Professor Tim White on the Luby Report

Click on the two pages above to see Professor Tim White's view of the "Luby Report." The odd part was, it wasn't made public until after July 7, 2007--so how can he complain about his whistle-blower rights being violated? Is he paranoid about something? And one also has to ask, if the testimony in front of the State legislature in February 2008 wasn't covered by whistle-blower legislation?

Our thanks to Sandra Harris for turning this over to the state of California.

The "Luby" Report

A digital copy of the July 18, 2000 report by Dr. Ed Luby to Vice Chancellor Cerny
"Administrative Update on Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)" is now available on-line at

http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com/

This report describes how UC Berkeley got into forbearance, what they
did to get out of it, and the possible consequences thereof. This report was made public during the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008.

Prof. Nelson Graburn's concerns

Below is an e-mail submitted to the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008 by Ms. Sandra Harris. (As always, why is she submitting Kent Lightfoot's email to the State Senate?)

Left click on the message to read it full size

The PR Dept. & Freedom of Speech in the UC system

Below is an e-mail message that was submitted to the California State Legislature by Vice-Chancellor Beth Burnside's office. This was for the hearing on February 26th, 2008 on the disbanding of the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley.
After reading this message, one has to wonder when it became standard operating procedure for the faculty and staff in the UC system to loose their rights to have a dissenting opinion? Does working for UC mean that one gives up their right to criticize the actions of the UC system? One also has to wonder why the PR people are so concerned if there is a dissenting voice from within the UC system? (Left click on the message to read it full size.)

What Happened with the American Anthropological Association?

This is just another e-mail submitted by Sandra Harris, Vice-Director of the Hearst Museum as evidence to the State Senate Hearings on February 26th, 2008. Once again, we have to ask, why is she reading the Director's email and submitting it as evidence? We also have to ask, was their an investigation from the American Anthroplogical Association? (Click on the image above to see it full size.)

Consultation After the Fact?

UC has steadfastly argued that they compiled and filed the inventories in accordance with Federal law. Yet, one of the documents submitted to the State Legislature for the February 26th, 2008 hearing draws this stance into question. One has to wonder why they are asking for money to do consultation in January 2001, after the inventories were filed with the Federal government.

Which tribes did come in for consultation? Which tribes had consultation after the inventories were filed?

(Click on each image to see it full size)

The WAC--archaeology as usual?

To the left is a scan of a document submitted to the State of California hearings by Sandra Harris, Vice-Director of the Hearst Museum of Anthropology. (Click on it to see a full, readable image.)

While the WAC (World Archaeology Congress) says it has special interest in protecting "the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples", one wonders if they sent similar messages to other stakeholders? If so, who?

Also, one has to ask why the Vice-Director is reading the Director's email and submitting it as evidence?

Statement by Otis Parrish

I am here to tell you what happened with the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum in May and June of 2007. It is hard for me to speak about this because what occurred was a breach of friendship and a violation of trust and honor. My tribe, the Kashia Pomo, and my relations have all given much to the Phoebe Hearst Museum and UC Berkeley. We have opened our tribe to working with Berkeley students and have hosted and been a part of the Fort Ross project. We have given freely of our knowledge, of our tribal ways, and have trusted in ties of friendship and respect. The University simply threw this away. Native Americans and a unit which fairly administered NAGPRA were lied to and treated with contempt and disrespect. This is not how you treat Native people, and it should not be how you treat any people.

The “outside review,” which was conducted on the NAGPRA unit on May 16th, 2007, was orchestrated in secrecy by the upper administration at the university and deliberately excluded Native Americans and tribal representatives. The review was a ruse, performed for these purposes alone: to rid the Museum of the autonomous NAGPRA unit, to turn control of NAGPRA over to research scientists and to take over NAGPRA funds. As a result, the Native American interests in the repatriation of their ancestors will not be fairly or adequately addressed. It is hard to stand up against the powerful when you have little power yourself. But we believe it is our duty. The Director of the Museum Kent Lightfoot, Deputy Director Sandra Harris, Vice Chancellor Beth Burnside, and Associate Vice Chancellor Robert Price all worked in secret to eliminate the NAPGRA unit, and with it, truly impartial NAGPRA services. They didn’t consult with the very people at the University who had the most knowledge and experience with both tribes and NAGPRA. And when we asked for Native American tribes to be represented on the review committee, the answer from the Vice Chancellor was an ABSOLUTE NO! Why? I can only assume that they believed tribes would reject their decision.

California Tribes…and all tribes were described by administrators such as Price as “outsiders”…with no relevant knowledge or experience in museums. Remember NAGPRA is a human rights issue – not a “museum efficiency issue” – and it was designed to give us a chance to repatriate our ancestors and rebury them as they deserve. No other Americans have had their ancestors’ graves pillaged and their bones taken away to museum shelves, to be researched on at the whim of scientists. The remains at the Museum belong to NATIVE AMERICANS, and yet the administrators say we have NO right to be included in policy decisions affecting our ancestors. This is ARROGANCE and this is RACISM…and it should not be permitted.

Testimony by Larri Fredericks

{Testimony to the California State Senate Committee on Governmetal Organization given by
Dr. Larri Fredericks on 2/26/2008. The full hearing is available from the Committee and can
be requested in writing from Suite 584, 1020 N Street, Sacramento, CA}

It is also my feeling that the “outside review” was orchestrated in secrecy, deliberately
excluded all Native Americans and tribal representatives for the sole purpose of getting rid
of the existing NAGPRA unit and reorganizing NAGPRA into the museum. The reorganization will subordinate NAGPRA services to the museum administration and further solidify the power of the Repatriation Committee’s involvement in the daily operation of NAGPRA and how it
conducts business. NAGPRA will now be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

NAGPRA is an important issue at the Phoebe Hearst because they hold the largest collection
of Native American skeletal remains in the nation (only the Smithsonian has a larger
collection and they don’t come under the NAGPRA law). The operations of NAGPRA, in order to
serve the best interests of ALL, should be transparent, be in a neutral place and Native
American tribes should be represented. These are after all Native American remains…what
other group in America does not have a right to speak for their dead?

As tribal representatives on this panel will confirm, there has been a history of strained
relations between tribes and the museum in the past over NAGPRA. When I became Interim
NAGPRA Coordinator, I was determined to change this, and Otis Parrish and Mark Hall were
fully supportive. The way we wanted to change it was not by showing favoritism toward
tribes, but by listening to them, taking their requests seriously and treating them fairly,
and giving them the recognition that was required as the basic stakeholders in the process.

We did not want to “give away the store”; but we recognized that Native American ancestral
remains belonged to Native Americans. Our goal was to assist tribes understand the subtle
details of archival review, documentation, archaeological data, and so on, so they could
access and provide all of the legitimate evidence to present their claims to repatriation
committees that required extensive and detailed evidence based claims. We gave them the
tools: knowledge and access to the collections, the documents, and the libraries, including
the Bancroft.

We succeeded in gaining the confidence of many tribes, so much so that they rallied to our
support after the reorganization was announced. They sent countless letters of support and
protest to the Chancellor, passed tribal and National resolutions, joined coalitions, and
did a myriad of other things. How did we achieve this trust? By acknowledging the importance
of the repatriation of their ancestors, by treating them fairly and for bringing forth their
concerns and desires to the museum. Operating with at least semi-autonomy allowed us to
bring fourth their concerns and to ensure that collections in consultation were not accessed
for research, to remove exhibits from sites in consultation that were considered sacred
sites and to ensure that policy included their interests. At times this angered people in
the Museum, and, according to the Bettinger/Walker “review,” some of these people complained
that our relationships were “dysfunctional.” I should note, however, that Bettinger and
Walker did not interview most of the museum staff with whom we regularly worked and with
whom we had very positive relations. But more important, sometimes integrity requires making
people angry, sometimes we could not fairly and impartially administer NAGPRA, a federal
law, without stepping on Museum toes. I also feel that most of the staff at the museum was
supportive of the NAGPRA Unit and our actions.

On the other hand, we acted above and beyond our NAGPRA duties to help the Museum establish positive relations with tribal communities and with Native American organizations on campus. We assisted with outreach and educational programs, organized California Indian Day events, hosted the Summer Rez program for Indian undergraduates, mentored Anthropology graduate students and accepted two Native American interns, obtained funding from the City of
Berkeley for the Native California Cultural Gallery, and begged Museum administrators to
actually change the contents of that gallery (it had stayed the same for 6 years) and to
hold a major Native American exhibition (there hadn’t been one for many years, and none was
planned for many more).

No management official ever informed me or anyone on my staff that we were not performing
effectively. In fact, we were often praised by Museum Director Kent Lightfoot. No one ever
asked us how we might better integrate our activities into museum functions without
sacrificing the integrity of NAGPRA services. Hence, we were completely blindsided by the
sudden review and by the announcement of the reorganization only a few weeks later. No one
consulted us, and when we asked that the tribes be represented on the review committee, we
were answered with an “Absolute no.” I agree entirely with Otis Parrish: the review was a
set up, intended to give legitimacy to a decision that had already been made. Tribes were
excluded because they would have seen that decision for what it was: a coup by museum
scientists who wanted to keep the remains for purposes of research and by museum
administrators who wanted control of the NAGPRA budget.

Testimony by Mark Hall

{Testimony to the California State Senate Committee on Governmetal Organization given by Dr. Mark Hall on 2/26/2008. The full hearing is available from the Committee and can be requested in writing from Suite 584, 1020 N Street, Sacramento, CA}


Dear Senators, Ladies, and Gentlemen,

Good Morning. My name is Mark Hall, and I was formerly the archaeologist with the NAGPRA Unit at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley. I was in this position from February 1, 2006 until June 30th, 2007.

As to my background, I finished my PhD in Anthropology (Archaeology emphasis) from UC Berkeley in Dec. 1992. Most of my career has been spent living, working and doing research in museums in Ireland, Japan and the United Kingdom. I am a registered Professional Archaeologist, and a Fellow in the Royal Society of Asian Affairs, and a Fellow in the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

While all this overseas experience my seem irrelavent,it needs to be stressed that I did quickly learn one thing. Local communities have an interest in their heritage. It didn't matter whether I was in Ireland or Mongolia, the local people all identified with the local archaeological remains
and museum materials. To do archaeology and research in these places required the involvement and permission from the community.

I see the same principles applying here in North America--to do research and study on prehistoric North American materials one needs the involvement and sanction of the Native American tribes.

I am here today not as a disgruntled, former employee, but as an archaeologist and museum professional who is outraged and disgusted with what has transpired with UC Berkley and its NAGPRA obligations.

First, I am outraged at the way the University covertly and with bias eliminated the NAGPRA unit. While our jobs made us the intermediaries between museum staff, researchers and Native Americans, the University sought only two UC faculty to evaluate and review us. While they were scheduled to question the NAGPRA staff for 20 minutes each, in my case, it was only a 10 minute interview--one member needed to work on getting a plane back to Santa Barbara, and the other wanted to complain about doing the review. In terms of the rest of their fact finding mission, they only bothered to question other museum employees that we interacted with only irregularly. There was no input from the Native American communities we served, and as Prof. Burnside's emails indicate, there was not to be any input from these communities. Further, while we were told this was for budget support from both Beth Burnside and Kent Lightfoot, the reviewers told us they were reviewing us on how we fit into museum operations and evaluate our job performance.

Moving on to other points. While UCB touts it is in compliance with the federal NAGPRA law, one can question its sincerity. In a 2000 report by Dr. Edward Luby, a former NAGPRA coordinator, he estimated that 48% of the inventories were done without full review of the documents available at UCB. While technically legal, is it really ethical and moral? One also has to wonder what impact does this have on the Hearst listing 80% of its collection as culturally unidentifiable? My personal feeling is that it will have a major impact--from what I have found in the paperwork, parts of CA-Lassen-7, CA-San Joaquin-42, CA-Tul-145, Humboldt and Hidden caves in Nevada should have been eligible for repatriation. Along similar lines, one also has to question the Hearst's title to some items in its collections. For example does UC Berkeley really hold title to the finds from sites NV-Washoe-177 through 180 that
were accessioned to the museum before 1970?

The process that the UC system has put into place for Native American tribes to file a claim is also a source of disgust. Whether through intention or accident, claims for items and human remains in the Hearst must be written and submitted as a formal report. This means it must be referenced, footnoted and with a bibliography. This is in contrast to most Federal agencies which accept a short letter and oral testimony. While NAGPRA recognizes oral traditions, linguistics, and history as relevant lines of evidence, the UCB repatriation committee in the months between February 2006 and June 2007 was noticeably lacking in members specializing in these fields. And unless changes have been made since June 2007, the UCOP Repatriation committee is also lacking specialists in linguistics, oral traditions/folklore, and history. Native American representation on both the Berkeley repatriation committee and the UCOP repatriation committee is also minimal. For the Berkely repatriation committee there was only 1. For the UCOP committee, there is 2.

And yes when a claim is filed it must go through two committees. It goes through the local campus committee first, and if it gets approved for repatriation there, it goes to the UCOP repatriation committee. The UCOP committee can accept or reject it. In essence you have a double jeopardy system.

Finally, the UCB mantra in this whole affair has been: "we want to be more like other museums." One has to ask though, do these other museums which the Hearst wants to emulate have a sizable Native American community living in their midst? in most cases it is no!
Also, one can ask when did UCB ever settle for being mediocre? The UCB I was trained by, taught us to be the best period. What is wrong with setting a new standard and a new path?

Thank you for your time and the oportunity to voice these concerns.