Decolonising Academia: How Indigenous Language Revitalisation Challenges Colonial Curriculum Structures
Original framing: “Indigenous Knowledges and Perspectives want to create ‘language advocates’” — bing news
The voices most marginalised in this narrative are those of Indigenous language speakers who are not academics, including elders, youth, and community members who do the daily work of revitalisation. For instance, the *Cree* language revival in Eeyou Istchee relies heavily on *mushuau* (language nests) run by community members, not university programs. Additionally, Indigenous women and LGBTQ2S+ individuals often lead language revitalisation efforts but are erased from institutional narratives. The framing also ignores the precarity of Indigenous language advocates, many of whom work without pay, face backlash from non-Indigenous communities, or operate in legal limbo due to colonial land laws. The absence of these voices reinforces the university’s role as a gatekeeper of Indigenous knowledge rather than a partner in its revitalisation.
The Queen’s University program, while progressive in its renaming and expansion, exemplifies the tension between decolonial rhetoric and colonial reality: Indigenous languages are being reclaimed as tools of resistance, yet their revitalisation is still mediated through institutions that historically suppressed them.
The systemic failure here is not a lack of goodwill but a structural one—universities remain embedded in colonial logics of extraction, where Indigenous knowledge is treated as a resource to be managed rather than a sovereign system to be respected. Historical patterns, from residential schools to the *Indian Act*, show that language revitalisation is always a political act, yet the framing treats it as an academic innovation. Cross-cultural comparisons reveal that the most successful models—like *kura kaupapa* or *Diné language nests*—are community-led, not institution-driven, and tied to land and sovereignty. The trickster lens exposes the hypocrisy: how can an occupier of Indigenous land claim to be an advocate for Indigenous languages without ceding power? The solution pathways must therefore prioritise Indigenous sovereignty over institutional inclusion, integrating land repatriation, decolonial funding, and artistic-spiritual frameworks to restore language as a living, relational system—not a commodity or a course offering.