LIST OF QUESTIONS IN THE ORDER THEY ARE ANSWERED
Q: Where can I read the complete 9th Circuit decision in Doe v. Kamehameha?
Q: Where can I listen to an audio tape of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court from November 5, 2004 that led to the decision handed down on August 2, 2005?
Q: Briefly, why is the Kamehameha court decision so important in the overall picture of race relations and Hawaiian sovereignty?
Q: Is there significant anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement? Was there anti-Americanism in the Kamehameha protest rally and march of August 6, 2005?
Q: Conklin, why are you making a career out of picking on Hawaiians? Don't other ethnic groups have race-specific institutions? The Japanese Chamber of Commerce? See Dai Doo? The Filipino Cultural Center? Murphy's and O'Toole's pubs?
Q: Ethnic Hawaiians are a 20% minority. How can they possibly exercise racial supremacy?
Q: Why do almost all Hawai'i politicians support the Akaka bill, the Kamehameha admissions policy, and the plethora of race-based programs?
Q: What's up with Governor Lingle?
Q: Is Kamehameha really a racist institution? What about OHA, DHHL, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, Na Pua No'eau, Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Center, Native Hawaiian Leadership Program, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, and those 160 racially exclusionary programs -- are those racist?
Q: "Racism"? In Hawai'i we don't have snarling dogs attacking haoles for being in the wrong part of town; we don't have Hawaiians wearing sheets and pointy hats burning crosses; and it's not likely we'll ever see a bunch of Filipinos or haoles marching down the street singing "We shall overcome."
Q: Isn't Kamehameha a private school? Can't someone leave private property to friends and family in a Will? Isn't a Will sacred anymore?
Q: Aren't there children of all races at Kamehameha? There are ethnic Japanese (as long as they have at least a little Hawaiian ancestry). There are Irish (just so they have a little Hawaiian). There are African Americans (with a little Hawaiian blood). Kamehameha looks like the United Nations!
Q: Isn't Hawaiian culture is a treasure worth preserving? What would Hawai'i be without Hawaiians? No Hawaiians, no aloha!
Q: What did the court actually say in Doe v. Kamehameha?
Q: Does this decision mean that the Will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop is now abolished or broken?
Q: But haven't we been repeatedly told by Bishop Estate trustees and sovereignty activists that the Will requires that only ethnic Hawaiians can be admitted to Kamehameha Schools?
Q: Is there any part of Pauahi's Will that has been ruled illegal?
Q: Are there any provisions of the Will that the trustees themselves have ignored or set aside?
Q: No child lacking Hawaiian native ancestry was allowed to attend the school from 1965 until 2002. What happened in 2002?
Q: Then what happened from 2003 to 2005?
Q: What's going to happen next with Kamehameha Schools?
Q: How are the Kamehameha lawsuit, and the Arakaki lawsuit (to abolish OHA and DHHL), related to the Akaka bill?
Q: Any other tidbits from the Kamehameha decision?
------------------
Q: Where can I read the complete 9th Circuit decision in Doe v. Kamehameha?
A:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/Kamehameha9thCircuit070205.pdf
Page numbers cited below refer to this 45-page pdf document, and might be different from a printed Opinion because the pdf page numbering includes the legal "caption" and other preliminary items.
Q: Where can I listen to an audio tape of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court from November 5, 2004 that led to the decision handed down on August 2, 2005?
A: Audio tapes of 9th Circuit oral arguments are generally available for available for all cases since they started saving audio files. Click here to reach the 9th Circuit web site
Select the "Audio Files" button at the top left, and then enter the case number when the search box appears.
For Doe v. Kamehameha:
Case # 04-15044 and download is 8.52MB. Dialup internet users should think twice before trying to download such a large file.
It appears the following is the URL for downloading this file directly by clicking here (but it still requires a lengthy download time)
Q: Briefly, why is the Kamehameha court decision so important in the overall picture of race relations and Hawaiian sovereignty?
A: For many decades Hawai'i has been building a wall of apartheid. The court decision in Doe v. Kamehameha removes one brick from that wall of apartheid. Court documents in various lawsuits, and legislation in Congress, boast there are more than 160 federally-funded racially exclusionary programs for ethnic Hawaiians; therefore it must be legal to keep creating more.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/listhawnentitlements.html
There are also entire departments of the State of Hawai'i (OHA, DHHL), plus wealthy and powerful private institutions like Kamehameha. Hawai'i already has a two-tier citizenship: ethnic Hawaiians receive hundreds of special government and private benefits not available to anyone else, plus all the same rights and benefits given to everyone else. The 80% of our people who lack a drop of the magic blood are second-class citizens; and the gap is widening. The Akaka bill now in Congress seeks to protect these race-based programs against court challenges and to empower a tremendous expansion of racism by authorizing creation of a racially exclusionary government empowered to control lands and resources currently belonging to all Hawai'i's people. This evil empire needs to be stopped and dismantled. Hawai'i is at a tipping point -- either we tear down this wall of apartheid, or else it will grow ever stronger.
The huge red-shirt march of August 6, 2005 protesting the Kamehameha decision was very similar to the huge red-shirt march of September 6, 2004; see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/redshirtsept2004.html
News coverage of the Kamehameha decision and community reaction can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2005.html
However warm and fuzzy we feel watching elders, teens, and babies in the streets on a beautiful day, we must decide whether mob rule and intimidation should trump the rule of law.
Q: Is there significant anti-Americanism in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement? Was there anti-Americanism in the Kamehameha protest rally and march of August 6, 2005?
A: See a webpage containing photographs of Anti-American Hawaiian activist protesters at this event, and links to explanatory webpages:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AntiAmericanHawaiianProtesters.html
Q: Conklin, why are you making a career out of picking on Hawaiians? Don't other ethnic groups have race-specific institutions? The Japanese Chamber of Commerce? See Dai Doo? The Filipino Cultural Center? Murphy's and O'Toole's pubs?
A: No other ethnic group in Hawai'i has such wealthy, powerful institutions. No other ethnic group in Hawai'i has leadership seeking to create a race-based government for itself in order to protect its wall of apartheid and build it even higher. No other ethnic group in all of America has activists trying to do this, except for MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), which claims a right for the "indigenous" (at least one drop of Aztec blood) Chicanos whose ancestral lands were overwhelmed by the United States without their consent and without compensation to them (sound familiar?) to set up a race-based government and force secession of several states from the United States. For comparison between the Nation of Aztlan and Hawaiian ethnic nationalism, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaHawnChicanoNatnl.html
Q: Ethnic Hawaiians are a 20% minority. How can they possibly exercise racial supremacy?
A: Not too long ago the white minority in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa maintained racial supremacy in apartheid regimes that oppressed black populations who had huge majorities. Minority ppression of the majority in Rhodesia and South Africa was violent and brutal. The racial oppression in Hawai'i is subtle, done with a velvet glove. But if the Akaka bill passes, that velvet glove will quickly be removed to reveal the brass knuckles underneath.
Q: Why do almost all Hawai'i politicians support the Akaka bill, the Kamehameha admissions policy, and the plethora of race-based programs?
A: Ethnic Hawaiians comprise 20% of our population. Rightly or wrongly, politicians perceive them to be a monolithic voting bloc -- a 20% "swing vote" that must be bowed down to. Some politicians, like Governor Lingle, seem to be genuinely enthusiastic for Hawaiian ethnic nationalism or racial separatism. The "liberal" political climate in Hawai'i treats ethnic Hawaiians like a state mascot or pet -- a noble and wise but poor and downtrodden victim who makes us feel good when we give it treats or pet it. For an analysis of the mascot syndrome, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawnsasmascots.html
Some politicians and ordinary citizens say privately they know racially exclusionary programs are legally and morally wrong, but they refuse to say that in public. The general population, including perhaps most ethnic Hawaiians, remain silent because they feel intimidated. Our federal Senators and Congressmen are zealous to "bring home the bacon" in the form of military spending and pork barrel projects, regardless of consequences to the physical and social environment.
Q: What's up with Governor Lingle?
A: She is a Republican in name only, behaving like a left-wing Democrat, raising taxes contrary to her pledge and sponsoring big-government projects. She is badly afflicted with the mascot syndrome (see previous answer). She's a political animal hoping to solidify her support from the 20% ethnic Hawaiian swing vote. But she also seems to be a "true believer" in her support for Kamehameha's illegal policy and for the racist Akaka bill. Some people might remember Alabama Governor George Wallace, who was terribly racist when in office. But later in life, he mellowed and repented his previous racism. Perhaps Governor Lingle might repent before she leaves office? Not likely! She only has a year left and seems headed for defeat. For now, she stands side by side with Governor Wallace. His inaugural speech is filled with references to God, and to the virtues that run in the blood of white people. The similarities are amazing. Wallace's most famous slogan belongs today in the mouths of Linda Lingle and Diane Plotts (Chair of the Kamehameha trustees): "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Here's one paragraph of Wallace's famous speech:
"Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever." The full speech can be found in the Alabama state archives on-line, at:
http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.html
Q: Is Kamehameha really a racist institution? What about OHA, DHHL, Alu Like, Papa Ola Lokahi, Na Pua No'eau, Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Center, Native Hawaiian Leadership Program, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, and those 160 racially exclusionary programs -- are those racist?
A: Racism is not always about personal feelings of hatred or disgust. Kamehameha, and all those institutions, have some very nice people working for them, and provide valuable services to nice people, some of whom might be truly needy. But even though the people staffing an institution might be nice, and the people receiving services might be nice, the institution itself can be racist. Political "liberals" often define "racism" to mean "the use of economic or political power by one racial group to oppress or discriminate against people of another racial group who lack power." But by that definition those ethnic Hawaiian institutions are clearly racist, because they are indeed wealthy and powerful, as are the individual ethnic Hawaiians who run those institutions.; and they exercise that power to exclude powerless individuals of the "wrong" race(s). Certainly the Akaka bill is racist, because it would authorize establishing a racially exclusionary government with real power to make laws and control lands.
Q: "Racism"? In Hawai'i we don't have snarling dogs attacking haoles for being in the wrong part of town; we don't have Hawaiians wearing sheets and pointy hats burning crosses; and it's not likely we'll ever see a bunch of Filipinos or haoles marching down the street singing "We shall overcome."
A: Institutional racism is usually quiet, but effective. Also, in Hawai'i there's a different kind of racism from that found on the mainland -- a more quiet but deep racism of the type previously found in Germany in the 1930s. Hawaiian metaphysical racism is based on a religious theory that every ethnic Hawaiian (one drop of the magic blood is sufficient) is descended from the gods and has a genealogical relationship with the land; while other people lacking a drop of the magic blood are merely guests or outsiders in an "indigenous" homeland. This religious theory is used as a basis for asserting an inherent right to racial supremacy in political power. Students at Kamehameha Schools (and the "host culture" charter schools Kamehameha also now controls) are indoctrinated with metaphysical racism and feelings of racial "entitlement" to political control over their "indigenous" homeland. Kamehameha thus functions as a kind of "madrassa" like those found in Saudi Arabia. For a detailed analysis of Hawaiian metaphysical racism, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/racismhawsov.html
and for an explanation of the ancient Hawaiian religious theory underlying it, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/religion.html
Q: Isn't Kamehameha a private school? Can't someone leave private property to friends and family in a Will? Isn't a Will sacred anymore?
A: Not too long ago there were all-white suburban communities where every property deed contained a racial covenant requiring property owners to sell only to white buyers. That was private property; but those racial covenants were ruled illegal. Lester Maddox, Governor of Georgia in the late 1960s, was the owner of a restaurant in downtown Atlanta, where he used an axe handle to keep Negroes out of his restaurant. It was his private restaurant, but the law forced him to desegregate or else shut down. Kamehameha also benefits from hundreds of millions of dollars annually in tax exemptions because it is a charitable trust. But even if it gave up the tax exemption, and even though it is private, our laws say it is illegal to exclude people because of race. Some Hawaiian activists like to say that every person with any Hawaiian blood is part of a big family; but the law doesn't recognize a widely dispersed and greatly attenuated "blood brotherhood" as having the rights of a family. A Will is "sacred" only to the extent that its provisions are legal. If something is illegal for a living person to do, then it is also illegal for a dead person to command living people to do that through the terms of a will. But note the discussion below: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did NOT overturn the Will. The Court had no quarrel at all with the Will. Amazing but true. See below for details.
Q: Aren't there children of all races at Kamehameha? There are ethnic Japanese (as long as they have at least a little Hawaiian ancestry). There are Irish (just so they have a little Hawaiian). There are African Americans (with a little Hawaiian blood). Kamehameha looks like the United Nations!
A: When Governor Lester Maddox used his axe handle to keep Negroes out of his private chicken restaurant, he was only discriminating against perhaps 30% of Georgia's people, and perhaps 10% of all the people of America. Kamehameha is excluding 80% of Hawai'i's children from its schools for no reason other than race; and 99% of all the children of America. The court has ruled that the kind of racial exclusion practiced by Kamehameha is illegal because it violates the civil rights of everyone.
Q: Isn't Hawaiian culture is a treasure worth preserving? What would Hawai'i be without Hawaiians? No Hawaiians, no aloha!
A: Yes, Hawaiian culture is a great treasure for all Hawai'i's people and for the world. That's why so many people with no native ancestry actively participate in various Hawaiian cultural activities, and speak Hawaiian language. A culture belongs to all who participate in it, not to just one race. The population of ethnic Hawaiians has multiplied tenfold during the first century of American sovereignty, from fewer than 40,000 in 1900 to more than 400,000 in Census 2000. Hawaiian culture has enjoyed a tremendous renaissance during the past 30 years, without any need for a race-based government. Kamehameha School itself formerly did not allow hula, and did not teach Hawaiian language. If Kamehameha wants to define itself by a Hawaiian cultural focus, it can do that without racial discrimination. And what do you mean, "No Hawaiians no aloha?" Aloha is not the property of any racial group. Even if some terrible disease suddenly wiped out every ethnic Hawaiian, the Aloha Spirit would still live. A Christian might describe the Aloha Spirit as one of the manifestations of God who dwells within all human beings; the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of the Trinity, and as such is extraordinarily powerful and not limited by race or nationality.
Q: What did the court actually say in Doe v. Kamehameha?
A: "...we agree with Doe and find that the Schools' admissions policy, which operates in practice as an absolute bar to admission for those of the non-preferred race, constitutes unlawful race discrimination ..." (page 4)
Q: Does this decision mean that the Will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop is now abolished or broken?
A: Absolutely not. On the contrary. The 3 judges unanimously agreed that the Will is not racist.
Q: What? That can't be true.
A: Here's what the three judges unanimously wrote about the Will: "Pauahi's will contains several instructions pertaining to the administration of the Kamehameha Schools, none of which establish race as an admissions criteria." (pages 5-6) "... She further instructs that a portion of the trust’s annual income should be devoted 'to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.' Pauahi Bishop Will at 18. While this racial preference is expressly listed as a criterion for the administration of estate resources charitably directed to orphans and indigents, the Will is notably devoid of any mention of race as a criterion for admission into the Kamehameha Schools. As the Schools’ 1885 Prospectus observed: 'The noble minded Hawaiian chiefess who endowed the Kamehameha Schools, put no limitations of race or condition on her general bequest. Instruction will be given only in English language, but The Schools will be opened to all nationalities.'" (page 6). Footnote #2 on page 6 adds: "Similarly, in a February 11, 1897 letter, Charles Bishop noted: 'There is nothing in the will of Mrs. Bishop excluding white boys or girls from the Schools . . . .' In a February 20, 1901 letter he further stated: 'According to the reading of Clause 13 on Page 8 of the Will as published, the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood, applies only to education of orphans and others in indigent circumstances.'" And again, on page 40 in summarizing the decision, the judges wrote: "[14] We emphasize that our ruling today is a narrow one. We conclude only that the plaintiff-appellant has met his burden
of establishing the invalidity of the racially exclusionary affirmative action plan in place at the Kamehameha Schools, as that plan currently operates as an absolute bar to admission for those of the non-preferred race. Nothing in our decision, however, implicates the validity of the Pauahi Bishop Will, as we do not read that document to require the use of race as an admissions prerequisite. Consequently, we affirm the entry of summary judgment for the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate and its individual trustees."
Q: Say that again in simple language?
A: Race is mentioned only one time in the entire Will. It says there will be ONLY A PREFERENCE, NOT AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT, for children of the aboriginal blood; AND THAT PREFERENCE ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN WHO ARE ORPHANS OR INDIGENTS, not the vast majority of children admitted to Kamehameha Schools. The Court has no quarrel with the Will.
Q: But haven't we been repeatedly told by Bishop Estate trustees and sovereignty activists that the Will requires that only ethnic Hawaiians can be admitted to Kamehameha Schools?
A: Yes, indeed. This is one of many Hawaiian sovereignty falsehoods repeated so often and for such a long time that the general community comes to believe it. A webpage created in summer 2000, after the Rice decision, has been trying to de-bunk this lie for five years; and also provides historical evidence that white children were admitted to Kamehameha in its early decades. But by policy of the Board of Trustees, no child lacking Hawaiian native ancestry was allowed to attend the school from 1965 until 2002. See:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool.html
A 3-judge panel has now finally confirmed what that webpage was saying all along -- the Will never imposed any racial requirement on admissions -- the Will only established a racial preference, and that racial preference was only in relation to the small category of children who are orphans or whose families are financially destitute. The schools currently have an outreach policy to ensure that 15% of the students are orphans or indigents; and to achieve that goal, they vastly increased the number of "orphans" by redefining "orphan" to require that only one parent must be either dead or missing -- a child can be living at home with one of his parents and still be called an "orphan" by Kamehameha Schools.
Q: Is there any part of Pauahi's Will that has been ruled illegal?
A: Not in this court decision of August 2005. There was a provision of the Will previously struck down by a court. Paragraph 13 in the Will says "I also direct that the teachers of said schools shall forever be persons of the Protestant religion, but I do not intend that the choice should be restricted to persons of any particular sect of Protestants." A District Court decision in 1991 struck down that requirement. (E.E.O.C. v. Kamehameha Schools, 780 F. Supp. 1317 (D. Haw. 1991). The question was whether Kamehameha is a primarily secular or a primarily religious school. Since Kamehameha does not prepare or ordain ministers, and has never been controlled or supported by a religious organization, and teaches its curriculum from a secular rather than a religious perspective, it is not a "religious school" and therefore cannot discriminate by religion in hiring teachers.
Q: Are there any provisions of the Will that the trustees themselves have ignored or set aside?
A: You mean besides imposing a racially exclusionary admissions policy the Will never required? The Will clearly says there must be "two schools, each for boarding and day scholars, one for boys and one for girls." But the gender separation was removed and the schools have been consolidated for several decades. The Will also envisions vocational training for boys and homemaker training for girls; but today the schools have rigorous academic standards and a college-preparatory liberal arts curriculum.
Q: No child lacking Hawaiian native ancestry was allowed to attend the school from 1965 until 2002. What happened in 2002?
A: The admission of non-native Kalani Rosell to the Maui campus in 2002 may have been a mistake (after all, "Kalani" is a Hawaiian name, isn't it?) or may have been part of a strategy to defend against IRS and court challenges regarding the policy of absolute 100% racial exclusion. But regardless why the youngster was admitted, a major protest was created by parents, alumni, and racist activists. School officials publicly explained that the school's admissions standards are rigorous; and after all ethnic Hawaiians who met the standards were admitted, there just happened to be one extra slot open, which they filled with Kalani Rosell. Following that absurd explanation, and a huge outcry from the racists, the school announced it would greatly expand its outreach program to solicit more applications from ethnic Hawaiians, and would revamp the standards it uses for admission (to make sure enough the standards are low enough that all slots can be filled by ethnic Hawaiians?). For details about 2002, see
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamdeseg2002.html
Q: Then what happened from 2003 to 2005?
A: In 2003 two lawsuits were filed by two different plaintiffs. Brayden Mohica-Cummings was admitted to the O'ahu flagship campus for the 7th grade, because he met all the rigorous requirements and because his application said he is Hawaiian. But it turned out that he could not prove he is racially Hawaiian. His haole mother had been adopted as a little girl by a Hawaiian man, so she had considered herself and therefore her own child to be Hawaiian. By the time school officials found that the child does not have Hawaiian biological ancestry, and revoked the child's acceptance, it was only three weeks until the start of school. Judge Ezra granted a temporary restraining order forcing Kamehameha to admit the boy until the issue could be fully litigated. The school, fearing it might lose on the merits, made an agreement to allow the boy to attend Kamehameha for grades 7-12 in return for dropping the lawsuit. Once again there was a huge outcry from the racists who wanted the school to fight to the death. The other lawsuit by "John Doe" was heard by Judge Kay, who eventually ruled in favor of Kamehameha and dismissed the case. Doe appealed, and now the 9th Circuit has ruled. Also in 2004, in another try at tokenism, Kamehameha awarded 4 out of 2700 college scholarships to students with no Hawaiian native ancestry, "after 4 scholarships remained unawarded when all qualified Hawaiians had received awards." Details about 2003 are at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2003.html
and for 2004 see
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2004.html
Q: What's going to happen next with Kamehameha Schools?
A: The board of trustees has vowed to fight this decision in every way possible. Trench warfare. In the words of George Wallace, former Governor of Alabama: "Segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation forever." When the courts finally force Kamehameha to admit children with no native ancestry, the school will probably interpret the court decision to mean that if they admit a few non-Hawaiians each year, then everything will be OK. Tokenism will rule. Another lawsuit will be needed to test how large a token must be before it satisfies the letter of the law. Supporters of the admissions policy are also praying the Akaka bill will be enacted. As a tax exempt charitable trust, the school is prohibited from engaging directly in political lobbying. However, thousands of Kamehameha alumni throughout every state are lobbying Senators to support the Akaka bill, and have been doing so for several years at the request of a very strong alumni association.
Q: How are the Kamehameha lawsuit, and the Arakaki lawsuit (to abolish OHA and DHHL), related to the Akaka bill?
A: OHA and Hawaiian Homelands officials constantly scare people that without the Akaka bill, lawsuits will abolish all the Hawaiians-only programs. Let's hope they're right, and that the Akaka bill fails! Passing the Akaka bill might indeed give some left-leaning judges like Susan Graber (Kamehameha, 9th Circuit) or Ruth Ginsburg (Rice, Supreme Court) more ammunition for claiming that Hawaiians-only programs should be judged by the more permissive rational-basis test (Morton v. Mancari) appropriate to political entities rather than by the strict-scrutiny standard (Adarand) appropriate to racial groups. However, so long as OHA and DHHL remain agencies of the State of Hawai'i, they cannot engage in racial discrimination. And so long as Kamehameha remains an ordinary private school, it cannot exclude children based on race. Merely passing the Akaka bill will probably not be sufficient to "rescue" these institutions. What must happen after the Akaka bill passes is for Kamehameha to re-incorporate itself as an Indian tribal school under the authority of the Akaka tribal government; and for OHA and DHHL to reconstitute themselves likewise under tribal authority. Creating and certifying the tribe, and doing the legal paperwork to reincorporate and transfer assets, would take perhaps several years. For information about the Arakaki#2 lawsuit, including every brief filed by plaintiffs and all 5 defendants in the soon-to-be-decided 9th Circuit Court appeal, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/arakaki2ohadhhl.html
For information about the Akaka bill, including a complete history since it was first introduced in summer 2000, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/OpposeAkakaBill.html
For a 5-paragraph summary of what's bad about the bill, plus extensive documentation of all the main points, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaNationalSummary109Cong.html
Q: Any other tidbits from the Kamehameha decision?
A: The biggest lie busted by this ruling is the claim that the Will of the Princess required a racially exclusionary admissions policy. But the busting of another historical falsehood also got a small boost from this ruling. We often hear that "Hawaiian language was made illegal" or "My grandmother told me she was beaten for speaking Hawaiian in school." A large webpage filled with careful documentation shows Hawaiian language was never illegal, and that Grandma was probably punished by her own parents for speaking Hawaiian at home as well as by her teacher for speaking it at school. Impoverished Japanese and Chinese plantation workers somehow managed to open after-school and weekend academies to perpetuate their cultures and languages outside the official schools; but ethnic Hawaiians embraced English. By 1892, before the overthrow of the monarchy, 95% of all the government schools were already using English as the language of instruction because the Hawaiian parents and the sovereign Monarch demanded it. For a political analysis and historical/legal documentation regarding the so-called banning of Hawaiian language, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/hawlangillegal.html
The 3-judge Kamehameha panel made the following observation on page 6:
"As the Schools' 1885 Prospectus observed: 'The noble minded Hawaiian chiefess who endowed the Kamehameha Schools, put no limitations of race or condition on her general bequest. Instruction will be given only in English language, but The Schools will be opened to
all nationalities.'"
So here we have the most wealthy and powerful native Hawaiian chiefess, able to set up her school to use whatever language she preferred. And here we have the Trustees she appointed, opening a school 8 years before the overthrow of the monarchy, and two years before the "Bayonet Constitution," when the Hawaiian "merrie monarch" King Kalakaua ruled and was reviving hula and Hawaiian language. And that school is conducting its courses solely in English language. That was clearly a free choice, and supports the findings of the webpage that Hawaiian language went into a coma due to natural causes and not because of suppression.
================================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2005 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
