American Indian Students With Disabilities in HE: Demonstrations of Resilience to Maintain Place, Belonging, and Community

• In Event: Contemplating Contextualized Decolonization, Intersectionality, and Antiracism: Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (U.S.); Hopi Country; and New Zealand Perspectives

Abstract

With peoplehood, there is always a place and belonging for all people in the community (Holm, Pearson, and Chavis, 2003). The interdependent relationships existing between concepts of sacred history, language, land/territory, and ceremony forge resilience to become Nahongvita (Joseph & Windchief, 2015) or self-empowered for Indigenous people. Constructs of western education have traditionally terminated and assaulted the languages, cultures, and ways of being for American Indian and Alaska Native people in the United States. Cultural discontinuities continue to persist in America’s schools (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002), creating challenges and barriers for Native American students in secondary and post-secondary education settings(Shield, 2009; Shotton et al., 2007; Wexler &; Burke,
2011).

The conceptual framework of Nahongvita includes concepts of “H”ome, “h”ome, Community, and History will be presented to highlight forms of resilience exemplified by American Indian students with disabilities in their journeys toward pursuing higher education. The intersectional dynamics of race, culture, and disability experienced by students are examined to problematize the discontinuities inherent in institutional and social structures. Particularly, examining how the students’ with disabilities
intersectional identities were mitigated in power structures further informing their critical consciousness to examine dominant narratives shaping policies while also, leveraging their peoplehood as a construct of privilege and power.

Until research is inclusive of the indigenous population of individuals with disabilities, and becomes more prevalent in empirical literature, the educational institutions and professionals that serve them will continue to maintain and perpetuate inequity by the placement of AISD in liminal spaces. Brayboy (2005) posits that in fact the status of American Indians is one of a legal/political status tied to notions of colonialism, yet we (American Indians) find ourselves struggling for the right to be defined by both the political and racialized natures of our identities. In the spirit of creating social change, the first tenet of TribalCrit articulating that colonization is endemic in society must be intimately understood by all researchers, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, when conducting research with Native communities. In this light, research then becomes an expression of research “for” and “with” the community, rather than “about” the community. Colonization is a lived reality for indigenous people, yet for indigenous students
with disabilities who are pursuing higher education, the circumstances of having multiple memberships (e.g. American Indian identity and disability identity) or “double-jeopardy”, have an increasing potential to be discriminated against or placed in oppressive positions due to more than one category of membership (Shaw, Chan, & McMahon, 2012).

Author

• Darold H. Joseph, Northern Arizona University