State Lawmakers Must Protect the Cultural and Religious Expression of Indigenous Students

“I hadn’t felt that powerful before that moment, standing up with my diploma, with my Native cap on and then shaking my principal’s hand.”

These are the words of Emalyce Kee, a Navajo and Rosebud Sioux student at a Utah public school. School officials told her to not wear a beaded cap or plumes to her graduation ceremony last year, but she did it anyway.

Efforts to stop students from wearing tribal regalia can’t be viewed in a vacuum. Indigenous students have long been mistreated and disadvantaged in educational settings.

Emalyce was not alone. Last year, another Indigenous student, Lena’ Black, was forced to remove an eagle feather from her graduation cap before her graduation ceremony in Oklahoma. Although federal law may, in some instances, protect Indigenous students’ cultural and religious right to wear tribal regalia during graduations, there are countless Indigenous students, like Emalyce and Lena’, who nevertheless face uncertainty and discrimination when they attempt to wear eagle feathers, beaded caps, sealskin caps, moccasins, or other tribal regalia during graduation ceremonies.

Graduation should be about celebrating students’ accomplishments and dreams for the future, and they should be able to honor their heritage without unnecessary and discriminatory obstacles. “I want this to never happen to another Native student … they ruined something she has worked her whole life to achieve,” Marci Black, mother of Lena’ Black, said in an interview.

The ACLU will continue to fight by ensuring that lawmakers hear directly from impacted students and join other states in protecting the rights of students.

Efforts to stop students from wearing tribal regalia can’t be viewed in a vacuum. Indigenous students have long been mistreated and disadvantaged in educational settings. Not too long ago, federal boarding schools were used as a tool of genocide, to forcibly remove Indigenous children from their families and tribes in order to erase their identities, languages, and cultural heritage. Continuing to strip Indigenous students of their tribal regalia at a crucial moment in their lives is a continuation of this horrific legacy.

But all hope is not lost. Indigenous students and communities, along with allies, have secured key victories protecting their right to wear tribal regalia. Their resilience means that other Indigenous students won’t have to go through the same difficulties. In recent years, nine states have passed bipartisan legislation to protect the right to wear tribal regalia — the most recent being Utah, following years of advocacy and organizing.

This year, three states are considering bills that would serve to protect the rights of Indigenous students:

SB 429 in Oklahoma and AB 73 in Nevada are bills focused on protecting the rights of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia.
LB 630 in Nebraska is a broad bill that would protect students from discrimination based on hairstyles, natural hair, and certain head coverings. It also protects the right of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia.

Lawmakers in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Nevada are in the unique position to codify the rights of Indigenous students so that no student has to experience discrimination or the fear that they will be barred from expressing their culture and faith at graduation.

Alongside Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, the ACLU and our affiliates have successfully advocated for the rights of students to wear tribal regalia in Montana, California, Arizona, and elsewhere, and are working nationwide to protect and advance Indigenous students’ rights to an inclusive and culturally relevant education. The ACLU will continue to fight by ensuring that lawmakers hear directly from impacted students and join other states in protecting the rights of students.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog