** Note added January 7, 2013: This webpage was produced in 2003 using data from Census 2000 and from then-recent enrollment statistics for the University of Hawaii. Ten years later a new webpage has been produced, using data from Census 2010 and UH enrollment statistics appearing on UH webpages in December 2012. The new webpage produced in 2013 can be seen at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/UnderrepMinoritiesUH.html
SUMMARY
"Social justice" activists demand free tuition for ethnic Hawaiian students at the University of Hawai'i, and other race-based benefits for them. One victimhood claim offered to justify these demands is that ethnic Hawaiians are under-represented in the student body. But careful study of UH student enrollment data, together with Census 2000 population data for Hawai'i, shows that ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented in the UH student body, while ethnic Caucasians and ethnic Chinese are significantly or greatly under-represented. Thus, it is illegal racial discrimination to provide race-based tuition waivers and other race-based benefits to ethnic Hawaiians while failing to provide the same benefits to ethnic Caucasians and ethnic Chinese. Even under the new Supreme Court ruling allowing race-based affirmative action to promote diversity, it cannot be right for a university to provide affirmative action to a significantly over-represented racial group while failing to provide such benefits to a significantly under-represented group.
Three items are offered below: (1) A short introduction followed by detailed statistical analysis of UH ethnic enrollment data; (2) A letter published on two internet e-mail lists based in California, discussing the implications of this research for issues of importance outside Hawai’i, including affirmative action, reverse discrimination, race-based financial incentives to promote ethnic diversity on college campuses, and the question whether the gathering of racial data is helpful or harmful to achieving equality under the law (for example, the California Racial Privacy Initiative); (3) An informal Hawai’i-focused essay tying everything together, written for the on-line newspaper Hawaii-Reporter.com.
============================
============================
Are ethnic Hawaiians somehow discriminated against at the University of Hawai'i? Are there fewer ethnic Hawaiians attending UH than would be expected by their proportion of the state's population? The director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa has said so repeatedly for many years on television, radio, and newspaper interviews. Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa wants lots more ethnic Hawaiians to attend UH (where they can major in Hawaiian Studies, of course, thereby increasing the size and power of her staff!).
Hawaiian activists claim that ethnic Hawaiians are greatly under-represented among students at the University of Hawai'i. What they say is that the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians among the students attending the university is substantially smaller than the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians in the population of Hawai'i. Therefore, they say, the university should have an affirmative action program to recruit more Hawaiians, including special incentives such as race-based free tuition, race-based scholarships, race-based tutoring and counseling, special advocates or ombudsmen to represent them in disputes with students, professors, or administrators of other ethnicities, etc.
And, indeed, the University of Hawai'i does have an affirmative action program for ethnic Hawaiians. On September 17, 2002, the student newspaper "Ka Leo" reported on an enrollment party sponsored by the Center for Hawaiian Studies at which it was announced that there were 110 race-based tuition waivers set aside exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians:
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/09/17/3d86c2bea6d3d
"The celebration not only offered students and community members a chance to become familiar with each other, it was also available free of charge. The event featured live music ... a traditional Hawaiian meal and information regarding resources available to students of Hawaiian ancestry attending the University of Hawai'i at Manoa ... The main goal of the program is to "increase matriculation of Native Hawaiian students on the UHM campus." They are trying to get the word out that they have 110 tuition waivers available to qualifying Native Hawaiian students each semester, as well as other supportive services."
This particular essay will explore only the issue of alleged under-representation of ethnic Hawaiians as a percentage of the UH student body. Of course many other reasons are given why ethnic Hawaiians should be given free tuition and other special advantages. All these reasons are false (as shown in other parts of this website), but that doesn't prevent them from being put forward at every opportunity.
For example the following reasons are offered (and each is refuted by the webpage cited immediately after it):
Ethnic Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html
Hawai'i is the homeland of ethnic Hawaiians where they are the hosts and everyone else is merely a guest. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fullpartners.html
Ethnic Hawaiians are owed reparations for the overthrow of the monarchy. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hanifinreparations.html
Ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to free tuition as part of the "rent" the University owes to them for use of the ceded lands. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/cededlands.html
Also, it is claimed that ethnic Hawaiians are a poor, downtrodden race in need of government assistance. But Census 2000 shows that the median family income for ethnic Hawaiians in 1999 was $49,282 and that 13.1% of them had incomes above $100,000 even though their median age was only 25.3 (compared to a statewide median age of 36.2). The data for ethnic Hawaiians, taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and reported at the State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) can be found at:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census2k/sf4profiles/xnhstate.pdf
See also: “The Hawaiian Grievance Industry -- Panhandling for Race-Based Handouts and Political Power”
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/grievanceindustry.html
and
"Forced assimilation may hurt Hawaiians" -- A typical combination of junk history and junk science fueling the Hawaiian grievance industry
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/ForcedAssimHurtsHawnHealth.html
If ethnic Hawaiians are getting affirmative action benefits not given to other ethnic groups who are more seriously under-represented, then individuals belonging to those other groups might very well have a cause of action to sue the University for racial discrimination. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning student admissions at the University of Michigan recognizes that diversity is a compelling governmental interest, and that a state university has the right to give special consideration to admit students of an under-represented minority ahead of equally or slightly better-qualified students of other well-represented ethnicities. However, it would be contrary to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, to give special advantages to one ethnic group while failing to give those benefits to other ethnic groups who are similarly situated, or who are even more under-represented.
Here are some data which show that ethnic Japanese are greatly over-represented in the UH student body; ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented; ethnic Filipinos are represented appropriately; ethnic Caucasians are significantly under-represented; and ethnic Chinese are greatly under-represented.
----------------------
(1) PRIMARY ETHNIC AFFILIATION SELF-IDENTIFIED BY STUDENTS ATTENDING THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN FALL, 2002
Data taken from Fall Enrollment Report, University of Hawai'i, Fall 2002, as published by the University of Hawai'i Institutional Research Office in May, 2003. See Figure 13, page 6, at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/iro/maps?seuhf02.pdf
Caucasian: 20.9%
Japanese: 17.6%
Hawaiian: 13.6%
Fil.ipino: 13.2%
Mixed: 11.3%
Chinese: 6.3%
Pacific Islanders: 2.6%
All others: 14.4%
The fine print (Notes and caveats): Since the percentages add up to exactly 100%, it is clear that students were not allowed to choose more than one ethnicity (unlike the Census data below). A student who was both Caucasian and Hawaiian apparently had to choose just one group and suppress the other. "Mixed" is rather large at 11.3%, and "all others" is even larger at 14.4%. Apparently more than one-fourth of the students refused to respond or else felt unable to choose only one ethnicity as their primary one. A very important corollary is this: EVERY GROUP WILL BE SEEN AS UNDER-REPRESENTED when compared with Census population statistics below. There are two primary reasons for this: (a) fewer than 75% of UH students have been allocated to any specific ethnic group; and (b) the Census data allowed anyone to identify with as many ethnicities as desired, so the Census percentages add up to well over 100%. But this disparity between UH and Census methods of counting is handled in a crude but probably reasonable way, in part 3 below. Readers not familiar with Hawai'i should also note that in Hawai'i every ethnic group is a minority; the question is whether any particular minority is over-represented or under-represented at the university when compared against its percentage of state population. An additional difficulty is that the ethnic percentages vary substantially from one campus of the UH system to another. The percentages provided above are for the University of Hawai'i system as a whole, including the flagship campus at Manoa and all the community colleges. Those who wish to study data for individual campuses can find a report for each campus at:
http://www.iro.hawaii.edu/maps/mltitles.asp
However, anyone who chooses to analyze UH data for a particular campus should then consider also finding Census data for the racial composition of the particular population base served by that campus.
-------------------------
(2) CENSUS 2000 ETHNIC AFFILIATION SELF-IDENTIFIED BY ALL RESIDENTS OF HAWAI'I
Data taken from U.S. Census 2000 as reported at State of Hawai'i, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) at:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db01/01/013001.pdf
The Census Bureau reported that the entire population of Hawai'i in April 1, 2000 was 1,211,537. To produce the percentages below, take the number of individuals reported in the right-hand column (race alone, or in combination with one or more other races); and divide by the total population of Hawai'i. Some analysts might think that the figures in the "race alone" column would make a better comparison with the UH data where students could choose only one race. But that would be mistaken. In the Census data, each person was allowed to choose as many ethnic affiliations as desired; therefore, someone choosing only a single race did so voluntarily and was making an affirmative decision that it was true that he/she has only one race. As noted above in part (1), the percentages from Census 2000 add up to over 120%, because individuals were counted as belonging to every racial or ethnic group whose box they marked on the Census form.
Total Hawai'i Population = 1,211,537
Caucasian: 476,162 = 39.3%
Japanese: 296,674 = 24.5%
Hawaiian: 239,655 = 19.8%
Filipino: 275,728 = 22.8%
Chinese: 171,859 = 14.2%
(including Taiwanese)
----------------------------------
(3) ETHNIC PERCENTAGE OF UH ENROLLMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF STATE POPULATION PERCENTAGE --> ADJUSTED PERCENTAGES BY WHICH ETHNIC GROUPS ARE OVER-REPRESENTED OR UNDER-REPRESENTED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I STUDENT BODY
The title of this section is unfortunately difficult and convoluted. The idea is this: For each ethnic group, take the percentage reported in part (1) (percent of UH student population) and divide that by the percentage reported in part (2) (percentage of state population). A result of 100% would mean that this particular ethnic group has the same percent of UH students as it has of the state's population. A result above 100% would mean that this group has more students at UH than would be expected; and a result below 100% would mean that this group is under-represented at UH. However, it will be seen that every group is below 100% -- that's because the UH figures add up to exactly 100% (each student allocated to exactly one ethnicity) whereas the Census figures add up to more than 120% (that's because each individual could choose to be counted in more than one ethnic group). And also, only 75% of the UH students are allocated to any particular ethnic group because 25% are either "mixed" or "other." Therefore, after presenting the initial results, an adjustment will be made to re-set the average at 100%.
Caucasian: 20.9% / 39.3% = 53.2%
Japanese: 17.6% / 24.5% = 71.8%
Hawaiian: 13.6% / 19.8% = 68.7%
Filipino: 13.2% / 22.8% = 57.9%
Chinese: 6.3% / 14.2% = 44.4%
Adding up those percentages of percentages and dividing by 5, the average would be 59.2. Now taking each of the percentages of percentages, and dividing by this average of 59.2; and then rearranging the order to place over-represented at the top and under-represented at the bottom, we get the following final results:
Japanese = 121.3% (greatly over-represented at UH, by 21.3%)
Hawaiian = 116.0% (significantly over-represented at UH, by 16.0%)
Filipino = 97.8% (barely under-represented at UH, by 2.2%)
Caucasian = 89.9% (significantly under-represented at UH, by 10.1%)
Chinese = 75.0% (greatly under-represented at UH, by 25.0%)
The statistical conclusions are, then, that ethnic Japanese are greatly over-represented in the UH student body; ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented; ethnic Filipinos are represented appropriately; ethnic Caucasians are significantly under-represented; and ethnic Chinese are greatly under-represented.
The moral and legal conclusions are that any affirmative action programs justified as promoting ethnic diversity or ethnic representation at the University of Hawai'i proportionate to state population (such as tuition waivers, scholarships, special tutoring, etc.) would be appropriate only for ethnic Chinese and Caucasians, and would be improper for ethnic Japanese and Hawaiians. Personally, the author of this website is opposed to any such affirmative action, and believes that individuals should be given equal treatment regardless of race, based on individual assessments of such race-neutral factors as academic qualifications, financial need, and personal achievement in the face of individual adversity. But the Supreme Court has spoken in the University of Michigan cases, saying that diversity can be a compelling governmental interest, and therefore a public university may use race in a limited way as one among many criteria for awarding admission (although it is not required to do so). However, it would seem improper to use race as a favorable factor for someone whose ethnic group is significantly over-represented. Regarding the University of Hawai'i, it seems clear from the data that anyone of Chinese or Caucasian ancestry who fails to receive preferences for admission or financial aid based on race, while at the same time persons of Japanese or Hawaiian ancestry are receiving such racial preferences, would have a cause for action against the University of Hawai'i on the grounds of racial discrimination. The author is not aware of any UH tuition waivers set aside for Hawai'i citizens of Japanese ancestry, Filipino ancestry, Caucasian ancestry, or Chinese ancestry. But for the 2002-2003 academic year there were at least 110 such waivers each semester set aside on a racially exclusionary basis for ethnic Hawaiian students, who were a significantly over-represented group.
============================
============================
FOLLOWING IS A LETTER PUBLISHED JULY 3, 2003 BY THE MODERATOR OF TWO INTERNET E-MAIL LISTS BASED IN CALIFORNIA, TO WHOM THIS WEBPAGE WAS SENT. THE LETTER EXPLAINS SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WEBPAGE FOR ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE OUTSIDE HAWAI'I, INCLUDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, REVERSE DISCRIMINATION, RACE-BASED FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE ETHNIC DIVERSITY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, AND THE QUESTION WHETHER THE GATHERING OF RACIAL DATA IS HELPFUL OR HARMFUL TO ACHIEVING EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW (FOR EXAMPLE, THE CALIFORNIA RACIAL PRIVACY INITIATIVE).
I have just completed a small new webpage that might be of interest to AADAP [Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences] and also CAS [the California Association of Scholars]. The webpage directly addresses only a small matter of local interest in Hawai'i. It shows that ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented at the University of Hawai'i while Caucasians are significantly under-represented; therefore, the long-standing system of race-based tuition waivers for ethnic Hawaiians is harmful to diversity on campus. But the webpage has implications for the nationwide debate over affirmative action, race-based financial incentives to promote ethnic diversity on college campuses, and the question whether the gathering of racial data is helpful or harmful to achieving equality under the law (for example, the California Racial Privacy Initiative).
Here's the webpage, and then I'll discuss some of the broader issues it suggests for AADAP and CAS.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/UHstudentethnicity.html
As you know, there are over 160 racially exclusionary government programs for "Native Hawaiians," i.e., anyone who has at least one ancestor who lived in Hawai'i prior to 1778 (the date of first Western contact). To receive benefits from these programs people must prove their Hawaiian ancestry by using grandparents' birth certificates specifying "Hawaiian" race, or other family or public records, or by being included in a racial registry kept by the state government's Office of Hawaiian Affairs. These programs are justified by the Hawaiian grievance industry on the grounds that Hawaiians are a poor, downtrodden race; that they are the "indigenous" people of Hawai'i; and that reparations are owed for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. Of course these racially exclusionary government programs are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, which is why the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill has been proposed (S.344 and H.R.665) in order to create a phony Indian tribe that could legally discriminate and exclude.
One such racial program has been the long-standing practice of giving hundreds of tuition waivers at the University of Hawai'i, earmarked for students of Hawaiian ancestry (in addition to the usual non-racial needs-based scholarships). Not all ethnic Hawaiians receive free tuition, although in recent years there has been strong pressure in the Legislature to provide that.
The race-based tuition waivers are justified by all the usual arguments of the Hawaiian grievance industry, PLUS the special claim that ethnic Hawaiians are under-represented at the University of Hawai'i. This latter claim is, presumably, that there are fewer ethnic Hawaiian students attending the university than would be expected based on the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians in the state's population. Hawaiian activists claim the (alleged) under-representation is due to (alleged) discrimination, plus the (alleged) poverty of ethnic Hawaiians. Therefore, they say, the university should provide free tuition to ethnic Hawaiians in order to increase their representation in the student body.
My new webpage compares the percentages of the five largest ethnic groups in the student body of the University of Hawai'i, against the percentages of those same ethnic groups in the general population of the State of Hawai'i. The results clearly show that ethnic Japanese are greatly over-represented at UH; ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented; ethnic Filipinos are at an appropriate level; Caucasians are significantly under-represented; and ethnic Chinese are greatly under-represented. The clear conclusion is that race-based tuition for ethnic Hawaiians cannot be justified as a tool for promoting diversity on campus.
Now, here's where it gets interesting on the issues of affirmative action, racial preferences, reverse discrimination, and the Supreme Court's newly-invented "compelling governmental interest" in promoting diversity.
The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the University of Michigan cases held that diversity is a compelling governmental interest; and that a state university has the right to give racial preferences on a limited basis, as one factor among many factors, to make decisions regarding whom to admit. However, it would obviously be wrong for a university to give racial preference to an over-represented group while failing to give racial preference to an under-represented group. Thus, Caucasians and ethnic Chinese who apply to the University of Hawai'i, or who seek tuition waivers, would seem to have a cause for legal action against the University on at least two grounds: that preferences for ethnic Hawaiians are contrary to the compelling governmental interest in promoting diversity as newly proclaimed by the Supreme Court; and that preferences or financial incentives for an over-represented group while no such incentives are given to an under-represented group, violates the rights of similarly situated individuals to equal protection of the law.
There are also some important implications for the racial privacy initiative.
An important similarity between California and Hawai'i is that Hawai'i has long been a society where every ethnic group is a minority, and California is rapidly heading in that direction. Affirmative action, minority rights, and civil rights look very different in such an environment than in traditional situations where whites are a large majority, blacks are a significant minority, and other groups are far in the background. When every group is a minority, it might be more important than traditionally for government to gather racial data in order to measure the fairness and effectiveness of government policies in administering equal protection under the law. For example, the webpage I created to destroy a myth of ethnic Hawaiian under-representation would have been impossible without racial data collected by the university and racial data collected by the U.S. Census. If we already had a colorblind government providing equal protection, then we would not need racial data. But in Hawai'i there is one racial group (ethnic Hawaiians) highly favored by official government policy at both the federal and state levels; and racial data can help to provide moral and legal arguments that such favoritism is bad.
A very important difference between California and Hawai'i is that in California you have a relatively mild form of racial preferences and affirmative action, while in Hawai'i we have a virulent and powerfully entrenched system of absolute racially exclusionary government programs. Our system of racial programs is so pervasive and economically important that the political power brokers, both Republican and Democrat, are strongly supporting the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill to create a government apartheid system that would protect the racial programs against 14th Amendment attacks. In the context of Hawai'i, the Racial Privacy Initiative would be a wonderful thing. Overnight it would dismantle our racially exclusionary government programs. Government could no longer ask ethnic Hawaiians to prove they have at least one native ancestor; and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs could no longer add to or maintain its racial registry. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs could no longer refuse to provide benefits to poor people lacking Hawaiian ancestry; the Department of Hawaiian Homelands could no longer refuse to issue homestead leases to anyone lacking at least 50% native blood quantum.
So, in the context of Hawai'i a Racial Privacy Initiative might very well be a silver bullet to kill an evil empire of racial entitlements. For college admissions the zealots of diversity and racial preferences would probably try to use essays or other subjective devices to identify members of the favored race and give them preferences. Perhaps such techniques might work for government subsidized healthcare, housing, and other benefits. But the clearcut racial exclusions now being practiced would no longer be possible if there were a Hawai’i RPI. Having racial data has helped me prove that the program of tuition waivers for ethnic Hawaiians is contrary to a quest for diversity at the University of Hawai'i. However, if the university were prohibited from asking students the race question in the first place, then such a program of race-based tuition waivers would immediately vanish, or be much harder to preserve, and my little statistical study would never have been necessary.
One more item is worth mentioning. Ethnic percentages vary considerably from one campus of the University of Hawai'i to another, and some might argue the variation is due to ethnic differences in income. Anyone wishing to study those campus variations can follow the URLs offered on my webpage. Caucasians tend to be better represented at the flagship campus and less well represented at the community colleges, while the opposite is true for ethnic Hawaiians. That might be due to the fact that community colleges have substantially lower tuitions and students there nearly always live at home while attending (bear in mind that community colleges on the "neighbor islands" are separated from each other and from the flagship campus by many miles of ocean!). The Hawaiian grievance industry would like to couple those facts with the claim that ethnic Hawaiians are poor and downtrodden, which would account for their going to community colleges rather than to the flagship campus. But here comes another piece of racial data disproving that claim. According to Census 2000 the annual family median income for the entire State of Hawai'i in 1999 was $56,961 compared against the Caucasian median family income of $55,543 and ethnic Hawaiian median of $49,282. But I would guess that discrepancy is mostly attributable to the differences in median age. Statewide median age is 36.2, Caucasian median age is 33.4, and ethnic Hawaiian median age is 25.3. 25 is very young to be getting big incomes, whereas 36 is an age when people are well established in a career. Also worth noting -- 13.1% of all ethnic Hawaiians are in families with incomes above $100,000 -- they surely are not poor or downtrodden, and neither are the 50% with incomes above $49,282. There is also a social explanation why Caucasians are under-represented at UH while ethnic Hawaiians and Japanese are over-represented. The University of Hawai’i is considered second-rate by many residents, who prefer to be educated on the mainland. Caucasians who can afford it are more willing to go to the mainland than ethnic Hawaiians or Japanese, because Caucasians (who sometimes feel a racial stigma in Hawai’i) will find a social environment on mainland campuses where they are the dominant group. By contrast, ethnic Hawaiians and Japanese prefer to stay at home in Hawai’i, where they dominate the social environment, but fear discrimination on the mainland.
============================
============================
ETHNIC DIVERSITY AT UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IS HARMED BY RACE-BASED TUITION WAIVERS
(An informal Hawai’i-focused essay written for the on-line newspaper Hawaii-Reporter.com)
This article was published in that newspaper on July 14, 2003 at:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e28e163a-310d-48b9-a855-c25b6232adf2
That headline will come as a shock to all who have heard Haunani-Kay Trask and Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa repeatedly claiming that ethnic Hawaiians are under-represented in the student body at the University of Hawai'i.
Each semester more than a hundred UH tuition waivers are racially earmarked exclusively for students of Hawaiian ethnicity. The Center for Hawaiian Studies professors, for several years now, have sent cadres of students to pressure the Legislature to give free tuition not just to those hundred-plus, but to all applicants with a drop of native Hawaiian blood (and to heck with everyone else). The CHS professors want lots more ethnic Hawaiians to attend UH (where they can major in Hawaiian Studies, of course, thereby increasing the size and power of the CHS faculty!). One of their main arguments in favor of free tuition has been a claim that ethnic Hawaiians are under-represented in the UH student body. But that claim turns out to be false. Not just slightly off-base, but dramatically false. Statistics are provided below.
In addition to tuition waivers, ethnic Hawaiians at UH also have race-based scholarships, race-based tutoring and counseling, special advocates or ombudsmen to represent them in disputes with students, professors, or administrators, etc. On September 17, 2002, the student newspaper "Ka Leo" reported on an enrollment party sponsored by the Center for Hawaiian Studies at which it was announced that there were 110 race-based tuition waivers available exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians:
http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/09/17/3d86c2bea6d3d
The article said: "The celebration not only offered students and community members a chance to become familiar with each other, it was also available free of charge. The event featured live music ... a traditional Hawaiian meal and information regarding resources available to students of Hawaiian ancestry attending the University of Hawai'i at Manoa ... The main goal of the program is to 'increase matriculation of Native Hawaiian students on the UHM campus.' They are trying to get the word out that they have 110 tuition waivers available to qualifying Native Hawaiian students each semester, as well as other supportive services."
Interest was high when the Supreme Court recently published its controversial decisions in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. The Court ruled that a public university has a right to give a racial preference as one among many factors in making admissions decisions. The Court broke new ground, saying it can be a compelling governmental interest for a public university to have a racially diverse student body, and that racial preferences can be used, to a limited extent, for the purpose of increasing minority representation to reach a "critical mass." But although the Court did not say so, it is an obvious corollary that a racial group which is already over-represented should not be given additional race-based enrollment incentives. Indeed, members of an under-represented minority who do not receive race-based incentives would seem to have a cause for legal action against a university that provides race-based incentives to an already over-represented group.
Activists claim that ethnic Hawaiians are greatly under-represented among students at the University of Hawai'i. What they seem to be claiming is that the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians among the students attending the university is substantially smaller than the percentage of ethnic Hawaiians in the population of Hawai'i. But the facts show the opposite.
During the most recent semester for which data are available (Fall 2002) the University of Hawai'i Institutional Research Office reports systemwide ethnic enrollment percentages as: Caucasian 20.9, Japanese 17.6, Hawaiian 13.6, Filipino 13.2, Mixed 11.3, Chinese 6.3, Pacific Islanders 2.6, All others 14.4. And in Census 2000, the five major ethnic groups had the following percentages of Hawai'i's total population: Caucasian 39.3, Japanese 24.5, Hawaiian 19.8, Filipino 22.8, Chinese (including Taiwanese) 14.2.
A quick glance at those data will show that the Hawaiian percentage of UH student enrollment is more than two-thirds of the Hawaiian percentage of state population, while Caucasian percentage of UH students is barely over half of the Caucasian percentage of state population. Thus, ethnic Hawaiians are clearly over-represented compared to Caucasians (and also Filipinos and Chinese).
The unadjusted UH data actually show that every ethnic group is under-represented at UH!! That surprising (and impossible) result stems from the fact that more than one-fourth of UH students are not allocated to any particular group, being either "mixed" or "other." Another difficulty is that the UH method of counting allowed students to choose only one ethnic affiliation, while the Census method of counting allowed people to choose as many ethnic affiliations as they want. Thus, UH percentages add up to exactly 100% (including mixed and other), while Census percentages add up to more than 120% just for the five major groups. Another complication is that ethnic percentages vary significantly from one campus of the UH system to another.
A complete analysis of the data, including the sources of the data, is provided at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/UHstudentethnicity.html
The final adjusted results for the University of Hawai'i systemwide are as follows: ethnic Japanese are greatly over-represented at UH, by 21.3%; ethnic Hawaiians are significantly over-represented at UH, by 16.0%; ethnic Filipinos are appropriately represented, with a negligible 2.2% under-representation; Caucasians are significantly under-represented at UH, by 10.1%; and ethnic Chinese are greatly under-represented at UH, by 25.0%.
This essay has explored only the falsehood of alleged under-representation of ethnic Hawaiians as a percentage of the UH student body. Of course the activists give many other reasons why ethnic Hawaiians should be given free tuition and other special advantages. All these reasons are false, but that doesn't prevent them from being put forward by the Hawaiian grievance industry at every opportunity.
For example the following reasons are offered (and each is refuted by the webpage cited immediately after it):
Ethnic Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawai'i. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html
Hawai'i is the homeland of ethnic Hawaiians where they are the hosts and everyone else is merely a guest. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fullpartners.html
Ethnic Hawaiians are owed reparations for the overthrow of the monarchy. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hanifinreparations.html
Ethnic Hawaiians are entitled to free tuition as part of the "rent" the University owes to them for use of the ceded lands. Refuted at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/cededlands.html
Also, it is claimed that ethnic Hawaiians are a poor, downtrodden race in need of government assistance. But Census 2000 shows that the median family income for ethnic Hawaiians in 1999 was $49,282 and that 13.1% of them had incomes above $100,000 even though their median age was only 25.3 (compared to a statewide median age of 36.2). The data for ethnic Hawaiians, taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and reported at the State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) can be found at:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/census2k/sf4profiles/xnhstate.pdf
A ballot initiative to be offered in the next election in the State of California may be of interest here. It is called the Racial Privacy Initiative. The proposal is to prohibit the state and local governments from collecting or maintaining racial data about individuals, except for very restricted purposes like medical research. The theory is that government should not be discriminating for or against any individual on the basis of race, so denying racial data to government will help ensure equality under the law. Government should give help to needy individuals on the basis of their individual need; government should not be giving freebies to entire racial groups, or to individuals on account of racial affiliation.
In Hawai'i there are over 160 racial entitlement programs for ethnic Hawaiians.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/listhawnentitlements.html
All of those programs are vulnerable to lawsuits that they are unconstitutional; for example, the Arakaki v. Lingle lawsuit claiming that OHA and DHHL are unconstitutional.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/arakaki2ohadhhl.html
The race-based programs are so deeply entrenched in the economy and social structure of Hawai'i that both Republicans and Democrats are zealously supporting the apartheid Akaka bill to protect the racial programs even at the cost of long-term balkanization and political instability.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/OpposeAkakaBill.html
The availability of racial data allows us to disprove some of the victimhood claims of the Hawaiian grievance industry. In any case, needy people should get government assistance based on individual need and not race. But if a racial privacy initiative were to be passed in Hawai'i, as is being placed on the ballot in California, it would go a long way toward helping us all think of each other as Americans who deserve to be treated equally by our government. Just imagine a Hawai'i where government agencies are no longer allowed to ask for or keep track of racial affiliation; a Hawai'i where people who need government assistance no longer have racially segregated agencies or waiting lists; a Hawai'i with no "white" and "colored" drinking fountains.
** Note added January 7, 2013: This webpage was produced in 2003 using data from Census 2000 and from then-recent enrollment statistics for the University of Hawaii. Ten years later a new webpage has been produced, using data from Census 2010 and UH enrollment statistics appearing on UH webpages in December 2012. The new webpage produced in 2013 can be seen at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/UnderrepMinoritiesUH.html
===================
(c) Copyright 2003, Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE