What If Tribal Colleges Were Never Established?

The Actual History

The tribal college movement emerged in the late 1960s during a period of significant Indigenous activism and the broader civil rights movement in the United States. Prior to this era, educational opportunities for Native Americans had been characterized by federal policies designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples, often forcibly, into mainstream American society.

The devastating legacy of boarding schools, which began in the late 19th century under the philosophy to "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" articulated by Richard Henry Pratt, had separated generations of Native children from their families, languages, and cultural practices. By the mid-20th century, educational outcomes for Native Americans remained starkly unequal. In 1961, the average educational attainment for Native Americans was just five years of schooling, and only 18% of students who entered college completed their degrees—far below national averages.

The first tribal college, Navajo Community College (now Diné College), was established in 1968 in Tsaile, Arizona, through the leadership of the Navajo Nation. This groundbreaking institution was designed to provide culturally relevant higher education specifically tailored to Navajo students. The college's founding philosophy emphasized the integration of traditional Navajo knowledge and values with contemporary academic education.

Following this pioneering effort, other tribes quickly recognized the potential of developing their own institutions of higher learning. D-Q University near Davis, California, and Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota were both established in the early 1970s. The movement gained significant momentum when, in 1972, Congress passed the Indian Education Act, which acknowledged "the special educational and culturally related academic needs of Native children."

A watershed moment came in 1978 with the passage of the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act, which provided federal funding for tribal colleges and recognized their unique role in serving Native communities. This legislation, championed by Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota, institutionalized federal support for these emerging educational centers.

By the mid-1980s, there were 24 tribal colleges operating across the United States. To coordinate their efforts and strengthen their collective voice, these institutions formed the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) in 1972, which continues to serve as the unifying organization for tribal colleges.

Today, there are 37 tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) operating on or near reservations across 16 states, serving approximately 30,000 students from over 250 tribal nations. These institutions offer programs ranging from certificates to master's degrees, with curricula that blend traditional Indigenous knowledge with conventional academic disciplines. TCUs have become vital centers for language preservation, cultural revitalization, and community development.

The impact of tribal colleges extends beyond academic credentials. These institutions serve as cultural anchors and economic engines in their communities, employing local residents, providing critical community services, and conducting research relevant to tribal needs. Studies have shown that tribal college graduates are more likely to remain in or return to their communities, contributing to sustainable tribal development.

In 2019, the White House signed an executive order establishing the National Council on Native American Education and the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities, further solidifying the recognized importance of these institutions in the American educational landscape.

The Point of Divergence

What if tribal colleges were never established? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the pioneering efforts to create Native-controlled institutions of higher learning failed to materialize in the late 1960s and 1970s, fundamentally altering the trajectory of Indigenous education in America.

The divergence might have occurred in several plausible ways. First, the initial attempt to establish Navajo Community College in 1968 could have faced insurmountable obstacles. The Navajo Nation Council, led by Raymond Nakai, might have encountered significantly stronger opposition from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which had historically maintained tight control over Native education. In this alternate timeline, the BIA could have successfully blocked the transfer of federal educational authority to the tribe by arguing that self-determination in education was premature or financially unfeasible.

Alternatively, the divergence might have occurred at the federal legislative level. The critical Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, which provided essential federal funding for tribal colleges, might never have passed Congress. Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota, the bill's primary champion, could have faced more effective opposition from colleagues concerned about federal spending or those ideologically committed to assimilation rather than tribal self-determination. Without this crucial funding mechanism, even existing tribal college initiatives would have faltered and eventually collapsed.

A third possibility centers on the American Indian Movement (AIM) and related activism of the period. If these movements had focused exclusively on legal rights, land claims, and sovereignty issues—rather than including educational self-determination in their agenda—the intellectual and activist foundation for tribal colleges might never have coalesced. The occupation of Alcatraz Island in 1969, which included demands for an Indian cultural center and university, significantly raised awareness about Indigenous educational needs. Without such high-profile actions drawing attention to educational self-determination, the momentum for tribal colleges might never have built.

In this alternate timeline, we posit that a combination of these factors—stronger BIA opposition, failed federal legislation, and a different focus in Indigenous activism—prevented the tribal college movement from taking root at its critical formative stage in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The window of opportunity created by the broader civil rights movement and emerging self-determination policy closed without the establishment of lasting Indigenous-controlled institutions of higher learning.

Immediate Aftermath

Continued Educational Disparities

Without tribal colleges emerging in the late 1960s and 1970s, Native American educational outcomes would have remained severely depressed through the 1980s. The already stark disparities would likely have worsened:

College Completion Rates: Without culturally responsive alternatives to mainstream institutions, the Native American college completion rate would have remained far below national averages. The 18% college retention rate for Native students might have improved only marginally to perhaps 20-22% by the mid-1980s, compared to the documented improvements to 35-40% for students attending tribal colleges in our timeline.
Geographic Barriers Persist: The physical isolation of many reservations would have continued to pose nearly insurmountable barriers to higher education. A 1985 study might have shown that fewer than 10% of reservation residents attempted college education, compared to baseline national attendance rates of approximately 30% for the general population.
Brain Drain Acceleration: Without local educational opportunities, the migration of educated Native Americans away from tribal communities would have accelerated. Tribal communities would have experienced a compounded "brain drain" effect, with those seeking education having no pathways to remain connected to their communities during their studies.

Impact on Federal Indian Policy

The failure of tribal colleges to emerge would have significantly affected the implementation of self-determination policy across Indian Country:

Limited Self-Determination: While the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 would likely still have passed, its educational components would have been dramatically weakened. Without tribal college successes as proof of concept, federal authorities would have remained deeply skeptical about transferring educational authority to tribal governments.
BIA Education Dominance: The Bureau of Indian Affairs would have maintained tighter control over Native education at all levels. The 1980s might have seen a return to more assimilationist approaches, particularly during the budget-cutting Reagan administration, which sought to reduce federal obligations to tribes.
Research Gaps: The absence of tribal research institutions would have left a significant void in data collection and analysis regarding Native communities. Problems affecting tribal populations would have remained understudied, with research continuing to be conducted primarily by outside institutions with limited cultural understanding.

Cultural Preservation Challenges

The absence of tribal colleges would have had immediate and devastating impacts on efforts to preserve and revitalize Indigenous languages and cultural practices:

Accelerated Language Loss: Without the language preservation programs that tribal colleges pioneered, the already rapid loss of Native languages would have accelerated dramatically. Languages like Dakota, Lakota, and Diné might have lost an entire generation of potential new speakers between 1970 and 1990.
Limited Cultural Curriculum Development: The development of culturally appropriate educational materials and curricula would have stalled. The innovative work done by tribal college faculty to document Indigenous knowledge systems and develop teaching methodologies appropriate for Native learners would not have materialized.
Fragmented Cultural Knowledge Transfer: Without institutional support, the transmission of traditional knowledge would have remained fragmented and increasingly vulnerable to disruption as elders passed away without systematic efforts to document their knowledge.

Economic Development Setbacks

Tribal communities would have experienced significant economic development challenges without the anchor institutions that tribal colleges became:

Reduced Professional Workforce: The absence of locally accessible higher education would have severely limited the development of a professional Native workforce in fields such as nursing, education, and natural resource management—areas where tribal colleges have historically trained significant numbers of Native professionals.
Limited Entrepreneurship Support: The business incubation and entrepreneurship programs developed by many tribal colleges would never have emerged, limiting economic diversification efforts on reservations throughout the 1980s and beyond.
Continued Dependency Models: Without the community development expertise fostered by tribal colleges, reservation economies would have remained more firmly locked in dependency models, with fewer pathways to sustainable economic self-sufficiency developing during this period.

Native Activism Redirected

The energy that went into establishing and supporting tribal colleges in our timeline would have been channeled differently:

Legal Focus Intensified: Native activism might have focused even more intensively on legal battles over treaty rights, land claims, and sovereignty issues, with less emphasis on building alternative educational institutions.
Increased Urban Organization: Without reservation-based colleges serving as anchors, Native American organizing might have become increasingly urban-centered, potentially widening the divide between reservation and urban Native populations.
International Advocacy: Indigenous leaders might have directed more energy toward international forums like the United Nations, seeking external pressure on the U.S. government rather than building internal institutional capacity.

By the early 1990s, the cumulative effect of these changes would have resulted in a dramatically different landscape for Native American education, with far fewer pathways to culturally appropriate higher education and significantly reduced institutional capacity within tribal communities.

Long-term Impact

Transformation of Native American Educational Attainment

Without tribal colleges serving as educational bridges, the long-term educational trajectory for Native Americans would have been dramatically altered:

Persistent Achievement Gaps: By 2025, the educational attainment gap between Native Americans and the general U.S. population would likely be significantly wider than in our timeline. While our reality shows gradual improvement, with approximately 19% of Native Americans holding bachelor's degrees today (compared to 37% of the general population), this alternate timeline might show only 12-15% attainment rates.
Graduate Education Disparities: The pipeline to graduate and professional education would be severely constricted. The number of Native American PhDs, medical doctors, and lawyers—already underrepresented in our timeline—would be reduced by perhaps 30-40%, as tribal colleges have served as crucial stepping stones to advanced degrees.
STEM Representation: Native American representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields would be particularly affected. Without programs like those at Salish Kootenai College and Navajo Technical University that specifically target Indigenous participation in STEM, representation might be less than half of current levels.

Cultural and Linguistic Devastation

The absence of tribal colleges would have profoundly impacted Indigenous cultural continuity:

Critically Endangered Languages: By 2025, many Native languages that have been stabilized or revitalized through tribal college programs would instead be functionally extinct or limited to a handful of elderly speakers. Languages like Lakota, Dakota, and Ojibwe—which have seen modest revivals through immersion programs often connected to tribal colleges—might instead be reduced to ceremonial usage only.
Traditional Knowledge Systems: The systematic documentation and academic validation of Indigenous knowledge systems would be far less developed. Traditional ecological knowledge, Indigenous mathematics, and Native approaches to science would remain largely outside academic discourse rather than gaining the recognition they have achieved in our timeline.
Cultural Production: The flourishing of contemporary Native American art, literature, and media that has been supported by tribal college arts programs would be diminished. Cultural expression would continue, but with less institutional support and fewer educational pathways for young Native artists to develop their skills while remaining grounded in their traditions.

Weakened Tribal Governance Capacity

The absence of tribal colleges would have had far-reaching implications for tribal governance:

Administrative Expertise Shortfall: Without tribal colleges training generations of tribal administrators, many tribal governments would struggle with capacity limitations. Programs like the tribal management degrees offered at several tribal colleges have been crucial in developing a cadre of Native professionals equipped to navigate the complex legal and bureaucratic landscapes of tribal governance.
Policy Research Limitations: The tribal policy research institutes that developed at institutions like the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) would not exist, leaving tribes with reduced capacity to analyze and respond to federal policy changes affecting their communities.
Leadership Development Gaps: The leadership development that occurs naturally within tribal college settings would be absent, potentially leading to more fractured tribal politics and greater difficulty in maintaining continuity in tribal governance approaches.

Economic Underdevelopment in Indian Country

The economic landscape of reservation communities would be fundamentally altered:

Continued Economic Marginalization: Without the workforce development and economic research capabilities of tribal colleges, reservation economies would likely remain even more marginalized. The already significant poverty rates on many reservations (which in reality average around 28.4% compared to the national average of 12.3%) might instead hover closer to 35-40% by 2025.
Limited Economic Diversification: The entrepreneurship programs, business incubators, and technical training provided by tribal colleges have been key factors in diversifying reservation economies beyond government employment and casino gaming. Without these resources, economic development would be more constrained and less innovative.
Brain Drain and Demographic Shifts: The absence of educational and employment opportunities connected to tribal colleges would accelerate migration away from reservation communities. By 2025, reservation populations might be significantly lower, with more pronounced demographic skewing toward the very young and the elderly, as working-age adults would be more likely to relocate for education and employment.

Alternative Educational Models

In the absence of tribal colleges, alternative approaches to Native American education would have developed, though likely with less effectiveness:

Urban Native Centers: Educational efforts might have concentrated in urban centers with significant Native populations. Cities like Minneapolis, Denver, and Albuquerque might have developed more robust urban Indian education centers attempting to fill the void left by the absence of reservation-based tribal colleges.
Mainstream Institution Adaptations: Some mainstream universities might have developed more extensive Native American studies programs and student support services in response to the continued educational needs of Native students. However, these would likely remain peripheral to institutional missions rather than central as in tribal colleges.
Online Learning Alternatives: With the rise of the internet, online educational options might have emerged earlier and more prominently as solutions for geographically isolated Native students. However, these would face significant hurdles given the limited broadband access on many reservations.

Global Indigenous Education Movement Altered

The absence of the U.S. tribal college model would have implications for Indigenous education globally:

Reduced International Influence: The tribal college model has served as an inspiration for Indigenous communities globally, particularly in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Without this model, the development of First Nations University in Canada or Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in New Zealand might have taken different forms or emerged later.
Weaker Indigenous Knowledge Advocacy: The tribal college movement has contributed significantly to global recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems in academia. Without this influence, the incorporation of Indigenous perspectives in mainstream academia worldwide might be less developed in 2025.
United Nations Indigenous Education Initiatives: International initiatives like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) might have included weaker educational provisions without the demonstrated success of tribal colleges as examples of Indigenous educational self-determination.

By 2025, this alternate timeline would present a fundamentally different landscape for Native American communities—one with fewer educational opportunities, diminished cultural resources, more limited economic prospects, and reduced institutional capacity for self-governance and self-determination.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Cheryl Crazy Bull, fictional historian of Indigenous education and former tribal college president, offers this perspective: "The tribal college movement represented a paradigm shift in Native American education—from education being done 'to' Indigenous peoples to education being done 'by' and 'for' them. In an alternate timeline without these institutions, I believe we would see not only lower educational attainment but a fundamental difference in the nature of Native education itself. The integration of cultural knowledge with academic disciplines that tribal colleges pioneered would be largely absent, and we would still be struggling against purely assimilationist models. The thousands of Native students who found their voice and purpose at tribal colleges would have faced a much harder path, and many would have simply disappeared from higher education altogether."

Professor James Two Bears, fictional scholar of comparative Indigenous studies at the University of Arizona, presents a different analytical angle: "The absence of tribal colleges would have created a fascinating counterfactual for Indigenous resistance and adaptation. While the educational and cultural losses would be undeniable, I suspect we would have seen more intensive efforts to transform mainstream institutions from within. The energy that went into building separate tribal institutions might instead have fueled more aggressive advocacy for reform within state universities and community colleges. We might have seen earlier development of robust Native American Studies departments and more Indigenous faculty within mainstream academia. The question remains whether such efforts could have achieved comparable cultural relevance without the sovereign educational spaces that tribal colleges created."

Dr. Sarah White Eagle, fictional education policy analyst and member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, provides this assessment: "Without tribal colleges, federal Indian education policy would likely have remained firmly in the assimilationist camp through the end of the 20th century. The demonstration effect of successful tribal-controlled institutions was crucial in shifting federal approaches toward supporting greater self-determination. I believe we would have seen a much slower evolution of federal policy, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs maintaining tighter control over Native education well into the 2000s. The data-driven advocacy that tribal colleges have conducted through AIHEC would be absent, leaving policy debates about Indian education more vulnerable to political winds rather than being grounded in community needs and outcomes. The ripple effects would extend far beyond education into nearly every aspect of federal-tribal relations."