By William G. Archambeault, Ph.D.*

ABSTRACT

Government Reductionism refers to the wide range of intentional or accidental policies that reduce the number of Native Americans living in Indian Country in the United States. The end consequence of which is to remove American Indians from tribal lands held in Federal Trust and from entitlement to treaty compensations.

Bias in academic criminal justice refers to several different acts or conditions that discourage the acquisition of academic and evidence based knowledge about issues of crime and justice that impact American Indians both on Reservations as well as in the larger society. Academic bias refers to such actions as ignoring the existence of American Indians in “minority focused research,” denigrating the value of research concerning American Indians, and labeling other forms of knowledge about American Indian populations as unimportant in main stream criminal justice literature, discouraging faculty from pursuing research and academic study of American Indian populations, among other examples. Academic bias against knowledge and research on American Indian populations in Criminal Justice and Criminology, acts to reinforce the effects of governmental reductionism.

Evidence of academic bias against the study of American Indian crime and justice issues by main stream criminal justice and criminology was reinforced in 2002 in a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Social Science Association. This paper examined the content of one hundred eighty-five “minority focused” criminal justice and criminology publications from main stream journals and research reports, published between January, 1995 and March 2002. Typical of the findings reported were these two: 1) 99% of minority focused research articles appearing in mainstream criminology or criminal justice academic journals either ignored American Indian populations completely or did not treat Native Peoples on par with other minorities; and 2) 87% of all government funded research on minorities’ focused crime and justice studies totally ignored or did not treat Native Peoples on par with other minorities.

This current paper examines research literature published from January 2002 through March 2008, and addresses similar questions. Reported are some interesting changes in academic bias, but the continuation of it.

INTRODUCTION

Government Reductionism refers to the wide range of intentional as well as accidental policies that reduce the number of Native Americans living in Indian Country in the United States. Historically, governmental reductionism began with Spanish and English colonization of the Americas during the 15th through the17th Centuries. It continued with the 18th Century Western expansion of the United States and the 19th Century policy of forcing Indians onto reservations and reserves and into the 20th Century with various land allotment acts. All forms of governmental reductionism end in one or more of following four consequences:

1. The Removal of First Nations Peoples from traditional tribal lands, and the seizing of these lands by other politically influential interests;
2. The Removal or Reduction of American Indians from Indian County Lands, held in Federal Trust;
3. The Removal or Reduction of American Indians entitled to treaty compensations by the Federal Government;
4. To lessen political influence and self-sufficiency of First Nations People by reducing their numbers.

Some may also argue that government reductionism was behind the policies of the Indian boarding school era. While others argue that it continues today under the guise of multiculturalism which focuses many peoples from many different nations and cultures while ignoring the diversity which exists among American Indian cultures today.

Government Reductionism policies are aided in attaining intended objectives by academic bias: whether intentional or accidental. Academic bias against American Indians takes several forms, such as ignoring the existence of American Indians in minority focused research in urban US communities, excluding American Indian justice issues from multicultural policy analysis, and relegating research and scholarly publications that focus on Native American issues to status of lesser (or of insignificant) importance to literature on other minority groups. These biases are further reinforced by the editorial section policies of many criminal justice, criminology, sociology and social work journals. These biases are reinforced even more strongly by academic university department policies that devalue the worth of research or scholarly publications which focus on American Indian crime and justice issues, and promotion and tenure review policies that discourage or penalize faculty for engaging in such scholarly efforts. Finally, the government itself reinforces these biases by not setting grant funding standards that force so called “minorities focused research” to include American Indian crime and justice issues on par with other minorities.

Evidence of academic bias in mainstream criminal justice and criminology literature was supported in a paper presented at the 44th Annual WSSA meeting in Albuquerque in 2002 by this author. Presented was the content analysis of two hundred eighty-five criminology and criminal justice publications, published between January 1995 and March 2002. One hundred ninety-eight journal articles from main stream criminology and criminal justice¹ journals and eighty-seven federally funded research studies were examined². ALL purported to be minority population studies dealing with different crime and justice issues. The results of this study revealed several significant findings. Some of the key finding are compared with those derived from the 2008 study.

CURRENT RESEARCH

It has been six years since this paper was presented. Has anything changed? Are there indications that American Indian crime and justice issues are treated more equitably? How do the specific findings reported in the 2002 study compare to those found in 2008?

To answer these questions, the procedures followed in the 2002 study were replicated. Using the cross indexing of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, a total of forty-two (42) criminal justice/criminology “minority focused” publications, published from January 2002 through March 2008, were located and subjected to content analysis. These included: journal articles (research, policy analysis and other scholarly works), research monographs, books and book chapters. The bibliography is found at the end of this paper.

A comparison of specific findings of the respective 2002 and 2008 studies are presented below.

REPORT OF FINDINGS
EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON AMERICAN INDIAN POPULATIONS

2002 Study Findings (N=285)

Only THREE (3) or slightly more than 1% of analyzed publications focused exclusively on American Indian populations or issues. All three were government studies. Not one was found in the academic journals reviewed.

2008 Study Findings (N=42)

Of the forty-two publications examined, sixteen (16) or 38.1% focused exclusively on Native American Crime and Justice Issues. Of these,

• Five were published in mainstream criminology and criminal justice journals
• Four were published in journals of related academic disciplines
• Six were government funded research or policy studies
• ne was published by Amnesty International

AMERICAN INDIANS TREATED ON PAR WITH OTHER MINORITIES

2002 Study Findings (N=285)

Ninety-nine (99%) percent of “minority focused” main stream criminal justice and criminology journal articles (196/198) either totally ignored the existence of American Indians in urban and other settings or simply did not treat Native People and their issues on par with other minorities.

Eighty seven percent (87%) of the US Government Funded “minority focused” research reports and monographs (86/87) either ignored the existence of American Indians in urban and other settings or simply did not treat Native People and their issues on par with other minorities.

2008 Study Findings (N=42)

Three (3) or about 7.1% of the total studies reviewed included Native American Populations in “minority focused” research. Two of these were scholarly journals while the third was a federally funded research project.

 

AMERICAN INDIANS IGNORED/NOT TREATED ON PAR WITH OTHER MINORITIES

2002 Study Findings (N=285)

Overall, American Indians and their crime and justice issues were ignored in 89.9% of the two hundred eight-five main stream criminal justice “minority focused” publications reviewed.

2008 Study Findings (N=42)

Overall, American Indians and their crime and justice issues were ignored in 54.8% of the “minority focused” criminal justice literature reviewed.

STUDY CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that some changes have taken place when the findings of the 2008 study are compared to those of the 2002 study. There were four conclusions justified by these data.

CONCLUSION 1

First, both numerically and proportionately there is an important increase in the number of research and scholarly publications that deal exclusively with American Indians reported in the 2008 study as compared to the 2002 study. While exclusive focus on Native American populations accounted for over thirty-eight percent (38%) of all publication in the 2008 study, it accounted for only slightly more than 1% in the 2002 study. These numbers show that an important increase in the academic and research interest in American Indian crime and justice issues.

CONCLUSION 2

Second, while these increases are indicators of changing attitudes toward American Indian issues, there are both equally positive and ominous sides to these data as well. On the positive side, crime and justice problems of American Indians living in Indian Country, meaning federally recognized reservations in the US, appear to be receiving much more attention today as compared to years past. This finding is further reinforced by large numbers of substantial grants that have been given to reservations to study and develop programs aimed at reducing family violence, spousal and child abuse, combating substance abuse, improving education, among other programs.

The downside to these data and the increased attention given reservation issues is twofold. First, no improvement is shown in the number or proportion of research studies that treat American Indians as an important minority in Urban, Suburban and other non-reservations settings. Despite the fact that census data show that an estimated three out of every four tribally enrolled American Indians live in urban, suburban or off reservation environments. The lack of research on these non-reservation Native Americans make their crime and justice issues virtually invisible to criminal justice, criminology and urban policy researchers and analysts. Existing criminal justice and criminological research studies create the false impression that outside of reservations, Indians do not face any significant crime or justice problems. Nor do they suffer racial and ethnic bias similar to that experienced by other minorities. To the contrary, the reality of Native American life, in non-reservation settings in the US, closely parallels that faced by African-Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asians and other minority groups in dealing with the dominant culture.

The second downside to these data is that there is no indication of an increase in research or scholarly interest in the crime and justice issues of non-federally enrolled mixed or full blood Indian Peoples who also live in urban, suburban and other non-reservation settings. In fact, there is very little scholarly interest at all on a wide range of non-reservation, non-federally enrolled Native Peoples whose numbers are estimated in the millions. Included in this group are Native Peoples who:

• Remain on or around reservations but are not tribally enrolled for one reason or another. Sometimes they lack the minimum blood quantum required for tribal membership or are married to a tribal member but are not on tribal roles. Still others are descendants of ancestors who refused to sign allotments under the Dawes Act or one of the other land grabbing acts of the past.
• Are members of state-only recognized tribes or tribal groups that lost, gave up or rejected federal recognition.
• Whose American Indian ancestry are not verifiable for one reason or another.
• Who are members of tribes located on the American continent, other than the United States. The US does not recognize the “Native Status” of Indians not associate with a US reservation.

CONCLUSION 3

Third, criminal justice, criminology and policy analysts continue to regard American Indian crime and justice issues as being less important than those of other more vocal and politically active minorities, such as those of the African-American, Hispanic, and Asian communities. This conclusion is supported by the fact that nearly fifty-five (54.8%) percent of publications reviewed ignored American Indians, while focusing on issues of the respective African-Americans, Hispanic or Asian communities.

Defenders of the status quo in academic criminology and criminal justice and policy analysis research continue to argue that American Indians account for slightly more than 1% of the population and their involvement in the American Criminal Justice system is roughly proportional to their population. What these defenders of the status quo fail to consider is that in the Federal Justice System and in many states American Indians account for 7 to 12% of offender populations and are crime victims at many times the national average. Included are states such as California, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New York, among other states. Further, if the number of Native Peoples who are not members of federally recognized tribes were added to the count of those who were, the proportion of American Indians nationwide would triple or quadruple. Furthermore, when focus is put on county and municipal jails and detention centers in states with high Indian populations or on community correctional efforts in this same states, the proportion of Native American offenders under institutional control often exceeds half or more of the jail population and similar ratios are found in community correctional efforts.

CONCLUSION 4

Finally, these results justify placing more emphasis on getting information about American Indian Crime and Justice Issues before the public as well as the Academy. Public awareness meetings are common on reservations today, but are less evident in urban neighborhood communities. The vast majority of Indian people work in non-reservation communities and most spend their money in these cities and suburban areas. It is time that Indian people learn the power of purchasing power that other minorities have already demonstrated, and use this economic power to create more political power and awareness of issues that confront Native Peoples. Many Native Peoples are highly politically active on reservations, but much less so in general American communities outside the reservations. For American Indian crime and justice issues to receive more attention from the grant driven criminal justice, criminology and policy research areas of academia, American Indian people must make themselves and their concerns more politically visible to the American public.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON NATIVE AMERICANS (16 or 38.1%)

Amnesty International. (2006). Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA. (NIJ: 218358)

Archambeault, William G. (2003). Web of Steel and the Heart of the Eagle: The Contextual Interface of American Corrections and Native Americans. Prison Journal. (83,1, March) 26-37. (NIJ: 199300).

Bureau of Justice Administration. (2007) Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Fact Sheet. (NCJ: 217993).

French, Lawrence A. (2003). Wounded Knee II and the Indian Prison Reform Movement. Prison Journal. (83,1, March) 26-37. (NIJ: 199301).

French, Lawrence A. (2005). Law Enforcement in Indian Country. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society. (18,1, March) 69-80. (NCJ: 209864).

Garrow,Carrie and Sarah Deer. (2004). Tribal Criminal Law and Procedure. (NCJ: 209351).

Gover, Angela R. (2005). Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. (40,3-4) 177- 109.

Leonardson, Gary. (2006). Native American Crime in the Northwest: 2004-2005 --- BIA Information from Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. (NCJ: 218937).

Perry, Steven. (2007). Improving Criminal History Records in Indian Country, 2004-2006. (NCJ: 218913).

Rivers, Mary J. (2005). Navajo Women and Abuse: The Context for their Troubled Relationships. Journal of Family Violence. (20,2, April) 83-89. (NIJ:210057).

Savin, Daniel, Mark T. Gary, et.al. (2006). Telepsychiatry for Treating Rural American Indian Youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (45.4, April).484-488.

Shivley, Laura. (2004). Crossing Borders: Tribal Lands Homeland Security. Homeland Defense Journal. (2.10, November). 14-16, 18-20. (NCJ: 208256).

Spence, Deborah and Barbara Webster. (2006). Guidelines for Starting and Operating A New Police Department. (NCJ: 215200).

Tribal Court Association. (2007). Tribal Courts Assistance Program Fact Sheet. (NIJ: 217994).

Wakeling, Stewart and Miriam Jorgensen. (2007). Strengthening and Rebuilding Tribal Justice Systems: A Participatory Outcomes Evaluation of the US Department of Justice Comprehensive Indian Resources For Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project. (Final Report: NIJ 221080) (Executive Summary: NCJ: 221081).

Wahab, Stephanie and Lenora Olson. Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Assault in Native Communities. Trauma, Violence and Abuse: Sexual Assault Report. ((5,4, October) 353-366.

INCLUDES NATIVE AMERICANS AS A MINORITY (3 or 7.1%)

Wgliski, Angie and Audrey K. Barthel. (2004). Cultural Differences in Reporting of Sexual Assault to Sexual Assault Agencies in the United States. Sexual Assault Report. (7,6, July-August) 84,92-93. (NCJ 206447).

Leiber, Michael, Joseph Johnson, Kristan Fox, et.al. (2007). Differentiating Among Racial/Ethnic Groups and its Implications for Understanding Juvenile Justice Decision Making. Journal of Criminal Justice. (35,5, September/October) 471-484. (NIJ: 220340).

Hishinuma, Earl S., Janice Y. Chang, et.al. (2005). Prevalence of Victims of Violence Among Ethnically Diverse Asian/Pacific Islanders. Violence and Victims. (20, 5, October) 561-575.

Alexander, Rudolph, Jr. (2005). Trials and Tribulations of African Americans in the Courtroom. In Kimberly Barrett and William G. George (eds.). 79-90. (NIJ:216936).

Boechmann, Robert J. and Jeffey Liew. (2002). Hate Speech: Asian American Students’ Justice Judgment and Psychological Responses. Journal of Social Issues. (58,2, Summer)363-381. (NIJ:204399).

Dahlberg, Robin. (2003). Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Massachusetts: Failures in Assessing and Addressing Overrepresentation of Minorities in the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice System.

(May) Report of American Civil Liberties Union. On line document: http://www.icjia.state.il.us (NIJ: 203551).

Dighton, Daniel. (2003). Minority Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice Systems. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (NIJ: 2003)

Demuth, Stephen. (2003). Race and Ethnic Differences in PreTrial Release Decisions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Hispanic, Black and White Felony Arrests. Criminology. (41, 3) 873-908. (NIJ: 204620).

Feilzer, Martina and Roger Hood. (2004). Differences or Discrimination? (NCJ: 212204).

Gabbion, Shaun L., Helen Taylor Greene, Kideste Wilder. (2004). Still Excluded? An Update on the Status of African-American Scholars in the Discipline of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Research in Crime and Delinquency. (41,4, November) 384-406. (NIJ: 207353).

Hagan, John and Holly Foster. (2006). Profiles of Punishment and Privilege: Secret and Disputed Deviance During the Racialized Transition to American Adulthood. Crime, Law and Social Change. (46,1-2) 65-85. (NIJ: 217405).

Holsinger, Kristi and Alexander Holsinger. (2005). Differential Pathways to Violence and Self-Injurious Behavior: African-American and White Girls in Juvenile Justice. Research in Crime and Delinquency. (42,2, May) 211-242. (NIJ:209566).

Hoytt, Eleanor, and Vincent Schiraldi, et.al. (2003). Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. (NCJ: 202617).

MacKenzie, Doris and Ojmarrh Mitchell. (2004). Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research. (NCJ 208129).

Murtagh, Jerry A. (2004). Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Peace and Crawford Counties: 1992-2003. (NIJ: 220278)

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2007). And Justice For Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System. (NIJ: 217050).

Nielsen, Marianne O. (2003). Organizational Strategies for Overcoming the Impact of Racism on Indigenous Justice Organizations. International Journal of Comparative Criminology. (3,2) 191-221. (NIJ: 216133).

Rice, Stephen K. and Alex R. Piquero. ( 2005). Perceptions of Discrimination and Justice in New York City. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. (28,1) 98-117. (NIJ: 209791).

Richie, Beth. (2004). Research on Violence Against Women and Families: The Challenges and Promise. [In Violence Against Women and Family Violence: Developments in Research, Practice, and Policy. Bonnie Fisher (ed.) (NCJ-199701)]. (NCJ: 199731).

Skrzypiec, Grace. (July 2005). Young People Born in 1984: Offending Behaviour of Juveniles Apprehended at Least Once. (NCJ: 211665).

Stokes, Larry D. (2007). Legislative and Court Decisions that Promogated Racial Profiling: A Sociohistorical Perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. (23,3, August) 263-275.

Villarruel, Francisco A., Nancy E. Walker, et.al. (2002). Donde Esta La Justicia? A Call to Action on Behalf of Latino and Latina Youth in the US. Institute for Children, Youth and Families. Final Report, (2003). (NIJ: 196500).

Weitzer, Ronald and Steven Tuch. (2004). Rethinking Minority Attitudes Toward the Police – Final Techincal Report. (NCJ 207145.)

Williams, Marian R., Stephen Demuth, and Jefferson E. Holcomb. (2007). Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty Cases: The Importance of Victim Race, Sex-Related Victimization, and Jury Decision Making. Criminology (45,4, November) 865-892. (NIJ: 221115). 

*William G. Archambeault, is Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Minot State University, Minot, North Dakota. He may be reached at: w.archambeault@minotstateu.edu.

¹ The academic journal articles that were reviewed included were drawn from four publications: Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Criminology, and The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. These journals were all highly respected research oriented academic journals. All studies and articles purported to be multi-racial or ethnic studies.

² The government research reports were cross listed on the National Criminal Justice Reference Web Site, primarily funded grants from the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Corrections, the National Institute of Juvenile Justice or the National Institute of Health.