Of the 29 Surveys:
13 Inluded a Pro-NAGPRA exceprt
16 Included a Anti-Repatriation exceprt
13 People knew of the remains at the Hearst Museum
9 People were not aware of the remains at the Hearst Museum.
6 Did not answer the question.
1 Was "not sure" whether they were aware of the remains at the Hearst Museum.
Only 3 people who took the survey were familiar with NAGPRA.
19 People used "key words" from the excerpts in their answers.
Of the 19 people:
11 Acknowledged that the language influenced their opinion.
8 Said that the language had no influence on their opinion.
10 People did not use "key words" from the excerpts.
Of the 10 people:
7 Said the language influenced their opinion.
3 Said the language did not influence their opinion
Of the 13 Pro-NAGPRA Surveys:
12 People agreed with NAGPRA and the repatriation of the remains in the Hearst Museum.
1 Person did not believe in the ownership of remains.
Of the 16 Anti-Repatriation Surveys:
5 People valued the contribution of skeletal remains to science over repatriation.
5 People did not favor science to repatriation, but rather were conflicted in their values.
6 People supported repatriation over potential scientific use.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Does language influence Cal students' opinions regarding the NAGPRA/Hearst Museum issue?
With our project, we set out to determine if and how language can be influential in forming students' views regarding this controversial issue. We presented surveys that included a neutral text that summarized NAGPRA and biased accounts that either favored or opposed repatriation of the Native American remains at the Hearst Museum.
Conclusions:
We found that the biased language influenced the majority of students, whether they were conscious of it or not. Although many people incorporated words from the excerpts in their answers, only some acknowledged that the language influenced their opinions.
Conclusions:
We found that the biased language influenced the majority of students, whether they were conscious of it or not. Although many people incorporated words from the excerpts in their answers, only some acknowledged that the language influenced their opinions.
Questions for Chancellor Birgeneau
-What is the University's current policy regarding the Native American remains at Hearst Museum?
-How did/does the text/language of the NAGPRA law, newspaper articles, hearings, testimony, protests, and/or letters influence your decision making regarding this issue?
-Is the University currently negotiating/communicating with relevant Native American groups?
-Has there been any progress recently towards resolving this issue?
-Does your Metis background influence your decision making regarding this issue?
-If you could have grown up learning any language, which would it be and why?
-How did/does the text/language of the NAGPRA law, newspaper articles, hearings, testimony, protests, and/or letters influence your decision making regarding this issue?
-Is the University currently negotiating/communicating with relevant Native American groups?
-Has there been any progress recently towards resolving this issue?
-Does your Metis background influence your decision making regarding this issue?
-If you could have grown up learning any language, which would it be and why?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Links
Full Text of NAGPRA law:
http://www.nagpra.org/nagprafull.pdf
National NAGPRA site:
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra
Law and Regulations:
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/mandates/index.htm
Berkeley Daily Planet archive:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/archives
http://www.nagpra.org/nagprafull.pdf
National NAGPRA site:
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra
Law and Regulations:
http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/mandates/index.htm
Berkeley Daily Planet archive:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/archives
Key/influential words from pro-science/research excerpt/responses
*skeletal remains
*direct access
*forbidden
*all Americans
*culturally unidentifiable
*direct access
*forbidden
*all Americans
*culturally unidentifiable
Key/influential words from pro-NAGPRA excerpt/responses
*human rights
*entitlement
*pillaged
*sacred
*institutional
*entitlement
*pillaged
*sacred
*institutional
Some comments from students who read the pro-science/research excerpt
Students who agreed with what they read:
__
In a perfect world, NAGPRA makes sense, and it is valid that they would want these items returned to their culture. However, this is a lot trickier than just "give them back" and it doesn't seem like there is a simple answer. I agree more with the Professor for two reasons. First, because I do believe we need these to educate students. Second, his letter was straight to the point. His language was not wordy so I know that he wasn't trying to "confuse" his reader into agreeing with him.
__
*I don't think the museum should return objects to their lineage. Yes the language was persuasive because the "I" statements made it personal, and the act was more impersonal. I agree that such artifacts should be used for educational purposes.
__
*I think that they have a valid argument. These remains belong to all Americans and the students require the use of the skeletal remains. (The language) was well written and informative.
__
*If they lost the remains and the Federal government has not stepped up to force the University to return said remains, there is no transgression. I appreciate NAGPRA but culture shouldn't be pursued in excess. Just let it go. The official wording and explanatory nature of the NAGPRA summary leads me to support the timeliness of government intervention or potential lack thereof.
Students who disagreed with what they read:
*It is a valid, important policy. It was morally wrong to steal these remains. I understand the need for scientific study for research. But, these remains weren't willingly given, they were taken. (The language) didn't influence me much because I have been informed on this issue for a long time now.
__
I think it's a great program. With our history of abuse with Indians they deserve to get whatever culture back that they can get. (The excerpt) did persuade me to look at the opponent's view. However my own knowledge and the clarity of the (NAGPRA law excerpt) strengthened my views.
__
*I think it's a necessary, responsible act, and the government should hold itself accountable for the preservation of a disappearing culture. The latter excerpt made it seem like educational institutions were entitled to these artifacts.
Students who were on the fence about what they read:
__
*Certain things, no matter where/when they're found belong to certain people, and are culturally/spiritually relevant to them. Both (excerpts) provided solid arguments. The NAGPRA one appealed to my sense of personal belongings and loss/theft. Tim White's arguments appeal to me as a scientist. These arguments are both persuasive which makes it so hard to decide. Every time I read one it seems right, then I read the other and it seems right.
__
(NAGPRA) is a good idea. I agree that some artifacts are necessary for educational purposes and ideally some would be donated to museums for this purpose. The paragraph about NAGPRA was wordy and more difficult to pay attention to.
__
In a perfect world, NAGPRA makes sense, and it is valid that they would want these items returned to their culture. However, this is a lot trickier than just "give them back" and it doesn't seem like there is a simple answer. I agree more with the Professor for two reasons. First, because I do believe we need these to educate students. Second, his letter was straight to the point. His language was not wordy so I know that he wasn't trying to "confuse" his reader into agreeing with him.
__
*I don't think the museum should return objects to their lineage. Yes the language was persuasive because the "I" statements made it personal, and the act was more impersonal. I agree that such artifacts should be used for educational purposes.
__
*I think that they have a valid argument. These remains belong to all Americans and the students require the use of the skeletal remains. (The language) was well written and informative.
__
*If they lost the remains and the Federal government has not stepped up to force the University to return said remains, there is no transgression. I appreciate NAGPRA but culture shouldn't be pursued in excess. Just let it go. The official wording and explanatory nature of the NAGPRA summary leads me to support the timeliness of government intervention or potential lack thereof.
Students who disagreed with what they read:
*It is a valid, important policy. It was morally wrong to steal these remains. I understand the need for scientific study for research. But, these remains weren't willingly given, they were taken. (The language) didn't influence me much because I have been informed on this issue for a long time now.
__
I think it's a great program. With our history of abuse with Indians they deserve to get whatever culture back that they can get. (The excerpt) did persuade me to look at the opponent's view. However my own knowledge and the clarity of the (NAGPRA law excerpt) strengthened my views.
__
*I think it's a necessary, responsible act, and the government should hold itself accountable for the preservation of a disappearing culture. The latter excerpt made it seem like educational institutions were entitled to these artifacts.
Students who were on the fence about what they read:
__
*Certain things, no matter where/when they're found belong to certain people, and are culturally/spiritually relevant to them. Both (excerpts) provided solid arguments. The NAGPRA one appealed to my sense of personal belongings and loss/theft. Tim White's arguments appeal to me as a scientist. These arguments are both persuasive which makes it so hard to decide. Every time I read one it seems right, then I read the other and it seems right.
__
(NAGPRA) is a good idea. I agree that some artifacts are necessary for educational purposes and ideally some would be donated to museums for this purpose. The paragraph about NAGPRA was wordy and more difficult to pay attention to.
Some comments from students who read the pro-NAGPRA excerpt
Students who agreed with what they read:
__
*Good idea. Overdue. They found Ishi's brain in a jar in the attic of the Smithsonian a mere 10 years ago. Already convinced of the need and language. Already know Cal's desecration of Ishi and other remains.
__
*I think it is warranted in its attempts to repatriate Native American cultural items because these rights are extended to other cultures in America.(The language) didn't influence my answer, the info alone influenced my position.
__
*The argument in the (excerpt) reinforced the importance of human rights. It defines what human rights are and how the "right to control the dead" is not even listed as a human right, because it is such an innate, natural and deserved right. This influenced me to side with NAGPRA.
__
I think NAGPRA is important in returning the remains of other peoples back to their place of origin. Americans wouldn't want our people's graves desecrated. Using language such as "Americans" and using America as an example brings the situation close to home so to speak and makes the argument more powerful.
__
(NAGPRA) is a very important act that makes all the sense in the world. It's just too bad that its repatriation period takes so long. (The language was) very influential. I understand that history is important but there are other ways to go about it. We don't value the feelings and beliefs of indigenous groups over ours and even when they win a statute, it's been over 20 years with little to show for.
__
*Even though I am quite ignorant on the matter, I feel that this act is a necessary step in returning sacred artifacts to their rightful owner. It is wrong to keep a peoples ancestors inside of a museum. I incorporated certain words from the excerpt to express my opinion.
__
*I think it is a sound act that protects the fundamental rights of people to have entitlement to their dead. Having control over the remains of one's ancestors should be an assumed, fundamental, protected right. (The language) didn't influence my answer.
__
It is important that the U.S. respect human rights and dignity in both theory and action. In Native American culture and beliefs, the dead have significant meaning. When bodies are displaced they cannot be released into the afterlife.The language parallels my own opinion.
__
*I think they have no right to do what they do. Governments should not "own" the rights of a certain culture and take what is not theirs. (The language did) little to influence my answer. Mostly facts formed my view.
Student who was on the fence about what they read:
__
*(NAGPRA is a) good idea, but a dead body is not owned by anyone. It tries to respect the beliefs of a culture that obviously values their dead.
__
*Good idea. Overdue. They found Ishi's brain in a jar in the attic of the Smithsonian a mere 10 years ago. Already convinced of the need and language. Already know Cal's desecration of Ishi and other remains.
__
*I think it is warranted in its attempts to repatriate Native American cultural items because these rights are extended to other cultures in America.(The language) didn't influence my answer, the info alone influenced my position.
__
*The argument in the (excerpt) reinforced the importance of human rights. It defines what human rights are and how the "right to control the dead" is not even listed as a human right, because it is such an innate, natural and deserved right. This influenced me to side with NAGPRA.
__
I think NAGPRA is important in returning the remains of other peoples back to their place of origin. Americans wouldn't want our people's graves desecrated. Using language such as "Americans" and using America as an example brings the situation close to home so to speak and makes the argument more powerful.
__
(NAGPRA) is a very important act that makes all the sense in the world. It's just too bad that its repatriation period takes so long. (The language was) very influential. I understand that history is important but there are other ways to go about it. We don't value the feelings and beliefs of indigenous groups over ours and even when they win a statute, it's been over 20 years with little to show for.
__
*Even though I am quite ignorant on the matter, I feel that this act is a necessary step in returning sacred artifacts to their rightful owner. It is wrong to keep a peoples ancestors inside of a museum. I incorporated certain words from the excerpt to express my opinion.
__
*I think it is a sound act that protects the fundamental rights of people to have entitlement to their dead. Having control over the remains of one's ancestors should be an assumed, fundamental, protected right. (The language) didn't influence my answer.
__
It is important that the U.S. respect human rights and dignity in both theory and action. In Native American culture and beliefs, the dead have significant meaning. When bodies are displaced they cannot be released into the afterlife.The language parallels my own opinion.
__
*I think they have no right to do what they do. Governments should not "own" the rights of a certain culture and take what is not theirs. (The language did) little to influence my answer. Mostly facts formed my view.
Student who was on the fence about what they read:
__
*(NAGPRA is a) good idea, but a dead body is not owned by anyone. It tries to respect the beliefs of a culture that obviously values their dead.
Post-Reading Questions
What do you think of NAGPRA? Why?
In what ways did the language in the presented documents influence your answer?
In what ways did the language in the presented documents influence your answer?
2nd Excerpt (pro-science/research language)
My name is Tim White. I have been a professor of Anthropology and Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, for thirty years. I, and my colleagues in such fields as medicine, physical anthropology, evolutionary biology, forensics and archaeology, rely heavily on the use of skeletal remains. Indeed, no students in these fields could be properly trained without direct access to relevant physical scientific evidence. At a time when the teaching of intelligent design is constitutionally forbidden, it is odd that the federal government is entertaining rules that would require Museums and universities to make curatorial decisions based on religious and spiritual criteria. All Americans have a "cultural relationship" with these culturally unidentifiable collections, and the evidence that they provide concerning the history of mankind.
1st Excerpt (pro-NAGPRA language)
If asked to enumerate their human rights, I doubt that most Americans would mention the right to control their dead. This is not because there is no such right; rather, the entitlement is so basic and universally extended that it is hardly recognized as a "right" by most people. But suppose America were occupied by a foreign invader whose scientists pillaged our cemeteries and shipped our ancestors' remains home for research. I have little doubt that most Americans would regard this as a fundamental violation of human rights and dignity. The United States of course, allowed this to happen to its indigenous people. Although our government acknowledged almost every other group's spiritual and legal claim to their dead, for much of American history it did not extend this basic human entitlement to Native Americans. Huge quantities of their ancestral remains and sacred objects were shipped to research institutions such as UC Berkeley's Hearst Museum, which houses the second largest such collection in the nation. In 1990, Congress tried to redress the injustice by passing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which requires museums to repatriate human remains and sacred objects to tribes.
Survey
Are you aware that there are thousands of human remains in the Hearst Museum here at Berkeley?
Have you heard of NAGPRA?
What is NAGPRA?
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a Federal law passed in 1990. NAGPRA provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony -- to lineal descendents, and culturally afffiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. In addition, NAGPRA authorizes Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with the documentation and repatriation of Native American cultural items, and establishes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee to monitor the NAGPRA process and facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise concerning repatriation under NAGPRA.
Now, please read the following excerpt:
Have you heard of NAGPRA?
What is NAGPRA?
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a Federal law passed in 1990. NAGPRA provides a process for museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items -- human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony -- to lineal descendents, and culturally afffiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. In addition, NAGPRA authorizes Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with the documentation and repatriation of Native American cultural items, and establishes the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee to monitor the NAGPRA process and facilitate the resolution of disputes that may arise concerning repatriation under NAGPRA.
Now, please read the following excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
