Upgrade Indian Preference

Strategies on how to minimize the assumptions that Native Americans are privileged and have it easy in terms of “Indian Preference” from the Act of 1934.

In the case of Morton vs. Mancari (1974), a non-native employee from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) made a claim against the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 on basis of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 claiming that the BIA violates the discrimination of equal employment act. The case brings insight to the constitutional validity of the long standing Indian preference in employment.

The judgement concludes that courts are not at liberty to select among congressional enactments when two statutes are capable of co-existing; Section 12 of the Indian Act of 1934 states: Native Americans on sovereignty nations get preference in employment to build and grow communities (Morton & Mancari, 1974). Today the challenge is figuring how to minimize the assumptions that Native Americans are privileged and have it easy in terms of “Indian Preference”. To bridge this gap requires amending changes to improve the workforce towards current ambiguities in “Indian Preference” in employment.

The Dilemma #TalkingBS

The Dilemma #TalkingBS on “Indian preference” creates a shadow on talent acquisition creating a dysfunctional gap between human resources, businesses, and tribal governments; creating a strain on the Navajo Nation’s economic success.

The workforce sector within reservations is key to reducing poverty and building community leadership. The Act of 1934 shows crippling progress to the tribe’s success, 84 years have gone by since the act, the latest results from a demographic analysis show 38% of the entire Navajo population on the reservation live in poverty and 44% ages 18-0 live below poverty (Arizona Rural Policy Institute Survey, 2010). The Navajo Nation’s failure to accommodate the 21st century workforce is detrimental to economic growth.

The strategy is to amend changes into the Act of 1934; amending changes requires implementing a clear definition of “Indian preference" to the degree that non-members desire and have the work ethic to conquer the anonymities to build-up reservations. Doing so, will reduce or end any bias, stereotypes, and mixed feelings which may cause any future racial discrimination or transgressions for both native and non-native. A clear representation of “building up communities” is to amend time sensitive consequences for member and non-members who do not execute; financial, sustainable, environmental, and economical outcomes.

Next, redesign the act to address specific economic deficiencies on reservations. The applicant’s acknowledgment and comprehension depth of economic goals can help lure top applicants during recruitment, strengthen work culture, and improve retention; applicants may have desire and skills but do not apply because he or she may be a non-native. The goal is to recruit the best applicants and not let the best applicants slip through the cracks.

There is also a need to implement a support system to modify accommodations for the “LGBTQ” sector (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and questionable) the findings from (Brewer, 2018) reports the following, “LGBTQ Navajo Nation employees who are paid through federal grants have workplace discrimination protections, the tribe has no laws protecting the rest. And that can have dire consequences. A 2016 study by the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission found transgender Navajos felt not only misunderstood by their own people and subject to higher than average rates of violence, but also that violence against them is tolerated.”

In addition, a merger strategy incorporating “Indian Preference” with “Indigenous Preference” can enhance cross cultural-support. The focus is to merge emerging markets within demographic sectors to form a sovereign global indigenous work force sector to successfully compete within global markets.

The last strategy is to create a modern point system taking into consideration modern efforts approach to incorporate “non-member-member-proficiency” program that maximizes on cultural enrichment proficiency variables from non-Native Americans applicants. The applicant will either live or have experience growing up on tribal land or in other indigenous habitats, such applicants acknowledge; cultural barriers, language appreciation, perspective world views, and have high influential activity on social media platforms.

Overall, the aim in modifying “Indian Preference” is to create a competent global work force to achieve economic sustainability by accommodating the needs for 21st century in sovereign nations. To achieve such measures requires a competent workforce, a resourceful environment, and high productivity levels from all members to maximize on: teamwork, brainstorming, and creativity. The key is to incorporate global efforts from multi-dimensional indigenous sectors; doing so adds value to cultures, inspires innovation, and creates unity in emerging market in the deterrence against poverty and bias.

References:

Case Law Morton vs. Mancari (1974). 417 US 535 (NM). Retrieved March 26, 2018

from Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?

case=4402198579492121596&q=tribal+employment&hl=en&as_sdt=80

Arizona Rural Policy Institute Survey. (2010). Navajo Population Profile. U.S. Census. Retrieved on July 29, 2018 from World Wide Web:

http://www.necnavajosn.gov/Portals/0/Reports/NN2010PopulationProfile.pdf

Brewer, G. (2018). Why marriage equality is a matter of tribal sovereignty-More

tribal nations are returning to traditional views that accept and honor

LGBTQ members. High Country News. Retrieved July 29, 2018 from World

Wide Web: https://www.hcn.org/articles/indian-country-news-why- marriage-equality-is-a-matter-of-tribal-sovereignty

Thank you for visiting #TalkingBS please leave a comment your BS matters.

Insight to #TalkingBS