25 U.S.C. § 2901

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Congress finds that—(1) the status of the cultures and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages;(2) special status is accorded Native Americans in the United States, a status that recognizes distinct cultural and political rights, including the right to continue separate identities;(3) the traditional languages of Native Americans are an integral part of their cultures and identities and form the basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of Native American cultures, literatures, histories, religions, political institutions, and values;(4) there is a widespread practice of treating Native Americans 11 So in original. Probably should be “American”. languages as if they were anachronisms;(5) there is a lack of clear, comprehensive, and consistent Federal policy on treatment of Native American languages which has often resulted in acts of suppression and extermination of Native American languages and cultures;(6) there is convincing evidence that student achievement and performance, community and school pride, and educational opportunity is clearly and directly tied to respect for, and support of, the first language of the child or student;(7) it is clearly in the interests of the United States, individual States, and territories to encourage the full academic and human potential achievements of all students and citizens and to take steps to realize these ends;(8) acts of suppression and extermination directed against Native American languages and cultures are in conflict with the United States policy of self-determination for Native Americans;(9) languages are the means of communication for the full range of human experiences and are critical to the survival of cultural and political integrity of any people; and(10) language provides a direct and powerful means of promoting international communication by people who share languages.(Pub. L. 101–477, title I, § 102, Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1153.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 2023 Amendment

Pub. L. 117–337, § 1, Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6153, provided that: “This Act [enacting section 2907 of this title and amending section 2905 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Durbin Feeling Native American Languages Act of 2022’.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 101–477, title I, § 101, Oct. 30, 1990, 104 Stat. 1153, provided that: “This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Native American Languages Act’.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1996–2003 · leading case: Rice v. Cayetano, 963 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Haw. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rice v. Cayetano, 963 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Haw. 1997). · cites it 2× “) and the Native American Languages Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) and the promulgation of statutes for the benefit of Native Hawaiians exclusively, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act ( 20 U.”

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 295 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Haw. 2003). “§§ 470 et seq); (F) the Native American Languages Act ( 25 U.S.C. §§ 2901 et seq.); (G) the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act ( 20 U.”

Off. of Hawai'ian Affairs v. Dep't of Educ., 951 F. Supp. 1484 (D. Haw. 1996). “25 U.S.C. §§ 2901 , 2903. The only relevant provision which might require affirmative steps by states to carry out this policy is § 2904, which provides that “[t]he right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be…”

Rice v. Cayetano, 941 F. Supp. 1529 (D. Haw. 1996). “), and the Native American Languages Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.). Also, in recognition of the special relationship which exists between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people, Congress has enacted numerous special provisions of law for the benefit of Native…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.