Human remains held by U's medical school raise questions around tribal consultation
As the law changes, the University of Minnesota is working on how best to approach a set of human remains held in its medical school for years. A preliminary review found that some of the remains are likely Native American in origin.
An updated version of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, went into effect Friday. The Act was passed over 30 years ago to facilitate the return of remains, funerary and sacred items to tribal nations.
Among other changes, the rule requires institutions like the University of Minnesota to rely on the expertise of tribal nations to guide the repatriation processes.
For the past several years, the university has consulted with a state council made up of tribal elected officials on how best to identify the remains held by the medical school. But some say the university should have consulted directly with tribes instead.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
It’s not known if any of the human remains — thought to have been acquired from anatomical supply companies — are from tribes in Minnesota.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Upper Sioux Community Samantha Odegard spends part of her job working with institutions on repatriation issues under NAGPRA.
“The way that we treat those relatives, that we treat those remains. They’re not ... subject to study,” Odegard said.
In 2022, while serving as a tribal research fellow at the U of M, Odegard learned about the issue from a colleague working with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, or MIAC. Years earlier cultural resources staff from the council made a preliminary identification.
“Although the results were not conclusive, we felt it was appropriate to consult with MIAC, and that consultation continues,” said university spokesperson Jake Ricker.
Based on advice it received from MIAC, the university moved forward with osteological analysis, a form of testing that involves observations of the remains — a non-destructive method many tribes tend to prefer.
Odegard argues that once preliminary identification was made, it should have triggered formal consultation with tribes.
“It’s good they support that [testing], it would be even better if we had that opportunity to consult” on the issue of identification testing, Odegard said.
Since its passage in 1990, NAGPRA has required institutions to consult with tribal nations. The updated rule strengthens requirements that institutions look to tribes for their expertise.
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council executive director Shannon Geshick says there are limits to the kinds of issues the council can consult on.
“Meetings or consultation with MIAC cannot check off the ‘have-you-consulted-with tribes’ box because we are not a tribe,” said Geshick. “It is their duty and responsibility to reach out to all affected tribes and have official tribal consultation.”
With specific regard to the remains held by the medical school, the university says that to the best of its knowledge it has complied with the requirements of NAGPRA.
A recommendation made by Native American graduate students and tribal research fellows at the University last year has led the university to hire a NAGPRA specialist, according to university spokesperson Ricker. The university is now hiring for the position.
The university’s new NAGPRA specialist will be tasked with working across each of the institution’s five campuses to determine if any of the university’s departments are in possession of human remains or sacred items which have not yet been inventoried.
Samantha Odegard is hoping the University will comply with rules set forward under NAGPRA and consult with tribes directly. She says students and staff at the University who want to work with the spirit of the law give her hope.
“The ones that see that there are some ethical issues that need to be addressed and are willing to stand up and fight for that.”
