Volume 34 Number 3
Spring 1995

One of the primary reasons that Euro-American educational systems have so profoundly failed American Indian students is the cultural conflict between the dominant Euro-Westem world view and the world views of traditional American Indian cultures (Cajete, 1994; Deloria, 1990; Jones, 1989; LaCounte, 1987; Tierney, 1992; Wright & Tierney, 1991). For the average non-Indian student development professional working within a predominantly White institution, information about American Indian college students is sparse, and often, elusive.

Many student development professionals, however, are now familiar with the concept of an "ethic of care," as developed by Carol Gilligan (1982), and I believe that familiarity with this ethic can serve as a bridge of understanding toward American Indian world views. This study is based on the premise that non-Indian student affairs professionals (such as advisors, counselors, program directors, and student affairs administrators) in predominantly White institutions will be better equipped to assist and support American Indian college students if they have a better understanding of the frame of reference of these students. This study, therefore, examined potential similarities between Gilligan's concept of the "care voice" (1982) and some commonly observed characteristics of American Indian world views, especially those of the Plains cultures. This study also attempted to expand the concepts of the constructs of the ethics of care and justice, as described by Gilligan (1982) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1981) by considering the role of culture in the ethical development of a group of American Indian college students.

In the study of ethical development, one of the most controversial debates developed between the theories of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan. The primary areas of difference between Kohlberg and Gilligan reside with the issues of separation verses connection and relationship versus autonomy. Kohlberg's stages of moral development are predicated on the Eurocentric assumption that individuation and autonomy are the highest levels attainable to human beings. Kohlberg included other cultures in this hierarchy in his Essays on Moral Development (1984), when he noted that no significant differences were found either between cultures or between religions. He further stated that differences in culturally relative moral values "are primarily reflections of developmental stages in moral thought" (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 123), thereby linking the developmental stage of the culture under study with his model of developmental stages of moral thought. Such a linkage made the tacit assumption that the values and world views implicit in Kohlberg's model were shared by the cultures to which he applied his model, including the assumption that individuation and autonomy were the highest levels of individual development possible for human beings to attain. Kohlberg thus demonstrates a "dominator," or ethnocentric, perspective when he made the assumption that his model was a "model for 'normal human relationship'" (Miller, 1992, p. 23).

Whereas Kohlberg perceived "care" and concern for relationships to be a stage of development through which an individual passed, Gilligan perceived the concept of care as a framework for a fundamentally different progression in ethical development. Gilligan (1982) described the concept of an ethic of care as different from Kohlberg's concept of justice (1981; 1984) and competing rights: "[The] world is a world of relationships and psychological truths where an awareness of the connection between people gives rise to a recognition of responsibility for one another" (Gilligan, 1982, p. 30). Gilligan described the highest level of moral development as one which integrated responsibility toward oneself with responsibility toward others. Gilligan addressed the issues of separateness from others versus responsibility to others in terms of a different world view: "[They see] a world comprised of relationships rather than of people standing alone, a world that coheres through human connection rather than through systems of rules" (1982, p. 29).

Based on White, middle-class female subjects, Gilligan's work has come under scrutiny for not including other cultures or "persons of color" (Greeno & Maccoby, 1986; Stack, 1986). Gilligan, in fact, did not address the influences of culture or ethnicity, and stated, "No claims are made about the origins of the differences described or their distribution in a wider population, across cultures, or through time" (Gilligan, 1982, p. 2). She did acknowledge, however, that the differences she described arose within a social context, and that social status and power differentials were certainly factors in the development of ethics.

Stephanie Coontz, however, specifically linked the origins of a differentiated male/female psychology within Euro-American society to cultural constructs when she noted that the Anglo-American division of "public and private relations" based on gender is unknown in most cultures: "No individual operated independently of the kin group or the local community" (1992, pp. 44-45). It has only been within Anglo-American culture that the power functions of the society were reserved to White males, and, over time, were established as a societal norm that excluded and punished the nurturant functions. Table 1 outlines the salient points of difference between the ethics of Care and Justice.

Brell (1989) and Gilligan (1989), in fact, suggested that the Gilligan-Kohlberg models may be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. The role of culture as a primary factor in ethical development, however, was not explored in Gilligan's initial works. The critical role of culture in the transmission of (gender) values, roles, and behaviors within the dominant Euro-American culture has rarely been specifically considered in the most popular student developmental or educational paradigms (Delpit, 1988; Hornett, 1989; Jones, 1990; Kuk, 1990; Scott, 1986; Sue & Sue, 1990; Tierney, 1992). Liddell, Halpin and Halpin (1993) stated,

An ethic of care, therefore, often directly conflicts with the most commonly held beliefs about individual achievement within predominantly Euro-American colleges and universities.

The basic unit of analysis for many studies of college student development is the individual, usually White males (Jones, 1990; Kuk, 1990). For many American Indian students, this type of measure may be unrealistic since many American Indians perceive their relations with others to be collateral in nature, a state in which they are both independent and dependent at the same time (Ho, 1987; Jones, 1990). Chickering and Havighurst (1981) refer to this state as "interdependent" and consider interdependence to be an advanced developmental stage toward which each individual must progress. Many American Indians, particularly among the Plains and horse cultures, on the other hand, assume interdependence as a condition of all living things, not as a stage in individual development (Badwound & Tierney, 1988; Dupuis & Walker, 1988; Frey, 1987; Ho, 1987; Jones, 1989; Jones, 1990; Tierney, 1992; Wright & Tierney, 1991). LaCounte (1987) asserts that "the goal of assisting the whole person, and not just meeting specific needs, is a basic premise of the American Indian culture" (p. 70). Badwound and Tierney (1988) state: "American Indian culture[s], however, has goals that are neither competitive nor meritocratic. . . . Indian societies measure status in terms of how individuals openly display generous deeds. . . . Within Indian societies, a prevailing concern exists for the welfare of the group" (pp. 11 - 12).

It must be understood that there are over 520 recognized American Indian nations and bands within the United States alone, and that the variation in particular tribal customs, philosophies, and beliefs is tremendous (Cajete, 1994; Davis, 1994). In addition, well over half of all American Indian people live in urban areas, and may or may not be familiar with their own nations' traditions. However, the indigenous peoples' various emphases on maintaining and nurturing interdependent relationships, particularly among the Plains and horse cultures of the West, appeared to me to be very similar to Gilligan's theory of moral responsibility, or the "care voice" of moral development. This study is an outgrowth of my own work in assisting non-Indian educators to better understand and serve their American Indian students.

While great care must always be exercised to not create a new version of the old "noble savage" stereotypes, or any other stereotypes, some generalization of overall patterns can be useful in seeking to understand another's experiences (Berkhofer, 1978; Rothenberg, 1992; Sue & Sue, 1992). For non-Indian student affairs professionals, particularly those who have never had contact with American Indian students, Gilligan's work provides an additional perspective from which to begin to understand American Indian students' world views and individual needs.

The two primary purposes of this study were to (a) qualitatively consider whether American Indian college students and educators found the concepts of the Care voice to be compatible with or descriptive of their own world views and (b) quantitatively assess the degree to which a selected group of American Indian college students chose solutions that were reflective of either an ethic of care or an ethic of justice when resolving ethical dilemmas as presented in Liddell's (1990) Measure of Moral Orientation (MMO), as compared with Liddell's original sample of Euro-American college students.

The hypotheses were stated as follows:
(1) There would be no significant difference a) between the mean Care scores of male and female American Indian college students; or b) between the mean Justice scores of male and female American Indian college students.
(2) The mean Care scores of both the male and female American Indian college students would be significantly higher than their mean Justice scores. (This question was removed from the quantitative analysis due to the noncomparability of the two scales, which is discussed later in this article.)
(3) The mean Care score of the American Indian college students would be significantly higher than the mean Care scores of Liddell's original study participants.
(4) The American Indian college students' level of involvement in their tribal cultures, as indicated by the cultural involvement score, would be positively correlated with their Care scores.

Participants
American Indian students (N = 95) from two rural-area tribal colleges (Little Big Horn College and Salish Kootenai College) and one urban inter-tribal post-secondary institution (Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute, or SIPI), who were enrolled in the locally defined "American Indian Studies" classes, participated in the survey portion of this study during the 1993 fall semester. The students of Little Big Horn comprised 50% of the participants (n = 48) while Salish Kootenai and SIPI each comprised 26% (n = 25) and 24% (n = 22) of the participants, respectively. The median age of the students was 27.5 years, 70.5% were women, and 86.3% were enrolled full-time. Of both men and women, 67% of the American Indian students indicated membership within matrilineal cultures (Murdock, 1983). Fourteen students at Little Big Horn College were interviewed after the survey for their impressions of the survey questions and the applicability of Gilligan's model to their tribal culture(s).

Of both men and women, 67% of the American Indian students indicated primary membership within matrilineal cultures (Davis, 1994; Murdock, 1983). Whereas Coontz (1992) asserted that a differentiated psychology based on sex is peculiar to Western and Euro-American cultures, I speculated that the more egalitarian psychologies of many of the indigenous peoples are primary factors in the development of an equally egalitarian system of ethics. I further speculated that such cultural egalitarianism might be concretely manifested by those members of so-called matrilineal/matrilocal cultures in the form of a less sex-differentiated ethical orientation. If these speculations were substantiated, then such results would significantly challenge the concept of a sex-based differentiation in ethical orientation in favor of a culture-based differentiation.

A "homogeneous, maximum variation" sample was selected in order to (a) obtain answers from a wide variety of tribal cultures, (b) ensure that all the students were identified locally as "American Indian," and (c) were enrolled in institutions that had transfer curricula (Patton, 1990, p. 172). Increasing numbers of tribal college graduates are attending public universities to complete degree programs, and Indian students often face hostility from non-Indian faculty and staff (Lin, LaCounte, & Eder, 1988; Stein, 1992; Tierney, 1992).

SIPI is funded and organized through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and is located in urban Albuquerque, New Mexico. SIPI's primary arm of study are vocational although they do include a General Studies program that leads to an Associate of General Studies degree. Most of the students are of traditional college age, residential, and have no dependents. The primary language of instruction is English (Lowell Banley & Joe Johnston, SIPI, personal interviews, September 1993).

Little Big Horn College (LBHC) and Salish Kootenai College (SKC) are both tribally-controlled colleges, with both vocational and transfer curricula, and include, as a primary part of their mission, tribal cultural development. Both are located in rural areas of Montana, and have student bodies that are non-residential and older than average. Many of the students have both elder and younger dependents and live within extended family networks (Ron Thieriault, SKC, phone interview, October 1993; Janine Pease Pretty on Top, LBHC, personal interview, November 1993). The languages of instruction vary with each college as emphasis is on the particular tribal languages, although both include English.

American Indian educators (n = 25) who were members of a state Indian education association and were participants at a state-level Indian education conference in March 1993 were interviewed both prior to and after completion of the survey portion of the study. These interviews were conducted individually, and were focused on the comparability of the descriptions of the care and justice perspectives as presented in Table 1 with their own tribal philosophies and ethics. Of the fourteen nations represented by these educators (although none spoke as representatives for their nations, but as individuals), ten were Plains and/or horse cultures.

Instrumentation
The Measure of Moral Orientation (MMO) was developed by Liddell (1990; Liddell, Halpin, & Halpin, 1992) as a means of objectively identifying students' preferences for a justice or a care orientation in ethical decision-making. The instrument contains 12 self-descriptive items, and 77 items divided among 11 ethical vignettes, or dilemmas. The MMO poses a series of statements about each dilemma which utilize a 4-point Likert-type scale to which the student responds by indicating her or his level of agreement. The MMO yields four subscores (Self-description of Justice, Self-description of Care, Justice, and Care), with reported estimates of internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient alpha) as follows: Self-Justice (a = .60), Self-care (a = .60), Justice (a = .73), and Care (a = .84). The instrument was correlated with the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, and discriminant validity was computed between Justice and Care (a = .73, r = .22), and between Self-Justice and Self-Care (a = .62, r = .22) (Liddell, 1990, p. 38). The instrument takes approximately 45 minutes to complete. Demographic information included age, sex, hours enrolled, and tribal affiliation.

Four informal questions concerning students' self-reported levels of cultural involvement were also included, which used, like the MMO, a 4-point Likert scale on which the student indicated his or her level of relative participation. A Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency yielded an alpha of .70. These questions were derived from the American Indian educators' answers to the question: "Outside of the legal/political question of 'who is a member of your nation,' what kinds of behaviors and attitudes demonstrate to you that a person is involved with his or her culture-" The responses were analyzed for common themes and wording. The survey questions regarding cultural involvement were developed as follows: (a) do you know your tribal language? (b) do you know your tribal oral traditions (songs, stories, history, music)? (c) do you participate in tribal ritual and/or ceremony? and (d) do you participate in tribal governance such as improvement projects, elections, etc.? The sum of this score was correlated with the MMO subscale scores, using the Pearson r to test the correlations.

Interviews
As mentioned previously, prior to the survey administration, twenty-five American Indian educators were asked to address four additional questions in individual interviews that were informal and semi-structured. These interviews were conducted at a state-level Indian education conference in March 1993. Nineteen of these educators were from ten Plains area nations (e.g. Comanche, Kiowa, Lakota, Osage, Pawnee). The remaining six were from various parts of the United States and Canada (e.g. Hopi, Navajo, Eastern Cherokee, Yakima). The focus of the conference was on community and school education, including wellness, and subsequently, there were school, college, and community educators present. The four additional questions were:

1. What do you see as the most problematic issue in Indian education?
2. If you could describe the differences between Euro-American and [their nation's] world views, how would you do so?
3. [Presented with a non-gendered, unlabeled descriptions of components of the ethics of care and justice] ? Do you think this is a fair description of the differences you just described?
4. Do you think it would help Euro-American educators to understand [the ethic of care] as a way to better understand American Indian cultures? (Yes = 16, Maybe = 6, "Doubtful" = 3).

Immediately after the surveys were administered at Little Big Horn College, 14 students were interviewed in small groups of 1 to 4 people each. The students were asked two primary questions within an informal, semi-structured setting, which were:

1. What did you think about the survey?
2. Were there any particular situations, or dilemmas, that you particularly remember or have any particular comments about?

The interviews varied in length, but averaged about 20-30 minutes per group. Responses were scrutinized primarily for thematic similarities as well as for commonly used phrases and descriptions.

Six months after the survey was administered, I returned to Little Big Horn College to make an initial report on the findings of the study and to receive any feedback that they considered necessary or pertinent. I also made the same report to the Indian education association that sponsored the conference for the same reasons.

Hypothesis One

The first hypothesis stated that there would be no significant differences between the mean Care scores or the mean Justice scores of the American Indian men and women college students. This hypothesis was first tested using t-tests, which both indicated that no significant differences existed between the American Indian men's scores and the American Indian women's scores on either Care or Justice subscales (Care: t = -1.47, p = 0.37; Justice: t = -1.07, p = 0.28). The hypothesis, as such, was supported. The small sample size, and the unequal number of men and women (N = 95; males = 28, females = 67), however, limit the generalizability of this finding.

Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis predicted that the mean Care scores of the American Indian students would be higher than their mean Justice scores. This hypothesis was addressed qualitatively because the psychometric properties of the MMO did not support such a comparison. Liddell did not, in fact, intend or design the instrument to be comparative in nature but rather to be an objective instrument that indicated a student's preference for ethical decision-making (Liddell, 1990).

Among both American Indian educators and American Indian student participants, the most commonly used phraseology regarding American Indian, or specific tribal, cultural world views, referred to (a) wholeness [body/mind/spirit; inclusive; "we're not a throw-away society;" and "all my/our relations"]; (b) harmony [balance/to be in balance; "walk in harmony"; "with all my/our relations" as one's relationship to others]; (c) generosity ["generous," "good heart"], (d) group affiliation [extended family issues; tribal affiliation; "Indian-ness"; humankind ? "we are all children of (named origin)"], and (e) reciprocity, as part of generosity.

While the responses a - d were interpreted as more "care oriented," the issue of reciprocity, which is a component of a justice orientation, was more difficult to articulate in that reciprocity, as the Indian educators and students used it, it was an assumed obligation that strengthened relationships, not a contractual obligation as defined by Kohlberg (1984). All of the educators felt that one of the primary difficulties their [own] students had with Euro-American educational systems was that White educators simply did not understand their [own] or generalized American Indian world views and that their students were being "blamed, lost, punished, or ignored" by the institution for the institution's ignorance. Four of the American Indian educators did cite specific Euro-American individuals who were exceptions to that rule, but made it quite clear that these individuals were the exceptions, and not the rule. Three of them bluntly informed me that "maybe if [Whites] hear it from a White person, they'll listen-they certainly haven't listened to us" (personal interviews, March 27-28, 1993).

The student interviews at Little Big Horn College indicated that three particular dilemmas were problematic for them. The first one involved the care of an elderly grandparent, which the students unanimously declared was not a dilemma at all: you go home to help care for your family, regardless of the consequences to your personal plans. The second involved a dilemma about a roommate's plagiarizing behavior. The students, who were all Crow, informed me that (a) whether it was plagiarism or not depended on how the roommate was related to them, and that (b) many of them had been accused (in public schools) of "plagiarizing" when they were, in fact, trying to help a friend "do better, because if one of us does well, it helps all of us." The third "set" of dilemmas involved various family and roommate situations where, again, the Crow students explained to me that the outcome of the dilemma depended on how the people portrayed in the dilemma were related to each other, and to them. Thus, all relationships were viewed contextually.

Hypothesis Three

The third hypothesis predicted that the mean Care scores of the American Indian college students would be significantly higher than the mean Care scores of the Euro-American students of Liddell's original study. Table 2 summarizes the mean scores of the two groups on the Care and Justice subscales. This hypothesis was tested using analysis of variance procedures, with two levels of culture group (American Indian and Euro-American) and two levels of sex (male and female). An initial ANOVA, comparing cell means, indicated that the American Indian students' mean Care scores were narrowly higher than their Euro-American counterparts (American Indians: M = 119.69, Euro-Americans: M= 118.39, df = (1,1), F = 154.73, p = 0.051). The ANOVA also indicated that the women, across culture groups, had significantly higher mean Care scores than did the men (males: M = 116.03, females: M = 122.06, df = (1,1), F = 3733.72, p = 0.010). As stated, the hypothesis was not supported.

The mens' and womens' Justice scores, across cultures, however, were not significantly different (males: M = 107.57, females: M = 108.84, df = (1, 1), F = 0.39, p = 0.643). In addition, American Indian students scored higher on Justice than the Euro-American students, across sex (American Indians: M = 109.84, Euro-Americans: M = 106.56, df = (1,1), F = 2.42, p = 0.363). The limited degrees of freedom, however, did not allow for any analysis of sex by culture group interactions, although the American Indian women's notably higher Justice scores appeared to warrant further analysis.

A second, more heuristic, ANOVA comparing individual means on the two dependent measures, Care and Justice, and thereby allowing sufficient degrees of freedom for an analysis of sex by culture interactions, yielded a more complex interpretation. These results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. This analysis showed significant main effects on each of the two dependent variables. The first significant main effect was between Care and Gender, indicating that female students, across cultures, scored significantly higher on Care than did male students. There was considerable stability in Care scores across cultures, indicating that college women, in general, may indeed tend to score higher than college men on Care.

The second significant main effect occurred between Justice and Culture that appeared to be primarily a function of the notably higher Justice scores of the American Indian women. A Justice by Culture by Gender effect approached significance, lending strength to the possibility that had the sample size of American Indian students been larger and the numbers of male and female students been more nearly equal, the effect might have been significant. In any event, it appears that the American Indian women tended to score higher on Justice than either the American Indian men or the Euro-American men in these studies.

Bataille, G. M., & Sands, K. M. (1984). American Indian women: Telling their lives. University of Nebraska: Lincoln.

Berkhofer, R. E., Jr. (1978). The White man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the present. New York: Knopf.

Brell, C. D. (1989). Justice and caring and the problem of moral relativism: Reframing the gender question in ethics. Journal of Moral Education, 18, 97-111.

Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Durango, CO: Kivaki.

Chickering, A., & Havighurst, R. (1981). The life cycle. In A. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: The American family and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

Davis, M. B. (Ed.). (1994). Native Americans in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland.

Deloria, V. (1990). Indian education in America. Boulder: American Indian Science & Engineering Society.

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280-298.

Dupuis, V. L. & Walker, M. W. (1988). The circle of learning at Kickapoo. Journal of American Indian Education, 27(1), 27-33.

Frey, R. (1987). The world of the Crow Indians: As driftwood lodges. Norman, OK.: University of Oklahoma.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Gilligan, C. (1989). Mapping the moral domain. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223-237.

Greeno, C. G., & Macoby, E. E. (1986). How different is the "different voice"- Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(2), 310-316.

Ho, M. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hornett, D. (1989). The role of faculty in cultural awareness and retention of American Indian college students. Journal of American Indian Education, 29(1), 12-18.

Jones, M. (Producer). (1989). In the White man's image. [Video]. (Available from the Native American Public Broadcasting Consortium, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, P.0. Box 8311, Lincoln, NE. 68501).

Jones, W. T. (1990). Perspectives on ethnicity. In L. V. Moore, (Ed.), Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. New Directions for Student Services, No. 51, 59-72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: Essays on moral development (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kuk, L. (1990). Perspective on gender differences. In L. V. Moore (Ed.), Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. New Directions for Student Services, No. 51, pp. 25-36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LaCounte, D. W. (1987). American Indian students in college. In Wright, D. J. (1987) Responding to the needs of today's minority students. New Directions for Student Services, No. 38, 65-80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Liddell, D. L. (1990). Measure of Moral Orientation: Construction of an objective instrument measuring care and justice, with an investigation of gender differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, AL.

Liddell, D. L., Halpin, G., & Halpin, W. G. (1992). "The Measure of Moral Orientation: Measuring the ethics of care and justice." Journal of College Student Development, 33, 325-330.

Liddell, D. L., Halpin, G., & Halpin, W. G. (1993). Men, women, and moral orientation: Accounting for our differences. NASPA Journal, 3(2), 138-144.

Lin, R-L, LaCounte, D., & Eder, J. (1988). A study of Native American students in a predominantly White college. Journal of American Indian Education, 27(3), 8-15.

McLaughlin, D. (1994). Critical literacy for Navajo and other American Indian learners. Journal of American Indian Education, 33 (3), 47-59.

Miller, J. B. (1992). Dominance and subordination. In P. S. Rothenberg, Race, class and gender in the United States: An integrated study, pp. 20-25. New York: Saint Martin.

Murdock, G. W. (1983). Outline of world cultures. 6th rev. ed. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rothenberg, P. S. (1992). Race, class and gender in the United States: An integrated study. New York: St. Martin.

Scott, W. J. (1986). Attachment to Indian culture and the "difficult situation": A study of American Indian college students. Youth & Society, 17(4), 381-395.

Stack, C. B. (1986). The culture of gender: Women and men of color. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(2), 321-324.

Stein, W. J. (1992). Tribally controlled colleges: Making good medicine. Berkeley, CA: University of California-Berkeley.

Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tierney, W. G. (1992). Official encouragement, institutional discouragement: Minorities in academe-the Native American experience. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wright, B. & Tierney, W. G. (1991). American Indians in higher education: A history of cultural conflict. Change, 23(2), 11-18.

Wright, D. J. (1987). Responding to the needs of today's minority students. New Directions for Student Services, No. 38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.