While CA universities have been required to return artifacts, remains to tribes, many campuses have not done so
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two laws Tuesday intended to compel California’s public university systems to make progress in their review and return of Native American remains and artifacts.
Decades-old state and federal legislation, known as repatriation laws, require government entities to return these items to tribes. Those artifacts could include prayer sticks or wolves’ skins that have been used for ceremonies. But the state auditor found in recent years that many campuses have not done so due to a lack of funding or of clear protocols from chancellors’ offices.
Democratic Assemblymember James C. Ramos, the first Native American in the California Legislature, said campuses’ failure to return remains to tribes has denied "the Indian people the right to bring closure to family issues and historical trauma."
ARCHEOLOGISTS IN NEBRASKA BEGIN SEARCH FOR LOST CEMETERY AT A FORMER NATIVE AMERICAN SCHOOL
"We’re still dealing with a state that has not come to terms with its history — deplorable history and treatment towards California’s first people," Ramos said.
The laws require the California State University system and urge the University of California system to annually report their progress to review and return Native American remains and artifacts to tribes.
In 2019, Newsom issued a state apology for California’s mistreatment of and violence against Native Americans throughout history. The repatriation proposals were among the hundreds of bills lawmakers sent to the Democratic governor's desk this year.
A report published by the state auditor in 2020 found that the University of California system did not have adequate policies for returning these remains and artifacts. The Los Angeles campus, for example, returned nearly all of these items while the Berkeley campus only returned about 20% of them. The auditor’s office has since found that the system has made some progress.
Assemblyman James Ramos is seen at the Capitol in Sacramento, California, on Aug. 30, 2022. On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two laws authored by Ramos requiring the state's university systems to make progress on their review and return of Native American remains and artifacts. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)
For years, the University of California, Berkeley, failed to return remains to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. It was not until 2018 that the university returned 1,400 remains to the tribe, according to the state's Native American Heritage Commission.
Kenneth Kahn, the tribe's chairman, said it is "appalling" that campuses have held onto Native American remains for so long and disappointing that "it's taking law" to get many universities to work to return these items.
"There certainly has been progress, but they've been under duress," Kahn said. "We've been asking for years."
More than half of the 21 California State University campuses with collections of Native American remains or cultural artifacts on campus have not returned any of the items to tribes, the state auditor’s office said in a report released in June.
Some campuses have these items because they’ve been used in the past for archeological research, but these laws nudge the University of California and require California State University to ban them from being used for that purpose.
NEW YORK MUSEUM RETURNS REMAINS OF 19 NATIVE AMERICANS TO ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
The University of California did not take a position on the legislation focused on its system but is committed to "appropriately and respectfully" returning Native American remains and artifacts to tribes, Ryan King, a spokesperson for the president’s office, said in an email. The university system already bans these materials from being used for research "unless specifically approved" by tribes, he said. University of California released a systemwide policy in 2021 for complying with repatriation laws.
California State University supported the law setting requirements for its system and is working to teach employees about requirements to inventory and handle remains and artifacts, said Amy Bentley-Smith, a spokesperson for the chancellor’s office.
Newsom also took action on two other bills Tuesday.
He signed a law to bolster protections for sexual assault survivors facing the threat of retaliatory lawsuits. The new law makes it clear that a victim’s comments about sexual assault or harassment are protected against defamation lawsuits if the allegation is not knowingly false or made recklessly.
Survivors who supported the legislation have said a defamation lawsuit is often used as a retaliation tactic to disempower victims. Under the new law, a victim who successfully defends themselves in a defamation lawsuit will be able to recover attorney’s fees and damages.
The law comes years after a former state lawmaker sued a woman over her sexual misconduct allegations against him. In 2017, roughly 150 women signed a letter condemning a culture of "pervasive" misconduct and sexism in California politics where men forcefully groped women, made inappropriate comments about their bodies and undermined their expertise. The #MeToo movement spurred a slew of resignations by state lawmakers in California and in dozens of other states.
Newsom also signed into law the Delete Act, a measure that will create a way for Californians to demand deletion of their personal data from all data brokers doing business in the state. Such companies typically make money off people’s data by collecting it from a variety of sources and then licensing or selling it to other firms, often for marketing purposes.
Much of that collection takes place behind the scenes and without obvious notification to individual users. Brokers use the data they collect to build detailed profiles that can reveal your past purchases, consumer preferences and demographic data including income, education level and even real-time location.
The new law builds upon existing protections that guarantee state residents the right to request data deletion but requires people to make separate requests to every broker. The Delete Act directs the state’s privacy agency to set up a portal where individuals can issue blanket data-deletion requests to many — or all — data brokers at once.
