Alaska’s Treatment of Minorities in Respect to Voting Representation, Healthcare Separation, & Culture Elimination through Public Education Research Paper

Introduction

In Alaska, there are many minority groups. The demographic profile of Alaska provided by the US Census Bureau shows that “Alaska had a noticeable increase in its minority population during the past decade” (D’Oro 1). According to researchers, Alaska Natives consist of several distinct groups which differ on the basis of language, culture, and geographic location. There are three primary minorities in Alaska, including Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut (Huntington & Sparck 214).  These groups speak different native languages, which constitute four main language families: Eskimo-Aleut, Athabascan-Eyak, Tsimshian, and Haida. According to researchers, “Alaska’s tribes perpetuate man lifestyle traditions, but perhaps the most important aspects of cultural continuity is the harvesting and sharing of fish, animals, and plants” (Huntington & Sparck 214). Currently, these activities, known as subsistence, are affected by a number of factors, including political and social factors that lead to unequal treatment. The treatment of minorities has been studied by researchers with the goal of identifying the causes and consequences of inequality and discrimination. There is much evidence taken from academic sources that shows the changes in treatment of minorities in Alaska in respect to voting representation, healthcare separation, and culture elimination through public education.

Treatment of minorities in Alaska

Voting representation

Voting representation in Alaska is consistent with the State Constitution. There are several voting policies that are enacted by the state government and enforced at the state level. These policies include voter identification requirements, early voting provisions, and online voter registration system. These policies play a critical role in establishing the proper conditions for political activity and public participation in Alaska. Minorities are provided with the opportunity to participate in voting. In other words, the voting rights of Alaska Natives are supported by the State Constitution. The State of Alaska provides access to language minority Alaska Natives based on the Toyukak v. Mallottse decision (Advisory Memorandum 11).

Actually, in the early period of the state, Alaska government provided limited access of Natives to voting. The state government “disenfranchised Alaska Natives by imposing a pre-registration process on Natives seeking citizenship and required a literacy test as a qualification for voting” (Advisory Memorandum 11). These practices were assessed as discriminative practices as they had an adverse impact on Alaska Natives’ participation in voting.  Although a number of laws passed to eliminate discrimination against Alaska Natives, including the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945, and the Voting Rights Act of 1975 (VRA) and and its language minority requirements, Alaska Natives continue to encounter certain challenges with providing all Alaskans equal access to the voting polls (Advisory Memorandum 11).

Currently, specific attention is paid to voting representation of Natives in Alaska. There is much evidence that shows the access of Natives to voting information. In other words, The Natives in Alaska are provided with the information about the availability of language assistance during the process of voting. It is required that there is one trained bilingual outreach worker and poll worker in each voting setting, who can provide translations in five additional Yup’ik dialects and offer the glossaries of election terms (Advisory Memorandum 21). The Alaska government guarantees that all voters have a chance to vote-by-mail, including Alaska Natives, who have limited English proficiency and who live in geographically and linguistically isolated communities. They can receive mail by P.O. Box (Advisory Committee 71).

Healthcare separation

In the field of healthcare, there are considerable inequalities in treatment of minorities. For example, there are different hospitals for Alaska Natives and Americans. According to research, “health care for members of American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives often comes from a system that is separate from that of mainstream America” (Shelton 1). The fact that the Indian Health Service (IHS) has been launched by the US Department of Health and Human Services means that the federal government separated healthcare services for minorities. According to researchers, “the IHS and tribes have developed a system of hospitals, clinics, field stations, and other programs in the attempt to fulfill the federal trust responsibility and meet the health care needs of AI/AN people” (Shelton 1). Although the use healthcare separation is presented in the form of assimilation policy, it has a negative impact on Alaska Natives’ identity and rights (Shelton 1).

In fact, the federal government explains this assimilation policy as a strategic approach to  addressing the needs of minorities in Alaska. Due to the westward expansion, the United States moved tribes to reservations, which had adverse health impacts on livelihood of Natives because of the shifting from traditional diets. This shift was the result of impossibility to be engaged in hunting and gathering traditional foods and herbs for healing. Researchers found that “many of the health problems faced by AI/AN people today, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, are related to shifts from traditional dietary patterns” (Shelton 6).

At the same time, this policy leads to discrimination of minorities in Alaska, because the hospitals and health centres built in and near of Alaska Natives communities are of low quality. 

In Alaska, there are many regional Native non-profit corporations that provide health care services to Alaska Natives. Research study shows that Alaska Natives and other minorities have limited access to healthcare services. According to researchers, “The IHS serves approximately 1.5 million people, but it does not serve all of the 4.1 million individuals whom the Census Bureau reports as being American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with other races” (Zuckerman et al. 53). Some of minority members are not eligible for the serviced provided by the IHS for the reason that they are “not members or descendants of federally recognized tribes” (Zuckerman et al. 53). Also, many minority members live in the areas that are located far away from their assigned home reservations. As a result, they cannot access IHS services and many of them are forced to depend on other sources of coverage or remain  uninsured (Zuckerman et al. 53).

Culture elimination through public education

In Alaska, minorities face the problem of school separation that leads to considerable family challenges and psychological trauma. The federal and state legislation on education in Alaska supported the idea to foster boarding school system. The long-term effects of the use of boarding schools in Alaska were studies by researchers to prove inconsistency of the system. Alaska Natives claimed that  students suffered from identity conflicts because they had been separated from their parents at  an early age and failed to learn family traditions and subsistence skills to the full extent (Easley & Charles 2).

Actually, the educational policies developed in Alaska in 1800s-1900s were based on the US government policy that supported western expansion in the United States. These new educational policies were focused on treaty-making that allowed to put Alaska Natives on reserves and educated their children in boarding school system (Easley & Charles 2). According to research study, “in Alaska, government agency representatives often forcefully took children away to boarding schools hundreds and even thousands of miles away from their homeland” (Easley & Charles 2). This type of educational policy allowed the state government to improve assimilation and acculturation of indigenous children into Western culture. As a result, the Alaska government contributed to shaping America’s “melting pot” (Easley & Charles 2). The major reasons for utilizing that policy was that boarding schools became effective tools for fostering assimilation. As a rule, they were located far away from homes of Natives and their organizational structure discouraged the families of Natives from unregulated visiting of their children. According to researchers, the Alaska government considered that “family members would only hinder and detract from the goals of assimilation” (Easley & Charles 2).

Currently, the Alaska government does not require separating children from their parents. Local authorities help parents to give their children good education without violation of children’s rights. The children of Alaska Natives do not need to attend schools, which are located  hundreds of miles from their village. Alaska Native children have access to the local school system. The Alaska government opened new high schools in Alaska Native villages. Nevertheless, the problem of low education level among Natives is still prevalent. Statistical data shows that “Alaska Native students have a graduation rate just above 60 percent—and a majority of the dropouts are male” (Peter 1). The major reasons for the low education level among Alaska Natives include high annual teacher turnover rate (about 30%) in rural school districts, as well as the lack of culturally relevant school curriculum and the proper methods of pedagogy (Peter 1).

Also, in Alaska, minorities face the problem of elimination of native cultures. This problem is closely linked to the educational policy supported by the Alaska government. According to researchers, “schools and religion were the primary mechanisms to attempt to eradicate Alaska Native languages, ceremonies, social systems, cultural practices, values, and identity” (Peter 1). This educational policy came from the emergence of the boarding school system in Alaska. Isolated boarding schools located far from the homes of Alaska Natives were “rooted in the tenet ‘Kill the Indian, save the man’” (Peter 1). This fact means that the Alaska government was interested in elimination of native cultures through involvement of children of Alaska Natives into compulsory public education. This was a traumatic experience for many Alaska Native peoples. Undoubtedly, this type of experience contributed to the emergence of “current issues of intergenerational trauma and tension in Alaska Native peoples’ relationship with Western education” (Peter 1).

Although many Alaska Natives reconsigned the potential benefits of access to Western education, they could not foster their cultural practices to the full extent. There is much evidence that  access of Natives to Western education was an effective mechanism to foster advocacy for human and civil rights. As a result, access of Natives in Alaska to education led to increased self-determination and active participation in various activities in the fields like governance, business, education, and health care services. The future of  Alaska Native languages depends on making changes in current educational policy in order to help Alaska Native save their culture.

Legal context

There are various laws that have a negative impact on the livelihood of natives. One of these laws is The Salmon Law passed by the government of Alaska with the goal of raising taxes on salmon. This law has a negative impact on the livelihood of the Natives in Alaska. Although the government in Alaska accepts the unique constitutional status of Alaska Natives, and the federal government guarantees fulfilment of certain treaty obligations to minorities, there are still many misunderstandings on the issues that refer to the status and rights of Alaska Natives with regard to school education, healthcare services, social and economic services, as well as access to natural resources (The Alaska Constitution).

The state does not levy a personal income tax or a sales tax. As a result, Alaska has to seek its revenues from other forms of taxes. The state of Alaska follows its State Constitution which provides authority to tax under Article IX (The Alaska Constitution). The policies adopted  in Alaska differ from the policies adopted in other states. Each state has its right to levy taxes in order to provide funding of the variety of services to address the needs of people. In Alaska, the collection of taxes constitutes about 40 percent of the obtained revenues. In Alaska, the primary types of taxes levied by the government are excise  taxes and corporate income tax (The Alaska Constitution).

Examination of the form and quality of government in Alaska

How democratic is the government in Alaska?

The government in Alaska is democratic because it follows the principles of democracy, namely consent of the governed, representative government, rule of law, individual rights, and checks and balances. The government in Alaska is legitimate because it is focused on the consent of all people living in this area, including Alaska Natives. Also, minorities are given rights to elect people who will represent their tribes in the government. Government in Alaska  obeys the established laws, rules and regulations. Alaska Natives are guaranteed their basic human rights as well as all Americans- the right to freedom of speech and the right to religion. The government in Alaska supports the system of checks and balances that allows balancing three branching.  Both federal and state laws regulate the conditions provided to Alaska Natives  in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, and other areas. According to researchers, “the Indian community constitutes a sovereign tribe if it can show that it is either recognized as a tribe by the federal government, or it satisfies the common law definition of a tribe” (Case & Voluck 422).

How good a job does the government do in providing for the public good?

The government in Alaska does a good job in providing for the public good because the policies and programs issued by the government are specially developed to address the needs of local people. According to researchers, “the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had not eliminated the historic relationship between Alaska Natives and the federal government, a relationship that manifests itself in the acknowledgement of significant Native claims to land, human services, subsistence, and self-government” (Case & Voluck xii). This Act allows the government to provide for the public good because it shapes the future of Alaska Natives’  economic, cultural, political development and legal context. The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975  supports various policies and programs that are aimed at providing certain benefits to Alaska Natives. The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights is responsible for enforcement of the Alaska Human Rights Law, which prevents discrimination for all Alaskans. The Commission is involved in investigation of complains from Alaskans across the state (Alaska State Commission for Human Rights).

What is the state constitution like? In what ways is it similar to and different from the federal one?

The state constitution is based on the established laws and regulations. According to researchers, the Alaska constitution was written to be “an effective and lasting constitution”, but it was written for the purpose of “selling the US Congress on the idea of statehood for Alaska” (Campbell 686). The Alaska Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention on February 5, 1956 and ratified by the People of Alaska on April 24, 1956. The Alaska Constitution  consists of Introduction and Preamble, 15 articles, 3 ordinances and amendment summary.

The Alaska Constitution is similar to the federal one because it has the same structure and addresses the same issues. It serves as foundation of the state. The Alaska Constitution was designed in a similar way because it was aimed at serving the nation. According to researchers, “through the writing of their constitution, Alaskans hoped to demonstrate their political maturity and preparedness for statehood” (Campbell 686).  The key goal of the founders of the Alaska Constitution was to convince the US Congress and the US President that the state of Alaska was ready for the “first class membership in the Union” (Campbell 686).

In addition, the Alaska Constitution was designed in a way that allowed the state promoting political stability. The Preamble says, “We the People of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska” (The Alaska Constitution). The key issues address in this Preamble are similar to the issues address in the Federal Constitution. Hence, it becomes clear that both Constitutions serve the same goals in establishment of the democratic society. Both Constitutions are focused on articulating moral principles and values that shape the democratic society. The Alaska Constitution was ratified in 1972 in order to guarantee freedom from discrimination based on race, colour, creed, sex, and national origin (Campbell 689). 

However, the Alaska Constitution differs from the Federal Constitution. This state Constitution is focused on limiting power rather than granting power. There are certain details in the Alaska Constitution that address the issues unique to the state of Alaska. Comparing this unique feature to the Federal Constitution, it is possible to conclude that the Alaska Constitution is more detailed than the federal one. Also, it is known that the Federal Constitution can be amended through a long and complicated process aimed at ensuring limitation of changes to this primary document. Besides, the Alaska Constitution is more open to making amendments, which  are proposed by legislature, a Constitutional Commission or through submitting citizens’ petition (The Alaska Constitution).

What avenues does the State Constitution provide for popular participation in politics? What factors limit the extent of popular participation?

The State Constitution provides certain avenues for popular participation in politics. The State Constitution guarantees that citizens can join political parties, vote for their political candidates, and fully exercise their basic democratic rights.  The Alaska Constitution is characterized by its access to various forms of popular participation. For example, Article XI, Initiative, Referendum and Recall, guarantees that people of Alaska “may propose and enact laws by the initiative, and approve or reject acts of the legislature by the referendum” (The Alaska Constitution). There are certain factors that limit the extent of popular participation in politics, including citizenship related limits, dominant position of certain groups, and the practice of electoral authoritarianism (The Alaska Constitution).

Is the state well-governed? Do public policies tend to pursue the public good, or to favour the narrower interests of powerful groups?

The state of Alaska is well-governed. The state of Alaska is represented as a well- organized Territory with the proper ambitions for statehood due to sovereignty and self-governance (Case & Voluck 373). The Alaska Legislature is comprised of 16 senators and 24 representatives. Alaska participates in election process to select a delegate to the US Congress who will be able to perform his functions in the House of Representatives, provide sponsorship of bills, and serve his role on various committees, but he has no right to vote. The governor of Alaska is elected for a four years term. The governor is appointed by the US President. The US Congress has a right to disapprove the acts passed by the Alaska Legislature. The US commissioners perform the roles of justices of the peace. They are also responsible for probation of judges in the diverse Alaska communities. Additionally, the federal government is responsible for exercising the close control over the state’s natural resources, such as fish, forests, fur animals, minerals, as well as provides control over the native population of Alaska. The federal government owns about 90 per cent of Alaska’s land (American Historical Association). McHugh suggests that “Alaskans feared a lack of political, economic, and personal freedom, as well as the reduction of the territory to a colonial status” (38). Thus, the state government is focused on ongoing protection of  autonomy of the people in Alaska. The Alaska State Constitution is consistent with the established and widely recognized institutional and legal values (McHugh 38).

In fact, public policies tend to pursue the public good, although there are some policies that favour the narrower interests of powerful groups in Alaska. Affirmative action is one of the public policies that is taken by local employers and universities with the goal of increasing the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups both in employment and in educational institutions. There are various forms of affirmative action taken in Alaska, including strict quotes, extra outreach efforts, as well as racial and gender preferences. In 1978, the US Supreme Court banned racial preferences in admissions to universities based on the court’s decision in case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Nevertheless, the use of racial quotes was practised in some educational institutions (Metcalfe 113).

In general, the issues discussed in the Alaska Constitution allow the people of Alaska to be confident in constitutionality of the policies issued by the state government. The vast majority of Alaskans highly value the Alaska Constitution and the democratic principles it embodies. Nevertheless, there are public concerns about economic equality, racial integration, and minorities’ rights (Dahl 93). In other words, the tension between the Alaskans’ belief in the legitimacy of the State Constitution and their belief in the principles of democracy is still prevalent in Alaska. The Alaska State Constitution provides the opportunity to control the sparsely populated territory of Alaska and make the proper governmental services function effectively. The Alaska Constitution demonstrates “political maturity” of the state (McBeath 24).

One of major constitutional issue facing the state at present is the issue of making certain federal legislative amendments to allow Alaska Native tribes having access to all Bureau of Indian Education programs, as mentioned in recent article by Evon Peter, the vice chancellor of rural, community, and Native education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. It is critical to develop new approaching to expansion of services. Die to the partnership with the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, it is possible to significantly improve the existing Alaska’s tribal school system. According to researcher, public schools, which have the  majority of Alaska Native students, should be controlled by the tribe, but, at the same time, they should “maintain the same amount of their state funding” (Peter 1). Also, there is a need for increasing investment from the University of Alaska system in order to provide financial support to “Indigenous teacher training, language-revitalization programs, and culturally relevant curriculum development” (Peter 1).

Conclusion

Thus, it is necessary to conclude that Alaska’s treatment of minorities in respect to voting representation, healthcare separation, and culture elimination through public education is charactered as equal, although some inequalities are still found in various field of human activity.  The Alaska State Constitution is developed to address the needs of all people in Alaska, including Alaska Natives, as well as to foster American values and democratic principles. Much effort has been made to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race and provide Alaska Natives with access to government,  education, health care services, and business opportunities. 

Works Cited

Advisory Memorandum. The Alaska Advisory Committee. Available at: <https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/05-25-AK-Voting-Rights.pdf>

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights. 2018. The Great State of Alaska. http://humanrights.alaska.gov/

American Historical Association. How is Alaska Governed? Available at:<https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-20-what-has-alaska-to-offer-postwar-pioneers-(1944)/how-is-alaska-governed>

Campbell, Sally H. “The Alaska Constitution” in  The Constitutionalism of American States, ed. by Connor, George E. & Hammons, Christopher W. University of Missouri Press, 2008.

Dahl, Robert A. How Democratic is the American Constitution? Yale University Press, 2003.

D’Oro, Rachel. “Census: Alaska sees minority population growth.” Daily News Minor. May 12, 2011. Available at: http://www.newsminer.com/census-alaska-sees-minority-population-growth/article_7b89635f-cfce-588d-889c-1c6b8998a060.html 

Easley, Cheryl & Charles, George. “Boarding School: Historical Trauma among Alaska’s Native People” National Resource Centre for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiin Elders. 2006. https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/academics/institutional-effectiveness/departments/center-for-advancing-faculty-excellence/_documents/boarding-school-historical-trauma-among-alaska-s-native-people.pdf

Evon, Peter. “Alaska Is Failing Its Indigenous Students: For Alaska Native students, culturally relevant instruction is key” Education Week. November 29, 2016. Available at:<https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/30/alaska-is-failing-its-indigenous-students.html>

Huntington, Henry P. & Sparck, Michelle. “Pops in Alaska: Engaging the United States” in ed. by Fenge, Terry et al. Northern Lights against Pops: Combating Threats in the Arctic. Published for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference Canada by McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003.

McBeath, Gerald A. The Alaska State Constitution. Oxfrod University Press, 2011.

McHugh, James T. Ex Uno Plura: State Constitutions and Their Political Cultures. State University of New York Press, 2003.

Case, David S. & Voluck, David A. Alaska Natives and American Laws. 3Rd ed. University of Alaska Press, 2012.

Metcalfe, Peter A. Dangerous Idea: The Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Struggle for Indigenous Rights. University of Alaska Press, 2014.

Shelton, Brett L. Legal and Historical Roots of Health Care for American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States. February, 2004. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at: https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/legal-and-historical-roots-of-health-care-for-american-indians-and-alaska-natives-in-the-united-states.pdf

The Alaska Constitution. The Great State of Alaska. Available at:<https://ltgov.alaska.gov/services/alaskas-constitution/>

Zuckerman, Stephen; Haley, Jennifer; Roubideaux, Yvette; Lillie-Blanton, Marsha. “Health Service Access, Use, and Insurance Coverage Among American Indians/Alaska Natives and Whites: What Role Does the Indian Health Service Play?” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 94, no.1, 2004, pp. 53-59.

Rostkowski Joëlle. Conversations with Remarkable Native Americans. State University of New York Press, 2012.  

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person