The Representational Politics of Science
Sent: September 29, 2021
From: Vincent J. Del Casino, Jr., Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dear Colleagues,
Recently, a colleague sent me a photo that has been posted on Twitter. In that photo
was an image of a smiling SJSU professor holding a skull of what appears likely to
be, based on the caption and background in the photo, an ancestor of one of our local
Native American tribes. That professor also appears to be standing in a SJSU curational
space, which holds the remains of hundreds of Native American peoples, many of whom
are from Muwekma Ohlone and other area tribes. This image has evoked shock and disgust
from our Native and Indigenous community on campus and from many people within and
outside of SJSU.
The image is tied to a larger argument in the same Twitter feed which suggests that
landmark human rights laws, such as the Federal Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), the California Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act of 2001 (CalNAGPRA), and the California Native American Cultural
Preservation bill (AB 275) that went into effect on January 1, 2021, are anti-science,
or at least impede scientific pursuits because they favor religious and cultural values
over scientific ones. Yet, there are many examples of how we regulate science. For
example, academics and governments have developed ethical standards for the governance of their fields as well as bureaucratic mechanisms to regulate
risks and harm in relation to scientific benefit. We have scientific review panels to protect research subjects in experiments, such as the ones that recently yielded
COVID-19 vaccines. We have institutional review boards that review the risks – not only physical, but also psychological and emotional as
well – and ask if the research findings are of value to society in such a way where
the benefits outweigh the risks. The federal government has also had to develop a
“Certificate of Confidentiality” to “protect the privacy of research subjects by prohibiting disclosure of identifiable,
sensitive research information to anyone not connected to the research except when
the subject consents or in a few other specific situations.”
These strategies are also imperfect because science, like religion, relies, to a certain
degree, on faith – a faith that scientific inquiry is the appropriate way to solve
wicked problems and grand challenges. And as is often the case, science can. But the
measures identified above also reflect that unfettered science can go horribly wrong,
which is why both academic societies and governments have had to step in to regulate
scientific research. NAGPRA, CalNAGPRA and AB 275 collectively set forth regulations
governing the material and ethical treatment of the remains of Native American and
Indigenous peoples who have suffered genocide at the hands of settler colonialism.
As binding federal and state law, they govern our institution’s actions when it comes
to the handling of those remains, which include the eventual return of the remains
if requested by descendants. Some would argue the laws do not go far enough, others
may argue they go too far, but in any event, we are not given a choice whether to
follow them.
While there are scientific issues at stake, there are also many things in the image
itself that do not align with the values of SJSU or of academic inquiry. For example,
in what context is it ever ethically appropriate for an academic to handle remains
while smiling with ungloved hands while calling these remains “friends”? I doubt many
colleagues in the fields of Forensic Science or Physical Anthropology would find this
palatable. Moreover, it is very important to ask: Does the research “value” implied
in the image really outweigh the risk of harm and trauma to Native American and Indigenous
peoples such an image evokes? Based on my reading of the ethical guidelines of the
social science disciplines that govern such practices and laws such as AB 275 – which
requires SJSU to consult affiliated California Indian tribes on protocols including
the need to “minimize handling” of such remains – the answer is no.
At the same time, does a professor have the right to express their views on the matter?
Do they have the right to advocate against laws like NAGPRA, CalNAGPRA, and AB 275
and present their work at academic conferences and post on social media? Do they have
the right to teach on these topics in their classes? The answer to all these questions
is yes.
Do other faculty likewise have a right to respond? That answer is also yes. I also
have the responsibility as the university’s provost to not only offer my reading of
such images as another social scientist but to assess the use of such images in relation
to the values of the institution. In that latter role, I can say that SJSU does not
condone or endorse the practice of posing with the human remains of others – be that
Native American or any other human remains. Moreover, aligned with the words of Dr.
Joanne Barker, who is Lenape (a citizen of the Delaware Tribe of Indians) and professor
of American Indian Studies at San Francisco State University, I acknowledge in our
institutional practices that “[n]ative peoples have been made to navigate around and
collaborate with one another because of federal authority and dominant science claims
about their histories, cultures, and genealogies. It is not that empirical science
is without value. But it should be accorded a similar kind of respect and role in
federal policy making—whether about recognition or repatriation—as native forms and
practices of knowledge, experts, and expertise” (108-109). And as required by NAGPRA, CalNAGPRA, and AB 275, SJSU has invested in the people
to respect tribal sovereignty by doing the appropriate work to “consult…with affiliated
California Indian tribes on any protocols to be used in the inventory process.”
SJSU has already begun dialogue with local Native American and Indigenous community
members about the treatment of human remains and artifacts as part of our implementation
of AB 275. SJSU’s Department of Anthropology, for example, has committed itself to
this dialogue, helping the University fully comply with the various laws that have been passed. This is one small step, however. There
is much more we need to do to build stronger bridges to area tribes and to our Native
American and Indigenous students, staff, and faculty. We can and we will.
Sincerely,
Vin
