Native American Languages Act

Native American Languages Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Native American Languages Act
Enacted by	United States Congress
Citation	Public Law 101–477
Enacted	1990
Amended	1992
Status	amended

Contents

Native American Languages Act

The Native American Languages Act is a 1990 United States federal statute recognizing the importance of preserving, protecting, and promoting the rights of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples to use, develop, and transmit their native languages. Sponsored amid debates involving Senator Daniel Inouye, Representative Don Young, and advocacy from organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund, the Act responded to long-standing policies exemplified by the Board of Indian Commissioners era, the U.S. Indian boarding schools, and court rulings like Lau v. Nichols. The law intersects with statutes and programs administered by agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Department of Education.

Background and Legislative History

Legislative momentum for the Act emerged during deliberations involving Senator Daniel Inouye, Representative Don Young, and tribal leaders from nations such as the Navajo Nation, Cherokee Nation, Hopi Tribe, Yup'ik, and Tlingit. Advocacy groups including the National Congress of American Indians, the Native American Rights Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union highlighted historical policies originating with the Indian Civilization Act era and Carlisle Indian Industrial School practices, contrasted with protective language in treaties like the Fort Laramie Treaty. Congressional hearings featured testimony from linguists affiliated with institutions such as University of Oklahoma, Stanford University, and University of Alaska Fairbanks, and tribal educators linked to the Bureau of Indian Affairs school system and tribal colleges like Haskell Indian Nations University and Sinte Gleska University. The final bill, enacted as Public Law 101–477, reflected influence from earlier legislative efforts including the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 litigation precedent in Lau v. Nichols.

The Act affirms that speakers of Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Choctaw, Ojibwe, Hopi, Inupiaq, Aleut, Tlingit, Haida, ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, and other indigenous languages have the right to use and develop their languages within institutions such as Bureau of Indian Affairs schools and tribal governments. It directs federal agencies including the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Smithsonian Institution to support language preservation through grants, research, and documentation, cooperating with academic centers like the School for Advanced Research and the American Philosophical Society. The Act’s policy objectives mirror recommendations from the UNESCO language preservation initiatives and align with international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as interpreted by advocates from tribes including the Pueblo of Zuni and the Lakota Sioux.

Implementation involved coordination among agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Library of Congress to fund community programs, immersion schools, and documentation projects. Federal support facilitated partnerships with universities such as University of New Mexico, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Arizona, and the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and with cultural institutions like the National Museum of the American Indian and the Smithsonian Institution. Programs funded by appropriations through Congress supported immersion initiatives in communities like Kamehameha Schools-affiliated ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi programs, Navajo language revitalization in the Navajo Nation, and Yupik and Inupiaq curricula in Alaska Native regional corporations-affiliated schools. Grant recipients have included tribal colleges such as Haskell Indian Nations University, Diné College, and Cankdeska Cikana Community College.

The Act enabled expansion of immersion schools, teacher certification efforts, and community-driven documentation projects among nations such as the Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Navajo Nation, Lakota Sioux, Arapaho, Pueblo peoples, and Aleut peoples. Academic partners including University of Oklahoma Department of Native American Languages, Harvard University, and University of California, Berkeley linguistics programs collaborated on revitalization and orthography standardization projects for languages like Cherokee, Navajo, Ojibwe, and Hawaiian. The Act’s support influenced cultural institutions such as the National Museum of the American Indian and the Smithsonian Institution to archive recordings and texts, while tribal governments used language policy authority in constitutions of entities like the Navajo Nation and the Cherokee Nation to encourage usage in courts and legislatures.

Following enactment, litigation and administrative disputes invoked precedents such as Lau v. Nichols and statutory interpretation debates involving the Administrative Procedure Act. Amendments in 1992 and subsequent policy guidance clarified funding mechanisms through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Education and addressed coordination with programs under the Head Start Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Cases involving tribal sovereignty and statutory preemption referenced decisions from the United States Supreme Court and circuit courts, while advocacy organizations like the Native American Rights Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union continued to litigate implementation issues on behalf of tribes including the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cherokee Nation.

Criticism arose from stakeholders including some members of Congress and state education agencies such as the California Department of Education and the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development regarding funding levels, administrative coordination, and measurable outcomes. Scholars at institutions like Yale University, University of Chicago, and University of California, Los Angeles debated efficacy compared with immersion models in New Zealand and Canada and policy recommendations from UNESCO. Controversies also involved disputes between tribal language advocates and federal agencies over curriculum control, intellectual property issues addressed with input from entities like the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution, and contested priorities among nations including Hopi, Lakota, Navajo, and Hawaiian communities.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:Native American culture Category:Language policy