Spirit Lake Consulting Forum

More wrongs have been committed against American Indian tribes in the name of utilitarianism than anything else we can name.

The greatest good for the greatest number - that is the goal of utilitarianism.

So... if 900 families from the Three Affiliated Tribes are removed from their family homes to make room for the Garrison Dam, and 3,000 North Dakota farm families benefit by having cheaper water and thus being able to stay on their farms, and another 30,000 North Dakota families benefit by being able to buy food more cheaply, then taking the land is the right thing to do. So speaks utilitarianism.

Given our history, the flaws in reasoning of the utilitarian theory is crystal-clear to Native Americans. Seeking the greatest good for the greatest number can seriously disadvantage minority groups and certain individuals. John Rawls, in the late twentieth century, argued against utilitarianism. He instead proposed a theory of Social Justice. He believed that individuals have rights that should never be violated, no matter what the outcome.

It is interesting that Rawls "modern" theory goes back to our nation's founding and beyond, with a constitution that begins,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."

If we are making out the argument for Social Justice theory and against utilitarianism as if everyone agrees with us, don't be misled. MANY people hold to a utilitarian theory to this day. An actual case is given below:

Dallas has been a tribal council member for almost thirty years. No one can argue that he has not done great things for the tribe. He used connections in Washington and with other tribes to bring in over $30 million in grant money. Dallas was the leader in gaining approval for a casino on the reservation, worked with contractors on the design and building. Now the tribe receives over $3 million each year in payments, money which is used for loans to tribal members to start small businesses and for early childhood programs. There is not a person on the reservation who has not benefitted directly from Dallas' work.

Dallas has a large family, nearly all of whom work for tribal organizations. While some are dedicated workers, the majority received jobs through his connections. They were often hired over tribal members who had more education and work experience. For example, his nineteen-year-old niece was hired as a grantwriter. His brother, who has  a tenth-grade education, is the manager for a tribal program that employs 50 people. His previous position was janitor at the elementary school. Several of his relatives only show up for work two or three days a week, but draw a full salary. On rare occasions, there has been a manager who has had the nerve to fire one of Dallas's relatives. If that manager does not have political connections of their own, such as a relative on the tribal council, Dallas has always gotten the firing overturned and usually had some negative letter put in the manager's personnel file, if not had the person outright fired. If that fails, no matter. Even if the relative has missed 90 days of work in the past year, been driving a tribal car under the influence, or missed work many times, spending the days in a bar, that person will have a new tribal job within the week.

Now there is a movement to elect a younger person to  office to replace Dallas. Those supporting his opponent say that it is time for ethics, for fair hiring, for good service and good role models. Dallas' supporters argue that he is good for the tribe. A little nepotism  - and they argue, correctly, that he is not  the only one - is nothing compared to the millions of dollars, the early childhood programs, the economic development programs, the jobs that he has brought in. Would you really hurt every member of the tribe just so 20 or 30 worthless tribal employees could be replaced with good people? There isn't any guarantee those jobs wouldn't just go to relatives of other tribal members.

Would you vote to keep Dallas in office? Or to remove him? What if you knew your job was one that would probably go, because your program was funded through money brought in by Dallas's connections?