ASU's Expanded Land Acknowledgment

let's be more inclusively excellent

As you know, ASU’s motto is “inclusive excellence.” I have also reported on how ASU’s New College requires all faculty to sit through a Native American Land Acknowledgment reading before each meeting. It dawned on me that we need to be more inclusively excellent. We need an expanded Land Acknowledgment at ASU.

At our next college faculty meeting on November 18, I am proposing this addition to our Land Acknowledgment so that we make sure to include everyone. It would be discriminatory for ASU’s New College to limit the Land Acknowledgment to only Native Americans. Discrimination based on race could threaten federal funding for the college.

Here is the proposed expansion:

We acknowledge the generations of settlers, farmers, builders, capitalists, and families who transformed the Salt River Valley into a place where a great modern city and a world-class university could thrive. Their labor in cultivating the land, establishing communities, developing infrastructure, investing in growth, and building the civic and religious institutions of Phoenix created the foundations that allow us to be here today. We honor their vision, industry, grit, and perseverance, and we commit ourselves to contributing to the continued flourishing of this city and its people. We welcome all students to this university and are committed to helping them prosper.

The college faculty meeting is a meeting of state employees (meaning it is public information for tax payers) and is recorded. I will propose the new Land Acknowledgment, and if it isn’t simply voted on unanimously we will then have a debate about this improved and more inclusive acknowledgment, and you’ll be able to watch the arguments various professors make.

Our college bylaws tells us this:

An item of new business cannot normally be acted upon until the meeting subsequent to its introduction. However, it can be discussed and acted upon if it receives the approval for action of at least two-thirds of the members present.

I’m certain that at least 2/3 will want to be more inclusive and we will be able to move on it at this meeting. If not, we can hear the arguments about why more inclusivity needs to wait.

Why wouldn’t they want to be more inclusive?

I’ll keep you updated.