Upon reading this article my second response was to wonder why the litigants had not gone to the Tribal Court of the United Auburn Indian Community. (My first response was sadness and horror about what these women have suffered). Searching around a little, I found that these women are caught in a policy mess created not by the United Auburn Indian Community, however negligent they appear to have been in protecting these women from reprehensible behavior. If the facts described is this story are true, and I am inclined to believe that they are, the United Auburn Indian Community is responsible for not following their own employment policies and I certainly hope that the litigants are able to gain some redress in court.

But the United Auburn Indian Community did not create the policy issue here, nor is this case symptomatic of the vast majority of Indian Tribes in the rest of the country. California is a Public Law 280 state, which gives civil and criminal jurisdiction to state courts over Indian reservation matters. Some states are covered by P.L. 280 while the vast majority are not. Instead, reservations in these other states are covered under Federal courts. Additionally, many tribes have Tribal Courts which would be able to take up similar issues. I am hopeful that the jurisdictional issues will be resolved by further appeal. However, I realize that this is cold comfort to the women involved in this horrific situation. With a Google Search, I found this web site which provides a little information about how P.L. 280 affects California: http://www.intertribalcourt.indian.com/ . I am not a lawyer and do not have any affiliation with the United Auburn Indian Community or www.intertribalcourt.indian.com.

I am an American Indian woman who is very distressed about how some of the negative news emerging about Tribal Casinos could affect the hard won gains we have made in the last 30 years in controlling our own lives and affairs. I understand that it is difficult for non-Indian people who work on American Indian reservations to understand that there are different laws, not necessarily inferior or less fair, but different. However, if I went to work in Canada or Mexico, I would expect Canadian or Mexican laws to be in force. People who work for Indian Tribes should learn a little about the Nations for which they work and then decide if they are willing to accept those conditions (once again stating my conviction that it is very likely that the United Auburn Indian Community may have broken its own tribal policies.)

Federal policy issues surrounding American Indians are extremely complex and are much more likely to work against Indian people and their tribes and I hope that we do not create a backlash against a group of people which continue to face significant discrimination and misinformation.

What has happened to these women is awful and inexcusable. Regardless of any civil case there should be criminal proceedings against the people who attacked them. Sure the Casino is set up on Indian land, but to the extent that the financing and profits are moved off-reservation those should be subject to civil litigation. Otherwise the reservations are only a haven for the lawless. If only the Governor can force an investigation, then readers in California should press the Governor's office to have that done. An appalling story and I hope the women involved are able to find justice.

Full disclosure: I am a civil rights attorney and have represented sexual harassment victims. I agree that the predicament these women face is indeed a product of the US government's policy mess. It is also the fault of Vegas casinos, lobbyists and the inroads made by gambling into our society. I feel the American Indian tribes have every right to put casinos on their lands. Unfortunately there will soon be a backlash because some Americans still have profoundly racist beliefs about American Indians. They can't stand the idea of American Indians "getting rich" for "doing nothing." And there's been a backlash against civil rights generally anyway. It would extraordinary for Congress to think about this issue with some complexity, but rather than pursuing enforcement of American civil rights laws in the casinos it will probably take some other form (helping some corporate casino owners or conjuring up a religious mandate to crack down on gambling)(of course the former is much, much more likely).

It is tempting to say that the American Indians have been used by the casino corporations but I don't know that for a fact and I think that may be the liberal version of the "getting rich for doing nothing" argument. In liberal thought the American Indians are hapless victims of corporate greed. That plays right back into stereotypes about American Indians being too dumb or poor to run their own affairs. Before the angry rants start, be assured I am not saying all liberals believe this--just pointing out another circumstance where liberal theory needs to reexamine itself and its underpinnings. [Note to self and other liberals--changing the word from "liberal" to "progressive" doesn't solve the lack of vision and depth, fear of substantive argument and paucity of new ideas that plague our side].

I strongly disagree that the women should have weighed American Indian tribal law before taking a job at the casino. Few people who are not wealthy have the option of turning down jobs with benefits, particularly in areas with no economic prospects. An objectivist or Calvinist or libertarian or republican would argue that's too bad--the women should have made a choice or negotiated a better deal for themselves. I wish people would learn about tribal law, American Indian history and American Indian customs. And I pray that one day people will understand that actions have consequences for their working (and non-working) lives: that the actions of the US government has taken and continues to take against native populations here, worlwide, past and present have negative effects on their lives as individuals. I hope one day Americans will realize that who they vote for or against sometimes has pretty enormous consequences too: keep voting for candidates who are anti-union, anti civil rights, anti-privacy, anti-economic justice (the list goes on and on) and you will find yourself with no rights at all. That goes double for the federal courts, which have been packed with people who cater to the corporate interest. Collectively these judges have an explicitly anti-civil rights agenda. Prospective clients often call my office and are amazed when they discover that the "rights" they think they have either do not exist or are a mirage. There should be a remedy for these women.