"I recently had to help head off an attempt by a misguided non-Indian tribal attorney who told the tribe their tribal preference law was adverse to federal law and would result in the tribe losing its grants and contracts with the federal government. He said the tribe should “get ahead of the curve” and change their law to strictly Indian preference.

While I would personally benefit from such a rule when I seek employment on reservations other than my own, I had to oppose this “stinkin’ thinkin’.” I opposed it because it was a step toward abolition of Indian preference in hiring and contracting. It was a step toward a weakening of tribal sovereignty.

Indian preference, including tribal preference, has been recognized as a legitimate tool for building tribal self-determination and self-governance since the mid-1800s. Unfortunately at that time, it was looked upon as a tool for assimilation. It was thought that having Indians administer governmental affairs for Indians would speed their disappearance into the mainstream. However, it eventually evolved in a policy – the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act – which sought to strengthen the integrity of tribal governments and our ability to use our own resources to generate capital so we could take care of ourselves.

In the 1960s, after the 1950s termination policy, Congress did a policy review that eventually shifted Indian policy to self-determination and self-governance. The BIA and IHS became somewhat consistent in applying Indian preference but not without significant court battles by non-Indians who decried it as a racial policy. Some of those attacks persist to this day."

Get the Story:
Harold A. Monteau: Is Indian preference dead? (Indian Country Today 2/19)