Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Kamehameha Schools Decision 
Good policy; bad law.

The Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii, private schools with an endowment of more than $6 billion, are entitled to limit their enrollment to Native Hawaiian children, a federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled yesterday by a vote of 8 to 7.

Students may be denied admission based on their race without running afoul of a civil rights law, the majority ruled, citing what it said were unique factors in the history of Hawaii, the plight of Native Hawaiians and the schools’ distinctively remedial mission, which Congress has repeatedly endorsed.

The schools are the only beneficiary of the enormous legacy of a 19th-century Hawaiian princess. They have an enrollment of some 5,000 students, from kindergarten through 12th grade, on campuses on three islands. Admission is a great prize, as students pay about $1,800 in annual tuition for an education worth about $20,000.

The schools’ admissions policy requires prospective students to prove that at least one ancestor lived on the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, when the British explorer Capt. James Cook arrived.

I'm a Hawai'i transplant, and Hawai'i is still home. Look, I still spell it with an apostrophe!!! The quickest way to separate the Hawaiians from the posers.

Mostly, I support the Kamehameha School's objectives.

But this ruling - entirely the work of Democrat appointees - is a further usurpation of legislative authority by the judiciary.

I predict the Supremes will hear this case, and remand or reverse.

It is up to Congress to provide the exception for Kamehameha Schools - not the judiciary. That was the case from the beginning, and the proper course for Kamehameha lobbyists.

Splash, out


One more thing: Kathleen Sullivan. Is that the same Stanford professor who boloed the California Bar Exam?

As a temporary kama'aina (because military, and I claim the 'aina only for the air room car packages sold in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sundays found while eating a katsu curry and garbage saimin at King Street, otherwise one f'in haole, brother) I have two big problems with the setup:

--The massively corrupt way the schools' paid protectors steal and waste money
--The resultant effect of the school system on the OTHER poor kids in Hawai'i, who may well have been Queen Liliuokalani's intended beneficiaries since she said the land was for the children of Hawaii. The Kam school system is nice while the local schools have condemned playgrounds and terrible situations and violent racism and all around suckitude.

Our ship (Kamehameha) volunteered at one of the schools and I was appalled at the conditions, not having kids yet but hearing the horror stories from my guys. Even the good teachers looked desperate for help. It was about as bad as the ones on Guam right before we put DoDDs schools there; the only reason there aren't DoDDs schools on Oahu is that too many people in local government pressure PACOM to continue the current sordid situation.

I would not like my kid to go to public school in Hawaii. It's a shame that it turned out that way.
A small nit...it's an okina "`" not and apostrophe "'". Yeah, I'm an inside out coconut. I agree with your main point, the Kamehameha should be allowed to stand but it needs to be done the right way. I also agree with Chap, with all of the poor kanaka in the public system, you'd think the Bishop Estate could cut loose with a bit of their billions of dollars to help out a little.
Small nit with mike. It's actually a "glottal stop" in english. Okina is simply the hawaiian word for it. There is also the macron (line over a letter representing an elongated vowel sound), and makona in hawaiian.

A couple of nits about Chaps post. It was the princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who was married to American Charles Reed Bishop, whose will, executed by Charles Reed Bishop after her death, founded the school. It was explicit in that it was to benefit aboriginal hawaiians. Despite the mandate to serve the aboriginal children of Hawai'i, the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, spends money on outreach programs to the public schools. It does this knowing that it can not possibly serve all aboriginal hawaiians. It also does this with the intent of helping other disadvantaged children.

The public schools in Hawai'i are the ones you're referring to, and I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation. I don't know why Hawai'i's public schools are, and have been for decades, so disgraceful. Not even Barack Obama went to public school in Hawai'i. He went to the elite (and damned expensive) Punahou Schools. This is, however, not the fault of the Kamehameha Schools, but is due entirely to corruption, mismanagement, inadequate funding, and union influence on the public school system in Hawai'i. It's the same here in California. The public schools are the responsibility and the fault of state government.

One of my co-workers (Campbell High School graduate) pointed to an article about this topic. Myself, I don't have much faith that this is a real victory for hawaiian aborigines. The Ninth Circuit is a joke, having been reversed often, and their ruling was an 8-7 split. Not to mention the eight made there ruling with the typical Ninth Circuit disregard for what the law says in face of what they want it to say.

My opinion of the people who brought the initial suit are scummy. The Kamehameha Schools once mandated JROTC which had a positive effect on all of its graduates whether they served or not. This is now gone because of a scummy person (since some federal funds helped pay for the program). Frankly the mother of this kid could have sent her son to Maryknoll, or Damien or any other number of Christian schools. She could have sent him to a secular school such as Punahou (which has a much more impressive record and reputation for scholarship than Kamehameha) or University High School. No matter what her stated goal may have been, she knew that she was hurting what is left of the aborinal hawaiians, since her son going to Kamehameha means one less rural, poor, and majorly disadvantaged young person from Moloka'i, or Poipu Kaua'i or Waianae. If her real concern was for all of Hawai'i's children she would have done far more good spending all that money, effort and press improving Hawai'i's pathetic public school system thereby helping all of Hawai'i's children. A more cynical and pissy person might also say, "but then that would help hawaiians rather than hurt them."

I appreciate, and generally agree with, your position, but an act of Congress would not necessarily keep the issue out of the courts.
Can someone explain why it's OK for one group to discriminate by race while another can't.
It's a Hawai'i thing. You wouldn't understand.

What does it bein a Hawaii thing have to do with it? It's OK for Hawaiians to discriminate but not OK for them to be discriminated against?

As far as I understand, no organization (country clubs, churches etc) can select it's member based on race or sex. But it's OK for Hawaiians to do so?

What's the rule? You have to be somehow special so that unique rules only apply to you?

What's the criteria for being allowed to discriminate and in what law is it spelled out?

Just curious.
Ummmm, criteria.

How about having been illegally invaded by the US (seriously, and not in the progressive day dream manner), having your lands seized, and then having most of the population swindled out of land that had been given back. Ummmmmm, having a majority of the population die of disease on first contact with westerners. Perhaps being an endangered species that will be gone (with the exception of mixes) in a few generations.

Let's remember that congress long ago acknowledged America's culpability and released certain lands (called crown lands) to Hawai'i (then a territory) to benefit the aboriginal citizens. Many decades later the Hawaiian Homes Act provided some of these lands to be leased (buck for a 99 year lease) to native hawaiians. So long before the Civil Rights Act, Congress acknowledged that in some circumstances some people should be treated differently, based on nationality and/or race, to correct former injustices. Even if it meant giving those people some of their stuff back to compensate them for the theft of the same.

Couple of things I should point out. Captain Cook rocked. He did everything he could to keep his sailors from... ummmmm.... spreading disease. He had two things going against him, however, in that some of his crew let the little head think, and the Hawaiians were a really, really, really randy peoples. That's why we ate him, he was worth it.

Another is that the liberal nutjobs are the one who haven't gotten over the overthrow of the monarchy (Haunani Trask I'm talking to you). Myself, I consider that it could have been Russia, or Japan, and either of those would have been far worse for the Hawaiian aborigine.

Lastly, concerning the "illegal" invasion (a term thrown about with inaccurate abandon today) the US did not authorize the invasion in any way. American businessmen conspired with a US Naval officer (I don't remember his name) to overthrow the monarchy. So US Marines marched on the capital. The businessmen were upset at the citizenship requirements for land ownership and unwilling to become Hawaiians and renounce their American citizenship for it.

Let's also recall that the princess willed her own lands (not federal or state property) to her trust and that the money is from her trust and not the government. Though the state government did (I don't know if they still do) give some funds to the outreach programs that benefitted public schools. There was also some federal money, until a few years ago, that went to the JROTC program which was also heavily subsidized by the school. The school had to end its JROTC program (whose unit had been activated in WWII) because of that federal funding and another spoiler lawsuit.


Yes, it's a sad story, it never should have happened. But what's the legal bases that gives them a right to discriminate?
This is gonna be a bit disjointed. Long day welding, and at this point I'm pretty beat.

I think I would go with congress's justification for the crown lands. Congress legislated programs designed to help aboriginal hawaiians as a means to redress serious grievances. Congress thereby shows precedence in establishing programs that directly help native people whom the country has seriously wronged. Nothing in The Constitution seems to address this issue, and it has gone unchallenged for over a hundred years.

Morally it is the right of the school to do what it wants to do (in this case the princess' will) so long as those actions don't harm others.

Just because no black or hispanic billionaire has ever decided to found a school to help disadvantaged members of their own race, does not mean that the trust should be destroyed for hawaiians. Equal protection does not mean one group must be hurt and punished simply because another group has made the concious choice not to take the same helpful actions.

To be honest I would rather get my families land back or get paid for it. 'tain't gonna happen. Frankly I think everyone else needs to suck it up and mind their own business and allow minorities to try to pull themselves up without burdening the state. Maybe that's why the non-hawaiian libs hate the school so much. Because it proves that a people can actually take measures to pull themselves up without affirmative action at the state and federal level.

That is the schools greatest legacy. Without state or federal tax dollars the school proved that peoples can lift themselves up

A question for the anonymous commenter. What legal and moral basis gives the scummy mummy and her child the right to destroy the school so that her son can get an education at KSBE that he could get elsewhere? Can you see any moral basis for her actions to force her will on others?

I just had another thought. The preference isn't actually racial since the aboriginal people of Hawai'i consist also of those of Marqusean, Tahitian, Maori and Samoan ancestry (pre-cook Samoan ancestry in my lineage according to tradition).
A question for the anonymous commenter. What legal and moral basis gives the scummy mummy and her child the right to destroy the school so that her son can get an education at KSBE that he could get elsewhere

I see "separate but equal" is OK.

The same law that prevents a private organization from keeping blacks out. The same laws that stuck down white/black only colleges.

The preference isn't racially pure but the exclusion is racial.

I'm not agianst Kamehameha schools helping only Hawaiians, my nephew went and my daughter will go to a charter school partially funded by Kamehameha schools. It's just that every other institution in the United States can't segregate based on race.
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!