Haskell Report Reveals Regular Rights Violations

By Isaac White.

Controversy brewed at Haskell Indian Nations University, culminating in a scandal that rocked the foundations of the historic institution. At the heart of the controversy was a comprehensive investigative report that unearthed a series of grievous allegations ranging from harassment and bullying to outright sexual misconduct. The report, prepared by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), painted a damning picture of institutional failure and indifference that, for years, went unchecked and unchallenged.

Students and staff stepped forward to report serious grievances against university authorities, including the former interim university president Tamara Pfeiffer, BIE Director Tony Dearman, and Bryan Newland, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs. Despite their calls for help, the response was minimal to none, with no significant action taken to address their concerns.

The BIE's intervention marked a crucial turning point. What began as isolated reports evolved into a comprehensive review as the Bureau sought to peel back the layers of bureaucracy that had long concealed systemic issues within the university.

Concerned parties directed their complaints to various levels of university management, hoping for a fair and thorough review. However, these reports often fell on deaf ears. Documentation of these interactions, later reviewed during the investigation, highlighted repeated instances where urgent complaints were met with minimal or no response.

The lack of action from key figures such as Tamara Pfeiffer, the interim president, became a glaring issue. Reports that reached her desk were acknowledged but seldom acted upon, creating a cycle of frustration among the student body and staff. The university's failure to engage with these reports not only violated internal policies but also contradicted the fundamental principles of academic safety and integrity.

The Bureau of Indian Education shed light on the inadequacy of the university's internal handling of complaints. Their preliminary review indicated that the mechanisms supposedly in place for such grievances were either ineffective or intentionally disregarded. This discovery prompted a deeper inquiry, leading to the formation of an investigative team that would later uncover the extent of the mismanagement.

The case of Coach Clay Mayes stands as a poignant example of the systemic issues plaguing Haskell Indian Nations University. Hired in July 2021 to lead the university's cross-country team, Mayes quickly became embroiled in a complex web of allegations and administrative actions that would challenge the very core of his professional and personal life.

Within a short time of his appointment, Mayes faced allegations suggesting he had created a hostile practice environment. Despite the lack of substantial evidence, the university's administration appeared to take these claims at face value, leading to drastic actions against him. He was barred from leading practices, and eventually, his contract was terminated in April 2022-an outcome that the later investigative report would deem a "poor decision based on unsupported allegations."

The targeting of Mayes did not stop at his dismissal. In a move unprecedented for a contractor, he was made to sign a no-contact order. This directive not only isolated him from his team but also severely restricted his ability to defend himself and clear his name. The investigation revealed that this requirement, typically reserved for BIE employees under scrutiny, was inappropriately applied to Mayes, indicating a misuse of administrative protocols.

Compounding these issues were the actions of university officials, notably Tonia Salvini, then vice president of university services and acting president, as per the no-contact order dated November 4, 2021. Salvini and others were implicated, via allegations of students, in efforts to coerce students into signing similar agreements, effectively silencing any discourse around the allegations and protecting the university from external scrutiny.

These actions against Mayes and the broader student body were not merely administrative overreaches but were symptomatic of a deeper culture of intimidation and cover-up within Haskell's leadership. The university's management, as outlined in the investigative report, failed to enforce the Department of Interior Anti-Harassment Policy and actively worked to manipulate the investigative processes to their desired ends.

As the investigation into the myriad allegations at Haskell Indian Nations University progressed, a disturbing pattern emerged. This suggests a concerted effort by the university's leadership to obscure and suppress the findings. The struggle to keep the investigative report from seeing the light of day reveals the extent of the cover-up.

Initially, the investigative team, tasked with examining the serious complaints, worked diligently to uncover the truth, gathering evidence that painted a troubling picture of the university's culture. However, as their findings became increasingly damning, it appeared there was resistance to the release of the information.

The completed report, which was submitted to the BIE's Human Resources Officer in November 2022, detailed systemic failures and misconduct at Haskell. Despite the significance of these findings, the report was inexplicably withheld from the public-and even from those directly impacted by the events described within, including the alleged victims and Coach Mayes. This delay was not just an administrative oversight but appeared to be a deliberate act to prevent the dissemination of the report's contents, which would inevitably bring negative attention to the institution.

After the completion of the investigation, the findings, which were critical of university practices and highlighted severe administrative failures, were withheld from public disclosure by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). This decision sparked outrage among stakeholders, particularly those who had been directly affected by the issues detailed in the report.

Coach Clay Mayes, whose career and reputation were significantly impacted by the university's actions, became a central figure in the fight for transparency. Understanding the implications of the suppressed report not just for himself but for the entire Haskell community, Mayes sought external support to challenge the concealment. His partnership with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a government watchdog organization, proved pivotal.

PEER took on the case, advocating for the release of the investigative report through legal avenues. They filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which was initially denied by the BIE on grounds that were widely seen as pretextual. The denial was based on alleged privacy concerns that did not convincingly justify the withholding of the report.

Undeterred, PEER escalated the matter by filing a lawsuit against the BIE, arguing that the public had a right to know about the findings and that transparency was essential for accountability. This legal battle highlighted the bureaucratic barriers to transparency and the lengths to which institutions would go to protect their interests at the expense of public trust.

The pressure from legal challenges and public scrutiny eventually compelled the BIE to release the report nearly a year and a half after it was first completed. The report validated many of the initial concerns raised by students and staff and brought to light the systemic issues that had allowed such problems to fester unchecked.

One of the most startling revelations was the enforcement of no-contact agreements on students. These agreements, unprecedented in their application, barred students from discussing their concerns not only with other students but also with their own families. This measure was allegedly used to stifle discussion and prevent the external exposure of internal issues, particularly those involving the former cross-country coach, Clay Mayes. The investigation confirmed that these agreements were used as tools of intimidation, with students threatened with consequences for their athletic careers if they refused to comply.

The report painted a grim picture of the campus environment, where harassment and bullying were prevalent. It noted that students and staff who were seen as allies of Coach Mayes or who dared to question administrative decisions were specifically targeted. This created an atmosphere of fear and compliance, stifling any potential dissent within the university community.

Among the allegations, those pertaining to sexual misconduct were particularly egregious. The report detailed incidents where university employees engaged in inappropriate behavior, including unsolicited physical contact and sexually suggestive comments directed at students. These actions were not only unethical but also contributed to a hostile environment that compromised student safety and well-being.

The allegations extended to serious administrative failures, including the mishandling of sexual assault cases. The report criticized the university's inconsistent application of its own Title IX policies, highlighting cases where the rights and safety of students were neglected. This negligence was indicative of a broader disregard for the welfare of the student body, further eroding trust in the institution.

Perhaps most damning was the evidence suggesting that the university's leadership actively worked to manipulate the outcomes of investigations. This included efforts to curtail the scope of inquiries, influence the testimonies of witnesses, and control the narrative presented to external investigators. These actions were aimed at protecting the university's image rather than addressing the root causes of the issues or the concerns of the victims.

The release of the investigative report into Haskell Indian Nations University's misconduct has elicited a strong response from political figures, most notably U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who expressed deep concern over the allegations and the university's handling of the issues. In a pointed letter to Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Deb Haaland, Senator Moran demanded answers and called for substantial reforms within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education.

"This report and the mismanagement it describes has reaffirmed my long-held belief that there is a need to improve transparency and accountability within the Bureau of Indian Affairs," stated Senator Moran. His remarks underscore what appears his belief there is a pressing need for systemic changes to protect the well-being of students, faculty, and staff at Haskell University.

Concerned about the serious implications of the findings, Senator Moran emphasized, "The students, faculty and staff at Haskell University deserve an institution that properly follows its policies and procedures to ensure the wellbeing of all individuals connected to the university." He advocated for a systemic overhaul to ensure these standards are met.

Senator Moran highlighted the Bureau's slow response to the serious issues reported, which he believes undermines the trust and safety of the Haskell community. "By failing to respond to the findings of this report in a timely and appropriate fashion, federal employees at the Department of Interior – specifically the BIA and BIE – have failed to uphold the federal government's responsibilities to Native American students," Moran remarked. This critique points to a significant lapse in the duties and responsibilities of federal institutions toward Native American education.

In his communications with the Department of the Interior, Senator Moran has repeatedly called for immediate action and clarity on how the Bureau plans to address the failures at Haskell. "I am calling for a systemic overhaul within the Bureau of Indian Education, and I expect a thorough response from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that outlines how to better enhance accountability and improve outcomes for Native American students," Moran demanded.

The revelations from the investigative report on Haskell Indian Nations University have cast a long shadow over the institution, spotlighting deep-seated issues that demand immediate and sustained attention. This scandal has not only exposed the failures of individual administrators but has also underscored systemic problems within the broader framework of university governance and oversight.