NATIONAL NEWS

Racism Outside the Reservation

New York (LNS)—”To remove the child from the influence of its savage parents" was the goal stated in the charter of the first federal boarding school for Native ["Indian"] children in 1890. That goal and its white supremist mind-set are still intact, as exemplified in the fight of Bernadine Brokenleg for custody of her child.

To rear a "child [who] has physical features of a non-Indian nature...[in] an environment [the reservation] consisting of primarily Indian people...would be detrimental to [her] physical and emotional wellbeing," ruled a Texas judge in deciding to deny Brokenleg custody of her child in 1976. Today, the Sioux mother of Tiffany Butts-whose father is white-has taken her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,

Native peoples' organizations across the country have argued strongly against the racist ruling. It is "plainly inaccurate to say that because an Indian has blue eyes or light hair or complexion that he cannot become accepted as an Indian person..." reads a statement by the 8,000 member Rosebud Sioux nation in South Dakota.

"The thing is there is no racism on the reservation," explained Jeanne Baum, a Blackfoot activist, who last year fought successfully to retain custody of her daughter. "No matter what color you are, if you are a member of a nation, you are a member of a nation," she told LNS.

Meanwhile, Tiffany has been raised most of her nine years outside the reservation by her white paternal grandparents in a society which scorns her Native cultural values. Child of a mixed marriage, Tiffany moved along with her mother to the Rosebud reservation in 1972, after Brokenleg's marriage to Bernard Butts was annulled in California. Fourteen months later, her white father and his parents took the girl away on vacation and never returned her to the Sioux people.

Since late 1973, Butts' parents have kept Tiffany in their home in Texas, where Brokenleg has visited her 'three times, phoned her and written her several times.

In 1975, the grandparents petitioned for custody of the child, claiming that the mother had abandoned and neglected her in violation of Texas law. At the trial, they testified that Tiffany's home on the reservation was "dirty and without adequate bathroom facilities."

Even though a psychiatrist and two officers of the tribe testified that Brokenleg was a competent mother and that the child's best interests would be served by remaining on the reservation, the court decided in favor of the grandparents. Yet, Brokenleg was not deemed an "unfit" mother.

In part, the findings seem to be condemning the Sioux mother for her poverty, citing that "at no time" did she provide “adequate support" for the child. Given that Brokenleg was earning only a small income as a secretary, teacher's aide and tutor, and was for several months unemployed, while Tiffany's grandparents earned more than $2,000 a month, the findings are no surprise.

The Association of Indian Affairs (AIA), representing Brokenleg, attacked the decision, upheld in a second court of appeals, because it is based "on racial considerations totally irrelevant to any legitimate purpose of the state to protect children from parental abuse or neglect".

Tiffany's fate and her mother's sorrow reflect the national statistics on the forced separation of Native children from their Native families. One out of four Native children is taken from his or her people and placed in a white foster home or institution. "Child neglect" charges are almost always without evidence and simply reveal the deep bias of white social workers and judges against Native peoples-cultural standards. For example, several children may sleep in one bed-a practice in keeping with a Native concept

about sharing, yet in violation of the space requirements set by white welfare agencies. The same white, middle-class, cultural prejudices also disqualify Native foster parents.

Native people have battled back through legislative action and as part of the overall struggle for tribal sovereignty against what many charge is cultural genocide through "Indian removal" policies. And they recently scored a victory as Native groups throughout the states welcomed implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Finally passed by Congress on October 14 after years of legislative stalling tactics, the bill was signed into law by President Carter on November 9. It will "stop the theft of Indian children and recognize that tribal courts are the appropriate judicial bodies" for deciding the welfare of Native children, according to Steve Unger of AIA. In addition, the bill would set minimum due process standards, such as prohibiting the conditions of poverty on many reservations from being used as evidence of neglectful parents.

How the Welfare Act will affect the Supreme Court's decision to accept or reject the Brokenleg case is uncertain, although according to Unger, the bill will lessen the chances of similar cases recurring.

Even so, Madonna Gilbert of the newly formed Women of All Red Nations (WARN) cautions against too much optimism concerning the Act's effectiveness. At the same time the bill was enacted, the Bureau of Indian Affairs suffered a 30 percent cutback in its child welfare benefits, and many Native homes are too poor to qualify as foster homes.

As to a solution to the problem of Native family disintegration-"it goes back to the treaties...it all boils down to the issue of tribal sovereignty," responded Gilbert.

For information and contributions to Bernadine Brokenleg's case, contact Lorelei Means, c/o WARN, General Delivery, Porcupine, So. Dakota 57772.

Liability for Involuntary Sterilization

It's been a long eight years for Norma Jean Serena. The Native American woman was involuntarily sterilized after the birth of her fourth child in August

H.RED ELK

"Indians are 'continually faced with social workers who do not understand Indian culture and consequently misjudge the life provided Indian children.'

1970 on order of the Board of Assistance and Child Welfare Services of Armstrong County, Pa. Earlier that year, her three youngest children were taken from herad placed in foster homes for three years, also again her will. Serena was judged “unfit” to be a moer by welfare department officials for "socioeconomic reasons": being poor and Native American

למדת?

Page 4/What She Wants/February, 1979

Serena's 5-year-old civil rights suit began its first day in court January 5 in Pittsburgh, Pa. She is charging the Department of Public Welfare with liability for the violations of her civil rights and asking $20,000 in damages.

Serena, now 42, was unmarried and living with a 3-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son in Apollo, Pa., when welfare department caseworkers began investigating her relationship with a Black man in March 1970. The officials ordered Serena to bring her children to a hospital for physical checkups-and then falsely told her they were seriously ill and unable to return home. The welfare department placed the children in foster homes.

In August 1970, Serena was admitted to the hospital for the birth of another child. She was unknowingly sterilized after the delivery and falsely told that the baby was ill; this infant too was placed in permanent custody by welfare officials.

Not until 1973 did Serena regain custody of her

children. The tubal ligation procedure resulted in complications, and she was forced to undergo a complete hysterectomy. The emotional scars inflicted on Serena and her children are beyond measure.

The court case now underway could set an important precedent. If Serena is successful, individuals and institutions involved in involuntary sterilization practices would be held legally accountable for their acts. A court decision on liability is particularly important in light of the absence of monitoring provisions or controls in the new Health, Education and Welfare Department guidelines on federally funded sterilizations, most of which are performed on poor and third world women.

For more information and to send contributions: Women Against Sterilization Abuse, 5000 Knox Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19144, tel. (215) 848-5256.

The Guardian January 17, 1979

MSU FOULS WOMEN DRIBBLERS

(Her Say)-The women's varsity basketball team at Michigan State University has filed a 12-point complaint against the University with the state and federal civil rights agencies. The complaint reads as if no one at MSU had ever heard of Title IX.

The complaint says that MSU, among other things, buys 125 pairs of basketball shoes at $25 to $45 each for the 15 players on the men's varsity team, but limits the women to one pair of shoes each-all

of the same make and model so that the University can purchase them at cheaper rates. The women also charge that they must travel six to a car for 10 hours or more to get to out-of-town games; that they must sleep two to a bed on the road; and that they must launder their own uniforms.

In contrast, the complaint charges, the men's team flies to its away games, has a bed for each player, and men's dirty uniforms are dropped in the dressing room for someone else to pick up and wash.