On Thursday, a Navajo court in Window Rock, Arizona removed tribal presidential candidate Chris Deschene from the ballot for refusing to prove his fluency in the Navajo language, as is required by Navajo law. The decision highlights a growing dispute over the future of the country’s largest Native American community, the role of language in establishing its identity, and what it means to be Navajo in modern society. According to the 2010 census, around 169,000 people say they speak Navajo; yet fewer and fewer of those under 50, like 43-year-old Deschene, are fluent, stoking fears that the language—and the Navajo identity—could die out. In an interview with The New Republic, Dr. Evangeline Parsons-Yazzie, a 61-year-old Navajo professor emeritus of Navajo (the language) at Northern Arizona University, discusses the generational divide, how to define fluency, and the future of the Navajo Nation.

Elaine Teng: Can you explain to our readers what’s at stake in this dispute over Chris Deschene’s eligibility for the presidency?

Evangeline Parsons-Yazzie: I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, the Navajo language has been declared an endangered language, which means that the children are no longer speaking the language. I think Chris Deschene represents many of those young people who speak very little but understand quite a bit, not that he necessarily is one of them. The people who brought this dispute against him have shut out all other young Navajos who would have liked to have him represent their people. [These young people] are very good orators in English and would have represented their people very, very well on a state, national, and international level. At this point, that’s what’s needed.

On the other hand, I can understand why the people who created the dispute are saying what they are, because our language does represent sovereignty. Sovereignty is something we inherited and we’re supposed to maintain. It’s a gift to us, and that’s how the elders who are fluent speakers see it. Therefore, they want their youth to be able to come back before them and speak in their language. It’s the elders who make up the voting public, and they feel that the president of the Navajo Nation should be able to explain to them in Navajo the issues that are facing them.

ET: So this seems to be a generational question. If young people feel shut out from the process, do you think this will create change?