities violate the Fifth Amendment's
equal protection guarantee when they are deliberately indifferent to
complaints of sexual harassment and when they retaliate against
complainants for discriminatory reasons); Fitzgerald v Barnstable
School Committee, 555 U.S. 246, 257-58 (2009) (holding the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a
student experiences sex harassment as a result of municipal custom,
policy or practice); Murrell v. School District No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238,
1250 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding principal and teachers violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they are
deliberately indifferent to sex harassment of a student by another
student).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. To Comply with Federal Law and Enable Their Students to Succeed and
Thrive, Schools Should Commit Themselves to Preventing and
Effectively Responding to Sexual Assault and Other Sex
Harassment.
Taking sex harassment seriously is a necessary part of ensuring
that students can learn and thrive. It is also a legal obligation for
both federally-operated and federally-funded educational institutions.
The Biden administration's recent changes to the Department of
Education's Title IX regulations provide a clear framework and robust
foundation for schools in regard to prevention efforts, grievance
procedures, and support given to students in the wake of
victimization.\27\ Specifically, the Biden regulations strengthen
protections for student survivors by facilitating their ability to
report and get help for sex harassment and assault from their schools,
by requiring equitable and fair school grievance procedures to address
sex harassment, and by requiring schools to respond promptly and
effectively to sexual assault and other forms of sex harassment. The
requirements set out in those regulations inform the recommendations
below. (While some courts have temporarily blocked the federal
government from enforcing the new rule against schools in certain
states, nothing prevents schools in any state or district from
voluntarily complying with the rule.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474
(finalized Apr. 29, 2024, effective Aug. 1, 2024) (to be codified at 34
C.F.R. pt. 106), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/
2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-
or-activities-receiving-federal [hereinafter ``Biden Rule''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing their policies and procedures to address sexual
assault and harassment, schools should consult with student survivors
and advocacy organizations that provide direct services to, or
otherwise support, survivors of sexual violence. This engagement should
specifically include organizations that serve the same communities that
students are part of, including organizations that serve Black, brown,
and Indigenous survivors, LGBTQI+ survivors, women and girls, and
disabled survivors.
A. Schools should adopt strategies to prevent sex harassment.
A comprehensive program to address sex harassment must include
strategies to prevent harassment from occurring in the first place. To
that end, schools should train students and staff on sex harassment;
conduct regular climate surveys; prioritize the creation of a safe and
inclusive learning community; and adopt policies to protect
transgender, nonbinary, and intersex students.
1. Train students and staff on sex harassment.
Schools should provide training to all students and staff on how to
recognize, report, and respond to sex harassment, and about consent and
healthy relationships. This recommendation is consistent with the Biden
administration's Title IX regulations, which require all school staff
to be trained on recognizing and reporting sex discrimination.\28\ It
is also consistent with research showing that offering comprehensive
sex education that emphasizes consent and healthy relationship dynamics
for students from an early age creates a lower risk of sexual or dating
violence, because it better equips students to identify unsafe sexual
behavior and unhealthy relationship dynamics.\29\ Trainings should also
ensure employees understand how trauma may impact survivors' responses
to assault differently and that there is no single way in which
survivors act and present. Trainings should also uncover and address
any biases employees may have when receiving reports so that they do
not respond to survivors in harmful ways. In addition, trainings should
include bystander intervention strategies that give both students and
staff the tools and confidence to recognize and interrupt harassing
behavior by peers and colleagues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.8(d) (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\29\ John S. Santelli et al., Does sex education before college
protect students from sexual assault in college? (2018), https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235267/; Medeline Schneider &
Jennifer S. Hirsh, Comprehensive sexuality education as a primary
prevention strategy for sexual violence perpetration, 21 Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse 439 (2018), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC6283686/; Rebekah Rollston, Comprehensive Sex Education as
Violence Prevention, Harvard Medical Center for Primary Care (May 29,
2020), https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/perspectives/articles/
sexual-education-violence-prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Conduct regular climate surveys.
Schools should conduct a campus climate survey every one to two
years to assess students' experiences with and perspectives on sex
harassment.\30\ Climate surveys help schools get a better sense of the
ways in which harassment is affecting students and the barriers
students face in seeking help, enabling schools to craft more effective
and targeted prevention and response strategies. These anonymous
surveys should include questions on students' attitudes about and
perceptions of harassment at school, whether students have experienced
sex harassment (including sexual assault, dating violence, and
stalking), whether the student reported the harassment (and if not, why
not), the impact of the harassment on students' access to education,
their perceptions of the effectiveness of the school's responses to
harassment, and their awareness of the school's harassment policies and
procedures. The surveys should include voluntary demographic questions
for students, including race, ethnicity, gender, transgender status,
intersex status, sexual orientation, disability, and religion, to
enable schools to better understand the ways that student experience
may vary across communities and to take this into account in their
prevention and response strategies as well. Schools should make the
survey data available online in an accessible and usable format for all
students and staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022
requires the Department of Education to develop such a climate survey
for institutions of higher education to collect data on the prevalence
of sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating
violence, and stalking. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 11611-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Make clear that creating safe and inclusive learning environments is
a core priority.
Schools can make their campuses safer for all students by making
clear at every level of leadership that creating a safe and inclusive
learning environment is a core value for the institution. By setting
high expectations for student and staff behavior toward each other,
modeling that behavior, and committing to policies and practices that
reflect respect and care for students, schools can foster a culture
that lessens the likelihood of harassment.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of leadership at educational
institutions to make systemwide changes to ensure schools are safe and
inclusive spaces for all students. Leadership should be explicit about
its intention to prevent sexual harassment and support survivors, and
be transparent about the steps it will take to change the climate,
including any revised policies and procedures for handling reports of
sexual harassment. Everyone within the institution should know that
maintaining an equitable environment is a priority of the leadership,
as that is also the foundation for engendering trust from the school
community.
4. Protect transgender, nonbinary, and intersex students.
Prevention requires mitigating the risk of harassment and assault
for students who are at an increased risk of victimization, including
transgender, nonbinary, and intersex students. As survivor advocates
have noted \31\ and research affirms, transgender, nonbinary, and
intersex individuals, including students, experience higher rates of
sexual abuse when they face discriminatory policies that single them
out for mistreatment, such as bans on the bathrooms or locker rooms
they can use, the student housing they can reside in, or the sports
teams they can play on.\32\ To promote a safe educational environment
free from sex harassment and sexual assault for all students, schools
should maintain policies that ensure transgender, nonbinary, and
intersex students can access sex-separated facilities and activities--
including bathrooms, housing, locker rooms, and sports--consistent with
their affirmed gender.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Against Women, National Consensus Statement of Anti-Sexual Assault and
Domestic Violence Organizations in Support of Full and Equal Access for
the Transgender Community (Apr. 21, 2016), https://
endsexualviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/STATEMENT-OF-ANTI-
SEXUAL-ASSAULT-AND-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-ORGANIZATIONS-IN-SUPPORT-OF-EQUAL-
ACCESS-FOR-THE-TRANSGENDER-COMMUNITY.pdf.
\32\ Movement Advancement Project, Separation and Stigma:
Transgender Youth and School Facilities 2 (2017), https://
www.lgbtmap.org/file/transgender-youth-school.pdf (``Singling out
transgender students and telling them they must use separate restrooms
is humiliating and discriminatory, adding to the bullying and
mistreatment so many transgender youth already face.''); GLSEN, The
2021 National School Climate Survey: The Experience of LGBTQ+ Youth in
Our Nation's Schools, 41 (2022), https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/
files/2022-10/NSCS-2021-Full-Report.pdf#page=64 [hereinafter ``GLSEN
2021 Report'']; Diane Ehrensaft & Stephen M. Rosenthal, Sexual Assault
Risk and School Facility Restrictions in Gender Minority Youth, 143
PEDIATRICS e20190554 (2019), https://bit.ly/48CIfwU.
\33\ Research shows that when LGBTQI+ youth are supported by
inclusive policies, such as those that permit them to access bathrooms,
locker rooms, and sports teams that match their affirmed gender, they
are less likely to experience victimization and more likely to report
feeling safer at school. See GLSEN 2021 Report, supra note 32, at 73,
74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Schools should respond to sex harassment with prompt and effective
action.
Schools should respond to sex harassment, including sexual assault,
by taking ``prompt and effective'' action to end the harassment,
prevent it from recurring, and remedy its effects on all those harmed--
as the Department of Education required in its Title IX implementing
regulations from 1997 to 2020 \34\ and as the Biden Title IX rule
reinstates.\35\ To abide by this standard, schools should remove
barriers to reporting harassment, offer a wide range of supportive
measures to all reporting students, protect students from retaliation,
and offer students the option of using a restorative process to address
harassment and sexual assault. This includes responding to conduct that
occurs off campus. One study found that 33.7 percent of rapes of
college students occurred on campus, while 66 percent occurred off
campus,\36\ but the educational impact of off-campus assaults is no
less significant for the survivor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Questions and
Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence 1 (issued Apr. 29, 2014;
rescinded Sept. 22, 2017), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf; U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office for Civil
Rights, Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence, 16 (issued Apr. 29,
2011; rescinded Sept. 22, 2017), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf; U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office for
Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of
Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, 10-12,
14 (issued Jan. 19, 2001; rescinded Aug. 26, 2020), https://
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf; U.S. Dep't of
Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment
of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, 62
Fed. Reg. 12034, 12039, 12040, 12041, 12042 (issued Mar. 13, 1997;
rescinded Jan. 19, 2001), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-
03-13/pdf/97-6373.pdf. See also U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office for Civil
Rights, Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying 2 (issued Oct.
26, 2010), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/
colleague-201010.pdf (regarding sex, race, and disability harassment).
\35\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.44(f)(1) (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\36\ Bonnie Fisher et al., The Sexual Victimization of College
Women, U.S. Dep't of Justice 18-20 (2000), http://www.ojp.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor should schools' response to sexual assault turn on whether a
survivor reports the assault to the police. A student may choose not to
seek arrest or criminal prosecution of their assailant for a variety of
good reasons, and is entitled to a prompt and effective response from
the educational institution regardless of whether they do so. When a
student does report a sexual assault to the police and a concurrent law
enforcement investigation is initiated, schools must still conduct
their own separate informal resolutions or formal investigations of sex
harassment complaints based on the survivor's choice of process. Law
enforcement investigations are separate from the civil rights
obligations imposed on schools to prevent and remedy sex
discrimination. While law enforcement investigations are focused on
punishment of criminal behavior, schools' civil rights obligations are
centered on protecting students' equal access to education. When
schools fail to undertake their own responsibilities to protect
students' civil rights and instead defer to and depend on criminal
processes to address sexual assault, student survivors are unable to
get the support and prompt resolution they need--and deserve--from
their schools.
1. Remove barriers to reporting harassment.
Schools should enable their students to easily report harassment.
To do so, they must identify barriers to reporting and address those
barriers, as the Biden rule requires schools to do.\37\ For example,
schools can conduct climate surveys (see IV.A.2) or focus groups on the
prevalence of harassment and the barriers students face in reporting
it.\38\ The types of barriers students experience should inform the
solutions schools implement. To ease reporting, a school might, for
example, conduct trainings for a specific department where many
harassment complaints have arisen, more prominently display information
about how to contact its Title IX coordinator, or, if it finds that
fear of discipline deters many survivors from reporting, adopt amnesty
policies for survivors for assault-related violations of drug, alcohol,
or other school policies (see IV.B.3).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.44(b) (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\38\ Biden Rule, at 33564-65, 33847.
\39\ Id. at 33565, 33827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reporting mechanisms that trigger formal
investigations, schools should offer confidential mechanisms for
disclosure that protect survivor autonomy and privacy. Preserving a
survivor's choice and sense of control in the wake of sexual assault is
critical in allowing them to heal, and research suggests that schools
undertaking assault investigations and disciplinary actions against
survivors' wishes can lead to educational disengagement, including
withdrawal from extracurricular activities, campus life, and academic
and honor societies.\40\ Thus, schools should designate one or more
confidential employees, such as a counselor or advisor, with whom
survivors can privately discuss their victimization, without fear that
conversation might trigger a formal response. The identities of such
employees should be widely known so that students are aware whether the
person to whom they are making a disclosure is required to initiate a
formal process or is a confidential resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Weiner Article, at 76; Carly P. Smith, Marina N. Rosenthal, &
Jennifer J. Freyd, The UO Sexual Violence and Institutional Betrayal
Campus Survey 34-36 (Oct. 24, 2014), https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/
campus/SmithRosenthalFreydGSU22-24October2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Offer a wide range of supportive measures.
Schools should provide students who report sexual assault and
harassment (``complainants'') with a wide range of supportive measures
that help them feel safe and learn,\41\ as required by both the new
Biden Title IX rule and the previous Title IX rule; these supportive
measures must be offered whether or not a complainant wishes to pursue
a formal investigation,\42\ and, if they do pursue an investigation,
regardless of whether their complaint is dismissed.\43\ For example, if
a complainant feels unsafe on campus, schools can and should issue a
no-contact order against the named harasser and make reasonable
schedule changes so that the parties do not share classes, hallway
routes, dining halls, buses, dorms, or campus workplaces.\44\ If a
complainant has difficulty studying or attending class as a result of
the harassment, schools can and should offer free counseling, excused
absences, online or recorded classes, free tutoring, or extra time to
submit an assignment or take an exam.\45\ And if the harassment has
hurt a complainant's grades, attendance, or enrollment status, schools
can adjust the complainant's transcript; reimburse tuition for an
unfinished class; or preserve the complainant's eligibility for any
activity, leadership position, campus job, or scholarship that has a
grade, attendance, or credit requirement.\46\ These are simple measures
that schools can take to restore and preserve student survivors' access
to education, and most of them do not affect the harasser's educational
experience, but could make a difference as to whether or not a student
survivor can stay in school at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Nat'l Women's L. Ctr. & Know Your IX, FAQs on Title IX and
Supportive Measures for Students in K-12 and Higher Education (2021),
https://bit.ly/49wWGnK [hereinafter Supportive Measures FAQ].
\42\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.44(a) (eff. Aug. 14, 2020); see also 34
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 106.2 (defining ``supportive measures''), 106.44(g)
(eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\43\ Id. at Sec. 106.45(d)(4)(i).
\44\ Supportive Measures FAQ, supra note 41, at 5-6.
\45\ Id. at 6-7.
\46\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Protect complainants from retaliation.
Schools should protect student survivors from retaliation,
including retaliatory discipline. At NWLC, we have represented student
survivors who, horrifyingly, were suspended or expelled when they came
forward, because they were disbelieved--underscoring the need for
effective training and responses to survivors, but also for stronger
anti-retaliation policies. Title IX regulations prohibit schools from
retaliating against students who report sexual harassment and
assault.\47\ In order to provide robust protection from retaliation,
schools should adopt a policy that prohibits school officials from
disciplining a complainant for making a false statement based solely on
a school finding in favor of a respondent in a harassment
investigation.\48\ In addition, schools should not discipline
complainants for conduct related to an incident of harassment or
assault, such as alcohol or drug use or violence undertaken in self-
defense. Nor should complainants be disciplined for conduct that is a
result of the emotional, psychological, and physical impacts of
harassment or assault (e.g., unexcused absences, expression of trauma
symptoms). Furthermore, schools should protect complainants from
meritless, retaliatory charges, such as a complaint filed by a
respondent who has been found responsible and disciplined for sexual
assault or dating violence alleging that the complainant was the actual
assailant or abuser. Schools should not require a complainant to leave
the school after reporting harassment. Nor should schools require a
student to enter into a confidentiality agreement in order to assert
their right to be free from harassment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.71 (eff. Aug. 14, 2020); see also 34 C.F.R.
Sec. Sec. 106.2 (defining ``retaliation''), 106.71 (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\48\ Id. at Sec. 106.45(h)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Offer the option of a restorative process.
Schools should offer complainants and respondents the option of
entering a restorative process--a voluntary, nonpunitive process with
roots in First Nations, Maori, and other Indigenous traditions.\49\ A
restorative process brings together a victim and harmer to acknowledge
the harm that occurred, center the victim's needs, and repair the harm
caused by the wrongdoer.\50\ To begin a restorative process, the harmer
must first voluntarily admit that they caused harm. The victim's needs
are then centered as they work together to determine how the harmer can
take accountability, make amends, and change their future behavior.
Studies show that when well implemented, restorative processes make
victims of sexual harm feel safe and respected and enable harmers to
understand what they did wrong better than through a traditional
disciplinary process, meaning they are less likely to repeat the
harm.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See, e.g., International Institute for Restorative Practices,
Restorative Justice Practices of Native American, First Nation and
Other Indigenous People of North America: Part One (Apr. 27, 2004),
https://www.iirp.edu/news/restorative-justice-practices-of-native-
american-first-nation-and-other-indigenous-people-of-north-america-
part-one#endnote1_to.; Restorative Justice 101, Reviving Indigenous
Justice: Authentic Restorative Maori Processes in New Zealand, https://
restorativejustice101.com/reviving-indigenous-justice-authentic-
restorative-maori-processes-in-new-zealand/ [last visited July 19,
2024].
\50\ David Karp & Kaaren Williamsen, NASPA Student Aff. Admins. in
Higher Educ., Five Things Student Affairs Administrators Should Know
About Restorative Justice and Campus Sexual Harm 5-6 (2020), https://
bit.ly/430BKTJ.
\51\ Id. at 10-11. See also Madison Orcutt, Restorative Justice
Approaches to the Informal Resolution of Student Sexual Misconduct, 45
J. COLL. & UNIV. L. 1, 31-37, https://bit.ly/42YJDsL (providing samples
of agreements between parties, schools, and local prosecutors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden Title IX regulations, as well as their predecessor
regulations, allow schools to use informal resolution processes, such
as restorative processes, as long as participation in those processes
is wholly voluntary.\52\ However, schools should not use mediation as
an informal process to resolve complaints of sexual assault; mediation
is a strategy often used in schools to resolve peer conflict, where
both sides must take responsibility for their actions and come to a
compromise. Mediation is never appropriate for resolving sexual
assault, even on a voluntary basis, because of the power differential
between assailants and victims, the potential for re-traumatization,
and the implication that survivors somehow share ``partial''
responsibility for their own assault. Indeed, more than 900 mental
health experts have written to the Department of Education opposing the
use of mediation to resolve sexual assault because it ``perpetuate[s]
sexist prejudices that blame the victim'' and ``can only result in
further humiliation of the victim.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.45(b)(9) (eff. Aug. 14, 2020); see also 34
C.F.R. Sec. 106.44(k) (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\53\ Letter from 902 Mental Health Professionals to Dep't of Educ.
3 (Jan. 30, 2019), https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Title-
IX-Comment-from-Mental-Health-Professionals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Schools should conduct fair investigations.
When a student makes a complaint of sex harassment and seeks a
formal resolution process, schools should follow the investigation
procedures detailed in the Biden administration's new Title IX
rule.\54\ This includes questioning the parties through a neutral
official or panel and applying a preponderance of the evidence standard
to determine whether harassment occurred. Regardless of the type of
investigatory or hearing process the school uses to formally resolve
complaints of sex harassment, schools should ensure that their
procedures are reliable, prompt, equitable, and fair to all parties
involved. Students should have equal rights in presenting witnesses and
evidence, an opportunity to respond to allegations and evidence
provided in an investigation, and equal appeal rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.46 (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use a neutral school official or panel to question the parties and
witnesses.
In investigations of sexual harassment, institutions of higher
education should require a neutral school official or panel to question
the parties and witnesses, whether in individual meetings or in a live
hearing. However, the parties' advisors should not be permitted to
cross-examine the other party and witnesses. Requiring survivors of
sexual assault and dating violence to answer detailed, personal, and
humiliating questions from a hostile questioner--which is not required
in investigations of complaints of any other type of student or staff
misconduct in schools--reinforces gender stereotypes and rape myths
that survivors tend to lie about or are to blame for their own
victimization.\55\ This communicates the toxic and sexist message that
those alleging sexual assault or other forms of sex harassment--most
commonly women and girls--are uniquely unreliable and untrustworthy and
therefore deserving of additional scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Sarah Zydervelt et al., Lawyers' Strategies for Cross-
Examining Rape Complainants: Have we Moved Beyond the 1950s?, BRITISH
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY, 57(3), 551-569 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden administration's Title IX rule appropriately allows
institutions of higher education the flexibility to choose a method of
questioning parties and witnesses to assess their credibility in a way
that does not retraumatize victims and that respects the due process
rights of all parties.\56\ In addition, six of eight circuit courts to
consider the issue have held that adversarial cross-examination is not
required to satisfy due process or fundamental fairness in campus
disciplinary proceedings, and that a neutral hearing officer or panel
may question the parties instead.\57\ Indeed, the Supreme Court has not
required any form of cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings in
public schools under the Due Process clause and has explicitly said
that a 10-day suspension does not require ``the opportunity . . . to
confront and cross-examine witnesses.'' \58\ By allowing institutions
the flexibility to choose a process that does not rely on cross
examination, the Biden Title IX rule seeks to prevent students--
survivors and witnesses alike--from being discouraged from
participating in sexual harassment investigations.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 106.45(f), 106.46(g) (eff. Aug. 1, 2024).
\57\ Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475, 485 (5th Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 141 S. Ct. 1693 (2021); Doe v. Univ. of Ark., 974 F.3d 858, 867
(8th Cir. 2020); Haidak v. Univ. of Mass.-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56, 69 (1st
Cir. 2019); Doe v. Colgate Univ., 760 F. App'x 22, 27, 33 (2d Cir.
2019); Doe v. Loh, No. CV PX-16-3314, 2018 WL 1535495, at *7 (D. Md.
Mar. 29, 2018), aff'd, 767 F. App'x 489 (4th Cir. 2019); Nash v. Auburn
Univ., 812 F.2d 655, 664 (11th Cir. 1987). Contra Doe v. Univ. of
Scis., 961 F.3d 203, 215 (3d Cir. 2020) (fundamental fairness requires
private universities to provide cross-examination if credibility is at
issue); Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 2018) (due process
requires public universities to provide cross-examination if
credibility is at issue and serious sanctions are possible).
\58\ Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583 (1975).
\59\ See, e.g., Eliza A. Lehner, Rape Process Templates: A Hidden
Cause of the Underreporting of Rape, 29 YALE J. OF LAW & FEMINISM 207
(2018) (``rape victims avoid or halt the investigatory process'' due to
fear of ``brutal cross-examination''); Michelle J. Anderson, Women Do
Not Report the Violence They Suffer: Violence Against Women and the
State Action Doctrine, 46 VILL. L. REV. 907, 932 936-37 (2001)
(decision not to report (or to drop complaints) is influenced by
repeated questioning and fear of cross-examination). As one defense
attorney recently acknowledged, ``Especially when the defense is
fabrication or consent--as it often is in adult rape cases--you have to
go at the witness. There is no way around this fact. Effective cross-
examination means exploiting every uncertainty, inconsistency, and
implausibility. More, it means attacking the witness's very
character.'' Abbe Smith, Representing Rapists: The Cruelty of Cross-
Examination and Other Challenges for a Feminist Criminal Defense
Lawyer, 53 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 255, 290 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while cross-examination ``is problematic for all
institutions, regardless of size and resources available,'' \60\ it is
particularly difficult for community colleges, vocational schools, and
other smaller institutions, which often lack the hefty resources
required for conducting quasi-trials with cross-examination. Using
neutral school officials to question students instead of allowing
adversarial cross-examination helps ensure that institutional efforts
to address sexual assault are both efficient and cost-effective,
bringing a speedy and fair resolution to all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ E.g., Letter from Liberty University to Sec'y Elisabeth DeVos
at 4 (Jan. 24, 2019), http://www.liberty.edu/media/1617/2019/jan/Title-
IX-Public-Comments.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Apply a preponderance of the evidence standard.
In investigations of sexual assault and other types of sex
harassment, schools should always apply a preponderance of the evidence
standard to determine whether the harassment occurred. The
preponderance standard is the only evidentiary standard that treats
both sides equally and properly balances complainants' and respondents'
interests.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Contrary to what some have argued, schools should not use the
clear and convincing evidence standard when investigating sexual
harassment and assault. The Supreme Court has only required the clear
and convincing evidence standard in a handful of civil proceedings,
where the litigants are the state and an individual, and profound
deprivations of life or liberty are at stake--e.g., deportation,
termination of parental rights, involuntary psychiatric commitment, or
withdrawal of medical life support. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep't of
Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982);
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276
(1966). School disciplinary proceedings are nothing like these cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preponderance standard is also the appropriate standard because
school harassment investigations are not criminal proceedings. In a
criminal prosecution, the defendant's very liberty (or life) is at
stake, and there is an immense power differential between the state and
the defendant; that is why the state must prove criminal charges beyond
a reasonable doubt. School misconduct proceedings do not threaten the
respondent with incarceration, nor do complainants exercise anything
remotely like the enormous power of the state. School disciplinary
proceedings are instead much more analogous to civil legal proceedings,
where the preponderance standard is the evidentiary standard nearly
always used.\62\ While sexual assault and dating violence can also
constitute criminal conduct, school investigations of gender-based
violence do not require criminal standards, because they do not impose
criminal penalties. After all, schools already regularly respond to
other types of student misconduct that also amount to crimes (e.g.,
physical assault, theft, arson), and we rightfully recognize that
schools do not have to conduct quasi-criminal trials meeting a criminal
standard of proof to impose discipline in those situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Cornell L. Sch., Legal Info. Inst., Burden of Proof, https://
bit.ly/3OZ3Gl1 (last visited July 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
All students deserve meaningful support and responses from their
school in the wake of sexual assault or harassment. Going without this
essential support can traumatize students, put them at risk of further
victimization, and jeopardize their ability to learn in safety and
continue in their education. To disrupt a culture of deliberate
indifference to sexual violence and to ensure students are able to
learn in safety, schools, including HINU, must adopt and consistently
implement policies to prevent and effectively respond to harassment.
The recommendations outlined above are consistent with students'
demands for support and accountability, as well as all schools'
obligations under federal law to protect students from sex
discrimination.
Federal, state, and local lawmakers also have an important role to
play and should commit themselves to enforcing and safeguarding the
rights of students to be free from sexual assault and harassment.
Unfortunately, the House majority has instead chosen to do the
opposite, recently passing a resolution disapproving the very Title IX
regulations dedicated to strengthening protections for student
survivors of sexual assault.\63\ This is appalling, and survivors
deserve better. Whether they learn in federally-operated schools or
federally-funded schools, every student should be able to rely on
robust, enforceable legal protections against sex harassment. Lawmakers
have an obligation to ensure that they can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ H.J. Res. 165--118th Congress (2023-2024); Providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Program or
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to explain
how all schools can prevent, address, and investigate all forms of sex
harassment and assault, as well as provide meaningful support to
survivors--so that no student's education is derailed by their
victimization.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much Ms. Martin, I now recognize
Mr. Mayes for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CLAY J. MAYES, HEAD COACH, TRACK AND FIELD AND
CROSS COUNTRY, HASKELL ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT, HASKELL INDIAN
NATIONS UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
Mr. Mayes. Thank you for having me, I appreciate you guys
being here. My name is Clay Mayes and I am from the Cherokee
and Chickasaw Tribe. First, I would like to say this is a very
fixable solution but it requires swift action. As someone that
has been focused on Native American recruitment since 2014, I
started at two private colleges and I was pulled in the
direction to coach at Haskell, mainly because of its
affordability versus the private college cost.
So, when I got there, I was a little bit overjoyed to be
there due to, I think it is $1,430 for the total cost and being
able to recruit anyone that may not be able to afford a normal
college education.
However as I started, I learned about the Gipp family and
how they would create difficulties for my position by Gary
Tenner, Aaron Hove, Jerry Tuckwin, and I will share another
name outside of session, another name outside of session,
another name outside of session, another name outside of
session, mainly because they work within the BIE and I feel
like retaliation could be possible.
Initially I had no idea nor could fathom to the degree the
Gipps were willing to go to undermine my position and my
family's livelihood and this concerns Al Gipp, former track
coach, and former cross-country coach, Freda Gipp, Al Gipp's
wife, works in the president's office, and as an assistant
coach previously to Al Gipp.
Judith Gipp two times removed athletic director and used to
be an assistant coach to her brother and Freda Gipp, previously
Aja McCormick also an in-line member of the Gipp family, hired
by Judith Gipp former sports information director. And Gerald
Gipp, who was the Haskell President 1981 to 1989 who hired the
initial members of the family.
Previously, I was involved in two investigations, one
conducted by USPS, that was deemed as a waste of time and money
and should not have been involved per Haskell's AIB Report. The
postal service investigation should not have been involved as
allegations were not supported by any solid evidence and it
appears that the only witnesses interviewed were those involved
in the allegations and it appeared that there was little to no
effort to obtain various viewpoints.
Another quote from the AIB Report, ``Bottom line is the
postal service level investigation was uncalled for and a waste
of time and money, especially knowing they were limited in
their capacity to interview key witnesses.''
Another quote from the AIB Report, page 15 ``In fact the
board finds that there were many other HNU employees,
contractors, involved, may have fabricated many of the issues
reported on Mayes. The Board believes the no contract order for
Mayes became a useful tool to accomplish an underlying intent
to get Mayes out of HNU coaching, he could not be on campus or
around students, he could not do his job, the Board could not
find any justifiable reason to place Mayes on a no contact
order and must reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence
he was a safety threat to any student or staff member.''
And as I solved different issues from theft or sexual
assault victims reporting to me, I elevated that to my
supervisor. I made 25 reports via email with a time stamp, all
the emails are saved. I have had zero responses. I made 16
reports to the BIE HR Specialist out of 16 with all time stamps
and emails and I got zero responses, not an acknowledgement.
Out of six reports asking for meetings on three occasions, with
the previous former president Tamarah Pfeiffer, I got zero
responses.
After raising this with my contract officer, who was
responsible to ensure that I be able to do my job, I reported
to him 14 times, all 14 times I got no response. Concerning
some of the issues that were raised with OIG, I made an OIG
report, February 23. On February 24, I received a stop work
order from BIE. April 13, I made my second OIG report. Five
days later, I received a termination from BIE. When the
investigators asked if BIE responded to my OIG report later on,
they did not. And to address one Congressman who raised the
concern on the KU relation being broken, here is what one
former employee, two chains of command above this employee
said. ``In regard to why Tim loves Judith, he caused Haskell
the loss of the student trainers from KU because of his sexual
harassment of students and Judith covered up for him.'' I
worked with Albuquerque HR and issued a disciplinary action
against him, he was notified removal would occur if anything
happened. He cried and begged and said they were exaggerating,
he still works there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Clay Mayes, Head Coach, Track and Field,
Cross Country, Haskell Athletic Department
The leaders in our community, both local & nationally, have
encouraged me to expound on prior harassment, retaliation, and attacks
since my work start date, June 21, 2021, at Haskell Indian Nations
University as the cross country coach.
My position, from it's start, to its premature end, April 18, 2022,
was persistently and strategically undermined for the entirety of my
employment with no resolution nor accountability haven taken place.
As a Native American coach and former collegiate runner, I have
been interested in coaching at Haskell Indian Nations University for
some time. I felt that Haskell was a place I could recruit the best and
brightest in the United States while supporting their journey to a low-
cost university education. This belief and faith led my wife, and our
two newly adopted kids, 5-year-old Billy Littlewhirlwind & 6-year-old
Ruby Littlewhirlwind, to uproot our lives entirely from California to
Lawrence, Kansas to work at Haskell Indian Nations University.
I was informed before my start date that the ``Gipp family'' will
create difficulties for my position by Gary Tanner, Aaron Hove, Jerry
Tuckwin, Brent Cahwee, Dwight Pickering, Michael Daney, James Nells,
and many others. Initially, I had no idea, nor could fathom, to the
degree that the Gipps were willing to go to undermine my position and
family's livelihood in coaching at Haskell. I was unaware of the extent
that the Gipp family permeated various levels within Haskell and the
BIE:
Al Gipp: Former Track Coach and former Cross Country Coach
Freda Gipp, Al Gipp's wife: Works in the Office of the
President, former assistant coach to her husband, Al Gipp.
Judith Gipp, Al Gipp's sister: faculty member at Haskell,
former Athletic Director, two times removed, and former
assistant coach to her brother, Al Gipp.
Aja McCormick, an aligned member of the Gipp family, hired
by Judith Gipp: former Sports Information Director.
Gerald Gipp, former Haskell Indian Nations University's
President.
Previously, I was involved in two investigations. One conducted by
USPS, that was deemed a `waste of time and money,' and should not have
been involved per Haskell's AIB Report:
``The Postal Service Investigation should not have been
involved as the allegations were not supported by any solid
evidence and it appears that the only witnesses interviewed
were those involved in the allegations, and it appeared there
was little to no effort to obtain various viewpoints.''
Page 15 BIE AIB Report
``Bottom line is a Postal Service level investigation was
uncalled for and a waste of time and money, especially knowing
they were limited in their capacity to interview key
witnesses.''
Page 15 BIE AIB Report
The second investigation was conducted over Haskell by BIE's AIB
Board. AIB's report was withheld for 16 months, then further withheld
in being switched out for USPS's report. These tactics to suppress the
AIB report was in defiance of both a court order and an agreement to
comply by the U.S. Attorney's Office to release the report.
The first investigation, USPS, involved ongoing retaliation and
harassment by our Sports Information Director (SID), Aja McCormick and
the aligned Gipp family members. Who continuously perpetrated false
reports. Per BIE's AIB Report:
``In fact, the Board finds that there were other HINU employees
and contractors involved that may have fabricated many of the
issues reported [on Mayes].''
Page 15 BIE AIB Report
Such reports led to the no-contact order and the USPS
Investigation. As BIE's AIB Board confirms with the no-contact order
and USPS's investigation:
``The Board believes the no contact order for Mayes became a
useful tool to accomplish an underlying intent to get Mayes out
of HINU coaching. If he could not be on campus or around
students, he could not do his job. The Board could not find any
justifiable reason to place Mayes on a no-contact order and
must reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence he was a
safety threat to any student or staff member.''
Page 15 & 16 BIE AIB Report
Dealing with such tactics began to magnify when I started reporting
ongoing abuses and crimes being committed by the Gipp family members
and their aligned coworkers. In one instance on October 5, 2021, I
witnessed large-scale theft by Judith Gipp and Al Gipp, who loaded up
their personal vehicle with 20-some boxes of pricey athletic equipment
and apparel, and then driving off-campus with it, only to see their
family and friends wearing if at events. As campus knows and has
shared, the Gipp family and aligned coworkers have committed such
crimes for decades.
Following October 5, 2021's theft report, McCormick began hosting
secret meetings to create frivolous reports and did so with Al Gipp's,
Judith Gipp's, and Freda Gipp's students. Their objective was simple,
do whatever they want, when they want, to hurt whoever they want.
``Rules for the, but not for me.''
I requested a work orientation, Haskell's policies & procedures,
but to no avail, all systematically withheld. Haskell's Human Resources
Mona Gonzalez stated in email, ``I am not the provider of policies,'' &
my most recent supervisor, Steve Byington stated, ``There's no good
place to find them (rules).''
``Students alleged HINU illegally breached their coaches'
contract through systematic harassment and false allegations.
The Board believes Mayes was set up for failure, intentionally
not provides policies or procedures, not provided a work
orientation, and was harassed by [J. Gipp] and [Aja McCormick].
HINU Leadership and BIE H.R. Relations staff overreacted to
mere allegations with limited or no direct evidence. Mayes's
contract was eventually terminated without any evidence of
wrongdoing.''
Page 4 & 5 BIE AIB Report
When I became aware of McCormick's meetings, I reported it to my
supervisor and McCormick's supervisor, Athletic Director Gary Tanner.
Tanner elevated and affirmed such reports to Haskell President, Tamarah
Pfeiffer. Unfathomably, Pfeiffer proceeded to remove Tanner entirely
from any acting authority, rendering him helpless per, ``You're too
close.''
I was soon told on November 1, 2021, that an USPS investigation was
to follow, and I was issued a ``no-contact order,'' as was my students,
effective November 4, 2021. Such justification for the no-contact and
its reports were withheld, but later known to be McCormick's and the
Gipp's reports used to justify the no-contact. Such reports were
wrongfully withheld from Tanner before and after his removal. The
reiteration Tanner and I received concerning the no-contact, ``it'll
only be two weeks,'' an overt lie. The USPS investigation and no-
contact order did not finish till months after my removal, all of such
reports, withheld during my work time at Haskell. With all signs of due
process being non-existent.
The ``no-contact order'' barred me from communicating with
Fall's XC student-athletes I recruited to Haskell, even
though these students had zero complaints and all such
complaints were by McCormick, Gipp's, and Gipp students.
One of my reports concerning harassment, being bullied,
fraud, and abuse was to OIG on February 1, 2022.
February 23, 2021, OIG emailed, ``Your complaint
information was provided to BIE for any action deemed
appropriate.''
One day later, February 24th, my contract and pay was
halted immediately per, ``Stop Work Order''
Hours after the ``Stop Work Order'' was issued, my first
call with the USPS investigation and the investigator came
in.
Harassment and hostile confrontations magnified when Judith Gipp
was promoted to interim Athletic Director on January 1, 2022, for a
second time.
Years earlier Judith was removed as athletic director for
mismanagement of funds. Sure enough, my budget dropped by 49,000
instantly, and 4 requests to discuss the disappearance of 49k was
denied by Judith
I was regularly followed and stalked at work by Judith, she
ransacked my desk two occasions, and then began going after all the
students I recruited, issuing threats, conducting hostile meetings,
used her students to bully them, and like me, began following them
perpetually if full compliance and control was not met. Per AIB Report:
``[Mayes] students were intimidated, including their continued
participation as student-athletes was threatened if they failed
to comply with the no-contact order.''
Page 3 BIE AIB Report
-AND-
``[Mayes's] students were subject to bullying, intimidation and
harassment--or at least treated differently for wanting to work
with Mayes,'' and the university's ``management did not enforce
the Department of Interior Anti-Harassment Policy when
complaints were raised.''
Page 5 BIE AIB Report
-AND-
``This requirement appeared to be unprecedented,'' the report
reads. ``Students allege Tonia Salvini and others threatened
and intimidated them into signing the no-contact order.
Evidence supports this student allegation.''
Page 3 BIE AIB Report
During all of this, I sought assistance through the proper chain of
command by first informing one of my supervisors, Steve Byington (CFO),
in an attempt to resolve ongoing harassment, retaliation, and attacks
toward my position at Haskell. The issues remained unresolved, as 25 of
25 emailed reports & requests went unanswered. I was then advised to
contact Haskell President Tamarah Pfeiffer to reach a more immediate
resolution due to the urgency of the situation.
I emailed the Haskell President on February 9th, 16th and then on,
22nd. I noted all three times that I needed a meeting to discuss the
continuous assaults and concerns I had. I received no response and was
ignored as oppression continued. All 6 of 6 attempts to report to the
Haskell President went unanswered, minus December 2, 2021's email
response and assertion she had to delete the reports I sent her.
On February 24, 2022, I received a call from the Division of
Acquisition that my pay and contract was halted, effective immediately.
There was no warning, no reason(s), nor any sort of due process.
Divisions of acquisitions noted that a current Haskell administrator
contacted them, stating my contract obligations could not be fulfilled
due an ``ongoing'' investigation ``no-contact order'' affecting my
ability to hold practices. An investigation that was to be two weeks,
was now on month 5. An investigation that was falsely said to be
``independent.'' An investigation that continued to be stalled,
manipulated, and twisted to continue perpetual abuse. Per BIE's AIB
Report:
``The Postal Service Investigation should not have been
involved as the allegations were not supported by any solid
evidence and it appears that the only witnesses interviewed
were those involved in the allegations, and it appeared there
was little to no effort to obtain various viewpoints.''
Page 15 BIE AIB Report
``Management at Haskell engaged in efforts to limit the
U.S.Postal Service investigation and `produce the outcome they
wanted.'' In part, that involved ``pitting two factions of
student athletes against each other to support their cause''
and ``limiting their list of witnesses to a specific few.''
Page 4 BIE AIB Report
Soon after, February 28, 2022, via call and reporting to the next
official in my chain of command, BIE Director Tony Dearman, I was
informed of reinstatement to follow.
Soon after, two meetings were arranged by Haskell's Vice President,
Tonia Salvini, on March 11th and March 14th. I was assured
reinstatement was to follow, and when I requested to know the contents
of 11/4/2021 reports via `no-contact order,' I was met with a
crackling-like scream from Salvini, shouting, ``YOU HUSH! THIS IS FOR
YOUR BEST INTEREST!''
Following reinstatement meetings more fraudulent reports were
manifested by Judith Gipp, her family, and aligned co-workers. The
promises of my reinstatement were hollow and never honored.
April 13, 2022, OIG emailed me and informed me they forwarded BIE
my 2nd OIG report (and a whistleblower report) on unrestrained abuse at
Haskell. Five days later, April 18th, I was terminated via email by BIE
for ``Sole Government Convenience.''
Months later, July 9th, 2022, I was informed through a co-worker of
BIE Director Dearman, and a long-time mentor, James Nells, Dearman
``had my back, and his full support,'' and he was going to reinstate me
upon completion of Haskell's investigation, which started two days
later, July 11th, 2022.
Upon Haskell's investigation and its completion, Dearman's promises
of reinstatement were unmet.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you Mr. Mayes, we are going to have to
leave it right there. I am now going to acknowledge people on
the dais for their questions and we are going to start with Mr.
Owens from Utah.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, I first of all want to thank you guys
for being here, it takes courage, it takes heart. This is a
problem that has been going on way too long. My hopes are that
somebody might make a movie one day to expose what is happening
to a population that has been out of sight, out of mind.
And this is not the way our country has been ever designed,
to take advantage of a vulnerable people because we don't see
them. And I will say the only difference in the black community
and the Native American community is at least we are visible,
so we can put our voices out there and people have to pay
attention. We need to make sure that we have oversight that
this never ever happens again.
We have too many good people who will never live the
American Dream because they don't get an education, and it is
because of people who do not care, bureaucrats who are cowardly
sitting behind their desks, their computers and doing
absolutely nothing to help people that are asking for just a
chance to dream.
So, we are going to make sure we are addressing that and I
just have a couple questions for you. I just want to thank you
guys because it does take courage, it takes heart, and that is
what our country is all about. Dr. Graham, Haskell is a bureau
run university, how did your interactions with the bureau
differ from your experiences with other universities?
Mr. Graham. Say that again sir, I am having a hard time
hearing you.
Mr. Owens. OK, I am sorry, Haskell is a bureau run
university, how did your interactions with the bureau differ
from your experiences with other universities?
Mr. Graham. It was different, first of all like I said, I
went there when COVID was in place, so I had to deal with a
university who had never taught online before. I had an IT
section that was antiquated, I had students who didn't have
computers that would work so they could interact with their
faculty.
And I put together online systems before at other
universities, so I had to work fast, I had hired a person out
of the military who was very adept to advanced IT and he got me
the software I needed, he recognized the problem the day he got
there.
And we ordered that software immediately, we got the campus
up, I had also put together immediate orientation programs for
the faculty and for the students so they would know how to
teach and they would know how to actually take classes, how to
upload their research papers, how to take examinations.
Mr. Owens. I don't want to take too much time because I do
want to ask a couple of questions.
Mr. Graham. OK.
Mr. Owens. Let me just ask the same question to Coach, what
is different about your experience at Haskell as opposed to
other universities you have worked with?
Mr. Mayes. There are a lot of unwritten processes at
Haskell that I didn't know existed, perhaps good parenting, I
don't know, I didn't ever think there was a group of people
that would enjoy going after you, you know? You get sick or you
are not doing well or you don't handle something that is going
on, that you have to deal with, they usually double down and go
a little bit harder just to drive you a little bit further.
That is something that I never truly knew existed. You hear
these horror stories with different groups of people, for me,
that is just something that seeing people lack basic empathy
and emotion, I still struggle processing that a group of people
like that exist.
Mr. Owens. And my understanding is that, when you had the
issues, you also went up to the next level of the bureau to try
to get support. Was there any support, any opening ear or any
desire to try to figure this out, as you took it to the next
level?
Mr. Mayes. No, I mean I went up the chains of command, 0 of
25 reports to my supervisor then it was to Tamarah Pfeiffer, 0
of 6 reports, then it was to the BIE Director, who said you
know, he would elevate the report and I would be reinstated,
that never happened.
And then I elevated it to OIG, I lost my job the day after
they gave it to BIE, and then when I reported whistleblower, a
little over a month later, then they officially terminated me,
even though they shut off my contract already. They need to
send me a termination notice since I reported to OIG again.
Mr. Owens. Well, once again, I am running out of time, I
want to thank you guys, because obviously it has been going on
for decades, and only because of your actions, your reporting,
your voice, and getting a small sense of visibility that we are
sitting here today talking about it and the entire country will
hear and see what is going on, on these types of college
campuses that don't really care. So, thank you so much for
that, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Utah, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Dr. Graham, comments
were made earlier about the salary that presidents are paid,
and the ability to attract presidents at that salary, do you
remember what you were paid?
Mr. Graham. Yes, I was paid $129,000 and I was still doing
the job. I didn't get the high GS-15 level, this was what they
offered and I was really excited just to be on this type of
campus.
Mr. Scott. Do you know what the president is paid now?
Mr. Graham. Most presidents are paid between, well it
depends on what university and what level you are working at--
--
Mr. Scott. What is the president at Haskell paid now?
Mr. Graham. I am at an SES level. It would probably be over
$200,000.
Mr. Scott. And do you know what a recommended salary should
be? What other presidents are paid?
Mr. Graham. Other presidents from a government or from a
regular university?
Mr. Scott. Regular university.
Mr. Graham. A regular university, there are presidents paid
between $500,000 to over a million a year.
Mr. Scott. Is that for a relatively small college?
Mr. Graham. I am not aware of what the smaller colleges
get.
Mr. Scott. You have a thousand students, have you had
20,000 students, you would expect to have to pay more----
Mr. Graham. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. For a college with 1,000 students, do you know
what the salary range would be expected?
Mr. Graham. Probably what I was getting, is what I would
determine.
Mr. Scott. OK.
Mr. Graham. Because, yes.
Mr. Scott. It is more than them, there have been a lot of
complaints at Haskell and they are being investigated. Would
you be in a position to know whether things have changed at
Haskell since all of these investigations started?
Mr. Graham. To my understanding nothing has changed, they
have the same role players, the same people that are causing
the problems are still there, they still, I told you about what
they have implemented in there, they have the same Board of
Regents. I don't think anything has changed, sir.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Ms. Martin do you want to comment?
Ms. Martin. I don't have any independent knowledge of what
is happening at Haskell. I have read the redacted report or at
least the sections relevant to sexual harassment and some of
the press coverage. So, I can't speak to what has happened at
Haskell since the events set out in that report. I can talk
about the ways in which these problems often show up in schools
and the reforms that make a difference, centering the needs of
students and really paying attention to----
Mr. Scott. Well, if you are not aware, you are not on
campus so that would be difficult, but what can colleges do to
prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault?
Ms. Martin. Well, one of the things that colleges can do is
leaders at the top can set a tone, leadership at every level
can set a tone that prevention of sexual assault and creating a
truly inclusive culture is a core value at the university. And
in addition, there is training that can and should be done both
of staff and of students, so that people understand what
responses are available, what sexual harassment is, and help to
unlearn some of the biases that often infect staff responses
when students report sexual harassment and assault, and when
schools get reports of sexual assault, part of their response
is also prevention.
So, taking steps ensure that somebody who is sexually
assaulted, someone isn't in a position to do it again. All of
that is part of prevention work.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, are you aware of the recent changes
in the new rule in Title IX?
Ms. Martin. I am.
Mr. Scott. Can you comment on whether it is a good change
and the effect of the legislation to overturn it?
Ms. Martin. Yes, very briefly, the changes to the Title IX
rule really strengthen protections for survivors of sexual
assault and sexual harassment on campuses and ensure that
schools respond promptly and effectively to reports of sex
harassment and sexual assault.
The resolution to disapprove that rule if it were passed by
Congress and signed by the President would not only overturn
that rule, it would prevent the Department of Education from
doing any substantially similar rulemaking in the future which
would be a huge step backwards for preventing sexual harassment
on campuses.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman is now recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Here is something for you, we have quite a
mess here, quite a mess. Mr. Graham, about how many kids
graduate from this school every year?
Mr. Graham. I don't recall the number that graduated, there
were different numbers every year that I, there was a problem
when I first got there, but I don't recall the exact number
now.
Mr. Grothman. And you guys are there, 100, 150, 25?
Mr. Mayes. It is a good question that I would like to know
the answer to as well. I wish I knew what the enrollment
percentages and numbers are. I think the more transparency the
better on that.
Mr. Grothman. All we know is, what are the big majors
there, does anybody know that?
Mr. Mayes. Health Exercise, I know that one, there are
three or four of them, I know they were working on adding a
program, but there are very few majors and I think that is
probably one of the hurdles is more programs need to be added.
Mr. Grothman. Health Exercise. Can you recount Mr. Mayes
some specific thing that you observed or was reported to you
and how it was handled by the administration? Or by the Bureau
of Indian Education?
Mr. Mayes. Yes, I witnessed theft after an employer
messaged it by message on October 5, 2021.
Mr. Grothman. Say again, speak up.
Mr. Mayes. On October 5, 2021, I witnessed theft, and an
employer first mentioned it by message, and I was on campus and
I also saw it, and a few different employers said ``oh they
have been doing that for years,'' which I learned and I
elevated the report and then who I was elevating it to----
Mr. Grothman. Theft you said?
Mr. Mayes. Who I was elevating the reports to ended up
going to the police, they were circling back to what wasn't
reported, so I was getting direct retaliation when I was making
these reports.
Mr. Grothman. What were you reporting?
Mr. Mayes. Theft, theft of Federal property, there were a
little over 20 boxes being loaded into an employee's vehicle
and driven off campus.
Mr. Grothman. OK, and who was doing the stealing?
Mr. Mayes. Judith Gipp and Al Gipp.
Mr. Grothman. Pardon?
Mr. Mayes. Judith Gipp, Al Gipp, two Haskell employees.
Mr. Grothman. OK, where did they steal it from?
Mr. Mayes. Thorpe Center, athletic apparel, gear and
equipment.
Mr. Grothman. And did the Bureau of Indian Education care
at all in any fashion?
Mr. Mayes. Like on all of my other reports, they didn't
respond.
Mr. Grothman. What is your opinion with what is wrong with
the Bureau of Indian Education? I mean are they just a bunch of
employees who have a government job, feel like they can't get
fired so they just kind of hang around forever.
Mr. Mayes. I always hear this so this is wisdom from others
that I have been around, is admitting any wrong doing, is not
OK. So, there seems to be an underlying message as I learn with
well over 50 reports, not an acknowledgement, not a nod in the
hallway that they got it, nothing.
There seems to be a code of don't respond to any reports,
as I said, I just got my contract halted a day after BIE got my
OIG report, three employees that same day, ``I told you not to
respond to OIG.'' If that is the normal response coming from
employees, I would say that is a problem when you are
reporting.
Mr. Grothman. So, you think we have a culture of a bunch of
people in an agency that are relatively obscure, and because
they aren't going to get fired, they just figure they can sleep
through the day, day after day, and month after month.
Mr. Mayes. They are still there, they haven't been removed,
all I have seen are some new titles, a few transfers and one
employee retired 2 years before pension, and still got to keep
her pension.
Mr. Grothman. Can you give me an example of the sexual
assaults that were reported to you?
Mr. Mayes. Define example.
Mr. Grothman. That is what I am asking you.
Mr. Mayes. One was from an employee, and a parent, another
was from the women themselves, one of the cases the young lady
came to me shaking. I wasn't the first person and I elevated it
to law enforcement, and the Haskell investigated report, they
asked several employees, did they elevate it to law
enforcement, they all say no. The one employee that did was me,
which I was required by law to do that.
But I didn't realize no one else did, and with that
perpetrator, BIE says ``Oh, it happened off campus.'' With one
of the women they were talking about, that young lady was
drugged and taken off campus, it happened on HINU campus.
Mr. Grothman. So, it sounds like both the Bureau of Indian
Education and the administration of this campus kind of view
their jobs as just hang out, collect a paycheck, and do
nothing.
Mr. Mayes. Yes, don't ruin the gig by reporting it.
Mr. Grothman. Not to mention it would take work to report
it.
Dr. Gosar. Thanks Glenn, the gentlewoman from Wyoming is
now recognized for her 5 minutes. Ms. Hageman.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I want to thank all of you for
being here today, I would have liked to have spent more time in
here, hearing your testimony as well as that of the first
panel, but I have had other hearings that I have needed to
attend, so thank you for being willing to come and talk to us
about these important issues.
Tierra Standing Soldier Thomas, a Haskell student athlete
who unfortunately could not be with us today, provided
testimony for the Committee and I want to quote from what she
said.
``I experienced many family, educational, and personal
struggles during my time at Haskell, for which I received no
support. In many cases, Haskell administrators exacerbated or
created challenges, at a Champions of Character event regarding
suicide in February 2022. As well as during classes, I revealed
my suicide attempts and had no wellness check done on me. I was
making a cry for help and I needed someone to conduct a
wellness check on me, my cry was not heard.''
She goes on to explain that she was drugged, raped, and
held against her will for 15 hours off campus. She took
initiative and approached the university, but received no
support from Haskell administration, instead of being assisted,
she was kicked out of Haskell twice due to a low GPA and she
was denied her Pell Grant. To say that this is unacceptable is
an understatement.
I commend Ms. Thomas for speaking out for changes so that
young women can feel safe on campus and depend on our faculty
when reporting sexual assault. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris
administration has wasted years with inaction but now real
change must come to Haskell Indian Nations University.
And I urge Secretary Haaland to do the right thing and that
is to engage with the students, investigate these issues, and
root out the corruption at Haskell and BIE. Dr. Mayes I am
going to direct my questioning to you. How has the student body
at Haskell reacted to the mistreatment of Ms. Thomas and other
survivors?
Mr. Mayes. As far as I am concerned as of one week ago, I
don't know if something has happened this past week, they
haven't reached out to her in any format indirectly or
directly.
Ms. Hageman. And I understand that you have had other
students confide in you as they do not trust certain faculty at
Haskell. Can you give us a bit more detail in that regard?
Mr. Mayes. Yes, about a month into the Haskell
investigation, it started July 11, on August 9, I was called
and requested for help by one Haskell board member. And I can
share their name outside of session, and then one investigator,
Erland Paisano. And they said they were having major issues
getting students to trust them and to go confide in them. So,
they called me, a male cross-country coach to help them with
that.
Which was probably the most concerning issue, one that is
not my job, I want to report it, not investigate it. But, they
were able to get a lot of the victims to start coming forward.
I talked to a couple of women that approached me and I asked
them, so a few women more brave then me kind of got the other
women to come forward and give their testimony.
Ms. Hageman. What is the culture at Haskell that has
created this kind of a situation?
Mr. Mayes. Don't report. At some point though the cycle has
to break. I get people want to pass the buck to the next guy,
but that is one of my lessons to the students, who is breaking
the cycle or are you going to get help from outside? And most
of them say no, so it is like alright, it is your
responsibility, break the cycle.
Ms. Hageman. Have you been involved with other universities
besides Haskell?
Mr. Mayes. Yes, two.
Ms. Hageman. And have you encountered these types of issues
at those universities as well?
Mr. Mayes. Nonexistent.
Ms. Hageman. What is the difference?
Mr. Mayes. The complete fear to report at Haskell due to
certain alliances.
Ms. Hageman. What does that mean?
Mr. Mayes. Certain people figured out who has the
protection, so new employees will become friends with this one
group because they get protection, they kind of do each other's
bidding, so it forms a gangism, as one employee stated, ``hey,
you probably don't want to listen to me, but don't report it,''
and I just said, ``you know what, you are right, I am not going
to listen to you,'' and then he kind of shook his head and
walked away. So, the culture is don't report it and get along
with who is basically getting the most out of the system.
Ms. Hageman. What is the need for protection, you have used
that word a couple of times now. What are you referencing?
Mr. Mayes. For these women, I am not familiar with any
other cases, somewhat following to see if they somewhat don't
get triggered seeing the predator. I am not familiar with one
instance where they remove the predator per report, no review,
nothing, they would just sign a no contact so the women
couldn't go certain places that the predators were.
In the report, they state one of the employees reported for
sexual assault who is off for 3 to 4 months, which wasn't true,
he was at our staff meetings, he was teaching on campus, he was
never off campus, he could have been off campus for a few days
but they say they reviewed the reports and he was off campus,
working from home. That is not true.
Ms. Hageman. I am out of time but I am going to repeat it,
we need to fix this and we need to fix it now.
Mr. Mayes. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman, the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Good is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Good. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Coach Mayes, when were
you hired back at Haskell?
Mr. Mayes. I was officially hired, my first day was July
15, so 2 years and 4 months after my removal. I didn't have
pay, and we actually adopted two kids right before we made the
move to Haskell which added to a lot of stress, they re-opened
the position, right before January or right after this past
January, and I was officially offered the position the day the
reports were released, April 23 of this year.
But even when I was offered the report, I was getting
parents calling and emailing me citing they were getting issues
with previous employees trying to create reports to cancel the
job offer while I was going through the background
investigation.
Mr. Good. So, you were hired 8 days ago?
Mr. Mayes. Correct.
Mr. Good. Why do you think they hired you back, why do you
think the timing was 8 days ago, or what reason did they give
for why they were hiring you back?
Mr. Mayes. No reason but I was hired, I was extended the
job offer 3 or 4 hours after the report released, April 23.
Mr. Good. Yes, very interesting, Dr. Graham, I would like
to learn a little more about the structure of how the Federal
Government manages or doesn't manage the university. When you
were president, you reported to the Bureau of Indian Education,
correct?
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Mr. Good. And in your testimony, you referred to BIE
Director Tony Dearman as your supervisor.
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Mr. Good. But you also said that the Human Resources
Director of BIE, Jackie Shamblin, was his surrogate, so acting
supervisor for you I guess?
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Mr. Good. As you said in your testimony, when you were
hired these two BIE employees, Dearman and Shamblin, warned you
about ``Chronic problems at Haskell.''
Mr. Graham. Correct.
Mr. Good. What did they say were some of those problems at
that time?
Mr. Graham. They didn't tell me what the problems were but
I learned after I arrived on campus that there was major
nepotism, there were cliques, there was a lot of backstabbing
and internal problems, just chaos, inner chaos all the time, is
something they seem to thrive on, and I tried to get a handle
on that, but by the same token, I was so busy with everything
else going on, I didn't have time to babysit, I just had to get
these projects out and going from what Dearman gave me to do.
Mr. Good. When you are the president of a university, it is
a 24/7 year-round, it never stops, the campus never sleeps. I
am familiar with that having worked on a college campus, so
they referenced chronic problems but they didn't really tell
you what they specifically were.
Mr. Graham. No, they didn't tell me what the problems were,
they just said I had a runaway faculty, and I didn't know what
that meant until I arrived on campus.
Mr. Good. That is not unusual unfortunately it seems. But,
what did they do to try to fix or address these chronic
problems to your knowledge during, and they have both been
there for several years, they go back well before your time.
Mr. Graham. They didn't help me at all, with that, they
didn't give me any information, everything that was going on I
disclosed to them, I believe in transparency, so every problem
that came aboard and of course I talked to Dearman and Hamblin
every week and sometimes several times a week depending if
there were major problems and I would report those problems
and, either ask for guidance, investigations, whatever the
problems were.
Mr. Good. So, while Haskell has had six presidents in 8
years, somehow these two individuals have personally escaped
any accountability, typical of Federal Government employees I
might add, and Jackie Shamblin, the HR Officer for BIE, emailed
students telling them they would never be informed of what
actions are being taken to correct the abuses at Haskell,
meaning when Haskell students publish that public letter to
Secretary Haaland asking for the AIB report it was Shamblin,
they never got a response from Secretary Haaland.
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Mr. Good. But Shamblin emailed the students and told them
the students ``would never know what actions are being taking
to address specific findings from these investigations.''
Mr. Graham. I find that appalling.
Mr. Good. Thoughts on that, yes.
Mr. Graham. That is appalling, that was after my time but
to me that is not acceptable, and too much of this type of
stuff is going on, they keep sweeping stuff under the rug.
Students need to understand what is going on. I had an open-
door policy even though I really didn't have any students on
campus during COVID, but I maintained open door policies at
every college and university I have worked at.
If students had a problem, they would come in and see me. I
would bring in the faculty member, I would let them know what
the complaint is, we worked it out. If you don't work it out,
then I will resolve it one way or another, it is either
credible, not credible, if the faculty member is at fault, then
he is going to have a problem with me.
But what happened here when you say this information's not
going out to these students, is not acceptable, under any
standard.
Mr. Good. Students who are paying to attend the university,
thanks very much, I yield back.
Mr. Graham. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the
gentleman from Georgia Mr. Collins is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Dr. Graham, could you
please describe the concerns that you had with the Board of
Regents after arriving on campus?
Mr. Graham. I contacted Shamblin within a couple weeks
after my arrival and basically asked about the Board of Regents
because I was interested in meeting them. It was very important
to set up that relationship because I am used to that with
trustees. And there was a lot of pushback in my questions and I
finally got to the point where, when was the last time they had
their background investigations? Because everybody, trustees,
regents, no matter what you are has to go through a background
investigation by law, and finally he admitted that these
trustees hadn't had a background investigation in over 10 years
and most of them in over 20 years.
And at that point, I told Shamblin and Dearman that these
regents will not be allowed on my campus for any reason until
they successfully complete a background investigation.
Mr. Collins. In your opinion, why have the background
checks been ignored for years?
Mr. Graham. I honestly don't know. In a 2018 report that I
wasn't privy to because Dearman nor Shamblin told me about
these reports or the full reports before that and backgrounds
were mentioned in one of those reports as being a red flag, I
jumped on that immediately and I started the backgrounds and
they were willing to back what I was doing because it made them
look good I guess, I don't know. But, backgrounds are extremely
important and why they were ignored I can't answer that
question.
Mr. Collins. Anyone on the board in jail? Is anyone of the
Board of Regents in jail right now?
Mr. Graham. Yes, one of the Board of Regents was just
recently arrested for attempted murder, arson, and a myriad of
other felonies. The other regent, who was the president is
still working as a regent and he himself is a felon for
domestic violence and other felonies.
Mr. Collins. So, how did BIE, how did they react when you
expressed your concerns about the Board of Regents?
Mr. Graham. There was a standoff at first and I pushed the
issue that I am not letting these regents on my campus, and
this has to get done, this is law and this is the way I work,
this is a standard we have to keep.
Mr. Collins. Well, speaking to the standards again, I want
you to try to elaborate a little bit more on your tenure, like
why were you hired, what were your accomplishments, and just,
what did you set out to do there?
Mr. Graham. I wanted to make Haskell the flagship
university, so my standard and I was waiting to get the vice
president, the vice president for example, that I hired had 20
years with the Interior as an administrative judge.
She also served at Haskell as an adjunct law professor, she
knew her stuff. That is my vice president and with her I
expected to hire several more people of that caliber. I also
wanted to bring in other PhD's because they lack that and I was
bringing in graduate and doctoral programs.
I was identifying them, and working with folks to initiate
these programs. For example, I started the dual enrollment
program, that was off the ground and issues started as you are
aware, to raise the numbers of students, because 700 students
in a university is very small.
I projected within 3 years I would have over 3,000 students
on campus. A major problem too at the campus were the student
retention programs, it was 46 percent. And my doctoral
dissertation addressed student retention in 87 different areas,
so I knew how to work that and I worked at other universities
to bring student retention up. I initiated a 24/7 online,
distance learning tutoring program for these students that
could go online, anytime of the day or night and actually meet
with somebody live on a Zoom call, and not just stem programs.
Mr. Collins. How was your relationship with the student
body?
Mr. Graham. The student body was fine, the student body was
great, I was connecting with what I could and I was helping
them, I was getting them new computers, and everything that
they needed.
Mr. Collins. Coach Mayes, I wanted to ask you a question in
line with that too. Why did the students feel so comfortable
coming to you to report allegations rather than other faculty?
Mr. Mayes. Once I was reporting small campus, got around,
and then I have been working with Indian Country since 2014.
Mr. Collins. How many other faculty members were reporting
besides you?
Mr. Mayes. Not in retaliation, I don't know, not aware of
many cases, but yes, to kind of fully answer your questions, it
started with Indian Country since 2014, and a lot of these
tribes, I have coached their families, so it is kind of a long-
standing relationship too. A lot of them I end up coaching
their brothers, sisters, and hopefully one day some of the kids
of the runners.
Mr. Collins. Sorry about that Mr. Chairman, I am out of
time. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. The gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms.
Stansbury, the Ranking Member, is recognized for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. This is a challenging situation
to parse out and going back through this Interior report which
was released earlier last year.
I think what is evident from the testimony we heard in the
last panel and from the stories that we have heard shared today
is that there is a toxic culture at Haskell, period. It is
toxic, it is affecting the leadership, it is affecting the
faculty, and it is affecting the students.
This report is filled with stories of not only the coach
but also students being bullied by adults who are involved and
the faculty and leadership of the school.
Mr. Graham. The former president.
Ms. Stansbury. And it sounds like, Coach, from your
testimony, what I understand your testimony to be is that you
attempted to elevate these issues, almost two dozen times to
BIE specifically and basically never received a response, is
that correct?
Mr. Mayes. Absolutely nothing.
Ms. Stansbury. So, we have two issues here really. We have
a toxic work culture that needs to be fixed inside the
administration and faculty of the school and we have an
accountability follow up issue with BIE. Would you say that is
an accurate description of where things are broken?
Mr. Mayes. Correct, and when I elevated to law enforcement,
when they went on campus with the sexual assault, they informed
me, Officer Kelsey Pence, that there were no reports, they
didn't exist.
Ms. Stansbury. So, kind of zooming out of the details of
the ``he said she said,'' what does the toxic culture emanate
from? I mean, it sounds like it has been there for decades. Is
it a handful of individuals who do not get along with each
other that are bullying and harassing personalities? Is it a
tone that is set by the leadership, where does this toxic
culture come from at the school?
Mr. Mayes. It is mostly one group, they are mostly related,
they have different last names but they are still related,
which is pretty common in Indian Country, a lot of families,
brothers and sisters will share different last names. And
personally I think it started in 1981 with the hire on of
Gerald Gipp who was hiring members of his family regardless of
what the legalities were. In one case I was informed of in
1984----
Ms. Stansbury. I am sorry, I am going to just reclaim my
time for a moment if it is OK. Dr. Graham, would you have a
similar assessment, or what do you think is the source of the
toxic culture?
Mr. Graham. Basically the same thing that Mr. Mayes said,
and also the dragging slow hiring, so when these different
administrative positions come open, we don't hire right away,
there is just a major drag at HR.
So, they take active faculty and make them active vice
presidents or acting deans, and they are all taking care of
their buds, their cliques, and more and more toxicity is
getting passed around through this method. It just doesn't
work.
Ms. Stansbury. So, I would like to just say this, I think
the testimony has made clear that the toxic work environment at
Haskell needs to be addressed.
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Ms. Stansbury. There is new leadership it sounds like. It
sounds like the new leadership is trying to address it but it
has not been totally addressed. We are still having evidence
come out that it has not been addressed, so for those that are
in the chain of command, I hope you are listening to this
hearing, hearing it and knowing that Congress is going to hold
you accountable for it.
As far as the BIE, we will be following up with the BIE
Director and Assistant Secretary about accountability. It is
unacceptable that the Federal agency who provides oversight for
this university did not respond to complaints from a faculty
member.
That cannot happen, it is a Federal agency with
responsibilities to the school, and that is our job, to make
sure that there is appropriate oversight. I do think the
Assistant Secretary is taking these issues very seriously. I
had the opportunity to talk to him yesterday, but it is clear
that whatever is happening in the interface between the
university and the BIE, that it is broken and there is not
accountability happening there.
And I am out of time here, but I would like to ask
Ms. Martin, I know you were asked this by our Ranking
Member as well, having listened to the testimony here I think,
what I am most concerned about is the students of Haskell feel
safe. I think it is evident that they don't feel safe because
of the toxic culture, they are being bullied and harassed and
because this report has not just one but multiple incidents of
potential sexual assault that happened on campus.
So, not only how do we change this culture but how do we
really address it systemically at a university campus where
people are living on campus and they are separated from the
general population to ensure that these students are safe?
Ms. Martin. I will give a two-part answer to that. One part
is that it is about really focusing on what Title IX and the
Executive Order require which is paying attention to what is
necessary to enable a student to truly participate in education
and making sure that a response to sexual harassment and sexual
assault on campus is focused on what does the survivor need in
order to be whole and healthy and fully able to be part of the
educational experience.
That is one part of the answer that I think is the focus
that should drive the reform of policies and practices on
campus. The other part of the answer I will name is that when
you are looking at a school with a toxic culture, it is a
reminder of the importance of enforcement of student's civil
rights by outside agencies like the Department of Education, as
a last resort, by students themselves through lawsuits, it is a
reminder of the importance of Title IX and the Title IX
regulations as a foundation and as a failsafe for providing the
basic protections that all students should be able to depend
on.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you Ms. Martin, and I will just say
this in conclusion, and I appreciate the extra time to ask the
question, we heard from the Assistant Secretary that they put
more student support services in place since the release of
this report.
But I think even the story of the coach makes clear that
there are students on campus that don't feel like they have
anywhere to go to report what has happened to them in a safe
space. So, the school needs to address that as well. And to do
so in a more systematic way. So, we appreciate it and thank you
all, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I am going follow up where she just left off.
Ms. Martin, you are looking at this from the outside, so if you
were the person who's model this university was going to be,
how would you start with this toxic environment, would you
start with the board of trustees, I mean, would you get rid of
them all, get new people? Where would you start?
Ms. Martin. Well, I would start by trying to identify the
leaders who I hope some of them are there even if it is not all
of them who really are committed to creating an inclusive, safe
campus where students are able to feel supported. And working
with the leaders who really have that vision for what the
schools should be. Who are involved and the faculty and
leadership of the school.Because, I think leaders who are able
to speak to that vision can bring others along.
And while, again, I am not an expert in Haskell's culture,
and it is complicated for sure, it also seems as though there
are people there who care about the students very much, and I
think that is the critical starting point.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Mayes, I went to school at Creighton
University in Omaha, do you have any relationships with
Creighton?
Mr. Mayes. No I don't believe so.
Dr. Gosar. Doc, do you know if you had any relations with
Creighton?
Mr. Graham. No sir.
Dr. Gosar. The reason I asked that is Creighton is the
largest private school in the country with the highest amount
of Native Americans. They have been very, very gifted Nebraska
has been and Omaha, Creighton. So, I guess my thinking is, is
there something we can take maybe from Creighton to get to kind
of rebuild the culture of success, because I think once you
spark success it is going to breed success, what are your
thoughts, Mr. Mayes?
Mr. Mayes. Especially with the Native Community, since they
have a sense of community empowerment, it is why I like
coaching sports, once they are able to see that there is a
system of trust, they can report something without seeing the
predator the following day, the following second day, the
reports are actually heard, there isn't a correlation with the
women that are reporting sexual abuse are then bullied soon
after.
I am not even aware of one of the sexual assault victims
that wasn't bullied after her reports, so I think the first
thing is I guess listening to the students taking their reports
fully serious and following actual policies and procedures, and
start building trust. It might take a while but start building
trust.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I think you have to start somewhere, and
even one mind abused is too much. It seems like there is a gift
here and we ought to be really building on that gift. Doc, do
you have other ideas you might want to share with us?
Mr. Graham. I would add leadership to that, you have to
have the correct leader in there and you lead by example, you
get down in the trenches with the troops, you have to have
credibility, you have to have integrity, that to me is first
and foremost.
And without that, you are going to fall into that toxic
pattern, if you come in there without any of those abilities.
And that is something that is learned, that is something that
is expounded on, and something that is mentored on to your
subordinates, so you trained your people, I train my people to
take my place, and they have to do it with leadership, they
have to have that skillset.
Dr. Gosar. So, leaders are made and they get people to
follow right?
Mr. Graham. Correct.
Dr. Gosar. That is what I was telling the Assistant
Secretary was that I am not interested in quantity, I am
interested in quality, I want to see that quality. And I asked
him and I said what is your vision, give me a one statement
vision that you can come up with that will gravitate people
around you.
And I think there is a lot to that story. It has been sad,
I have lived my whole life with tribal members, Wyoming Indian
School in Wyoming, and 6 months after I graduated, all the kids
I played against were dead.
Mr. Graham. Wow.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, from all sorts of weird things, so there is
a culture here too that we have to break.
Mr. Graham. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Because there are some excellent minds, some
wonderful people here, and they have been just trashed by the
wayside, so I agree with the Ranking Member, this has to come
about and I think you ought to take this as a special project
that we have the school answer to us, Congress. That is just
me, but I think we ought to hold people accountable, if we are
not willing to, who is? Anybody have any other questions? Last
comments?
Mr. Owens. I am going to just go back to good old common
sense. The way we start with this is we need to fire bad
people. That is a good start, we have a culture that has been
going there for decades my friends, it is because there are
people in power who do not care about these kids, we haven't
even talked about what kind of outcome they are getting on
grades, we have no idea.
I mean, I can imagine if they are dealing with this, then
they are probably not prepared to go out and build their dreams
either. So, I have to respectfully just make this one point.
Title IX has been around for 50 years, I grew up in
Tallahassee, Florida, there is Florida A&M, there is FSU, I
went to the University of Miami.
They are not having these kind of issues, they have the
same Title IX. This is a problem with people who do not have
expectations for those kids and they take advantage of them
because they are entitled, they are bureaucrats that are
entitled to a paycheck without doing any work, without any
accountability and they know they are not ever going to get
fired.
We are going to change that by the way, I am so thankful
that you are sitting here and exposing American people to what
is happening to these good, young people, on these campuses
nobody sees.
Out of sight, out of mind is where this evil takes
advantage of kids, and that is not going to happen anymore. So,
just know this could be accountability, and accountability
comes down to oversight, what we do with how we put our funds
out there, and just like any other college, if they are not
doing their job, they don't deserve tax payer dollars period.
And if we are saying they need to get it just because of
the background, we are not giving these kids the true
opportunities they need to have, there should be a high
standard for people teaching and running these colleges, and if
they are not willing to do that, if they don't fire them, we
need to start pulling back some funding, and that might give
them the message that something has to be done.
Because the kids are the bottom line, that is what we need
to be focused on. Not the institution, not these bullies, but
the institution. And I am excited about having a group here
that really does care about this and we are going to address
this issue in a big way. I am looking forward to it, I yield
back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you the gentleman, the Ranking Member gets
the final comments.
Ms. Stansbury. I just want to say thank you again for
coming to testify, and I am always concerned most about the
students, but also the faculty and the educators of the school,
we understand the deep history of Haskell, we understand that
people are proud to be Haskell graduates.
So, I just want to say that we are here to perform our
oversight responsibilities and to help the school get back on
track. But we also won't step back from our Federal trust
responsibility to ensure that we are providing an adequate,
beautiful, and terrific education for any member of any Tribal
Nation that wants to attend Haskell University because it is a
good school. So, I just wanted to add that to the mix. We
appreciate you being here and with that I turn it back to you.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. One of the things that Congress just
got from the Supreme Court was the Chevron difference. They
thought that the agency doesn't have all the rulemaking,
Congress does, I think this is a golden opportunity for us to
set that bar in education.
The trust obligation is the Federal Government's, we are
the Federal Government, why not? Wouldn't that be something if
we could actually break this curse, that would be me. I think
there are lots of assets there and if we save one mind, it is
worth it.
So, I will just challenge you with that. Maybe we will have
to get together a little bit more to make sure we are getting
this right.
The members of the Committee may have some other additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you respond to
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee may submit their questions to the Subcommittee Clerk
by 5 p.m. on July 29. The hearing record will be held open for
10 business days for those responses. If there is no further
business, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:10 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
July 22, 2024
Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
Hon. Burgess Owens, Chairman
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development
Washington, DC
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
House Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
Hon. Paul A. Gosar, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Washington, DC
Honorable Committee Members:
My name is Lexie Follette, I am a veteran who served in the United
States Marine Corps and the Army. I am also the widow of a Navy veteran
and mother of four children.
I am an enrolled member of the Ft. Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes of Montana and my late husband is an enrolled member of the
Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. All my children are
enrolled tribal members.
I am submitting this letter to the record of the 23 July 2024,
Congressional hearing investigating the conduct and actions of the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) following numerous complaints from
students and employees at the Haskell Indian Nations University located
in Lawrence, KS. This submission is to inform the committee that the
BIE also did not respond adequately, ensure student safety, uphold
policies or prevent whistleblower retaliation from school leadership at
the Flandreau Indian Boarding School in South Dakota.
In the 2022-2023 school year, my daughter attended her senior year
at the Flandreau Indian School, in honor of her father and I as we are
both graduated alumni of this school. During this time, my daughter and
multiple students made me aware of alarming conduct and inappropriate
behaviors of employees in leadership positions. I submitted numerous
complaints on their behalf which resulted in an investigation which did
not improve the environment or the behaviors from the school
leadership. By the end of the year, I learned nearly every student who
contacted me had been diagnosed and medicated for depression and
anxiety while attending the school.
October 17, 2023, I submitted a 98 paged complaint to the
Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General on behalf of
the students from the previous school year, former students, current
employees and former employees. I sent a courtesy copy to Madame
Secretary Deb Haaland and recently sent a copy to Mr. Tony Dearman.
The complaint cited many issues, but the most concerning safety
issue were the depression and anxiety diagnosis and treatments of
minors without notifying the parents or obtaining their consent to
chemically alter their child's brain chemistry. Furthermore, students
were not monitored for side effects or changes in behaviors or received
monthly follow ups while on these medications. This is why parental
consent and involvement is crucial because they know their child best
and would notice changes that rotating staff would not. Instead,
students were written up if they refused to take the medications and
there was no consideration was given in disciplinary actions,
suspensions or expulsions as to how these medications may have
contributed. The school also failed to respond to parents requesting
504 plans and failed to provide the medically prescribed ACL surgeries
for two students injured at the school. One of these students had an
obvious limp because of this injury, however, the school failed to
provide her accommodations.
Another student's family doctor had taken the student off the
depression and anxiety medications once she returned home. The doctor
mentioned this was the second situation she had encountered regarding
the same medications, from the same place where the parents were
neither notified nor consented. When the student returned the following
school year, the parent informed the school they did not want their
student on these medications but shortly thereafter, the student
reported to the parent that the school had put the student back onto
the medications and were threatening a ``health and safety violation''
write up for refusing to take the medicines.
The BIE recently launched a mental health hotline similar to the
VA's suicide prevention crisis hotline, however this places the well-
being and mental health of the students the BIE is entrusted with into
the hands of the student to call and does not mention if the policy if
an employee is identified by a student as the source of their mental
distress.
The DOI OIG's response to the 98 paged complaint (Case OI-HQ-23-
0867-R) stated it would be best addressed by the BIE and referred the
complaint to the BIE for review and action deemed appropriate giving
the BIE 90 days to provide the OIG with a response of their findings.
When the BIE's HR conducted this investigation, students reported
several concerns with the generalities of the questioning leaving many
students confused by the investigation, namely first year students who
had no knowledge of the previous year and many others were under the
impression the investigation was about bullying by other students.
General questions warranting a yes or no answer such as do you feel
safe here is providing inaccurate data. I sent a letter to Mr. Dearman
regarding the students and parents' concerns, which he forwarded to the
HR Director Jackie Shamblin to respond. When he did not respond I
forwarded the email chain to the DOI Special Agent and cc'd Mr.
Shamblin that I wanted the no response and email thread added to the
DOI OIG case file.
These complaints and the complaints from the Haskell University are
not due to a lack of policies, rather they are stemming from the lack
of holding employees in school leadership positions accountable when
they are reported repeatedly for policy violations. The BIE also must
be held accountable for not ensuring school leadership are meeting the
standards and for not addressing the repeated reports of many BIE
schools reporting toxic work environments and red flags of leadership
issues.
Last school year, Vice Principal Sheryl Burkhart and Home Living
Director, Jamerson Ferrell at the Flandreau Indian School went against
their first line officer's directive to not take away cell phones by
changing the student handbook. Vice Principal Burkhart abused this rule
by confiscating cell phones overnight and suspending students who did
not put their phone in their lockers during school hours. These are the
type of red flag behaviors that are inadequately addressed by the BIE,
which only encourages other questionable behaviors, such as Mr. Ferrell
appointing the school's boiler operator as a deciding panel member of a
student's expulsion appeal. The question remains of many other students
has the boiler operator decided on the fate of their education.
Making more policies will not solve any issues if employees are not
held accountable for disregarding previous BIE policies, procedures and
directives.
The complaints from the Haskell Indian Nations University, Chemawa,
Riverside, St. Stephens and more, now including the Flandreau Indian
School are a result of the same source; poor leadership allowed to
benefit regardless because of poor oversights, failure to follow
through and follow up once complaints have been identified and
inadequate accountability.
``When a problem occurs once it is an incident, when it occurs
twice it becomes a coincident, but when the same problem occurs
more than three times, now it's on purpose.''
CW4 S. Ryan, Army Retired
I thank the committee members for your time and attention on this
most important matter.
Respectfully,
Lexie Follette,
USMC/Army
______
July 19, 2024
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
House Committee on Natural Resources
Hon. Virginia Fox, Chairwoman
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
ATTN: Michelle Lane, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
Dear Chairman Westerman and Chairwoman:
I am the former Seventh President of Haskell Indian Nations
University and retired as a Research Analyst for the Bureau of Indian
Education in March 2023. Prior to these roles I served as the Vice-
President of Academics for 10 years, and 13 years as the Social Work
Faculty. My contributions to Haskell lasted 32 years and included
numerous acting and interim positions.
To assist the Committee, I am submitting these notes to the Joint
Congressional Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce which are scheduled to hold a joint
Congressional Oversight hearing on the misconduct allegations at
Haskell Indian Nations on Tuesday, July 23, 2024. This was reported in
an article by the Lawrence Journal World on Thursday, July 18, 2024.
Since 2014, I have participated in on-going discussions with
current and former BIE Directors, Haskell staff, faculty, alumni,
students; the National Haskell Board of Regents, and Congressional
leaders in both the Senate and House of Representatives. These
discussions focused on options for growth and autonomy, identifying
solutions to change onerous federal rules and regulations, as well as
the financial disparities that limited growth of Haskell, degree
programs, faculty numbers, students and services to meet the need of
high numbers of first-generation college students.
I have consistently advocated on behalf of Haskell for comparable
operational funding, construction funding and endowment funding based
on the unique trust responsibilities of the Department of Interior and
the Bureau of Indian Education for the education of American Indian and
Alaska Natives. I have promoted the notion that ``trust education
should not be inferior education'' and supported legislation that
supports autonomy, as well as the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Act.
When comparing Haskell, a federally controlled BIE institution;
with federally funded colleges and universities, such as Gallaudet
University, Howard University and the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, I was shocked with the disparity of funding for Haskell
and similar sized federally funded colleges. I was also amazed by the
significant autonomy and level of funding the federally funded colleges
received. Over a decade ago, this triggered my pursuit of options.
Federally funded colleges are not controlled and limited by decisions
made by a federal bureaucracy, nor are these colleges and universities
required to operate first in accordance with bureaucratic practices,
federal rules and regulations, and a secondary or third focus,
operating as an institution of higher education. The model used by the
BIE is a relic of the past, with no investment for the future or
growth. Change is needed.
The Structure of Haskell
Haskell operates as a ``federally controlled'' entity, under the
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Haskell is
subject to the decision-making and priorities of BIE, federal rules and
regulations, and overall bureaucratic practices of the BIE. However,
there appears to be inconsistency in abiding by these rules and
regulations. Some changes have occurred but take considerable time and
effort without any feedback or use.
As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education, Tony Dearman is
responsible for all actions in the BIE and at Haskell, including
approval of changes for the agency. The BIE Director, selects, hires,
fires, and supervises the President, evaluates the performance of the
President, determines the budget appropriations for Haskell, and
assigns projects to the Haskell President, that include assignments
outside the purview of Haskell.
Many of the responsibilities in a college or university would be
that of an independent Board of Regents or Board of Trustees and not
the responsibility of a federal bureaucrat. Presidents are hired and
fired by the Board of Regents and not by the Director of BIE. Under BIE
rules, the National Haskell Board of Regents is considered an Advisory
Board by BIE, and operates without any meaningful authority or
decision-making; as typically exists at colleges and universities.
The BIE lack of understanding of the expectations and requirements
of higher education has resulted in failed decision-making and ongoing
negative press that undermine public confidence and notoriety that
damage the university. Options exist but are dismissed by the Bureau of
Indian Education. These include moving Haskell from the ``federally-
controlled'' model to a ``federally-funded'' entity.
Federally funded options
The model of Howard University, Gallaudet University and the
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (all federally funded)
best address the need for a model that would ensure the autonomy and
funding Haskell needs. The ability to secure operational funding,
endowment funding and construction funding comparable to the formula
used for the HBCU's would ensure growth and opportunities previously
denied to Haskell. This shift would continue to recognize the trust
responsibilities of the federal government for the education of
American Indians/Alaska Natives, under a different umbrella.
The entire structure of the University would change from that of a
quasi-federal agency/institution of higher education. Many of the
complaints, investigations and final decisions are loosely handled
using bureau rules that can be manipulated depending on the issue and
person. These are long time antics of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
more recently of the Bureau of Indian Education. Investigations that
deny the accused the right to due process have become routine.
Any change of the status quo creates worries, including concerns of
retaliation for speaking honestly about the truth. There are also
concerns that any intervention by Congress will not benefit Haskell but
instead be an effort to shut down this historic institution as a result
of BIE failures. Concerns also challenge the impact on current
employees who may lose wages, federal benefits or retirement in the
federal government if change occurs. However, there are solutions that
could be built into any blueprint.
Concerns have also been raised about whether the ``trust
obligations'' for the education of American Indian and Alaska Native
students would be lost if a shift from BIE to the Department of
Education would occur. In the chartering documents of Howard
University, inclusion of language specific to the responsibility to
education for African Americans was included which appears to be
reparation. Similar unique language would be included to honor the
trust responsibilities of the federal government that Haskell carries
out.
Moving from a federally controlled college status to a federally
funded model would be a timely process that will require input from
Haskell students and alumni and employees, as well as consultation with
federally-recognized Tribes, all of which are essential to any change
initiative based on empowerment. It's time to move forward with
solutions that will strengthen Haskell Indian Nations University.
Table One: The benefits of transitioning Haskell to a ``federally
funded college'' category under the auspices of the Department of
Education would 1) increase the autonomy of Haskell, 2) improve access
to funding by participation in the Federal Endowment Match, as well as
access to significant construction funds, 3) substantial increases in
federal appropriations for the operations of Haskell, 4) enable Haskell
to utilize management practices and decision making consistent with
colleges and universities and 5) greater advocacy in the federal
systems for advancing and strengthening this historic and unique
institution and 6) protect the trust responsibilities for education for
American Indian/Alaska Native students.
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Sincerely,
Venida S. Chenault, Ph.D,
Lawrence, KS 66044
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hageman
Statement for the Record
Tierra Standing Soldier Thomas
My name is Tierra Standing Soldier Thomas. I have been facing many
struggles while studying at Haskell Indian Nations University starting
in the fall 2021 semester. I experienced many family, educational, and
personal struggles during my time at Haskell for which I received no
support. In many cases, Haskell administrators exacerbated or created
challenges. These struggles included:
grieving the death of three family members within a period
of 8 months
the arrest of a father figure (uncle) in spring 2022
six hospitalizations in a year and a half period due to
severe allergic reactions, medication side effects,
injuries, sickness, a severe concussion caused by unknown
circumstances, and a suicide attempt
a hostile school and athletic environment due to bullying
from student-athletes
intimidating meetings with Judith Gipp and Tonia Salvini
where students were threatened and forced under duress to
sign a no-contact order for Coach Mayes
mental health challenges such as ADHD, anxiety,
depression, suicidal ideations, and several suicide
attempts
sexual assault by another Haskell student in spring 2022,
of which I will further detail
I was walking around for hours and sometimes walking miles in
circles because my mental state was so poor in order to keep myself
from unaliving. November 4, 2021 is when I learned I was no longer able
to have contact with former Coach Clay Mayes, who had been a big
support in my push toward advocating that I needed mental help and
trying to stay on task with my work. It had been a little over a month
since I had buried two family members that I was close with and I was
trying to cope and grieve in a stressful environment.
After the hostile practice environment and being pulled from
competing in cross country meets, I quit the track team due to so much
emotional turmoil in a short amount of time and grew extremely
depressed. Over the semester, I had made numerous jokes about ending my
life, slowly went from excellent attendance to not showing up, and
didn't know how to ask for help any further. I distanced myself from
others, walked for hours even in the rain, and stopped participating in
the sport I love most. I attempted to take my life over winter break.
At a Champions of Character event regarding suicide in February of
2022, as well as during classes, I revealed my suicide attempts and had
no wellness check done on me. I was making a cry for help and I needed
someone to conduct a wellness check on me. My cry was not heard. I then
experienced a knee injury which greatly impacted my mental state
because I was not able to use my main coping mechanism: running. I
would often break down crying trying to make it around campus because
of the pain and having to climb down two flights of stairs any time I
wanted to leave my dorm. This made it difficult to attend class, go to
the food hall, and carry on daily activities. I felt extremely hopeless
and was not sure what to do regarding my mental health and classes.
April 26, 2022, another student at Haskell drugged me, raped me,
and held me against my will for 15 hours off campus. I was terrified to
go anywhere around Haskell campus in fear of running into my
perpetrator again. I had lost all sense of my personal identity due to
denial, a regular occurrence in rape victims. I showed clear signs of
PTSD such as not eating, being unable to sleep, becoming quieter, and
avoiding eye contact. I ignored calls from family and friends because I
felt so much shame and didn't feel like my body belonged to me. With
the fear from running into the person again and PTSD combined, I
couldn't emotionally stay invested into class.
May 12, 2022, I emailed McKinney seeking plausible extensions in my
classes due to recent trauma, hospital visits, and losing family. May
15, I discussed thoughts of suicide and rape to an RA and she reported
it. May 16, 2022, I met with Danelle McKinney about my rape and
received a no-contact order against my perpetrator. The order did not
protect me from the perpetrator living in student housing, attending
the university, or from having to run into them on campus. No
consequences were given to that person with little transparency.
McKinney stated she would look into extensions, but there was no follow
up and I was not informed of a no-credit option. May 20, 2022, I was
told I did not qualify for summer housing due to my GPA and had to work
with McKinney to get a room for summer school.
All of these circumstances, compiled with my pre-existing ADHD
diagnosis and mental health struggles including suicidal ideations and
attempts, made it impossible to keep up with school work. I took the
initiative to gain a referral to our community mental health facility
and to seek out tutoring, but received no support from Haskell
administration. I reached out to Dannelle McKinney, Alta St. Pierre,
Matthew Downing, Judith Gipp, Albert Gipp, Freda Gipp, Tina Tortillott,
and various professors for assistance such as extensions. Over and
over, I expressed I was overwhelmed with grief, felt alone, felt
trapped, was having problems with my classes after trying to reach out,
and wanted mental health resources. Ultimately, instead of being
assisted, I was kicked out of Haskell twice due to a low GPA and denied
my Pell grant during my time at Haskell between Spring 2022 and Spring
2024 including summer school. I have been proactive throughout the year
when I needed help and was not offered the proper services I needed.
I had some hope when investigators came onto Haskell's campus to
investigate wrongdoing in the summer of 2022. After being interrogated
by them for over 3 hours, reliving my trauma I had not yet processed,
they reassured me that the report would be made public and I would be
protected from retaliation. I have yet to see the report and shortly
after making my investigative statement, I was kicked out of Haskell.
I was an MMIW who survived. I'm asking for accountability.
Accountability for Pell I haven't received, accountability for all of
the retaliation I've been subjected to. I want acknowledgement for the
emotional distress I've gone through. I am a victim who has had to
overcome many obstacles and barriers that should never have been in
place. I'm tired of living in fear of my predator, of school staff, or
everything I do being used against me. I want to see victims at Haskell
protected. I want to see the proper legal procedures and support occur
for victims. I want to have the opportunity to pursue my education at a
place I feel protected and safe in. I want the predators at Haskell
removed. I don't want young girls to worry about seeing their predator.
I'm asking that my words hold meaning and enact the change Haskell
needs to be safer and follow the legal conduct required of them.
Pilamayaye (thank you).