On Oct. 21, in response to recent demands posed by Righteous Anger! Healing Resistance! (RAHR) and the Sept. 25 peaceful protest, Chancellor Jeremy Haefner released a statement. While the response touched on some of the admirable work DU is doing to increase diversity and honor Indigenous peoples who have been silenced in the past, it represents a weak step towards inclusivity.
Three of the seven demands were denied, including a “final” reaffirmation of the Pioneer moniker. Those demands that were “granted” by the Chancellor were done halfheartedly so. Many of the Chancellor’s promises fell short of RAHR’s terms or simply emphasized existing events like the DU New Beginnings Powwow. This has sparked understandable outrage and frustration across the DU community, and it should show Chancellor Haefner and the DU Board of Trustees the obligation to reconsider their position.
While much of DU’s response failed to acknowledge what the university should be doing to support people of color, it is important to acknowledge its concessions. As said in the John Evans Committee’s letter to the administration, there is “much to commend in the Chancellor’s email,” as progress—though small—is being made.
One of the demands, the establishment of a Critical Race and Ethnic Studies (CRES) department, was representative of this piecemeal progress. The Chancellor committed to pursuing a CRES major, stating that, “a faculty search for a hire to support CRES was recently approved for fall 2021.” They did not mention future plans for a department. The reconstitution of the Native American Advisory Board (NACAB) is also a welcome undertaking, the Chancellor promising to “schedule new meetings with the current Native American Community Advisory Board (NACAB)” in November.
These goals are important for DU to progress as an inclusive institution, and it is well and good that DU is working towards them. However, the loose or nonexistent timelines laid out in the response show little regard for accountability.
This accountability was called into question by the RAHR organizers who met with Chancellor Haefner. During the meeting, third-year Blake Nordstrom-Wehner recollects the chancellor saying, “I understand the university has made a lot of statements we haven’t followed up on.”
This point was further emphasized by the Chancellor’s refusal to admit a member of The Clarion to sit in as an impartial moderator. The issue becomes even more concerning in light of the Chancellor’s similar refusal to create a seat for student representatives on the Board of Trustees. These grievances leave students unable to influence the actions of the university on an administrative level.
It would do Chancellor Haefner good to lay out a specific plan for the way that DU will remain transparent in its commitment to RAHR’s demands, as the university did during the wecanDUbetter movement earlier this year. In comparison to the Chancellor’s recent communication, the seven-page wecanDUbetter response is a comprehensive address of education and policy. The extensive specificity and personal nature of the former response conveys the university’s commitment to fighting gender-based violence.
This may be indicative of the fact that wecanDUbetter was largely spearheaded by white students, while RAHR advocates for Native and Indigenous students. Vague promises to people of color are too often empty and ignored under the guise of eventual progress or “ongoing” efforts.
Despite leaving promises up in the air, Chancellor Haefner seems to understand that RAHR and its outstanding student and faculty support remain committed and prepared to continue this fight.
While there are certainly high points of Chancellor Haefner’s response to the demands, the three denials are far more telling of DU’s tentative commitment to its diverse student body. The most notable and controversial of these was the reaffirmation of the Pioneer moniker, despite its racist and oppressive connotations for many Indigenous students, alumni and faculty.
The Chancellor recognized the divisiveness of the word in his response, writing that the moniker’s use was “one of the most polarizing issues on our campus.” Despite the Chancellor’s acknowledgment that “opinions are deeply entrenched for and against,” he felt there was a need for a “final decision to be made.”
The Chancellor upheld the 2018 decision by the Board of Trustees to identify with the Pioneer moniker, opting to pursue education on the linguistic history and contradictory nature of the term.
As if Native students need to be reminded that the word reminiscent of colonizers who slaughtered their ancestors is also a valuable tool for school spirit.
Alumni of the Native Student Alliance put it best in their response to the Chancellor: “We cannot deny that the ‘Pioneer’ nickname will hold a different meaning to those whose ancestors were not harmed by the historical definition of the word. Their ancestors were not murdered and assaulted by pioneers.”
Since Chancellor Haefner’s email, various organizations and groups have responded, dismantling the idea that the Pioneer moniker can be reclaimed and denoting it as shortsighted and exclusionary. Among others, DU’s English department, the Korbel School of International Studies and the Political Science department reiterated how the name held a deeply troubled history for Native populations, especially within the DU community.
DU’s history is inherently attached to atrocities like the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre. “Pioneers” whose legacies are entrenched in DU’s existence like John Evans and John Chivington played active roles in this event, as laid out in the John Evans Report. But the 1864 massacre is not the only time DU’s “Pioneers” have harmed communities of color.
The letter from the alumni of the NSA provides a detailed history of discrimination against Native students at DU. Last month, RAHR launched their #ThisIsWhatPioneeringLooksLike campaign, noting instances in DU’s past where racism has been tolerated and emboldened by the Pioneer moniker.
Chancellor Haefner acknowledges that “for some, the word pioneer affirms that which is the very best of us and, for others, the very worst.” Why then does his email force the adoption of settler-language, harmful to the identities and mental health of Indigenous peoples? Does this not go against the “collective future” he seeks to aim for? It is clear that for Native students and alumni, there is no point in redefining “Pioneer.” Centuries of genocide cannot simply be erased. Is this “final” decision not in blatant disregard of the wishes of communities of color? Does it not favor a colonial narrative?
Some DU alumni argue that eliminating the Pioneer moniker devalues their experience at DU and collective identities as “Pioneers.” Puck Swami of LetsGoDU—an alumni-led source that has been outspoken in support of the Pioneer moniker—believes that “once you take away that identity, you slice 150,000 DU alums from their school/shared experience.” To proponents of this idea, I ask: why are four years of your college experience of more importance than centuries of genocide, violence and discrimination?
Upholding the Pioneer moniker may appease select alumni. But DU alienates other alumni, faculty and current students, like those participating in the #whendiversitydisappears movement. If it is a question of who has more support—though it should not be—I would suggest looking towards the outpour of support RAHR has received in the past weeks or the blacked-out screens which now occupy Zoom classes. The organization’s Instagram (@rahr.du) has amassed more than 1000 followers.
Pride in a university spurs from that institution’s ability to take initiative for the future, rather than remain stuck in the past. Chancellor Haefner’s response seems to show that he knows there is work to be done, yet he is not wholly committed to the issue.
At a recent Faculty Senate meeting, when asked about his stance on renaming the Pioneer moniker, the chancellor reportedly responded “never say never.” Well, Chancellor Haefner, it should be known that Indigenous students will never feel comfortable under a moniker that represents their oppression. The conversation is not going to die down, and pendulum-like oscillation between the nostalgic wishes of alumni and what is right is unappreciated.
Yes, the Chancellor’s response made a few small steps away from what DU was and towards what the university could be. But many former and current students have been bounding towards a future, inclusive DU for too long. It is high time that the Board of Trustees and Chancellor Haefner caught up.
