We write as members of the Stanford faculty to strongly support the student petition and the ASSU Joint Resolution to reinstate the University land acknowledgment and commit to meeting with Indigenous students, faculty, staff and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to co-create meaningful practices that strengthen the University’s commitment to Native people. As the students write, the decision to remove the land acknowledgement from campus-wide ceremonies “exists in opposition to the University’s stated goals of honoring relationships with Native people, genuine reflection and meaningful action.” This piece complements and amplifies the students’ letters, petitions and statements and raises concerns about the decision, the manner it was conveyed and its timing.
As highlighted in the student petition, the unsigned decision to remove land acknowledgements from campus-wide ceremonies was only conveyed to a small group of administrators. This letter offered two reasons for this decision:
“First, the primary way the University should engage with complex historical issues and their contemporary legacy is through its research and education programs, not through symbolic University statements. Second, and relatedly, these University-wide ceremonies are meant to mark the milestones of students entering and leaving the University for academic study, and thus the program should focus on the University’s mission of open inquiry and learning.“
We find these justifications unconvincing. To begin with, Stanford relies on symbols all the time, through mottos, ceremonies, building names and more. Furthermore, Stanford has historically supported symbolic actions to address anti-Indigenous racism and anti-Indigenous practices. As early as 1972, Stanford changed the name of its sports teams from the Stanford Indians to the Stanford Cardinal after community members objected to the racist tenor of “Indians.” More recently in 2018, after careful deliberation by a University committee and following sustained pressure from Native students, Stanford changed the names of several buildings and roads named after individuals who had engaged in the extermination of Native peoples (Junipero Serra) and racist eugenicists (Louis Agassiz, David Starr Jordan). These actions acknowledged historical wrongs by replacing problematic symbols with those more closely aligned with Stanford’s stated values. They demonstrated that symbols matter — struggles over meaning and values are inseparable from those over power and resources.
Moreover, symbolic statements and substantive educational engagement are not mutually exclusive; they should reinforce each other. Increased investment in Indigenous studies at Stanford would be most welcome and indeed would demonstrate that University statements go beyond symbolism and commit to action. Some concrete examples would be to include a unit or a lecture on the history of the Muwekma Ohlone people in the college orientation program and to invite the Muwekma Ohlone people to participate in public ceremonies and conferences about sovereignty, land use and traditional, ecological knowledge. This would exemplify going beyond symbolic statements to materializing responsibility to Indigenous peoples. Without such efforts, quietly removing the land acknowledgement reads less as a principled decision and more as an act of deliberate erasure.
Additionally, on the point of “symbolic statements,” while some critics of land acknowledgements describe them as performative, these statements remain so only if institutional accountability does not follow institutional rhetoric. Land acknowledgments are meant to materialize improved relationships with Indigenous peoples and non-human beings like the land, air and water. They are not fads to adopt and drop on a whim. As a University, we are especially responsible for modeling ethical conduct. The quiet removal of the land acknowledgement only serves to make visible to young people how power operates in enacting such underhanded erasures that silence, erase and depoliticize a space like Convocation that formerly acknowledged Indigenous presence.
The University’s claim that land acknowledgments fall outside the scope of “open inquiry and learning” is also misguided. Understanding history, culture and our relationship to the earth is central to academic inquiry. Engaging indigenous epistemologies and histories profoundly enriches research in environment studies, social history and contemporary politics.
The timing of this decision is equally concerning. It comes on the heels of the report to the Faculty Senate by the Task Force on Renewing Public Support for Universities, which framed its charge as understanding “sentiments toward universities among the general public and among those with particular influence on public policy.” We later heard that, according to the Task Force, the “public” was concerned about “polarization” on campuses. In this context, we fear that the timing reflects a capitulation to political pressure from the Trump administration and its allies to purge university language and programming of anything hinting at “diversity” or “wokeness.”
This decision also fits within Stanford’s broader pattern of rolling back institutional commitments to equity in response to national pressures. Recent administrative changes — including closing the Office for Inclusion & Belonging, sunsetting diversity programs such as DARE and EDGE, the scrubbing of some equity and diversity-related language from University websites and the elimination of student speakers at commencement constrict voices and initiatives that challenge exclusion and inequity within the institution. Taken together, these actions convey a troubling readiness to retreat from values of inclusion, accountability and academic freedom when they become politically inconvenient.
We agree with our students that “If Stanford University truly seeks to foster a culture of expansive inquiry, freedom of thought and meaningful action, then committing to an inclusive process of communication and discussion is non-negotiable.” When it was politically expedient, universities rushed to form DEI committees and consult with local Indigenous communities about land acknowledgements. Now, as political winds shift, the University cannot abandon its avowed commitment to equity and historical truth-telling. Removing the land acknowledgement from University events contributes to the concerted invisibilization and erasure of continued Native presence on this land. Any changes to the land acknowledgement should happen in consultation with the Muwekma Ohlone and with our Indigenous students, staff and faculty.
The Faculty Senate will soon hear a motion to support the student petition. We urge all faculty to stand with our students and the Muwekma Ohlone people and sign this petition, which will be presented at that meeting.
Usha Iyer is an associate professor in the department of Art and Art History. David Palumbo-Liu is the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and a professor of comparative literature. Rebecca Tarlau is an associate professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education