Civic Academy · Current Events Case Study
Reading the News with the Lenses: the Diné College Provost Case
≈ 4 min read · or listen, or skim the bold lines
B · Established reporting Facts come from named news organizations. The underlying documents have not been independently reviewed by this project. How we verify →
Draft — under review
Important notice
This case study concerns an active, contested dispute. It exists to practice evaluation — not to decide the dispute. Both accounts are presented; neither is endorsed. Corrections welcome.
A real news story is the best practice field for the five lenses. This one raises hard, legitimate questions about hiring, policy, sovereignty, and fairness — the same questions voters must weigh when candidates talk about jobs and accountability.
The reported facts
In March 2026, the Navajo Times reported that Diné College's new president terminated Provost Alysa Landry seventeen days after taking office. The termination letter cited a management restructuring and stated the president would replace her with “a qualified Navajo individual.” Landry — who reports living and working on the Nation for 19 years — publicly stated she supports Navajo preference in hiring but contends the termination violated college policy, which she says does not allow firing without cause and prohibits discrimination based on race. The college declined public comment, citing personnel confidentiality.
Practice: apply the five lenses
- Transparency & accountability: What do the college's written policies actually say about termination and cause? Who oversees the president — the Board of Regents? What process exists for reviewing this decision, and is it public?
- Root cause: Is this one dispute, or does it point to something structural — how tribal institutions balance Navajo preference law with their own anti-discrimination policies? Has this tension appeared before?
- Culture — K'é / Hózhó: Navajo preference exists to build Diné capacity and sovereignty — a legitimate, important goal. K'é also asks how any relative, Diné or not, who served the community is treated on the way out. Can both be honored? What would a resolution that restores hózhó look like?
- Collaboration: Who would need to work together to resolve this well — the Board, HR, the courts, the community?
- Prevention vs. damage control: What policy clarity before a termination would have prevented this dispute? What should any institution write down now?
Why this belongs in a civic education
Candidates talk constantly about hiring, qualifications, preference, and accountability in high-trust positions. This case gives you a concrete situation to test their answers against. See the related lessons: Hiring & high-trust positions and Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA) & employee rights.
Your voice: today’s Corner question · all surveys, by subject · the data so far.
The standard, and who applies it
Navajo Preference in Employment Act · 15 N.N.C. § 601 et seq.
On the Navajo Nation, an employer may not take adverse action against an employee without just cause. The employer must be able to justify the action. This rule eliminates at-will employment — a protection stronger than most state law offers. The NPEA also prohibits prejudice, intimidation, and harassment of employees.
Disputes go first to the Office of Navajo Labor Relations (ONLR), then to the Navajo Nation Labor Commission, whose procedure resembles a court.
The Labor Commission does not publish its decisions. So neither an employee nor an employer can read how “just cause” has actually been applied in past cases. A standard no one can look up is difficult to rely on, plan around, or challenge.
How this site handles a case study
The same rules on every one. The Covenant
- We name no private individual. Public officials are named in their public capacity, and their own statements are printed alongside.
- An allegation is not a finding. An indictment is an allegation. A dismissal on jurisdiction decides nothing about the facts. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Where a party declined to comment, we say so — and we do not treat silence as an admission.
- Claims are labeled as claims, findings as findings. Every page carries a verification level.
- No case study is linked from any candidate’s profile, in either direction. A case is not a mark against a person.
- These exist to practice evaluation — not to decide a dispute. The five lenses