Native American | Campus Safe Words

TERM: Native American
RISK LEVEL: Moderate

Definition

“Native American” is a term commonly used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of the United States. It includes a wide range of tribes, nations, and cultures with distinct legal, political, and historical identities. In higher education, the term often appears in land acknowledgments, course content, recruitment materials, and programming related to tribal relations or cultural heritage.

Why It’s Risky

While “Native American” is widely accepted in many academic and legal settings, its use can become politically sensitive depending on context. The term may draw criticism in conservative-led states when linked to programming that emphasizes historical grievances, systemic oppression, or collective guilt. Land acknowledgments or initiatives that frame the U.S. as a settler-colonial state may be seen as promoting a revisionist or activist agenda rather than fostering respectful engagement with tribal communities. This concern is heightened in states with legislation restricting the teaching of so-called “divisive concepts” (e.g., Tennessee HB 580, Florida Stop W.O.K.E. Act).

Additionally, when “Native American” is used interchangeably with terms like “Indigenous” or in place of legally recognized tribal affiliations, critics may see it as a catch-all label that obscures sovereign nation status or opens the door to broad ideological narratives. Use of the term in DEI programming, particularly when framed through the lens of reparative justice or land return, can prompt scrutiny from legislators or boards who view such content as politically charged.

Common Critiques

A common conservative critique is that “Native American” is frequently used in initiatives that focus on victimhood narratives or historical blame rather than civic inclusion and forward-looking policy. Critics argue that such programs may overemphasize past injustices while downplaying personal agency, patriotism, or the legal complexities of tribal sovereignty.

Another critique involves the rise of land acknowledgments, which are often tied to use of the term. Critics claim these statements risk politicizing classroom or campus environments by framing U.S. history in moralistic rather than factual terms. Some see them as empty gestures that foster guilt rather than constructive relationships or legal understanding.

The term can also raise legal concerns if used imprecisely. Not all individuals who identify as Native American are enrolled in federally recognized tribes, and policies based on self-identification alone may violate race-neutral hiring or admissions practices. Critics worry that institutions may apply the term too loosely, leading to inconsistent or even fraudulent claims of identity in scholarship or hiring.

Finally, when paired with concepts like “decolonization,” “land back,” or “anti-colonial education,” the term “Native American” can appear to support ideological agendas that challenge property rights, U.S. governance, or constitutional principles—raising red flags for politically conservative stakeholders.

Acceptable Alternatives

1. Tribal nations (when referring to specific groups)

2. American Indian (used in some legal or federal contexts)

3. Indigenous peoples of the United States (in academic research)

4. Members of federally recognized tribes

5. Specific tribal names (e.g., Cherokee, Navajo, Lakota)

When It’s Still Appropriate

“Native American” is still appropriate when referring to federal policy categories, census data, or legal contexts where the term is standard. It is acceptable in academic courses, research, and tribal relations work, especially when not used to advance ideological claims. It may also be used in cultural or historical programming, provided it is respectful, fact-based, and avoids politically charged language.

Notes:

When using the term, prefer specificity (tribal names) and legal clarity (federally recognized status) where possible. Avoid pairing with activist phrases like “land back,” “settler colonialism,” or “systems of oppression” in public or administrative documents. Anchor usage in civic respect, legal history, and partnership rather than ideology.