First Nations University Faces Leadership Crisis Amid Historical Challenges

The First Nations University of Canada is grappling with internal issues related to governance and leadership, highlighting longstanding challenges rooted in the intersection of politics and administration. This situation reflects a broader pattern observed within Indigenous educational institutions, where the balance of power has often shifted away from effective governance.

Historically, the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) established three educational institutions in the 1970s. These institutions were originally intended to be governed by boards comprised of chiefs, who would set policies while day-to-day operations would be managed internally. However, decades later, the same chiefs continue to lead these organizations, which has raised concerns about their effectiveness and adaptability.

Doug Cuthand, an Indigenous affairs columnist for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and the Regina Leader-Post, notes that the original intent of empowering chiefs to create a vision for Indigenous education has been undermined. He argues that the ongoing control of boards by chiefs may hinder progress and innovation in the sector.

The historical context is critical to understanding this governance issue. When treaties were signed, they legitimized the office of the chief, which was subsequently undermined by government oversight and church-led education systems. As a result, the role of chiefs shifted from legitimate leaders to primarily administrative figures, often at the expense of their traditional authority.

Cuthand recalls that early Indigenous leaders, such as John B. Tootoosis and Walter Dieter, worked tirelessly to empower First Nations communities by helping them elect their own leadership. This movement aimed to restore the influence of chiefs and councils, which had been diminished over time by external forces. The Department of Indigenous Affairs recognized the need to strengthen the role of chiefs, yet this has led to a situation where their responsibilities now resemble those of the very Indian agents they once resisted.

Today, chiefs often find themselves in a paradoxical position. They are tasked with managing funding agreements and resource distribution while holding limited authority, as ultimate decision-making power rests with government entities. This dynamic has led to a perception that chiefs are becoming impediments to progress rather than facilitating change.

The FSIN must take proactive steps to address what Cuthand describes as a slide into neocolonialism. He advocates for a restructuring of boards to include individuals with relevant experience and expertise, rather than solely chiefs. In a significant turn of events, in 2009, both federal and provincial governments mandated changes to the board of the First Nations University of Canada to maintain eligibility for funding. However, in 2022, the FSIN reversed this progress by allowing chiefs back onto the board without consulting funding agencies.

Cuthand reflects on a time when chiefs actively voiced their concerns about governmental failures, emphasizing the importance of community engagement. He argues that democracy relies on a diverse exchange of ideas and perspectives, which is essential for effective governance.

As the First Nations University and other Indigenous educational institutions confront these challenges, Cuthand emphasizes that looking to the past may provide valuable insights for future governance. By addressing historical grievances and adapting leadership structures, there is potential for genuine progress in Indigenous education and community empowerment.

The situation at the First Nations University of Canada serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between leadership, governance, and community needs within Indigenous societies.