“Pretendianism” – falsely claiming Indigenous heritage – poses significant challenges to the indigenization of Canadian academia.
Universities have clear options to deal with this problem. They can keep Indigenous verification processes internal or share authority through co-governance with Indigenous communities and their leaders. The same decision exists with regard to other academic processes impacting Indigenous communities, from research ethics to data governance, to name just a few.
Internal approaches to issues such as membership verification mean the authority remains exclusively within the institution. Universities and other organizations may be motivated to keep at least some verification processes internal to reduce risk, increase efficiencies and be in a position to ensure the process aligns with its own needs and objectives.
Co-governance – sometimes referred to as collaborative governance – is a better approach because it is a structured partnership between two decision-making bodies that share responsibilities and collaborate in policymaking and implementation.
Co-governance is developed collaboratively with Indigenous communities and often uses documentation or processes determined by Indigenous governing bodies. In relation to membership verification, the co-governance model asks: “How does your nation identify its own citizens and how can we honour that?” The in-house model, on the other hand, answers that question for the nation.
Why is co-governance the better policy?
One significant advantage of the co-governance approach is that it shifts the administrative burden from university faculty and staff. When universities retain full control, this process ultimately relies on using Indigenous faculty and staff, which in turn exacerbates the “minority/cultural tax” experienced by thosewho are already burdened with disproportionate institutional responsibilities related to indigenization or diversity and equity initiatives.
This approach demands increased involvement of Indigenous staff and faculty in developing spaces and curricula, serving on committees and generally acting as the Indigenous stopgap for the institution. By adopting a collaborative approach, universities can alleviate these pressures by relying on Indigenous governing bodies, leaving Indigenous faculty to focus more on their roles in research and teaching.
Whether it be membership verification, ethics processes or the collection and management of data, a critical limitation of in-house processes is that no single committee or the individuals who comprise it can fully capture the breadth and depth of Indigenous knowledge needed for sound decision-making across the vast diversity of Indigenous communities.
Individuals – Indigenous or not – invariably operate from a specific and limited set of personal and professional experiences. Such informational constraints lead to real risks.
Empowering civil society and Indigenous communities in higher education decision making
Honouring Indigenous self-determination by applying parallel paths
The dangerous rush for Indigenous identity policies at universities
Universities must uphold Indigenous rights to self-determine
For example, a verification committee might rely on performative, and ultimately limited, identity markers or inadvertently exclude a qualified individual from a distant community whose cultural expressions or markers do not match the committee’s familiar frames of reference.
In an attempt to address these informational gaps, internal committees might depend on sourcing information from Indigenous communities. For example, universities might adopt membership definitions of Indigenous communities or draw on Indigenous community ethics or data governance protocols without actually sharing decision-making power with them.
While these standards might initially align with the Indigenous community, changes may occur over time. Without direct access to up-to-date community knowledge, internal committees must continually find other ways to update their processes. This reliance on external information undermines the rationale for an internal process.
By directly involving Indigenous communities in the verification, ethics and data processes, universities can ensure more accurate outcomes while reducing administrative strain.
While there are many obvious benefits to the co-governance approach, its true value lies in its legitimacy. It recognizes that Indigenous communities are essential decision-making partners over processes that directly impact them and over which they have rightful jurisdiction.
With regard to membership verification, shared decision-making is supported by various constitutional and international declarations. Article 23 of UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, states that Indigenous communities have the right to define their membership according to their traditions and laws.
As well, the Tri-Council Policy Statement (chapter 9) recognizes that Indigenous communities are the ethical authorities for research that concerns them, while data governance standards such as OCAP and the CARE Principles affirm Indigenous jurisdiction over how information about their peoples is collected, stored and used.
Whether it be international conventions or federal policy that already governs university processes, there are ample sources to understand and root the legitimacy of co-governance.
Academic freedom is not at odds with Indigenous self-determination
This model is not without its critics, however. Some worry that co-governance with Indigenous communities threatens academic freedom or the independence of university processes. These are valid concerns; research must always remain impartial. But there is also a danger in relying on the assumption that respecting Indigenous community authority is inherently at odds with the academic principles we hold so dearly.
Such critiques can rest on implicit assumptions, including the notion that Indigenous governments are inherently politically fragile, resistant to critique and unable to serve as a partner that respects academic responsibilities and principles.
A similar logic appears in verification debates where reliance on tools such as band lists can be criticized as perpetuating colonial bureaucracy. While perhaps true, this framing overlooks the right to self-government, including the responsibility of Indigenous Peoples to adapt and strengthen their own governance systems in ways that reflect who they are.
While valid, concerns about effectiveness or autonomy should not preclude shared authority. In practice, these concerns can be clearly outlined and safeguarded through well-designed agreements that ensure co-governance frameworks respect Indigenous rights and sovereignty, as well as protect scholarly independence.
An example in practice: membership verification
The University of Saskatchewan provides a practical example of effective co-governance. In developing one of the country’s first policies for Indigenous membership and citizenship verification, the university actively engaged with Indigenous communities to determine the most appropriate methods for verifying their members.
This arrangement was facilitated through the signing of agreements, first with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan in 2021 and more recently with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. With both, the university and Indigenous governing bodies have clearly defined roles and verification responsibilities.
Angela Jaime, the university’s vice-provost of Indigenous engagement, emphasized how the university’s internal policy “positions the Indigenous communities to guide the university in this matter . . . The Indigenous communities have asked for this policy. Centering the voices of Indigenous Peoples is reconciliation.”
This approach highlights how co-governance, by aligning institutional policy with respect for Indigenous jurisdiction, need not replace university frameworks, but instead can complement and enhance them.
There are significant advantages to governing these processes collaboratively.
By acknowledging Indigenous communities’ place in decisions over membership or the way research is done on their communities, co-governance can be rooted in respect for Indigenous sovereignty as well as the principles universities hold so dear.
This approach is also often more efficient. It ensures that processes remain accurate and responsive to evolving community standards while reducing the administrative burden on Indigenous faculty and staff.
Yes, these arrangements must be approached with care, but ultimately the co-governance approach works because it not only mitigates risk and increases efficiencies but because it increases institutional legitimacy through the recognition that Indigenous Peoples have the right to take part in the decisions that affect their lives.
