A narrative approach exploring the phenomenon of Pretendians in the contemporary university

Abstract

This essay uses a fictional narrative to explore the phenomenon of Pretendians in the contemporary university. Summer, who is one of the protagonists in the fictional dialogue, self-identifies as Indigenous, and is hired as an academic based on this identity, and according to affirmative action policies. Whilst working as an Indigenous academic for several years, suspicions are raised and accusations of pretending to be Indigenous are levelled at her. In each instance, she doubles-down and rejects the accusations until evidence is produced to prove that she was falsely and knowingly passing herself off as Indigenous. We critically discuss and analyse the fictional dialogue as part of our inquiry into Pretendianism, and argue that if an individual pretends to possess one or more protected attributes, and the individual knows that they do not possess said attributes, it is to perpetrate a grave injustice that goes beyond mere identity fraud. We conclude that Pretendian cases bring to our attention how contemporary university policies have the potential to be subverted in ways that are counter-productive to those individual and groups they sought to benefit, particularly if action is not taken to close policy loopholes.

Introduction

The word ‘Pretendian’ is a neologism that describes a person who – deliberately or unintentionally – makes an illegitimate claim to the attributes, heritage, or status of a marginalised group for their own personal or professional advantage, for example, by falsely identifying as Indigenous to secure an academic position at a prestigious university exclusive to members of that community.1 Two recent cases illustrate common features of the phenomenon in academia (although Pretendianism occurs in other competitive fields): ‘The Curious Case of Gina Adams: A “Pretendian” Investigation’ (Cyca, 2022), and ‘A Professor Claimed to Be Native American. Did She Know She Wasn’t?’ (Kang, 2024). It is important to note that the cases of Gina Adams and Elizabeth Hoover are not isolated incidents. In North America alone, there are many Pretendian cases. For example, the Canadian author Joseph Boyden claimed to be Indigenous in order to sell books and win awards. For other well-known cases that have been reported, such as the US politician, Elizabeth Warren who claimed to be Native American, United States academic, Jessica Krug who claimed to be African American, and a range of Canadian academics, like Carrie Bourassa and Vianne Timmons who claimed to be Indigenous. In 2021, Jacqueline Keeler created what was called the ‘Alleged Pretendians List’ that was circulated online. Some criticised Keeler for conducting a ‘witch hunt’. Despite this list, it is important to point out that there is no standard or method for determining Indigenous, from non-Indigenous. Pretendian cases are both shocking and deeply concerning. Prima facie, these cases appear as straightforward cases of cosplay combined with identity fraud. These cases become more complex on closer inspection as many Pretendians genuinely believe who they say they are. It is one thing to intentionally pretend to possess one or more protected attributes of a group with full knowledge that you do not possess said attributes, and quite another thing to (say self-identify as Indigenous) and to live one’s life sincerely under the conviction of a false belief.

The phenomenon of Pretendianism is also a concern for policy, as cases of fraudulent practices of this kind are often allowed to progress unchallenged in the political climate of the contemporary occidental university. From a policy point of view, clearly something has gone wrong to allow this to continually happen. Even though this may be self-evident when it comes to Pretendian cases, we are concerned with the antecedent policy drivers that have allowed this to happen, and in some instances, allow Pretendianism to flourish, particularly within the contemporary university context. An obvious starting point are the class of policies sometimes referred to a positive discrimination policies, which have become known as ‘affirmative action’ in the United States, ‘cluster hiring’ in Canada, and so on.2 Unfortunately, flawed procedural structures at some of these same universities have failed miserably in protecting the very attributes they want to champion and advocate for.

These and other issues arising from Pretendian cases in the contemporary university will be discussed at length later in this essay. We shall also use a fictional narrative to explore the salient elements of this phenomenon, and how they may affect questions of policy and integrity. For the purposes of this essay, we will be concerned with two issues: firstly, we briefly justify our use of a fictional dialogue to contextualise the narrative section. This is followed by our own fictional dialogue between two academics. Summer, who is one of the protagonists in the fictional dialogue, self-identifies as Indigenous, and is hired as an academic based on her identity and according to affirmative action policies. Whilst working as an Indigenous academic for several years, suspicions that she is pretending to be Indigenous are raised and questions levelled. In each instance, she doubles-down and rejects the accusations until evidence is produced to prove that she has been knowingly pretending to be Indigenous, when she knew she was not. Lastly, we critically discuss and analyse the fictional dialogue as part of our Pretendian inquiry and provide a useful schema of the core characteristics of Pretendian cases. We argue that if an individual pretends to possess one or more protected attributes, and the individual knows that they do not possess any protected attributes, they perpetrate a grave injustice that goes beyond mere identity fraud: undermining both trust in due process and causing a great harm to marginalised groups. We conclude that Pretendian cases bring to our attention how contemporary university policies have the potential to be subverted in ways that are counter-productive to the beneficiaries they were set-up to benefit, particularly if action is not taken to close policy loopholes.

Why a narrative?

The use of dialogue or narrative has a long historical and philosophical tradition that can be traced back to the Sophists (see, e.g. Plato’s dialogues). Interestingly, Kahn (1996) presents literary evidence that Plato’s dialogues were a genre of literary fiction that should be read as a form of philosophical thinking that intentionally requires the reader to engage with differing levels of interpretation because the dialogues are meant to be provocative and incomplete. He goes on to argue that one of Plato’s aims of using dialogues was to radically change the moral and intellectual orientation of the learner, much like his fictional prisoners in the cave, who must turn away from the deceptive play of shadows on the cave wall and towards the true source of light. In education and educational research, the use of dialogue or narrative is relatively new by comparison. Although this section is not meant to be a detailed account about what is often referred to as narrative inquiry in the literature, our aim here is more a case of outlining why we are using a narrative or dialogue in this essay.3

According to Plummer (2001), the ‘narrative turn’ brought about an increased interest in narrative ways of knowing across a broad array of disciplines, including education and educational research. In Pinnegar and Daynes’s (2007) chapter titled, ‘Locating Narrative Inquiry Historically: Thematics in the Turn to Narrative’, they identify four themes in the turn toward narrative as an approach to research. These are as follows: ‘Narrative Turn #1: Relationship of Researcher and Researched’. In this case, narrative turn #1 is characterised by a shift away from notions of ‘objectivity’ taken from a positivistic point of view to one of ‘subjectivity’ that has a focus on interpretation and meaning-making of individual subjects or agents; ‘Narrative Turn #2: From Numbers to Words as Data’. Here, the turn involves a move away from numbers and towards words as data; ‘Narrative Turn #3: From the General to the Particular’. In narrative turn #3, the turn away from generalisability to a focus on the particular is meant to capture the power of an experience, setting, and the specific people involved; and, ‘Narrative Turn #4: Blurring Knowing’. The final turn highlights the multiple ways in which human beings make sense of and understand human experience. Although the use of narrative or dialogue can be used in diverse ways, it is useful to remember that a narrative is a special type of discourse that comes in various forms, which can range from fictional accounts to narratives describing ‘ideal’ life events that are depicted through biographies, autobiographies, case studies, and so on (Polkinghorne, 1995). Here, in this essay, it is worth noting that our fictional dialogue is concerned with the exploration of the phenomenon of Pretendianism in the contemporary university to understand why it occurs, and to also progress towards a potential solution. With this in mind, our aim now turns to the presentation of our fictional dialogue that has been created as part of our Pretendian inquiry.

The fictional dialogue that follows is grounded on known cases in the public domain, like Gina Adams and Elizabeth Hoover (e.g. Cyca, 2022; Kang, 2024). We have intentionally taken the essential elements of Pretendian cases and represented them in the fictional dialogue for the purposes of analysis. Our intention is not to make this about specific cases per se, but to focus our attention on the core characteristics of Pretendian cases.

A Pretendian enquiry: The fictional dialogue

Narrative context: two academic colleagues (i.e. Summer and Big Sky) from the same department are conversing informally over coffee on the veranda of Summer’s house.

BIG SKY: (Sounding surprised) Have you heard about these rumours going around claiming that you are pretending to be Indigenous so you can be a professor?

SUMMER: (Sounding anxious and concerned) Yeah, I’ve heard various rumours, but what have you heard?

BIG SKY: (Responding quickly) Basically, the crux of the rumours claim that you are white, and only pretending to be Indigenous in order to get an Indigenous-only academic position at a prestigious university.

SUMMER: I’ve heard these rumours before. (Pausing to gather her thoughts) I know I look white, but why should it matter what I look like if I identify as Indigenous and practice the traditions of my clan that I have been taught and grown-up with.

BIG SKY: (Sounding perplexed) I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but it gets much worse. Apparently, your name appears on a list of alleged Pretendians that is being circulated online.

SUMMER: (Sounding frustrated) I’ve heard rumours about this list, but I didn’t know my name was on the list.

BIG SKY: (Sounding perplexed) I have to be honest and say I’m confused why your name is on this list. (Pausing) Do you have any evidence to disprove these allegations once and for all?

SUMMER: (Promptly responding) I’m confused too, and I find this to be really annoying because I don’t have any evidence.

BIG SKY: (Pausing to think) Have you tried applying for a certificate or some form of genealogical documentation from your clan that verifies your Indigenous identity, and also formally ties you to your community?

SUMMER: I never really bothered to do this because I had learnt about my identity from my family, and I have always identified as Indigenous. (Pausing to think) From a young age, my mother used to tell me that my great-grandmother and great-grandfather were both Indigenous, and this is why my mother taught me the traditions and practices of my clan. In a sense, it’s basically all I have known. Why should I have to prove who I say I am when I know I’m Indigenous. Besides, these types of questions are a form oppressive colonialism.

BIG SKY: Now, that is interesting because I’ve heard reports from some academics who attended one of your talks at a conference recently, and they claim you clearly identified yourself as someone from clan X.4 (Sounding perplexed) So I’m really confused now about what you said earlier about not bothering to research your identity and where you come from because it would appear you have. So, what are you hiding, and why won’t you tell the full story?

SUMMER: (Sounding frustrated) Why don’t you believe me?

BIG SKY: (Responding quickly) I do believe you, but I’m trying to help you put an end to all these negative rumours because they are causing a lot of division in the department to the point your colleagues don’t want you to attend any events, or even be a member of the department anymore. The animosity towards you is real. (Pausing) So maybe it’s not about whether I believe you or not now, and more a case of proving who you say you really are.

SUMMER: (Sounding frustrated) I identity as Indigenous, practice the traditions, and I even dress in the clothes of my clan. Even though I haven’t bothered to prove it yet, why can’t people just accept this?

BIG SKY: (Pausing) Unfortunately, there is long history of academics, and others roleplaying without any real repercussions, and Indigenous people have had enough due to the damage that has been done by Pretendians. This goes beyond identity fraud, and involves stolen opportunities for those who actually deserve them, plus there are a range of other serious consequences. (Getting emotional) For me, I’m angry that this even happens at all, and so I see this as a kind of reckoning. So, I beg you as a fellow Indigenous scholar, tell me the truth.

Approximately 6 months after this conversation with Big Sky, the scrutiny intensified. As a result, of this scrutiny, Summer released an announcement to her department, on social media, and other forums. In this announcement, she explained that she has no official documentation to verify her Indigenous identity, and that she was in fact a white person who was incorrectly identifying as an Indigenous person.

Critical discussion and analysis of the fictional dialogue

According to Pluckrose and Lindsay (2020), contemporary accounts of social justice gained momentum around 2010 due to the proliferation of ‘social justice scholarship and activism’ within the academy. They argue that the driving force of contemporary social justice scholarship and activism can be attributed to postmodern accounts of knowledge and politics that were primarily set-up for deconstructive purposes from around 1965 to 1990. This first phase, then transitioned to an applied form of postmodernism in the second phase from 1990 to 2010. Although the second phase was mainly limited to certain academic fields in the academy and political activist groups, the third phase of postmodernism from 2010 to present, has seen certain principles, ideas, themes, assertions, and so on become more entrenched as rigid type dogmas of truths both within certain academic fields and political activist groups, and more importantly, evolved beyond these two settings. These dogmatic truths being a belief that society is structured by invisible identity-based systems of power and privilege that are always present everywhere. Central to this belief is the idea that knowledge is constructed by those in power as a means to maintain the status quo or gain more power and privilege. In a sense, this is why part of the remit of the contemporary social justice scholar and activist is to constantly identify, condemn, and dismantle what they perceive to be an injustice for the purposes of redress. This has led to the formation of a set of taken for granted metanarratives about the world that contemporary social justice scholars and activists treat as fundamental truths. These so-called ‘fundamental truths’ are expressed with dogmatic conviction, and often take the following form: all white people are racist, all men are sexist, sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum, language can be violent, everything needs to be decolonised, and so on. Beyond the obvious offence these claims may generate, what becomes clear from these metanarratives is the way in which contemporary social justice scholars and activists’ aim is to problematise how they perceive the world for the express purpose of how they think the world ought to work instead, but in a way that cannot be questioned or disagreement allowed. This position is reinforced by Pluckrose and Lindsay (2020, p. 183) when they state:

… Social Justice scholarship does not neatly fit into any one category of Theory. It has become so intersectional that it calls upon all of them according to need, continually problematizing society … and abiding by only one golden rule: Theory itself can never be denied; Theory is real. Social Justice scholarship has become a kind of Theory of Everything, a set of unquestionable Truths with a capital T, whose central tenets were taken from the original postmodernists and solidified within the derived Theories.

Here, Pluckrose & Lindsay bring to our attention how the contemporary university has become an incubator and generator of ‘Theory’ that is both ideological and political in nature (e.g. theories of identity, postcolonial theory, and critical race theory). Although Pluckrose & Lindsay may overstate the effects of ‘Theory’ on society, the thesis they draw from the academic community is relevant to cases of Pretendianism in the academy. What is alarming and disconcerting about their argument is the way in which ‘Theory’ is being used as a form of advocacy and activism that is explicitly antagonistic and anti-intellectual. Beyond the obvious anti-intellectual issues of ‘unquestionable Truths’ that cannot be denied or questioned within a university context, the erosion of free speak, and other associated consequences, what is most alarming is the way in which ‘Theory’ is being implemented and practiced. Indeed, the sub-title of their work (i.e. ‘How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody’) is highly apt in this case because contemporary universities are often quick to implement and practice socially progressive causes that can best be described as woke virtue signalling. Whether contemporary universities are caught-up in a form of woke virtue signalling is an open debate; however, what is hard to ignore is the rise of Pretendian type cases in the modern academy. In a sense, the fictional dialogue that has been presented offers an example of how contemporary social justice has the potential to be counter-productive to the beneficiaries they were set-up to benefit. Subsequently, this is why we should all be concerned because contemporary social justice practices can be corrupted and subverted in ways that can exacerbate and further entrench inequality, and inevitably harms everybody in some form or another.

Unfortunately, Pretendian cases are real and do occur with a level of frequency that is concerning, particularly within academia (e.g. Cyca, 2022; Kang, 2024). In a sense, the fictional dialogue as presented picks-up on how contemporary universities have intentionally employed certain policies that claim to right historical wrongs through positive discrimination practices, like ‘affirmative action’ policies in the United States, or ‘cluster hiring’ policies in Canada. Whether these policies are a good or bad is an open question; however, in this essay our fictional dialogue is concerned with the exploring why this occurs, and what can be done about it.

Summer, self-identifies as Indigenous and is hired as an academic according to her identity as part of affirmative action type policies. Whether Summer intentionally knew she was white, and pretended to be Indigenous is not easy to determine because she genuinely believed she was Indigenous. Of course, it is a given, that if an individual pretends to possess one or more protected attributes, and the individual knows that they do not possess any protected attributes is to perpetrate a grave injustice of the worst kind that goes beyond mere identity fraud. In a sense, this is the paradox of Pretendian cases, as they often involve individuals who genuinely believe they are Indigenous, when in fact there is evidence to contrary.

A useful example that extends on this point is the case of Gina Adams as it shares some similarities with our fictional dialogue, and what we consider to be the core characteristics of Pretendian cases. Gina Adams was hired in 2019 by a university in Canada as part of a ‘targeted cluster hire’ to recruit several Indigenous academics (see e.g. Cyca, 2022). It is important to note that ‘targeted cluster hiring’ policies share similarities with ‘affirmative action’ policies in the US. Even though concerns about Gina Adam’s claimed Indigenous identity persisted, the issue intensified when an anonymous social media account on Twitter called ‘NoMoreRedFace’ claimed that her Indigenous identity was a fraud. In response, Gina Adams’s released various statements refuting these allegations, which the university appeared to tacitly endorse because she continued with her academic commitments. However, what seemed troubling about Gina Adams’s denial was the suspicious absence of genealogical research and/or evidence from her. It was not until Cyca’s (2022) article on Gina Adams, which disclosed genealogical records that proved her Indigenous identity was a fraud that she finally resigned in 2022. Inevitably, this case raises a number of challenging questions for educational institutions because certain universities remain enthusiastic supporters of ‘targeted cluster hiring’ or ‘affirmative action’ policies that have implications for how universities hire Indigenous academics or people, which in turn have ramifications for academics or people who are not whom they claim to be.

This now brings us back to the fictional dialogue between Summer and Big Sky. The character Big Sky, who is an Indigenous scholar, comes to Summer with genuine concerns about rumours circulating that Summer is pretending to be Indigenous. Initially, Summer acknowledges that she looks white, but quite rightly claims that it should not matter what she looks like if she identifies as Indigenous and practices the traditions of her clan that she has grown-up with. Big Sky then shares with Summer that her name appears on an online list of alleged Pretendians. Here, Big Sky asks Summer for some evidence to disprove these allegations, to which Summer seems to offer a vague response that she had not bothered to verify her Indigenous identity because she has always self-identified as Indigenous. Unsatisfied by the response, Big Sky confronts Summer with reports from other academics who have witnessed her identify as someone from clan X. Compounding the situation further, Big Sky knows people from clan X, and they have never heard of Summer or her family. Understandably, Big Sky’s suspicions lead her to wonder what Summer is hiding, and why she will not tell the truth. In response to this line of questioning, Summer, doubles-down proclaiming to be Indigenous, and repeatedly wonders why no one will believe her.5 Big Sky’s response is one of sympathy, and an attempt to put an end to all the rumours that have been so divisive in her department; but her point goes to the heart of the issue. This being that it is not about whether someone believes they are who they say they are, but rather proving who they say they are. When you take into consideration that Summer was hired based on being an Indigenous academic, it is a reasonable to call for evidence to verify her Indigenous identity. Summer’s failure to produce any useful evidence, and her notable attempts to avoid the issue, makes Big Sky more suspicious of her claims, and generates a level of anger that is justifiable given the circumstances. It is at this point that Big Sky explains her anger to Summer that there has been a long history of academics, and others cosplaying as Indigenous without suffering any repercussions, and as a result, Indigenous people have had to endure the damage caused by Pretendians that go beyond identify fraud, including stolen opportunities for those who actually deserve them. After the conversation with Big Sky, and significant scrutiny, Summer, releases an announcement explaining that she has no official documentation to verify her Indigenous identity, and that she was in fact a white person who was incorrectly identifying as an Indigenous person. Our intention with the fictional dialogue was to explore the phenomenon of Pretendian cases in the contemporary university. As such, after taking into consideration a range of Pretendian cases, like Gina Adams and Elizabeth Hoover (e.g. Cyca, 2022; Kang, 2024) that are within the public domain, we would argue that the core characteristics of Pretendians or ‘P’ can be represented through the following schema:

(1) P believes they are X;

(2) Scepticism arises relating to P’s claim to be X;

(3) These scepticisms lead to a direct challenge asking P to verify they belong to X;

(4) P often doubles-down claiming they are X, despite the fact they have no evidence to support they are X, or can be member of X; and,

(5) Either P continues to claim to be X, despite no evidence to support they are X, or P accepts responsibility they are not X.

Since there is no universal standard or method for determining X, this leads to category errors or mistakes, and ultimately plausible deniability by Pretendians. Therefore, a universal standard or method for determining X needs to be seriously considered to close policy loopholes.

It is helpful to examine this schema with respect to different possible orientations towards the truth. For what is at stake in the life of the Pretendian is something that appears to sit beyond the corrective reach of reality. Consequently, whilst necessary, it may be insufficient to engage the Pretendian in a dialogue in which they are called to justify their actions or offer evidence in support of their claimed identity. Evidently, this is the approach that Big Sky attempts in their line of probing, but supportive questioning. Summer’s unwillingness to reply forthrightly to Big Sky’s invitation to explain herself reveals two distinct, but related concepts about the status and function of truth in our interactions with others, and in relation to the construction and maintenance of our own identities. The first hinges on the distinction between truthfulness and sincerity; and the second deals with the distinction between knowledge and acknowledgement.

With respect to the first distinction, there are aspects of Summer’s Pretendianism that bring it very close to Harry Frankfurt’s (2005) idea of bullshit. For Frankfurt, the bullshitter differs from the liar primarily because although the liar operates in the space of falsities, they nevertheless understand that the use and fabrication of lies still requires knowledge of what is true. Contrastingly, the bullshitter has little or no commitment to truth at all. The bullshitter cares not whether you understand them because they do not wish to explore whether and how you dis/agree with them as they are closed off to alternatives and to evidence. The bullshitter’s motive is something other than truth-seeking. The bullshitter is motivated by the desire to secure some effect on others, such as appearing more agreeable, virtuous, knowledgeable, and so on, and hence why the bullshitter is prone to manipulating others, and concealing that manipulation. In short, the bullshitter is indifferent to the truth. Therefore, it is plausible that Pretendianism is an instantiation of a sincere form of bullshit.

Sincerity is key here. As Frankfurt noted decades ago, a cultural and intellectual shift occurred in academia and the broader society in which it lost confidence in the terribly difficult and rigorous task of pursuing the truth, and it substituted it with an appeal to, or rationalisation based on sincerity:

One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself. (Frankfurt, 2005: p. 65–66)

The privileging of sincerity places the ‘truth’ of my identity ahead of whether my identity squares with the truth. Identity is important, and we cannot underestimate the degree to which identity has currency in social and political life because our identities are shaped by, and shape the culture in which we live. They are dynamic, relational, collective, and intersectional, and precisely because identities are so fluid, the ‘truth’ of my/our identity is unlikely to have the enduring, protective, and corrective quality that objective truth affords. Perhaps this is why sincerity and identity are the vehicles of choice for Pretendian forms of bullshitting.

We can read the Pretendian’s sincerity and aversion to truth another way. Paul Standish’s reading of philosopher Stanley Cavell’s work provides a useful re-interpretation of the Pretendian (Saito and Standish, 2012). Drawing on Cavell, Standish (2012) distinguished two parallel and interrelated concerns in human affair. The first may be represented as a spectrum ranging from absolute certainty to absolute doubt (p. 77), and the second, a spectrum from acknowledgment to denial (p. 75). The first spectrum is useful in applying epistemic judgements. For example, how sure can I be sure that such-and-such is the case? Evidently, truth matters in this case, but under the realistic assumption that we can neither find, expect, nor usefully live in a world in which only the absolute extremes obtain. The second spectrum covers cases in which what is at stake is not the truth per se (although the truth remains important), but instead invitations to affirm or disaffirm my status in the world. Standish uses the question ‘do you love me?’ to illustrate his point. The questioner is not seeking factual evidence of love, such as a spreadsheet of romantic gestures and occasions, but rather acknowledgement of love. Here the simplicity of sincerity gives way to complex and genuine interactions and negotiations with others, and most importantly, such interactions are risky ones. It is possible then, that Pretendians are rightly motivated by a desire for a kind of acknowledgement and recognition; however, this desire may be undermined if they do not want to take-up the attendant risk of the truth intervening and interrupting the story that they tell themselves and others.

Even though the fictional dialogue is challenging and evokes discomfort at times, it is important to point out that the narrative was intentionally created to reveal how policies within the contemporary university can be subverted, and cause more harm, than good. In saying this, it is crucial to discuss some potential solutions or responses to Pretendian cases that extend on from the earlier schema presented above. As alluded to earlier, the case of Gina Adams provides an excellent example of how universities have created this hot mess through ‘targeted cluster hiring’ or ‘affirmative action’ policies that have actually exacerbated the exclusion of members of marginalised groups. So, putting aside for a moment the identity fraud that has arisen when individuals self-identify as Indigenous, the elephant in the room is the way in which Liberals or socially progressives from the social justice left claim to be allies of Indigenous people, but end up doing more harm than good (Cyca, 2022). Indeed, Riley’s (2014) aptly named work, titled Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed, outlines how affirmative action policies in the contemporary university were intended to address past discrimination have been counter-productive, and actually done more harm to the beneficiaries they were set up to benefit. Of course, a potential solution to this problem is for universities to ask for proof of Indigenous identity, say in the form of genealogical proof and/or a 23andMe result; however, the issue is not that straightforward and is much more complex. For instance, not every Indigenous person has flawless records because of the historical legacy of assimilation type policies that have intentionally fractured generations that have resulted in lost or stolen generations. This means that many Indigenous people may not know where they come from or who their parents, family, kin, and community or communities are, and so would be excluded. In addition, this position fails to take into consideration that Indigenous identities are not about racial or biological characteristics that can be reduced to a 23andMe result. Part of the problem as we see it, is that as soon as you make Indigenous identity a pre-requisite criterion of any job, then universities will inevitably turn it into a credential. Since credentials require a certain level of accountability, it means there is a level of responsibility by the employer who does the hiring to determine whether a person is being honest in what they are claiming. For example, if a pre-requisite of a job is a Bachelor’s degree, then it would be quite normal for an employer to ask for evidence of such a qualification as part of any employment process. At a minimum, this seems reasonable, and yet, universities are confronted with the significant dilemma of what to ask for in terms of verify a claim made about Indigenous identity. In the fictional dialogue, Summer acknowledges that she knows she looks white, but it should not matter. Up to a point, there is level of truth to this claim, but if the position is an Indigenous only academic position in the university, then it does matter, if in fact, she is Indigenous, and more importantly, can prove it. Whether this has the potential to happen needs to be put to one side because what seems to be missed here, is that it is not the role of universities to determine whether or not a person is Indigenous because this should be left to Indigenous people to determine who should be a member of their communities. This would return greater autonomy and decision-making back to Indigenous groups where it belongs and matters. Whether consensus can be reached on this topic is another matter, but input from Indigenous groups would appear to be crucial, particularly when it comes to Indigenous-only positions.

At one level it is quite easy to point the finger at universities, and they certainly deserve a significant degree of blame here, but what seems to be missing from this debate relates to why Pretendian cases occur, particularly within the climate and culture of contemporary universities. On another level, individuals need to take responsibility for their actions, and in the case of the fictional dialogue, Summer, at a bare minimum, should be dismissed for serious misconduct because she pretended to be someone she knew she was not. Potentially, a civil or criminal case of identity fraud or even fraud could be made; however, it is unlikely to be prosecuted by the law. In terms of why individuals pretend to be someone they are not is worth serious consideration. According to Leroux (2019), in his work titled, Distorted Descent: White Claims to Indigenous Identity, this phenomenon is not entirely new in Canada and is often used as a political device of protest since the turn of twenty-first century. He goes on to argue, that the shift from white to Indigenous identity is often politically motivated by a desire to oppose Indigenous people using suspect genealogical and self-identifying practices, and at the same time, expose the shifting politics of identity (whiteness), history (colonialism), and so on. Although the character of Summer in the fictional dialogue does not self-identify as Indigenous as a form of political protest, it is hard to ignore a distorted form of envy or white envy as a significant driver in Pretendian cases. A useful explanation for this envy or white envy can be found in Thucydides’ (1950) History of the Peloponnesian War (Woodruff, 1993). Many themes are explored in the History; however, what is of interest in this essay is Thucydides’ larger project of bringing submerged realities to the surface relating to the darker side of human nature. Indeed, Thucydides portrays with brutal honesty a world of human affairs in which the stronger or more powerful will always take advantage of the weak by using the name of law and justice as a means to obtain their own interests. For example, the rhetorical strategy to pretend to care about justice while pursuing the opposite, as Glaucon points out in the Republic is worth heeding. This being: ‘… the height of injustice is to seem just without being so …’ (Plato, 1961, Republic, 361a). An important theme emerges from the Republic that is relevant and worth noting here. This being the just person will be constantly misjudged and suffer many hardships; whereas, a person who is unjust, never seems unjust because they have no misgivings about injustice, and hence will be honoured everywhere for getting what they want. Guthrie (1971, p. 99) comments that Glaucon’s position from the Republic (e.g. 359c) reflects how it is human nature (physics) to naturally pursue ‘self-interest’ as a good, and this is why the constraints of ‘law or convention (nomos)’ are crucial with respect to equality. In saying all of this, there is a tragic dimension that arises from the realisation that injustice may emerge from the pursuit of justice that is motivated by human self-interest (see e.g., Woodruff, 1993). In the case of Pretendians, the phenomenon is parasitic on well-established cultures and actions directed towards social justice and social justice education. As Lee Anne Bell (2016) notes, social justice education is about making individuals critically aware of the structural oppression in society and their place within it. Moreover, it is about developing the tools to interrupt and overturn such oppressive systems and practices (p. 2). Pretendians undermine social justice and education precisely because they do not meet, or are indifferent to, the clear and honest appraisal of the world that is demanded by social justice. It also jeopardises positive action undertaken towards social justice through education, such as following the leadership of oppressed people, providing counter narratives, and allyship (p. 18–27), all of which require clear distinctions between the identities of the oppressed and others. Consequently, Pretendianism risks making members of marginalised groups double victims: victims of the oppressive systems, and victims of the misappropriation of social justice.

Conclusion

In this essay, we used a fictional narrative to explore the phenomenon of Pretendians in the contemporary university. In the fictional dialogue, Summer, who is one of the main protagonists in the fictional dialogue, self-identifies as Indigenous, and is hired as an academic based on her identity and according to affirmative action policies. Whilst working as an Indigenous academic for several years, suspicions that she is pretending to be Indigenous are raised and questions levelled. In each instance, she doubles-down and rejects the accusations until evidence is produced to prove that she has been knowingly pretending to be Indigenous, when she knew she was not. After the fictional dialogue, we critically discussed and analysed the fictional dialogue as part of our Pretendian inquiry into the salient elements of this phenomenon as a means to understand why it occurs, and to also suggest some potential solutions. We argued that if an individual pretends to possess one or more protected attributes, and the individual knows that they do not possess any protected attributes, they perpetrate a grave injustice that goes beyond mere identity fraud: undermining both trust in due process and causing a great harm to marginalised groups. We concluded that Pretendian cases bring to our attention how contemporary university policies have the potential to be subverted in ways that are counter-productive to the beneficiaries they were set-up to benefit, particularly if action is not taken to close policy loopholes.