Certain items removed from exhibition  

The Native American Studies (NAS) department at UC Davis, as well as Native American elders in the Davis community, have expressed concern about the use of ceremonial objects in the Xicanx Futurity exhibition at the Manetti Shrem Museum on campus.

The NAS department alleged that it was not aware of the exhibition’s content until it opened in January of 2019. They objected to the use of ceremonial indigenous objects. These sacred objects included eagle feathers and tobacco ties.

The NAS letter cited the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as evidence of Native American cultural protocols which forbid the use of ceremonial objects as art.

“The main thrust of our concern is that [the artists in the exhibition] are using our sacred objects as art,” said Susan Reece, a Native American elder who lives in Davis. “Our religion is not art. It never has been.”

Reece alleged that the NAS department wasn’t consulted about the exhibition. “You have a world-recognized NAS department at UC Davis,” Reece said. “The experts are there, so there’s absolutely no excuse for them not to know.”

Rachel Teagle, the founding director of the Manetti Shrem, responded to the NAS allegations in an email.

“Our purpose at the Manetti Shrem Museum is to cultivate transformational art experiences to inspire new thinking and the open exchange of ideas,” Teagle said via email. “Xicanx Futurity’s guest curatorial team has helped us deliver our mission. It is not our intention nor purpose to offend and we regret when it happens. We honor the important and difficult concerns that have arisen around the exhibition. This is our work and we endeavor to deliver it with care.”

She also said that the museum does not plan on releasing a public statement about the issue. According to Teagle, a symposium is being planned to address the concerns raised.

The Xicanx Futurity exhibition was curated by Carlos Jackson, an associate professor and chair of the Chicano/a Studies department at UCD; Susy Zepeda, an assistant professor of Chicano/a Studies at UCD; and Maria Esther Fernandez, the chief curator at the Triton Museum of Art. The artists featured in Xicanx Futurity are Margaret “Quica” Alarcon, Gina Aparicio, Melanie Cervantes, Felicia “Fe” Montes, Gilda Posada and Celia Herrera Rodríguez.

“As the co-curators, we want to assure our communities that deep prayers were offered by the six featured artists,” the guest curators said in a letter. “In collaboration with the curators, the museum worked thoughtfully to support the fulfillment of the artists’ intentions […] The tensions that have arisen demonstrate the need for greater dialogue so as to encourage healing and solidarity.”

The curators objected to the characterization that the artists featured in the exhibition misrepresented indigenous identity, noting that many of their practices are rooted in ceremonial teaching from elders.

“[The artists] never misrepresented their identities,” the curators said. “Direct and indirect feedback that the curators have received from some critics of the exhibition reflects a belief that UNDRIP does not provide protection to detribalized indigenous people of the Americas (as defined by settler colonial governments), Xicanxs included.”

They also emphasized the political nature of Xicanx art and the importance of the dialogues that it can elicit, stating that, “For diasporic communities, it is a political act to affirm the right to self-determination through embodied practice.”

The NAS department said that the eagle feathers used in the exhibition are protected by both the Bald and Golden Eagle Protections Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. NAS alleged that these acts stipulate that only members of federally recognized tribes can own eagle feathers.

“According to these protocols, eagle feathers are sacred, and for use in prayer and ceremony; they are not for display in a museum,” the letter said.

According to Teagle, the artist Celia Herrera Rodríguez requested the release of the eagle feathers in her mixed media installation on March 25. The feathers have since been removed.

“The most difficult thing for me at this moment is to reckon with how [my] installation has been stripped down to its elements and objectified and that then my piece […] has been isolated from the entire exhibition […] I feel kind of taken apart and censored, at the end of it all,” Herrera Rodriguez said in an interview, referring to her installation, “Grandfather Earth”, in which the eagle feathers were previously featured.

“In an installation, all of the parts become a whole, [but here] only half is being focused on,” she added.

Herrera Rodriguez said that she had never been in direct communication with any of the people who made complaints about the exhibition. The director of the Manetti Shrem was the first to contact her regarding the accusations, she said. She also said that she later received an email from university lawyers asking her to provide the provenance of the eagle feathers used in the exhibit.

To her, the indirect nature of the accusations leveled also indicated that the curators of the exhibition had not been formally contacted by the complainants.

“As an artist, there should have been a point A, a conversation,” Herrera Rodriguez said. “A dialogue, a question directed my way if I was being discussed. My work was being discussed as an element in a museum and everything got taken apart—me, the production of my work, the piece itself, the whole exhibit.”

Herrera Rodriguez, an Oakland-based artist born in Sacramento, identifies with the Tephuanes community in Durango, Mexico. She stressed the complexity of Chicana/o identity, noting that indigenous Mexican tribes may not necessarily be federally recognized but are still provided protection by UNDRIP.

“[Chicano/as] are many people and we are affected by many different political perspectives,” she said. “And it’s a rather short conversation–we’ve only been having it for forty-five or fifty years. This is a momentous time and we deserve compassion and room amongst ourselves and within the scope of the international indigenous movement […] I get frustrated with this idea of federal identity being the only identity possible.”

Herrera Rodriguez also said that her work on the “Grandfather Earth” installation had been a meticulous collaborative effort, in which all of the pieces were handmade. She stressed that the decision to use eagle feathers had been done in good faith, and that the feathers had been given to her son, who is well-versed in ceremonial practices, by other indigenous individuals.

Native American elders in the Davis community have expressed anger about the use of the ceremonial objects.

Reece is a member of the Haudenosaunee tribe and the Odowa tribe and has been an active participant in the native community in California since the 1970’s.

“Those prayer ties originated with the Lakota people and the purpose of them is to offer tobacco when someone is sick or hurt,” Reece said. “But that practice is still ongoing and to tell people before you leave the exhibit that ‘you can make a prayer offering when [you’re] leaving,’ [that’s] not telling you [what the prayer ties] mean.”

Concerns have also been raised about the use of ceremonial practices in artist Gina Aparicio’s installation Caught Between Worlds, Praying for a Better Future. According to Reece, the installation depicted a sweat lodge, which mimics the shape of a womb and is designed to be a place of healing in a spiritual context.

“I was shocked, and I stopped in my tracks,” said Carole Standing Elk, a Native American community member in Davis. “[Aparicio] did this knowing it was controversial and that meant she sees it only as art. She didn’t see it as a practice of something spiritual or religious.”

Aparicio was unable to provide comment before this article went to press.

Standing Elk is a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe. She defines her membership of the tribe, and her citizenship in the United States, as being integral to her identity.

Raised in South Dakota, she moved to Los Angeles as a high school student under the auspices of the Indian Relocation Act, and since then has been an outspoken activist for Native American rights.

“The university needs to take care of this,” Standing Elk said. “I’m not so interested in an apology as in change, as in something happening on paper, as in something being done.”

According to Reece, this is not the first time UC Davis has been involved in controversies surrounding the use of Native American objects in its campus museums.

“Two years ago there was a potlach installation, [which is] a tradition of about five or six different northwestern nations that extends right into Canada,” she said. “It’s a thanksgiving tradition and [the Manetti Shrem] made an art installation of it.”  

But this lack of cultural oversight isn’t just a problem at UCD.

“In the seventies, new agers, white people, would misuse our ways,” Standing Elk said. “We would protest that and speak against it. Now what happens [is that] it’s these people [that] we allowed into [our community] use it for art and they don’t know what it is.”

Standing Elk likened the religious practices with eagle feathers and with tobacco ties as being similar to how people might feel about other places of worship, saying that, “It’s how Caucasians feel about their churches.”

“It’s like putting the holy eucharist of the Catholic Church, putting it in a museum, and calling it art,” Reece said.

“Our beef is where does the buck stop [with this]? Who is the master? Who is the university?” Standing Elk asked.

Both Reece and Standing Elk voiced their concerns about the exhibition to the Chancellor’s Office. According to Reece, they have also consulted with tribal justice specialists at King Hall, the UC Davis law school, and with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Reece and Standing Elk are also working with an attorney.

Reece and Standing Elk said that they were referred to Wendi Delmendo, the UC Davis chief compliance officer, to address their concerns. Delmendo declined to confirm whether or not this had taken place, citing privacy policies.

Reece said that they were informed about a whistleblower policy, but they found that no university policies in place that address the issues they brought up.

“It really should be in the hands of the general council of lawyers [at the university] and they should have been involved from the very beginning—we should have been dealing with them initially,” Reece said. “The decision making has been relegated to a compliance officer.”

Both were dismayed to find that the Manetti Shrem does not currently have an in-house curator, but typically uses guest curators for the exhibitions.

“The university has been reckless and negligent about their responsibility, even to themselves,” Reece said. “I would never build a museum and not have a resident recognized curator. If they had a curator, there’d be less of an excuse for the university. They’d know the legal protections that we have and they’d be duty-bound to them.”

Rachel Teagle said the Manetti Shrem is currently in the process of hiring an assistant curator, as the previous one did not return from maternity leave.

“We hope that our demands are very simple,” Reece said. “We want the installation taken down. We want the university and the artists themselves to publicly apologize to the Native American community. The third request is to initiate written policies within the UC system so that this does not happen again. [The UC system] needs to [recognize] and [enforce] the Indian Religious Freedom Act.”

Written by: Rebecca Bihn-Wallace — campus@theaggie.org

Chancellor May’s student advisors serve as advocates for the undergraduate community

UC Davis undergraduates have the opportunity to apply to be student advisors to the Chancellor. The application can be found on the Student Advisors to the Chancellor website and is due by April 21.

Upperclassmen may apply to be one of Chancellor May’s student advisors, according to Chancellor Gary May.

“I’m excited about each of these positions and hope students will get their applications in by April 21,” May said in an email. “My advisors share student concerns with me, foster relationships with other students, and advise me on a variety of campus issues.”

Any UC Davis undergraduate may apply to be on the Chancellor’s Undergraduate Advisory Board.

“The members of the board are highly motivated student leaders who explore ways to enhance the undergraduate experience,” May said. “The board can initiate, support or coordinate campus-wide special projects and events related to a variety of topics.”

Being a student advisor or serving on the board are both ways for students to develop leadership skills and affect their communities, according to May.

“Both of these opportunities are a great way to work with campus administrators, get more involved on campus, and advocate for your peers,” May said. “For those students interested in developing their leadership skills and having an impact, I hope they’ll apply.”

Abigail Edwards, a fourth-year sustainable agriculture and food systems major, is currently one of two student advisors to the chancellor. Edwards said she was drawn to the advisory position partially because of the unique variety of tasks that are required of a student advisor on a day to day basis.

“It’s a very dynamic position,” Edwards said. “At any time in the week, we might be meeting with senior administrators, meeting with students, meeting with student activists, meeting with students who have concerns, meeting with different center representatives, talking with people from different organizations, responding to emails, going to our office hours. A lot of it is just knowing where to direct people and making introductions to the right people to direct student needs.”

May and his student advisors talk about campus climate issues, such as the fires that occurred during Fall Quarter, and what could have gone better with the campus closure.

“We’ve had a lot of things that have happened on campus this year and I think it’s been a learning experience for everyone involved,” Edwards said. “When things like that happen, we’re there telling Chancellor May how the students are feeling and what we heard as students who are on the ground every day talking to other students and reflecting on how things might have [been] done differently or if something like this were to happen in the future, how we wish it would be handled.”

William Sampson, a fifth-year Native American studies and history double major and tribal affiliate of the Oglala Lakota tribe, is the second student advisor to the chancellor this year. Sampson also emphasized that the student advisors advocate for the student body in conversations with the chancellor and administrators when any issues arise that affect the student body, such as the incident with the fires and campus closures last year.

“If student concerns are being brought up or you’re seeing issues with regards to advocacy brought up, that’s really where we try to step in and work with students as well as on behalf of students to make sure those issues are being advocated for on the appropriate levels,” Sampson said. “We can really start to see some sort of change more efficiently.”

Sampson mentioned several ways students can get into contact with both himself and Edwards in order to express their concerns or opinions.

“Chancellor May is looking for student input and really wants to see what the student perspective is,” Sampson said. “Abby and I, we get folks that will reach out to us via messenger, text, email, in person, and we really try to field concerns, thoughts and really try to elaborate on those in a matter. We’re students too, so trying to bring in our own perspectives as well.”

The university administration operates very bureaucratically, which makes it more complex to achieve outcomes, according to Edwards.

“Coming into this position, I realized everything is so much more complicated than it seems,” Edwards said. “Even at the top level, the chancellor trying to do something is so much more complicated than [signing] off on it and [having it] happen. It’s very bureaucratic and a lot of things are so much more complex than I think we as students really ever are privy to.”

Edwards and Sampson are often the only student advocates in rooms full of administrators.

“When we’re sitting in a room, sometimes we’re around a whole bunch of administrators and Abby and I tend to be the only two undergraduate students in the room,” Sampson said. “Really providing that feedback of what students are feeling is really powerful and we’ve definitely gotten some good, powerful responses from administrators. These positions really do reaffirm that there’s a reason and intention for them being here.”

Sampson said he applied for the position of student advisor because he was concerned about student advocacy as a top priority for an institution that is intended for students.

Edwards emphasized the importance of learning the power of student voices after serving as the student advisor to the chancellor over the last year.

“[…] We’ve definitely been in situations where we’ve had to put our foot down and say ‘No, we are the students, we’re providing you with the student perspective, this university is built for students, this is how we feel,’” Edwards said.

Student representation and sharing of student perspectives are made possible by these advisory positions, according to Edwards.

“I think part of applying for this position is really assuring that there will be a student in the room when these really important conversations are going on, and also it will be a really good student — someone who will advocate with and for students and really get out in the community and make sure that you’re representing the right narrative and that you’re really talking and working with other students, because it’s not just your own voice,” Edwards said.

Written by: Sabrina Habchi — campus@theaggie.org

Library and IET Staff collaborate to install additional wireless access points

On Tues. March 19, staff members of Shields Library and the Information and Educational Technology (IET) placed new wireless access points in the library to improve WiFi coverage. Their collaborative efforts were a response to increased reports from students regarding slow WiFi in the Main Reading Room, located on the second floor of the library. An article from IET News said that the three new wireless access points will be able to “handle more than 300 smartphones, tablets, or other wireless devices at a time [while] prior wireless coverage came from access points downstairs.”

Chris Clements, the network operations manager for IET, explained that “the funding [for the three new wireless access points] was split between Library and […] Information and Education Technology.”

Members of the UC Davis Library staff Jessica Nusbaum and Dale Snapp provided The Aggie with a joint email statement. As Director of Communications and Marketing for Shields Library and the Head of Information Technology Infrastructure Services, respectively, Nusbaum and Snapp described the increased influx of comments regarding slow wireless coverage.

“Those comments were gradually increasing, so it was clearly time to take action,” they said. “The drain on wireless access points increases as it becomes more common for students to carry multiple wi-fi enabled devices, each of which uses bandwidth [the amount of data that can be sent from one point to another in a certain period of time]. […] It was important to improve the system to keep up with the way students study today.”

Since students typically carry multiple devices including phones, laptops and smartwatches, wireless coverage can be increasingly strained since each access point is treated the same and is using the same WiFi bandwidth.

Snapp gathered feedback from the student body by personally speaking with students studying in the Reading Room and using WiFi. Snapp asked students to test the new wireless access points and had positive responses, describing one interaction in particular.

“I asked one student to test out the WiFi,” Snapp said. “He reloaded the class lecture he was streaming and told me it was the first time he was able to stream a class video without it being choppy. It’s one of the best parts of my job when we’re able to make an improvement to the library’s technology that helps students out like that.”

Because the Reading Room is not the only area of Shields that experiences slower or weaker WiFi coverage, the IET staff and library staff plan to improve these other areas soon.

“While investigating the needs in the Main Reading Room, we also discovered some weak coverage spots on the west side of the second and third floors of the library (above the main entrance),” Snapp said. “We’ve added more study chairs in that area recently as well, and will soon be adding more wi-fi coverage to match.”

According to the article from IET News, the “IET also plans to improve other heavily used locations around campus, with a focus on providing efficient spaces to study.”

Nusbaum and Snapp both encouraged students to continue vocalizing their comments and concerns to the library staff, utilizing the technical support request form on the library’s website.

Written by: Priyanka Shreedar— campus@theaggie.org