Kamehameha Schools 2007. Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc 8-7 decision overturning the earlier 9th Circuit 2-1 ruling that had ordered Kamehameha to desegregate. SETTLEMENT FILED WITH SUPREME COURT ON MAY 11, 2007; THEREFORE, PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DISMISSED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. Attorney David Rosen seeks clients for a new desegregation lawsuit not to be settled, provoking numerous outraged responses.

On this webpage is a history of the controversy regarding Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary ("Hawaiian 'preference'") admissions policy, for the year 2007. But first, a quick review of events from recent years.

QUICK REVIEW OF 2006:

During 2006 there were major events in the courts regarding Kamehameha Schools racially exclusionary admissions policy. Those events were covered at https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2006.html

Here are some of the most important court proceedings and decisions from 2006, most-recent at the top

On December 5, 2006 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its en-banc decision by a panel of 15 judges. They voted 8-7 to uphold Kamehameha's admissions policy. That decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is the full text of the 110-page en-banc decision in pdf format directly from the 9th Circuit Court website. The first 53 pages are the majority ruling, and the last 57 pages are the minority dissents.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement

The Decision of December 5 overturned the 2-1 decision by a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court that was handed down on August 2, 2005. Here is the full text of that 45-page decision by the 3-judge panel, in pdf format:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement

Oral Arguments on November 5, 2004 before the 3-judge panel (8.5 Megabytes) can be downloaded from the 9th Circuit Court website. These are the oral arguments considered by 3-judge panel the 9th Circuit in reaching its decision of August 2, 2005:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/8DF243E4ECB186DB88256F4300667F53/$file/04-15044.wma?openelement

Analysis of the 3-judge decision, in Q&A format, by Ken Conklin:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/Kam9thCircuitBigPicture.html

August 6, 2005 Red-Shirt rally with 20,000 (twenty thousand) activists at Iolani Palace protesting the 9th circuit decision -- news reports and photos
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AntiAmericanHawaiianProtesters.html

The 9th Circuit decision of August 2, 2005, plus about 120 pages of analysis and news coverage, including the huge red-shirt protest of August 7, are available at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2005.html

You may also review approximately 150 pages of news coverage and events from August 8 to December 31, 2005, (after the 9th Circuit Court decision was handed down, and after the huge August 6 pro-segregation protest of that decision) at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool2005Aug8toDec31.html

Background information about Kamehameha Schools, including analysis of the admissions policy and news coverage from years before 2005, can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/kamschool.html

NOW BEGINS NEWS AND ANALYSIS ABOUT KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS ADMISSIONS POLICY FROM YEAR 2007, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

==============

Why do civil rights activists oppose Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy? Do they hate Hawaiians? Are they jealous of Hawaiians getting a good education at a low price? What is their motivation? A new book published March 2007 puts the Kamehameha Schools controversy into the "big picture" of racial separatism in Hawai'i and how our beautiful rainbow society is being ripped apart. The book also describes the role of Kamehameha's Policy Analysis and Systems Evaluation (PASE) division in doing junk science to develop victimhood statistics to feed the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry.

"Hawaiian Apartheid -- Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" (a new book by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. 302 pages. See cover, detailed table of contents, and entire Chapter 1, plus information on how to order the book; at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

---------------------

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414553
Indian Country Today, February 23, 2007

The Kamehameha Schools issue in Hawaii

by: Steven Newcomb / Indigenous Law Institute

The Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii were founded and their admission policy created on the basis of the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a will that was executed and signed in 1883, a year before her death. [Note from Ken Conklin: As has been shown in this website, and as the judges of the 9th Circuit Court confirmed, the will of Pauahi nowhere requires a Hawaiians-only admissions policy, nor even a racial preference except for the category of orphans and indigents] At that time, the Kingdom of Hawaii was the internationally recognized government in Hawaii, and the Hawaiian monarchy was obviously still in power. The terms of Princess Pauahi's will were perfectly legal and legitimate within the legal and political system existing in Hawaii. [KC note: all judges agree the will does not impose a racial preference except for orphans and indigents; the issue is not the will, from 1884, but the way the trustees implement it in the 21st Century]

In 2003, a lawsuit, John Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, was filed on behalf of an anonymous non-Hawaiian seventh-grade student challenging the Hawaiian-only admission policy of the Kamehameha Schools. The lawsuit challenged that the Kamehameha Schools' admission policy is ''race-based'' and therefore illegal on the basis of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In November 2003, a U.S. District Court judge upheld the Kamehameha Schools' admission policy, holding that a ''race-consciousness'' policy is a legitimate means of addressing economic difficulties and past injustices suffered by Hawaiians. However, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the non-Hawaiian plaintiff and found the Kamehameha Schools admission policy unlawful on the basis of the civil rights laws of the United States.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its earlier ruling by upholding the Kamehameha Schools' admission policy. A majority of judges on the Appeals Court agreed that the Kamehameha admissions policy, which only allows Native Hawaiians to attend the Kamehameha Schools, is permissible under U.S. law. Four of the 15 judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissented, and the case will most likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its reversal of the earlier 9th Circuit ruling, under the heading ''Historical Context,'' Judge Susan Graber quoted from the Education portion of the U.S. Code, Title 20, Section 7512: ''In 1893, the sovereign, independent, internationally recognized and indigenous government of Hawaii, the Kingdom of Hawaii, was overthrown by a small group of non-Hawaiians including the United States Minister, a United States naval representative and armed naval forces of the United States.'' Then, citing Section 7512 (6), Graber wrote, ''The United States annexed Hawaii not long afterward.''

The problem with Graber's mention of annexation is that it is legally and factually false. The Newlands Resolution, passed on July 7, 1898, failed to effect any legal annexation of Hawaii to the United States pursuant to the U.S. Constitution or international law. This is in part because the U.S. Constitution has no provision that enables the U.S. government to annex a foreign territory to the United States by joint resolution, which is an expression of the joint opinion of both houses of Congress.

Furthermore, according to international law, an underlying treaty of cession is needed in order to transfer lands from one nation to another. The proposed treaty between the fraudulent ''Republic of Hawaii'' and the United States was never voted on in the Senate because the proponents of annexation knew they did not have the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed for treaty ratification. This was in part because Kanaka Maoli representatives successfully delivered to Congress tens of thousands of Kanaka Maoli signatures opposing annexation and advocating a restoration of the legitimate government of Hawaii. Pro-annexationists were able to get the terms of the treaty rewritten and passed in the form of a joint resolution to make it seem as if annexation had occurred when in fact it had not.

The U.S. government has officially admitted to its involvement in the 1893 illegal subversion of the government of Hawaii - President Grover Cleveland admitted this - and so did the congressionally approved ''Apology Bill'' signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Thus, it is ridiculous for the legitimacy of the Kamehameha Schools' admission policy to be evaluated on the basis of the laws of the very country responsible for those illegal and criminal actions in 1893 against the Kanaka Maoli and their legitimate constitutional Hawaiian government in 1893.

As gratifying as it is for the supporters of the Kamehameha Schools to have won their 9th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc review, there is the very real possibility that the arguments presented by the 9th Circuit dissenters might be used by a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the Kamehameha Schools' admission policy. It is extremely unfortunate that the attorneys for the Kamehameha Schools did not premise their legal strategy on a correction of the erroneous historical presumption of annexation.

Given that the annexation of Hawaii never legally occurred, it makes no sense for the attorneys representing the Kamehameha Schools and the Bishop Estate to have allowed the wrongful presumption of annexation to stand uncontested. There is ample historical evidence that the attorneys could have used to show that the supposed ''fact'' of annexation is nothing other than a long-standing fiction (lie) perpetuated by the United States to the detriment of the Kanaka Maoli.

Because annexation did not occur, Princess Pauahi's will and the Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-only admission policy ought to be interpreted within the legal and political context existing in Hawaii at the time that her will was executed and signed in 1883, rather than within the context of the laws and political system of the United States. If the Supreme Court ultimately reverses the 9th Circuit's en banc ruling, the lie of annexation will have once again been used to the detriment of the Kanaka Maoli. Such a ruling would provide yet another example of how the United States uses to its advantage its admitted involvement in the illegal acts that resulted in the subversion of the Kingdom of Hawaii by forcing Queen Liliuokalani's to abdicate her throne in her effort to avoid bloodshed.

Given that the context and purpose of Princess Pauahi's will was to benefit the people of her nation, it is more correct to say that the Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-only admission policy is politically grounded and based on nationality rather than race, namely, the originally and rightfully free Kanaka Maoli Nation of Hawaii.

Steven Newcomb is Indigenous Law Research Coordinator at the Sycuan Education Department of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute and a columnist for Indian Country Today.

[note from Ken Conklin: Regarding the issue of the annexation and its legality, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/annexation.html
Of course, Newcomb would like to undo the annexation and restore the Kingdom. But even in the Kingdom there were no schools racially restricted to ethnic Hawaiians only.

-------------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Mar/02/br/br7495130286.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, March 2, 2007, Breaking news, Updated at 3:38 p.m.

High court asked to hear Kamehameha admissions case

Lawyers for an unnamed teenager have requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review their challenge to Kamehameha Schools admissions policy giving preference to Native Hawaiians.

Attorneys Eric Grant of Sacramento and John Goemans of Hawai'i filed their petition Thursday asking the high court to review the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the admissions policy.

The appeals court's ruling in December said the policy did not violate federal civil rights law.

The lawyers said the high court is expected to decide before summer recess in late June whether to take up the case.

--------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070303/NEWS23/703030331/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Saturday, March 3, 2007

Ruling on admissions appealed

By Gordon Y.K. Pang

Attorneys for a teenager denied entry into Kamehameha Schools have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to look at the legality of the institution's Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

Last December, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-7 to uphold the policy, which reversed an earlier 2-1 panel decision that appeared to strike it down.

Attorneys for the boy say the policy violates federal civil rights laws that prohibit racially segregated schools. Kamehameha officials said the school's situation is unique and part of a private will designed to provide an educational remedy to correct the ills suffered by Native Hawaiians.

Eric Grant, an attorney for the student identified only as John Doe, yesterday acknowledged that only 3 percent of petitions to the nation's highest court to review court decisions are accepted. But Grant said that number is misleading since they include cases with little chance of being accepted. The John Doe case, he said, stands "a pretty good chance" because of the narrow margin of the appeals court decision and because of the importance and interest of the case. He noted that the Supreme Court also currently has before it two other cases involving school admissions issues. "It's a natural case for them to take," Grant said. "There are no sure things, but in my judgment and that of other lawyers I talked to, this has a pretty good chance, so we'll see."

Kamehameha Chief Executive Officer Dee Jay Mailer said in a statement that the institution has a strong case for opposing the petition. "This case does not raise issues of national importance," she said. Kamehameha's situation is unique, she said, in that it was "founded by a princess in her sovereign homeland, who bequeathed her private wealth to provide an educational remedy for the ongoing socioeconomic disadvantages suffered by her native people." The lawsuit involves a federal statute enacted by Congress, Mailer said. "The same Congress has recognized and supported our mission."

Grant said the boy graduated from his local public high school in Hawai'i and is now attending college.

Kamehameha officials said they expect to respond to the petition within 30 days. Grant said Kamehameha has until early April to respond, and that he expects the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case before it leaves for summer recess in late June.

----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/03/news/story01.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, March 3, 2007

Ruling by high court sought
Attorneys seek a review and reversal of an appeals court's decision that backed Kamehameha Schools' admission policy

By Alexandre Da Silva

Attorneys for a student challenging Kamehameha Schools' admission policy of giving preference to native Hawaiians have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court ruling upholding the century-old practice.

Eric Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney representing a non-Hawaiian student who was denied admission at the prestigious school, filed the 34-page petition Thursday. It seeks a review and reversal of a December ruling on the case by a 15-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel voted 8-7 to affirm U.S. District Judge Alan Kay's 2003 ruling that found Kamehameha's preference policy does not violate federal civil rights laws and has the legitimate purpose of addressing economic and educational imbalances suffered by native Hawaiians.

Kamehameha Schools spokesman Kekoa Paulsen said the school will read the petition and, within 30 days, ask that the high court reject the request.

The student, named as John Doe in court papers, had his application to Kamehameha denied twice after he told the school that none of his grandparents had Hawaiian blood. He graduated from a local public school with honors last spring and is enrolled in a four-year undergraduate college, according to his lawyers.

Grant expects the Supreme Court to decide whether to take up the case sometime before the summer recess in June. If the court agrees to the petition, the case could be heard as early as October, he said.

The petition contends that the appeals court's decision to back the school's policy is wrong because it creates an exemption to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, authorizing Kamehameha "to operate racially segregated schools forever," Grant said. "That's a sufficiently important ruling that the Supreme Court ought to have the last ruling on whether that's permissible," he said.

In defending its 118-year-old admission policy, Kamehameha Schools has argued that it serves to remedy educational, social and economical disadvantages suffered by native Hawaiians since the U.S.-backed overthrow of their kingdom in 1893. The school contends that Hawaiians also have a special political relationship with Congress, which has enacted a number of laws aimed at helping them. "We have a strong case to oppose a petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court," Kamehameha Schools CEO Dee Jay Mailer said in a statement. "This case does not raise issues of national importance. There is simply no other school in the country like Kamehameha."

The school, which enrolls some 6,715 students, was established in 1887 under a charitable trust set up by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate the children of Hawaii. The $7.6 billion trust funds K-12 campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, as well as 31 preschools statewide.

Legal battles

June 25, 2003: Attorneys for an unidentified non-Hawaiian boy sue Kamehameha Schools in federal court, challenging the school's Hawaiians-only preference for admissions. The suit contends that federal civil rights laws prohibit private schools from denying admission on the basis of race.

Nov. 17, 2003: U.S. District Judge Alan Kay strikes down the challenge by the unidentified student. Attorneys for the student later appeal the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Aug. 2, 2005: Two out of three justices on a 9th Circuit panel rule that the schools' admission policy constitutes "unlawful race discrimination." The ruling reverses Kay's ruling.

Dec. 5, 2006: A 15-judge panel of the 9th Circuit votes 8-7 to affirm Kay's November 2003 ruling that the preference policy does not violate federal civil rights laws. The ruling reverses the Aug. 2, 2005, ruling against Kamehameha Schools.

Thursday: Attorneys for John Doe ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court's Dec. 5 ruling.

--------------

** E-mail circulated by Eric Grant, attorney for Doe

Interested Persons,

Yesterday I filed a petition for certiorari in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's 8-7 en banc decision, 470 F.3d 827 (Dec. 5, 2006), upholding a private school admissions policy that categorically excludes children who lack "Hawaiian ancestry." PDF versions of the petition are available from my website:

http://www.eric-grant.com/work/KSBE1.pdf * (petition alone, 188K);

and

http://www.eric-grant.com/work/KSBE2.pdf * (petition with Appendix, 720K).

I welcome any questions or comments you might have.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
http://www.eric-grant.com

---------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/NEWS23/703170352/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Saturday, March 17, 2007

School opposes high court review

By Gordon Pang

Kamehameha Schools attorneys contend there is no constitutional grounds for the country's highest court to review an appellate court ruling that upheld the institution's Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

What's more, Kamehameha attorneys said in a legal brief filed yesterday, the decision is not in conflict with any other court decisions and is not of national importance.

Kamehameha's case is unique, the brief said. "Nowhere in the United States does there exist another school like Kamehameha Schools, which is entirely private and not-for-profit, and which carries out a remedial educational mission for the benefit of the children of an indigenous people with whom Congress has a special trust and political relationship," the brief said.

The case involves a non-Hawaiian child identified only as John Doe, who was denied admission to Kamehameha. Attorneys for John Doe say Kamehameha's preference policy violates civil-right statutes and discriminates against non-Hawaiians.

But Kamehameha attorneys and supporters say the policy is needed because Hawaiians, on the whole, continue to do poorly in a variety of socio-economic categories.

They also note that Congress has continued to support funding remedial measures aimed exclusively at helping Hawaiians.

Doe has 10 days to respond. The Supreme Court is expected to respond to both filings in the coming weeks.

Last December, the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to strike down the school's admissions policy.

------------------

Kamehameha's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari can be downloaded from the Kamehameha website in pdf format, at:
http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/writresponse.pdf

---------------------

From: Eric Grant

Subject: Reply Brief in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007

Interested Persons,

Today I filed a reply brief in support of the petition for certiorari in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate. A PDF version is available from my website:

http://www.eric-grant.com/work/KSBE3.pdf

According to my calculations, the petition and other filings will be "distributed" this week for consideration by the Justices at their Conference on Friday, April 13th. Barring a postponement, we should know the result (grant or denial) in the Orders List released on the morning of Monday, April 16th.

Here is a link to the Supreme Court's online docket for the case:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1202.htm

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

----------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070409/NEWS01/704090350/1001
Honolulu Advertiser, Monday, April 9, 2007

No predictions on Kamehameha decision

By Ken Kobayashi
Advertiser Courts Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court could issue a decision as early as next Monday that would either leave Kamehameha Schools elated over the end of the legal challenge to its Hawaiians-first admission policy or set the stage for the most significant high-court ruling involving Native Hawaiians in years.

The Supreme Court will be deciding whether to take the Kamehameha case. A decision not to take the case would let stand an earlier ruling in favor of Kamehameha Schools and its 120-year-old admissions policy. A decision to hear the case would lead to a Supreme Court ruling by summer 2008 on the legality of the admissions policy that favors Native Hawaiians.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held by an 8-7 vote that the policy does not violate federal civil rights law.

But if lawyers for a non-Hawaiian teen who sought admission persuade at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to agree to hear the case, the high court is likely to issue a ruling that will be the most monumental for Native Hawaiians since its Rice v. Cayetano decision seven years ago.

At issue is a challenge by an unnamed teenager to how students are admitted to the private, nonprofit institution, established to educate students of Hawaiian blood and address educational disadvantages of the state's indigenous population.

The legal briefs have been submitted for the justices to consider at a conference Friday, and the court will disclose, starting on Monday, which of the appeals from lower courts it will accept.

School officials have been reluctant to say how they would comply with any ruling to drop the Hawaiians-first policy, which supporters say is at the heart of the institution.

"We are concentrating on defending the admissions policy that is currently in place," schools spokeswoman Ann Botticelli said.

The emotional issue is of huge importance to the Native Hawaiian community.

When a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in August 2005 that the policy violated the federal civil rights law, thousands of Kamehameha supporters marched in protest around the state. The ruling later was overturned by a larger "en banc" court panel of 15 appeals judges in December last year.

Eric Grant, the Sacramento lawyer representing the teenager who was rejected for admission at the schools and is now attending a four-year college, said he believes he has a "good" chance that four justices will agree to hear the case, but neither he nor others on both sides of the issue want to make a definitive prediction.

The high court accepts only a small fraction of requests to review lower-court rulings, but experts said it's difficult to say whether the justices will take the case.

"The fact of the matter is, nobody really knows," said state Attorney General Mark Bennett, who supports Kamehameha Schools' admission policy and will be filing a brief on behalf of the state if the high court accepts the case.

Kamehameha Schools, the largest private landowner in the state, was established in 1887 under the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. It serves nearly 5,000 of the more than 70,000 Native Hawaiian schoolchildren at the flagship Kapalama Heights campus and in schools on Maui and the Big Island.

In his legal brief, Grant cites the high court's history of decisions prohibiting the "separate but equal" argument for segregated schools dating back to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954. He argued that Kamehameha Schools' position that non-Native Hawaiians can get an adequate education elsewhere is creating a new standard for schools: "separate but adequate."

Kamehameha Schools have contended the case does not have any nationwide impact, one of the standards the justices use for accepting cases. The schools' lawyers defend the appeals court ruling and argue that its decision deals with a private school with a unique history. They contend the schools' mission is supported by Congressional actions providing educational and other benefits for Native Hawaiians.

The schools' lawyers also argue that prior high-court rulings outlawing discrimination by private schools did not deal with the issue of "remedial" admissions for disadvantaged minorities.

The case has drawn friend-of-the-court briefs by the Center for Equal Opportunity, a nonprofit group in Sterling, Va., that opposes affirmative action and race-based programs, and Earl Arakaki and nine other Hawai'i residents who have opposed government funding for programs exclusively for Native Hawaiians in another case.

Both urge the court to accept the admissions case. Hawai'i's Congressional delegation filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the court to reject the appeal.

In the Rice v. Cayetano case, the justices issued a 7-2 decision that threw out a state law that excluded non-Hawaiians from voting for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees. The justices said the law was a violation of the Constitution's 15th amendment protections for voting rights.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., a private attorney at the time, was hired by the state to defend the OHA voting policy and argued the case before the high court.

The 2000 ruling spawned other challenges to OHA, however. The unnamed non-Hawaiian teenager also filed the challenge to Kamehameha Schools' admission policy in the wake of the Rice decision.

Grant said he has no qualms about Roberts participating in the Kamehameha case because of the passage of time and the fact that different parties are involved in the admissions case.

"Just because justices have said something on similar issues does not disqualify them under the law," Grant said.

Robert Klein, a former Hawai'i Supreme Court justice who is the board counsel for OHA, said the briefs urging the court to take the case tried to focus on persuading the conservative justices. Roberts, Klein said, is a conservative justice and his position on the OHA case might not appeal to him now, given his conservative background.

Like the others, Klein won't make a prediction on what the justices might decide.

"I don't think anybody can say, 'Oh, yeah, definitely this is a case they will (accept) or the other way,' " he said.

JOHN DOE V. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

Legal briefs have been submitted for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether to hear a case involving Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

A teenager identified only as John Doe is asking the high court to review and overturn a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held by an 8-7 vote that the policy does not violate federal civil rights laws.

Here are some points raised in the briefs:

JOHN DOE

Congress has agreed that racial discrimination in schools violates "fundamental public policy."

"Given that policy, this court cannot give the final say to a lower court that has interpreted the nation's oldest civil rights law to sanction the system of racially segregated schools operated openly by respondents. If not overturned, that interpretation would sanction racially exclusive private schools for any group that could point to 'significant imbalances in educational achievement.' "

KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

The appeals court complied with prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings in issuing an "exceedingly narrow" decision.

The appeals court considered the "unique history of Kamehameha Schools, the special trust and political relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people, and the particular statutory context in which Congress has repeatedly enacted express and exclusive preferences for Native Hawaiians. This factual and legal backdrop is too similar to give rise to an issue of national importance warranting this court's review."

CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

The nonprofit group, which opposes race, ethnic and gender "discrimination" by public and private organizations, cites two 1976 U.S. Supreme Court cases.

In Runyon v. McCrary, the court held that federal civil rights laws cover two private secondary schools that denied admissions to two black students.

In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation, the court held the law covers two white employees who were fired for stealing when a black worker was not fired.

"Given the Ninth Circuit's clear and unjustified departure from this court's decision in Runyon and McDonald, the court may wish to consider summary reversal." The group urges a high-court review.

EARL ARAKAKI AND 9 HAWAI'I RESIDENTS

The group and its attorney, H. William Burgess, also have challenged government money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

"Racial tensions in Hawai'i are simmering. The Supreme Court must say firmly and soon, that the U.S. Constitution and its promise of equal protection of the laws for every person, applies with full force in Hawai'i and especially to the giant tax-subsidized charitable public trust that has corrupted and dominates Hawai'i's government." The group urges a review.

HAWAI'I'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

U.S. Sens. Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel Akaka and Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Mazie Hirono say Congress has provided benefits to Native Hawaiians since the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and is now considering the Akaka bill confirming a political relationship between between the United States and Native Hawaiians.

"As these issues continue to be debated in both Houses of Congress, (the delegation) urge the court to defer consideration of issues involving Native Hawaiian preferences, public or private, pending legislative resolution of these significant questions of policy." The delegation opposes a high-court review.

-----------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=29477
Maui News, Friday, April 13, 2007
HAKU MO'OLELO [regular Friday editorial commentary]

By EDWIN TANJI, City Editor

Kamehameha Schools has expended thousands in attorneys' fees to defend an admissions policy of giving preference to children of Hawaiian ancestry, an issue that may be going before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It seems a waste.

Part of the problem is the reaction of many school advocates that to change the policy would somehow violate the intention of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. No reading of the terms of the princess's will could support that passion.

The wording of the 13th Codicil of the will includes:

"I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate real and personal, wherever situated unto the trustees below named, their heirs and assigns forever, to hold upon the following trusts, namely: to erect and maintain in the Hawaiian Islands two schools, each for boarding and day scholars, one for boys and one for girls, to be known as, and called the Kamehameha Schools. . . .

"I direct my trustees to invest the remainder of my estate in such manner as they may think best, and to expend the annual income in the maintenance of said schools; meaning thereby the salaries of teachers, the repairing buildings and other incidental expenses; and to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood; the proportion in which said annual income is to be divided among the various objects above mentioned to be determined solely by my said trustees they to have full discretion. . . .

"For the purposes aforesaid I grant unto my said trustees full power to lease or sell any portion of my real estate, and to reinvest the proceeds and the balance of my estate in real estate, or in such other manner as to my said trustees may seem best.

"I also give unto my said trustees full power to make all such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for the government of said schools and to regulate the admission of pupils, and the same to alter, amend and publish upon a vote of a majority of said trustees."

The will does not say the schools are only for Hawaiian children, although it provides the trustees the power to decide. It says that a portion of the income of the princess's trust shall support and educate orphans and indigent children, with preference to those of Hawaiian blood. There could be an issue whether the trustees today are making sufficient effort to comply with the direction that the preference apply to students in "indigent circumstances."

Understanding the situation of the Native Hawaiian population when Pauahi Bishop composed her will, it is safe to assume that her intention was to provide education for the maka'ainana – the people of the land – struggling to cope with cultural, social and economic disruptions in their islands in 1883. It was still 10 years before a coalition of non-Hawaiian business owners led the overthrow of the monarchy.

An educated woman, Pauahi Bishop understood the need for education in including in her instructions:

"I desire my trustees to provide first and chiefly a good education in the common English branches, and also instruction in morals and in such useful knowledge as may tend to make good and industrious men and women; and I desire instruction in the higher branches to be subsidiary to the foregoing objects."

She anticipated that the people of the islands needed to be knowledgeable in the "common English branches" to be equal to the English-speaking businessmen and entrepreneurs who were dominating the economy of the islands.

But the wording of her will does not exclude anyone, except for a provision mandating the teachers be Protestants – a provision that was struck down as a violation of equal-protection laws.

There is no reason for the Kamehameha Schools not to have an open-admissions policy. There also is no reason that students accepted to the schools should not expect to pay a tuition based on the costs of the education provided as is the case with any school setting standards for excellence. What the will justifies is waivers and scholarships to students who have financial need, with preference given to students of Hawaiian ancestry.

If there are significant numbers of students willing to pay full tuition, regardless of ethnicity, that is a fresh stream of revenue the school's trustees can use to extend opportunities to deserving scholarship students.

An appropriate response to the claims by attorneys William Burgess and Eric Grant may be to have their efforts promote an opportunity for Kamehameha Schools to extend its reach, and to instill an even broader segment of the multiethnic community with an understanding of cultural, social, political and economic views of the Native Hawaiian.

-------------------

From: "Eric Grant"
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007
Organization: http://www.eric-grant.com

Interested Persons,

Although the Supreme Court's electronic docket indicated that the case was "distributed" for the Justices' Conference that was held last Friday the 13th, the Order List issued by the Court this morning made no reference to the case either way. Accordingly, the case will be "relisted" for a future Conference.

I do not read any significance into this non-action.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

** Note from Ken Conklin:
Here is a link to the Supreme Court's online docket for the case, which includes a list of documents filed (including amicus briefs) and the dates of Supreme Court actions.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1202.htm

-----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/16/br/br3472918650.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking News, Posted at 5:09 a.m. HST, Monday, April 16, 2007

U.S. Supreme Court still mulling Kamehameha case

Advertiser Staff

Kamehameha School officials will have to wait another day to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the legal challenge against the schools' Hawaiians-first admission policy.

A school official said this morning the court did not make a decision either way today, but it could be made tomorrow or in the near future.

A decision not to take the case would let stand an earlier ruling in favor of Kamehameha Schools and its 120-year-old admissions policy. A decision to hear the case would lead to a Supreme Court ruling by summer 2008 on the legality of the admissions policy that favors Native Hawaiians.

Earlier, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held by an 8-7 vote that the policy does not violate federal civil rights law.

---------------

** Note from Ken Conklin: The final paragraph of this "news report" contains two terrible errors of fact which clearly show the strong editorial bias of the un-named Honolulu "Advertiser staff" who wrote it. I sent the following material to the Advertiser asking them to issue a correction of these errors.

(1) Kamehameha school was NOT "established to educate students of Hawaiian blood".

School officials have issued racist propaganda for many years about the Will of Princess Pauahi, to justify their racially exclusionary admissions policy. But the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop [who ESTABLISHED the charitable trust] never imposed any racial requirement, and specified merely a "preference" for "children of the aboriginal blood" but ONLY FOR THOSE CHILDREN WHO WERE ORPHANS OR INDIGENTS.

This is not merely my own opinion based on reading the clearly-written will, it is also the opinion of every judge who has ever ruled on the current case. The original 3-judge decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case now under appeal to the Supreme Court, very clearly and explicitly states what I have just said. Although the 2-1 decision was later overturned by an 8-7 reversal, NONE OF THE JUDGES EVER DISSENTED FROM THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE 3-JUDGE RULING AVAILABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY AT https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/Kamehameha9thCircuit070205.pdf

"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."

(2)

Kamehameha School was NOT "established to ... address educational disadvantages of the state's indigenous population."

That is the viewpoint of the schools' trustees (and of the Honolulu Advertiser). The majority in the 8-7 en banc 9th Circuit ruling drew a conclusion of racial profiling that the schools at present are serving the purpose of addressing the [alleged] educational disadvantages of [all] the state's ethnic Hawaiians, and used that conclusion to justify racial discrimination when admitting students to the school. However, it is the Honolulu Advertiser and today's school officials who make that tortuous assertion, and not the person who established the school, Princess Pauahi. On the contrary, it seems obvious that Pauahi's intention was to help the children of Hawai'i assimilate to Western culture and Western educational norms.

In recent years Kamehameha schools have adopted a policy of dis-assimilation. The schools now focus on racial pride, racial separatism, and ethnic nationalism -- all because the only thing that all the children there have in common is at least one drop of native blood. Paul D. Carrington, Professor of Law at Duke University, in his article "Testamentary Incorrectness" in the December 2006 edition of the Buffalo Law Review, provides evidence and good reasoning to show that the primary purpose for which Kamehameha School was established was to help the children of Hawai'i assimilate to Western culture; and it is Professor Carrington who used the word "disassimilation" to describe the wayward policy of the current trustees.

It is my opinion that Princess Pauahi would be horrified by the racially exclusionary admissions policy adopted by the trustees. But whether I am right or wrong about that, it is very clear that Pauahi's intention was NOT racial separatism, and certainly the word "indigenous" was never part of her vocabulary -- it is a recent invention. Indeed, as noted by the judges in the quotes above, Kamehameha Schools have always used English as the language of instruction even in the decade before the monarchy was overthrown. Pauahi herself, in her Will, makes clear the reason why the school was established -- not to foster racial pride, not to encourage dis-assimilation -- but "to provide first and chiefly a good education in the common English branches, and also instruction in morals and in such useful knowledge as may tend to make good and industrious men and women; and I desire instruction in the higher branches to be subsidiary to the foregoing objects."

--------------------

** Five and a half hours later on Monday April 16 the Honolulu Advertiser published a greatly improved report signed by the newspaper's courts reporter and not repeating the false and inappropriate editorial comments of the earlier article.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/16/br/br8031549276.html
Honolulu Advertiser, "breaking news" Posted at 10:48 a.m., Monday, April 16, 2007

No ruling today on Kamehameha Schools case

By KEN KOBAYASHI
Advertiser Courts Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue a ruling today on whether it will accept the legal challenge against the Kamehameha Schools Hawaiians-first admission policy.

The next time the court will decide whether to accept or reject the case may be a week from now, according to Eric Grant, the Sacramento lawyer representing and unnamed non-Hawaiian teenager and his mother who filed a lawsuit contending the policy violates federal civil rights law.

Today was the earliest that the court would have issued a ruling on the case because it had indicated it had received all the legal briefs for its conference on Friday.

Grant said the court this morning issued a list of about 200 to 300 cases that it was rejecting for consideration, but the Kamehameha Schools case was not one of them. He said none of the cases was accepted.

Grant said he did not see any significance in the court not issuing ruling in the Kamehameha Schools case.

Ann Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, said this morning the schools believe it filed a strong opposition against the court taking the case, but will just have to wait for the decision.

Grant is asking the high court to review an 8-7 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that found the school policy did not violate the federal civil rights law.

The high court has the discretion of accepting or rejecting any requests to review appeals. It grants only a small fraction of the requests. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case before the court accepts it.

-----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070417/NEWS20/704170336/1170/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Kamehameha waits for court's list on Monday

By Ken Kobayashi
Advertiser Courts Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court won't likely rule until Monday at the earliest on whether it will accept the legal challenge against the Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-first admission policy.

The high court yesterday refused to accept about 200 to 300 cases, but it did not list the challenge by an unnamed non-Native Hawaiian teenager among them, according to the teenager's lawyer, Eric Grant of Sacramento.

Grant said the decision could be on the next list of cases from the high court on Monday.

He said he did not see any significance in the court not issuing a ruling yesterday in the Kamehameha Schools case.

Ann Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, said the schools filed what it believes was a strong opposition against the court taking the case, but will just have to wait for the decision.

Yesterday was the earliest that the court could have issued a ruling on the case because it had indicated it had received all the legal briefs for its conference on Friday.

Grant represents the teenager and his mother who filed a lawsuit contending the policy violates federal civil rights law.

He is asking the high court to review an 8-7 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that found the school policy did not violate federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the discretion of accepting or rejecting requests to review appeals. It grants only a small fraction of the requests. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case before the court accepts it.

Reach Ken Kobayashi at kkobayashi@honoluluadvertiser.com

-----------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=29684
The Maui News, Thursday, April 19, 2007, letter to editor

OHA trustee disagrees with reading of princess' will

Ed Tanji's opinion about the purpose of the Kamehameha Schools is, with all due respect, opinion and not the law ("Haku Mo'olelo," April 13). Kamehameha Schools has been in existence since 1887 and has always sought to educate the boys and girls of Hawaii as known in 1887, that is, those of the aina whose ancestors lived and died with those of the Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.

Her husband, her trustees, her lawyers to this day have made it abundantly clear that her will was to leave a legacy for the children she could never have and to educate her people and thus secure for them not only success but survival in their own land.

But for the school, Hawaiians today would likely not be as prominent in government, business, education, culture, community, etc. They, like many others from indigenous cultures, would be relegated to a life without promise and a home without a homeland. The bad statistics in health, housing, crime, etc. would be significantly worse.

Kamehameha Schools provides the link for Hawaii's indigenous people to their past and a bond to their future. The Hawaiian people have struggled since the illegal overthrow and to remove from them the best means of their survival as a people, education, would be to deprive all Hawaii of the core, the heart, the na'au of this great state. The money spent to defend this position is minimal compared to the impact a Supreme Court decision will have on Hawaiians, Hawaii and all people who call Hawaii home.

Boyd P. Mossman
Maui Trustee
Office of Hawaiian Affairs

============

Monday April 23 all those interested in the Kamehameha Schools desegregation lawsuit were once again anticipating a possible decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to take the case (grant certiorari). And once again no decision was announced.

And once again the Honolulu Advertiser was manipulating the way it reports the news by including total falsehoods previously corrected and now also by making it appear that something is happening which is ominous, unusual, unique, or even improper. The Advertiser's handling of this matter reflects the very great importance of the Kamehameha case in the local culture, and also the attitude that ethnic Hawaiians are victims constantly being oppressed and singled out for abuse. We can apparently expect similar false and misleading "news" reports every Monday until the Court issues an order granting or denying certiorari, as the Advertiser either carelessly repeats outright falsehoods or else knowingly repeats them for the purpose of stirring up anger.

Below are an April 23 message from plaintiffs attorney Eric Grant, and a "breaking news" report from the April 23 Honolulu Advertiser. The items from April 16 should also be reviewed, showing the Advertiser's report of the identical falsehoods and its later correction of them, along with the explanation of why they are false.

There's no way to force Hawai'i's "newspaper of record" to provide straightforward factual reporting except by shining a spotlight on their false reporting in hopes that any remaining vestige of journalistic integrity will cause them to mend their ways.

To understand why the latest Advertiser report is paranoid and misleading one must first understand what is the normal practice of the Court.

What normally happens with Supreme Court conferences and orders?

Cases decided in the lower courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Thousands of cases are appealed every year, but the Court only has time to consider a small percentage of them. Each Justice has several law clerks (a very prestigious job) who read the petitions for certiorari and the accompanying briefs and make recommendations to their boss. The Justices then hold a conference each Friday to discuss which cases to accept. Any particular case might or might not be discussed during that conference, depending on how much time is available, how many cases have been submitted, and which cases seem more urgent than others. Thus, any particular case might or might not be discussed at the first (or any subsequent) conference following submission of the petition for certiorari and deadline for briefs. Even when a particular case has been discussed in a Friday conference, the Justices may or may not make a decision at that time on whether to accept it. They might instruct their clerks to do further research or to write more detailed memos; or the Justices might want more time to weigh the importance of the issues or to discuss them at later conferences. Decisions on certiorari are announced on Mondays at 10 AM (Eastern time) in the list of "orders." Thus, the decision on certiorari for any particular case could theoretically be announced on the first Monday list of orders after the first Friday conference following the deadline for submitting briefs (Monday April 16 in this case); or it might take several weeks or months before a decision on certiorari is announced (perhaps the end of June).

The Friday conferences, of course, are always private (not open to the media).

The first conference when the Kamehameha case could have been discussed (following the filing of the petition for certiorari and related legal briefs) was Friday April 13. So on Monday April 16 observers were anxiously awaiting the outcome, but the case was not mentioned in the list of orders. Plaintiffs attorney Eric Grant informed all interested people by e-mail that there was no decision on certiorari. The Honolulu Advertiser on Monday April 16 published a series of "breaking news" announcements that started with a terribly biased report un-named staff reporters including total falsehoods about the purpose for which Kamehameha Schools had been founded and its role in helping poor downtrodden ethnic Hawaiians today (both of which are issues for the Court to decide but which the Advertiser has long ago decided). On April 16 the Advertiser's Courts Reporter Ken Kobayashi finally wrote a revised "breaking news" several hours later which removed the falsehoods.

Monday April 23 is the second possible Monday list of orders which could include a certiorari decision on Kamehameha. Once again there was no mention of the Kamehameha case. And once again the Advertiser published a very strange news report containing the same falsehoods published and corrected a week previously; plus a new element of paranoia.

--------------

From: "Eric Grant"
Subject: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools -- No Action (Again) on Petition
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:58:34 -0700 [California time]

Interested Persons,

Although the Supreme Court's electronic docket indicated that the case was "distributed" for the Justices' Conference that was held last Friday, the Order List issued by the Court this morning made no reference to the case either way. Accordingly, the case will be "relisted" for a future Conference.

Again, I do not read any significance into this non-action.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

-------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/23/br/br9350127648.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking News, Posted at 7:36 a.m. [Hawaii time], Monday, April 23, 2007

Supreme Court to privately examine Kamehameha case

By DENNIS CAMIRE
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has scheduled a private conference among the justices for Friday to look at whether it will accept the legal challenge against Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-first admission policy.

[Ken Conklin's note: There is nothing unusual or ominous that the conference will be private -- all such conferences are private. The news report gives an impression that the entire purpose of the forthcoming conference is to discuss the Kamehameha case; which is silly. There will be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cases discussed in the conference. Also, most observers, including the zealous Kamehameha alumni and trustees, acknowledge that the admissions policy is "Hawaiians ONLY", not "Hawaiian-first" because there are always more ethnic Hawaiians seeking admission than there are spaces available. Now read the above paragraph again to see the paranoia and misleading reportage]

That will be the first time the justices have examined the case and the earliest a decision about accepting the case will be known is April 30, according to the court's public information office. There is no time limit on when the court must decide on taking the case.

[Ken Conklin's note: This may not be the first time the Justices have examined the case -- it could have been discussed at the previous conferences on Friday April 13 and/or April 20; we simply do not know, because all such conferences are private]

A decision against taking the case would mean letting stand an earlier 8-7 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Kamehameha Schools and its 120-year-old admissions policy.

If the high court takes the case, it could set the stage for one of the most significant court actions in years involving Native Hawaiians. A ruling could come as early as summer 2008.

[Ken Conklin's note: No, oral arguments in the case could come as early as October 2007, with a decision anytime thereafter. The Court hands down decisions constantly, from the first Monday in October right through the end of its term which is usually the end of June. It is usually not in session in summer.]

The case involves an unnamed teenager who is challenging the way students are admitted to the private, nonprofit school system, which was created to educate students of Hawaiian blood and address educational disadvantages of the state's indigenous population.

[Ken Conklin's note: This sentence repeats the identical sentence in a terribly biased "breaking news" story a week ago. There are two false statements in the final clause of that sentence. Both of them were discussed at length in a message I sent privately to the Advertiser editors a week ago and which was also posted on AADAP; and has been copied below for anyone who cares to review the details. Briefly: every judge who has ruled on this case agrees that Kamehameha Schools were NOT "created to educate students of Hawaiian blood"; and it is a matter of dispute whether ethnic Hawaiians are "indigenous" and whether it is correct to stereotype every ethnic Hawaiian as educationally disadvantaged.]

The high court has the discretion of accepting or rejecting any requests to review appeals and grants only a small fraction of the requests. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case before the court accepts it.

[Ken Conklin's note: Well, at least that paragraph is accurate!]

Contact Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns.gannett.com.

-----------------

** Ken Conklin's note:

The Honolulu Advertiser issued a corrected "breaking news" item about the Kamehameha non-decision, at 2:19 PM (Hawai'i time) on Monday, about 7 hours after its error-filled earlier version. The newspaper has covered its tracks very well -- both versions have the same URL, which means that from this point forward nobody will ever see the original error-filled version, except on this webpage, just above here.

I sent my comments (above) about the errors, to the Advertiser about 4-5 hours before the corrected version was posted, but of course never received an acknowledgment and have no idea whether the changes were made because of my comments. I sometimes have other commitments and cannot always promptly monitor the newspaper's accuracy. Perhaps the next time the Advertiser publishes false and misleading "breaking news" the error-filled biased report will actually make it into print beyond the point where the errors can be covered up merely by re-using the same URL in an electronic edition.

Here's the revised "breaking news" report, with errors and bias and paranoia nicely cleaned up; and using the same URL as the originally posted error-filled report. After that, the final report as published the following day in the print edition.

-------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/23/br/br9350127648.html
Honolulu Advertiser breaking news, Updated at 2:19 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2007

No decision today on Kamehameha Schools case

Advertiser Staff

WASHINGTON — In its 10-pages of orders issued today on almost 200 cases, the Supreme Court again did not decide whether it would accept the legal challenge against Kamehameha Schools' admission policy.

The case along with others awaiting Supreme Court action has been rescheduled for a conference Friday and the earliest a decision about accepting the case will be known is April 30.

There is no time limit on when the court must decide whether to take the case, and the court did not mention the school's case in its list of Monday orders issued April 16, the first date a ruling could have come down.

A decision against taking the case would mean letting stand an earlier 8-7 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Kamehameha Schools and its 120-year-old admissions policy that effectively excludes non-Hawaiians.

If the high court takes the case, it could set the stage for one of the most significant court actions in years involving Native Hawaiians. A ruling could come as early as summer 2008.

The case involves an unnamed, non-Hawaiian teenager and his mother who filed a lawsuit contending the private, nonprofit school system's admissions policy violates federal civil rights law.

----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070424/NEWS23/704240339/1173/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Supreme Court postpones admissions policy decision

By Dennis Camire
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday again did not decide whether it would accept the legal challenge against the Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy.

The case, along with others awaiting Supreme Court action, has been rescheduled for a conference Friday. A decision about whether the court accepts the case won't be known until Monday at the earliest.

There is no time limit on when the court must decide whether to take the case, and the court did not mention the schools' case in its list of orders issued April 16, the first date a ruling could have come down.

A decision against taking the case would let stand an earlier 8-7 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Kamehameha Schools and its 120-year-old admissions policy that effectively excludes non-Hawaiians.

If the high court takes the case, it could set the stage for one of the most significant court actions in years involving Native Hawaiians. A ruling could come as early as summer 2008.

The case involves an unnamed, non-Hawaiian teenager and his mother who filed a lawsuit contending the private, nonprofit school system's admissions policy violates federal civil rights law.

Reach Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns.gannett.com.

=============

** Note from Ken Conklin

On Monday April 30 it was reported that The Supreme Court has once again taken no action regarding whether it will accept the appeal in the school desegregation case Doe v. Kamehameha.

The Honolulu Advertiser published a "breaking news" report at 9:21 AM HST (3:21 PM EDT). Plaintiffs' attorney Eric Grant sent an e-mail to interested persons approximately 5 hours before that. The Advertiser report contains one inconsequential error of fact but has a very different date for the next Supreme Court conference from the date given by Eric Grant. I'm sure Mr. Grant knows the correct date for the next conference, and the newspaper was probably assuming the pattern of conferences every Friday would continue unchanged.

Below are

(1) The Advertiser report [with 2 corrections by myself]

(2) Eric Grant's e-mail

(3) A list of useful links to the Supreme Court website, specially focused on the Doe v. Kamehameha certiorari topic

----------------

(1)

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/30/br/br2104359786.html
Honolulu Advertiser, breaking news, posted at 9:21 a.m., Monday, April 30, 2007

No decision today on Kamehameha Schools case

Advertiser Staff

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court again did not decide whether it would accept the legal challenge against Kamehameha Schools' admission policy.

The case along with others awaiting Supreme Court action has been rescheduled for a conference Friday. [Ken Conklin's note: According to Eric Grant the next conference will be Thursday May 10] There is no time limit on when the court must decide whether to take the case, and the court did not mention the school's case in its list of Monday orders issued April 16, the first date a ruling could have come down.

If the high court takes the case, it could set the stage for one of the most significant court actions in years involving Native Hawaiians. A ruling could come as early as summer 2008. [Actually, oral arguments could come as early as October 2007 with a decision at any time thereafter; the Court usually finishes its work and adjourns for the Summer with a last-minute flurry of decisions during the week just before the July 4 holiday]

The case involves an unnamed, non-Hawaiian teenager and his mother who filed a lawsuit contending the private, nonprofit school system's admissions policy violates federal civil rights law.

----------------

(2)

From: "Eric Grant"
Subject: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools -- No Action (Again) on Petition
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007

Interested Persons,

Once again, the Order List issued by the Supreme Court this morning made no reference to the case either way. Accordingly, the case will be "relisted" for a future Conference. (The next Conference is scheduled for Thursday, May 10th, with the corresponding Order List to be released on Monday, May 14th.)

The Court's repeated non-action is atypical but not unprecedented.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

---------------

(3)

** Note from Ken Conklin:

The Supreme Court website is
http://supremecourtus.gov

All the orders of the Supreme Court for the term which began in October 2006 and runs to Summer 2007 are available, listed by date with most recent at the top, at
http://supremecourtus.gov/orders/06ordersofthecourt.html

The orders published April 30 are typical of other dates. They make interesting reading to see what sorts of cases are under appeal and how they are disposed of. In one April 30 case, for example, certiorari was denied but the names of 3 Justices who voted to grant certiorari are listed (4 are required to grant it). The orders of April 30 take 10 pages in pdf format, covering many dozens of cases, and can be downloaded from
http://supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/043007pzor.pdf

The docket for a case includes a list of all the briefs filed (including amicus briefs), the actions taken by the Court (including dates of distribution of briefs for conference and dates of conferences), and names and contact information for all attorneys who filed briefs. The docket for Doe v. Kamehameha is at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1202.htm

-----------------

On Wednesday May 2, 2007 Kamehameha Schools CEO Dee Jay Mailer spent an hour on the Honolulu Advertiser "Hot Seat" in a live on-line chat room, responding to questions from the public. Among many questions asked and answered, three questions were asked about the racially exclusionary admissions policy, and two of those were answered. Mailer basically seems to say defiantly that Kamehameha will find some way to continue its current admissions policy regardless whether the Supreme Court takes the case and even if the Court rules the policy is unconstitutional.

http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/index.php?blog=19&title=on_the_hot_seat_kamehameha_schools_ceo_d&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The Hot Seat

Welcome to The Hot Seat! Joining us live from noon to 1 p.m. today is Kamehameha Schools CEO Dee Jay Mailer.

Dee Jay and her team at Kamehameha Schools have been waiting for a decision (which could come at any time now) on whether the Supreme Court will hear an appeal in the case challenging the school's admissions policy of granting preference to Native Hawaiians.

She also will field questions about Kamehameha Schools in general and efforts to extend its reach through a variety of programs, including support of Hawaiian-focused charter schools and a learning center for the state's transitional housing on the Leeward side.

** Here are all 3 questions and all 2 answers related to the admissions policy

Comment from: Jere Krischel [Visitor] · http://morganreport.org
If the Supreme Court rules against Kamehameha, will Kamehameha Schools admit students of all racial backgrounds, or will they close the school? What plans have been made to help successfully integrate students of all races into the student body if the Supreme Court rules the admissions policy unconstitutional?

Comment from: Dee Jay Mailer [Member]
Aloha Jere, We are not going to close our school. No matter what happens in the courts, we will keep providing more educational opportunities for the benefit of Hawaiian children. It is what the Princess intended when she left her assets to build Kamehameha Schools, and it is what we will continue to do until Hawaiian children are no longer lagging their peers in school and Hawaiians as a people are holding their rightful places in our homeland, as strong stewards of our lands, thriving citizens in our communities and fair and respected leaders in our State.

Comment from: Nalu [Visitor]
If the Supreme Court hears the Jon Doe case and rules against the Kamehameha Schools, does the school have a contingency plan to protect the wishes of the Princess?

Comment from: Dee Jay Mailer [Member]
Aloha Nalu, We are often asked about our "Plan B." It is the same as our Plan A - to keep providing more educational opportunities that benefit Hawaiian children, as our Princess intended.

Comment from: Jeanne Mariani-Belding [Member] Thanks, Dee Jay. Just squeezing in one more question sent via e-mail from Duke K. McAdow:

If the Supreme Court rules against the current admissions policy at Kamehameha, would (or could) the school consider modifying the policy to admit only descendants of the citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as others have suggested?

[** There was no answer the question, perhaps because time was short]

==================

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/14/br/br2179083645.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking news, Updated at 7:00 a.m., Monday, May 14, 2007

Suit on Kamehameha admissions dropped

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A non-Hawaiian student denied admission at a private school in Hawai'i has agreed to dismiss his federal civil rights lawsuit, which had been appealed to the Supreme Court. The student's claim that the 120-year-old Kamehameha Schools violated civil rights law by effectively excluding applicants who have no Hawaiian blood had been awaiting Supreme Court review.

The justices had been scheduled to take up the case at their private conference last week. Instead, the court's electronic docket noted the case had been dismissed by agreement of the parties.

The school has had one non-Native Hawaiian student in the past 40 years.

The school admits qualified Hawaiian students, with non-Hawaiians getting in only if there are openings available. But only one in eight eligible Hawaiian applicants is admitted, effectively excluding non-Hawaiians.

A sharply divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the admissions policy.

The student, identified as John Doe, sued the school after he was denied admission. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that private schools can't deny admission based on race.

Kamehameha was established under the 1883 will of Hawaiian Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop as part of a trust now worth about $6.8 billion. Part of the school's mission is to counteract historic disadvantages Hawaiians face in employment, education and society.

There are roughly 5,400 students, from kindergarten through high school, enrolled at the school's three campuses.

The case is Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, 06-1202.

---------------------

From: "Eric Grant"
Subject: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools -- Settlement
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007

Interested Persons,

As indicated by the Supreme Court's electronic docket,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1202.htm
the petition for certiorari has been dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. This stipulated dismissal was part of a complete settlement of the case, the terms of which are confidential.

You may wish to read Kamehameha's statement regarding the settlement, posted here:
http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20070514062928373

I expect to make a public statement on behalf of John Doe at a later time.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

-------------------

** Ken Conklin's note: Here's the Supreme Court's docket for this case, showing the settlement and dismissal on May 11, 2007

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-1202.htm

No. 06-1202
Title: John Doe, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe, Petitioner v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, et al.
Docketed: March 5, 2007
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (04-15044)
Decision Date: December 5, 2006

~~~Date~~~~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders

Mar 1 2007 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 4, 2007)
Mar 16 2007 Brief of respondent Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, et al. in opposition filed.
Mar 27 2007 Reply of petitioner John Doe, a Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend, Jane Doe filed.
Mar 28 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2007.
Mar 29 2007 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Equal Opportunity filed. (Distributed)
Apr 3 2007 Brief amici curiae of Earl F. Arakaki and Other Residents of Hawaii filed. (Distributed)
Apr 4 2007 Brief amicus curiae of Hawaii Congressional Delegation filed. (Distributed)
Apr 16 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 20, 2007.
Apr 23 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 27, 2007.
May 7 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, 2007.
May 11 2007 Stipulation to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received.
May 11 2007 Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.

------------------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/14/br/br4760819325.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Breaking news, Posted at 7:06 a.m., Monday, May 14, 2007

Kamehameha Schools issues statement

** Ken Conklin's note: Also available on Kamehameha Schools website at
http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20070514062928373

News Release

We have reached agreement with "John Doe" to resolve Doe's lawsuit seeking to overturn our admissions policy. The terms of the settlement are confidential. By settling this case, we protect our right to offer admissions preference to Native Hawaiians. The plaintiff has withdrawn his petition for U.S. Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding our preference policy as legally permissible.

This means that the Circuit Court ruling stands – our legal right to offer preference to Native Hawaiian applicants is preserved. Our work to fulfill our mission and Pauahi's vision, on our campuses and in our communities can proceed without distraction.

The ruling from the 9th Circuit Court is a pono one for Kamehameha Schools and for kanaka maoli. The majority opinion written by Judge Susan Graber acknowledges our unique history and the importance of our mission. In addition, the concurring opinion by Judge William Fletcher recognizes that Native Hawaiians have political status with the U.S. as a Native people. It is a great ruling to uphold, for Kamehameha Schools and the many federal and state programs that acknowledge and support the determination of our people to thrive. By settling this case we preserve our rights to serve our people in the manner we feel is best.

This was a very difficult decision. From the beginning of this lawsuit, we have been prepared to defend our policy to the very end of the judicial process. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this lawsuit is only one piece of a much broader risk to the rights of Native Hawaiians, as the Indigenous people of this state, to manage and control our own resources.

We cannot ignore the treacherous landscape before us. We have all seen the systematic attempts to take Hawaiian Homelands, dismantle the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to eliminate federal funding for programs that serve to improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians, and to scuttle attempts in the U.S. Congress to solidify our peoples' Indigenous status.

We have all heard our efforts to protect our rights as Indigenous people described as "Balkanization," "separatist" and "racist." We have all read essays and opinions that seek to rewrite Hawaiian history and the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and government.

The John Doe v. Kamehameha Schools case was just one more attempt by a few to chip away at Native Hawaiian rights. Settling this case preserves our ability to fulfill our mission and our right to use our resources for their directed purpose, as a completely private Trust established by the bequest of one of our Ali`i during the time of Hawaiian Sovereignty. Settling this case also reserves the rights of other private trusts – Native and non-Native, as well as the rights of all Indigenous people to control and use resources designated for their benefit.

This settlement, which preserves a favorable 9th Circuit Court ruling, has the same legal effect as a denial of the plaintiff's petition for Supreme Court review. It allows us all to move forward with a common purpose: protecting the rights of kanaka maoli, private individuals and Indigenous people everywhere to use our own resources to take care of our own people.

As a Native Hawaiian trust, we will stand strong with other organizations and individuals to protect our assets. And as an Educational institution, we will move ahead with speed and diligence to extend our reach into our communities to more Native Hawaiian children and families, as our Princess intended. We have made significant gains in the number of children and families we serve in the past year, and we are ready to do more.

You have been stalwart in your support as we have fought to protect our rights and our mission. Mahalo piha for all that you do for Kamehameha Schools and for the children and families we serve.

Me ka ha'aha'a,

Trustee J. Douglas Ing, Chair
Trustee Nainoa Thompson
Trustee Diane Plotts
Trustee Robert Kihune
Trustee Corbett Kalama
Dee Jay Mailer, CEO

---------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-14-Hawaiian-school_N.htm?csp=34
USA Today, May 14, 2007

Student settles with Hawaiian school

HONOLULU (AP) — A private school system has reached a settlement with a white student who was denied admission because he isn't a Native Hawaiian, ending a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The settlement between the unidentified student and the Kamehameha Schools system ends the four-year-old lawsuit. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

The student, who has since gone to college, claimed that the 120-year-old Kamehameha Schools violated civil rights law by excluding applicants who cannot prove Hawaiian ancestry.

The school, which has 6,700 students at schools on three islands, admits qualified Native Hawaiian students, with non-Hawaiians getting in only if openings are available. But only one in eight eligible Hawaiian applicants is admitted, effectively excluding non-Hawaiians.

A sharply divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the admissions policy on an 8-7 vote in 2006.

John Goemans, a lawyer for the student, acknowledged the settlement came late in the process but said his client wanted to resolve the case.

"What counts is the best interest of our client," Goemans said. "And at this point, our client is satisfied. This does not affect the constitutionality of the program."

J. Douglas Ing, chairman of Kamehameha Schools Board of Trustees, said dismissal of the case preserves Native Hawaiians' political status as an indigenous people.

It also recognizes the federal government's "obligation to the native people of Hawaii and provides judicial support for programs that serve to promote and improve the well-being of the Hawaiian people," Ing said.

Kamehameha was established under the 1883 will of Hawaiian Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop as part of a trust reported to be worth $7.7 billion last June 30. The trust reported spending $221 million on education. Part of the schools' mission is to counteract historical disadvantages Hawaiians face in employment, education and society.

------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/15hawaii.html
New York Times, May 15, 2007

Prestigious Private Schools Settle Rights Suit by a Non-Hawaiian

By ADAM LIPTAK

The private Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii announced yesterday that they had settled a civil rights lawsuit brought against them by a student denied admission because he did not possess Hawaiian ancestry. The settlement avoided the possibility of a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the status of Native Hawaiians.

The terms of the settlement, between the schools and a student identified only as John Doe, were not disclosed. But it left in place an 8-to-7 decision of the federal appeals court in San Francisco that allows the schools to admit only students who can prove that at least one of their ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, when the British explorer Capt. James Cook arrived.

The Supreme Court had considered whether to hear the case four times but had not reached a decision by Friday, when the parties informed the court of the settlement. The case was dismissed the same day.

The schools are the beneficiaries of the enormous legacy of a 19th-century Hawaiian princess, Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who intended them to raise the educational level of Native Hawaiians. Their endowment exceeds $6 billion. They have an enrollment of some 6,700 students, from preschool through 12th grade, with campuses on three islands and preschools throughout the state. Admission is a great prize, as older students pay about $3,000 in annual tuition for an education worth more than $20,000.

The student in the suit dismissed Friday had initially sued to gain admission to the schools, but he has since graduated, making that aspect of his case moot. The settlement presumably includes a payment to him and his lawyers.

In a letter released yesterday, the schools' trustees said the decision to settle was a difficult one.

"We cannot ignore the treacherous landscape before us," the trustees wrote. "It is becoming increasingly clear that this lawsuit is only one piece of a much broader risk to the rights of Native Hawaiians, as the indigenous people of this state, to manage and control our resources."

Eric Grant, a lawyer for the student, said in a e-mail message that he had no immediate comment on the settlement.

The settlement does not preclude further suits challenging the admissions policy, but it could take years for another suit to reach the Supreme Court again, and there is, of course, no guarantee that the court would agree to hear it.

In its decision in December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that students without Hawaiian ancestry could be denied admission to the schools based on their race without running afoul of a civil rights law. The majority cited what it said were unique factors in the history of Hawaii, the plight of Native Hawaiians and the schools' distinctively remedial mission.

"The schools are a wholly private K-12 educational establishment, whose preferential admissions policy is meant to counteract the significant, current educational deficits of Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii," Judge Susan P. Graber wrote for the majority.

In a dissent joined at least in part by six other judges, Judge Jay S. Bybee said the schools' worthy mission nonetheless violated "the Supreme Court's requirements for a valid affirmative action plan."

-------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS23/705150344
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, May 15, 2007

KAMEHAMEHA LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT
Money buys time for Kamehameha Schools

by Ken Kobayashi

Kamehameha Schools paid to settle the most serious legal threat yet to its Hawaiians-first admissions policy, legal experts believe, but the agreement won't prevent future challenges to the 120-year-old practice.

However, any new case would take years before it reached the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court — where the latest case was when it ended yesterday.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed, but the agreement ends the four-year effort by a non-Hawaiian teenager, known only as John Doe, to enter the Kamehameha system.

School officials praised the settlement, saying they were pleased to put the case behind them and concentrate on educating Hawaiian youth.

The settlement removes the possibility that the Supreme Court might rule against Kamehameha in this case.

"We didn't think that there was a strong possibility (of losing) but that risk is always out there," said J. Douglas Ing, chairman of the Kamehameha board of trustees. "There are no guarantees and there certainly were no guarantees from our lawyers that we would win the case."

The settlement leaves intact a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last year in Kamehameha's favor. In that 8-7 ruling, the court upheld the Hawaiians-first policy and ruled that the admissions practice does not violate federal civil rights laws.

Eric Grant, the Sacramento, Calif., lawyer representing John Doe and his mother, said the settlement doesn't preclude others from filing similar lawsuits.

"Obviously, a settlement is not exactly what either side wanted," said Grant. "But it is something both sides eventually came to terms on."

Officials also declined to discuss the terms of the settlement, although legal observers believe it had to include payment to John Doe for him to drop the lawsuit.

The settlement preserves Kamehameha Schools' policy of requiring all applicants to prove they have Hawaiian ancestors. The private school subsidizes the costs of the education it provides to Hawaiian youth.

Ing said there will be no changes to the admissions policy as a result of the settlement. "We're not making any changes now because the policy is preserved and protected," Ing said. Ing would not say how long Kamehameha and John Doe attorneys had been discussing a settlement, nor would he disclose who first broached the subject.

NEW CASE WOULD TAKE YEARS

"It's an excellent outcome," said Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawai'i law professor who worked as a consultant for the school in the case. The 9th Circuit's ruling will "stand as the governing law," he said. Another challenge would take years of litigation and considerable attorney fees and costs in the "six-figure range," Van Dyke estimated.

Critics of the policy expressed disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court won't have a chance to decide on the legality of what they believe is an illegal racial policy, and agree that future challenges face an uphill fight, but not an insurmountable one.

"They flinched," said attorney H. William Burgess, who filed court papers supporting John Doe in the Supreme Court case. "I think Kamehameha Schools saw that they were right on the verge of the Supreme Court probably (accepting the case). And they knew that if that happened, it would be very likely the ruling would go against them."

A decision from the Supreme Court on whether it would hear the case was pending when the two sides agreed to settle out of court.

Burgess said the next challenge to Kamehameha will likely be rejected in trial courts in Hawai'i and at the appeals level because of the 9th Circuit ruling. He added that another challenge might not be as expensive and would move through the courts quicker because the briefs in John Doe's case already outlined the legal arguments. Although Burgess predicted future challenges, he also said he does not know of any potential challenger at this point.

HIGH-PROFILE CHALLENGE

Like Burgess, Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Falls Church, Va., which also urged the high court to accept the John Doe case, said he believes Kamehameha Schools wanted the settlement because it thought it might lose before the Supreme Court.

"My suspicion is that they opened their wallets in a big way to make this case go away," Clegg said.

Van Dyke, the UH law professor, said it might not be easy to find a new challenger, given the high-profile nature of the John Doe case and the lack of others stepping forward to contest the policy. He said his personal feeling is an "overwhelming majority" of the public supports the schools and understands its history and mission.

John Doe filed the lawsuit four years ago after he was rejected for admissions, but has since graduated and is now attending a four-year college and intends to get a degree, said Grant, his lawyer. Although the teenager's request for enrollment is moot, the suit was still alive because he was seeking money damages as a result of his rejection.

Legal observers suggest that John Doe, even if he prevailed, might have had a difficult time establishing a huge money recovery because it would be hard for the court to measure how much he was harmed, if at all. Although he was rejected by Kamehameha, he graduated from public high school with good enough grades to enroll in college.

In the past, Grant said he didn't know how much money they would be seeking because they were focused more on establishing that the policy violated civil rights law rather than the amount of damages. Grant also previously said his clients wanted to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of principle. He declined yesterday to explain why they now chose to settle.

John Goemans, an attorney involved in the case on John Doe's side, declined to comment on what the teenager, now older than 18, and his mother say about the settlement. "We're satisfied," he said. "We've done the best we can for our client."

The roller-coaster case included Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay ruling in favor of the schools, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deciding 2-1 in favor of the teenager and last year's 8-7 decision for the schools by a larger en banc panel of 9th Circuit judges.

Grant asked the Supreme Court to review the 8-7 decision. He needed four of the nine Supreme Court justices to agree to hear the case before the court would take up the appeal and review the legality of the admissions policy.

'GOOD RESULT FOR SCHOOLS'

Both sides had submitted their legal briefs and were awaiting word on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should accept the case.

Van Dyke speculated that it was Grant who felt he might not have the four votes among the nine justices to accept the case and became more open to the settlement because the high court had still not decided that issue. The court docket indicated the justices reviewed legal briefs in the case three times without announcing whether it would take the case.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett, who filed legal papers urging the appeals court to uphold Kamehameha's policy, said it's hard to predict whether another challenge will be filed, but the 9th Circuit ruling made "the admission policy of the school far more difficult to challenge." "So I think (the settlement) is a good result for the schools and we support that."

KEY MOMENTS IN LEGAL BATTLE AGAINST KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

Here is an abbreviated history to the challenge of Kamehameha's admissions policy, which effectively excludes non-Hawaiians:

June 2003
On behalf of an unnamed non-Hawaiian student, identified only as John Doe, attorneys John Goemans and Eric Grant file a civil-rights lawsuit disputing Kamehameha's admissions policy.

June 2003
A non-Hawaiian seventh grader – 12-year-old Brayden Mohica-Cummings of Kaua'i – files a similar suit seeking to overturn Kamehameha Schools' admission policy.

November 2003
U.S. District Judge Alan Kay decides against John Doe, upholding the Hawaiians-preference admissions policy due to its unique and historical circumstances. The two lawyers appeal Kay's ruling.

November 2003
Kamehameha Schools settles Mohica-Cummings' suit, allowing him to attend the school until he graduates.

August 2005
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals votes 2-1 for John Doe, ruling that Kamehameha's admissions policy constitutes unlawful racial discrimination. A week later, the same panel denies a request by John Doe to be admitted in the fall, pending an appeal by the school.

August 2005
About 20,000 Kamehameha students, alumni and other supporters rally on all major Hawaiian islands and the Mainland. Thousands in Honolulu hear a string of fiery speeches before marching two miles to Mauna 'Ala, the Royal Mausoleum in Nu'uanu where the school's founder, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, is buried.

2006
In an 8-7 decision, the full 9th Circuit rules that the admissions policy does not violate a federal civil rights law.

March 2007
Doe's attorneys ask the U.S. Supreme Court to look at the legality of Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy.

Yesterday
Kamehameha Schools and Doe settle the lawsuit, which was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

----------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/15/news/story01.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 15, 2007

MORE SUITS PREDICTED
Disappointment, praise follow Kamehameha settlement
A lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools over their Hawaiians-only admission policy is dropped in a settlement

By Alexandre Da Silva

Kamehameha Schools has survived another challenge to its Hawaiians-only admissions, but both supporters and opponents of the policy say the school should be prepared for more battles.

A non-Hawaiian student who was denied admission settled his lawsuit against the school, which was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, it was announced yesterday. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Honolulu attorney H. William Burgess, an opponent of programs for native Hawaiians who filed a brief in support of the plaintiff, told the Associated Press that he feels the settlement opens the door for other students to bring lawsuits against Kamehameha since there was likely a big payoff in this case. "I assume if it was a generous settlement, then that to me is encouragement to other applicants," he said. "And it will be easier because it's a simple complaint."

The fear of more challenges to Kamehameha Schools and to government programs that favor native Hawaiians has many isle politicians calling for passage of the so-called Akaka Bill, which is currently before the U.S. Senate. The bill would set up a framework for a native Hawaiian government to be recognized by the federal government.

"We must remain mindful that a host of other important programs serving native Hawaiians remain targets of opportunistic lawsuits," said Haunani Apoliona, chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. She called for an increased effort in Washington to pass the Akaka Bill.

Gov. Linda Lingle echoed the sentiment. "This action doesn't remove the need for the Akaka Bill. The need is stronger than ever," she said.

The lawyer for a student who dropped his lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' policy of giving enrollment preference to Hawaiians said he is disappointed at losing a chance to win the civil-rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Winning this case in the Supreme Court certainly is something that I had hoped to do," Eric Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney who took the case in 2003, said yesterday. "It's fair to say I'm disappointed ... but lawyers represent clients and clients make the final decision."

The student, whose application to Kamehameha was rejected because he lacked Hawaiian blood, withdrew the suit because he was "satisfied" with an out-of-court settlement the school was willing to accept, said his other attorney, John Goemans. "We've done the best job that we could for our client, and that's what we are in business to do," he said.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed.

William Burgess, a critic of the bill to grant federal recognition to native Hawaiians, said, "I think this opens the door to more lawsuits." Burgess said he thinks Kamehameha must have offered the unknown student a large settlement. "I think they must have decided to put some money on the table, and I think it must not have been a small amount," Burgess said.

The student, whose name has been kept secret, graduated with honors from a local public high school in spring 2006 and is now finishing his first year of college on the mainland, Grant said. His suit, which was pending before the high court, argued that the admission requirement is race-based and violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

School officials hailed the settlement, saying Kamehameha can continue its 120-year-old practice of favoring Hawaiian applicants. The policy, according to officials, follows the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who set up the school system to remedy economic and educational disadvantages endured by native Hawaiians.

Backed by a $7.6 billion charitable trust, Kamehameha's tuition is heavily subsidized, and only one in eight applicants get in. Only two non-Hawaiians have been accepted to the school in recent years.

"Our work to fulfill our missions and Pauahi's vision, on our campuses and in our communities, can proceed without distraction," said J. Douglas Ing, chairman of the schools board of trustees.

In summer 2005 some 15,000 native Hawaiians marched through downtown Honolulu to protest a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling striking down Kamehameha's policy as "unlawful race discrimination." Hawaiian activists and politicians feared that other programs benefiting Hawaiians also could be threatened if the school lost the case.

Kamehameha narrowly won its appeal in December, when a panel of federal judges voted 8-7 to affirm U.S. District Judge Alan Kay's 2003 ruling in favor of the school.

The settlement that stopped the suit came about two months after the student's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Gov. Linda Lingle said the four-year battle highlights the need for passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, the so-called Akaka Bill before Congress, which would give Hawaiians federal recognition. "I believe Kamehameha Schools is perhaps the most important institution for preserving Hawaiian culture," she said.

SUITS CHALLENGE LEGALITY OF HAWAIIAN PROGRAMS

A look at recent litigation involving programs and entitlements for native Hawaiians:

Rice v. Cayetano. Landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2000 that OHA is a state agency and that all citizens have the right to vote for OHA trustees, not just native Hawaiians.

Arakaki v. Lingle. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February against a group of 14 Hawaii taxpayers who say the state unconstitutionally discriminates against non-Hawaiians by giving money to programs that benefit only Hawaiians. The court stopped short of dismissing the 2002 lawsuit, originally filed as Arakaki v. Cayetano, but overturned its own earlier decision by finding the 14 taxpayers lack legal standing to challenge state funding of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The court sent the case back to U.S. District Court in Honolulu to determine if any of the plaintiffs are eligible "in any other capacity."

Brayden Mohica-Cummings. In a case similar to John Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, the non-Hawaiian boy challenged the institution's preference policy. Under a settlement reached in November 2003, Mohica-Cummings was allowed to attend the school's Kapalama Heights campus in exchange for dropping the lawsuit.

John Carroll/Patrick Barrett. In September 2003 the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling dismissing two lawsuits that challenged Hawaiian entitlements. The court agreed that plaintiffs John Carroll and Patrick Barrett, who filed separate lawsuits in October 2000 that were later consolidated, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Hawaiian programs. Carroll sued to stop state ceded-land payments to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, arguing that the office serves only Hawaiians and was established by a discriminatory state law. Barrett, a Moiliili resident, challenged the validity of the 1978 state constitutional amendment creating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the enactment by Congress in 1921 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.

--------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS23/705150360
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Policy has varied since school's start

By Rick Daysog

In recent years, the Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-first admissions policy has come under legal attack as racially exclusive. But throughout its 120-year history, the school's policy hasn't been as cut and dried.

Until the early 1960s, the school occasionally admitted non-Hawaiian children of faculty and administrators at its Kapalama Heights campus. In 2002, Kamehameha accepted a non-Hawaiian student from Wailuku to its Maui high school after administrators exhausted the list of qualified Hawaiian applicants.

More recently, the school was forced to admit a non-Hawaiian Kaua'i student, 12-year-old Brayden Mohica-Cummings, to its Kapalama Heights campus to settle a federal court lawsuit challenging the policy. The Maui student is to graduate this year, and Mohica-Cummings is a sophomore.

"It's a rarity when it happened, but we've had a number of non-Hawaiians attending the schools over the years," said former Kamehameha Schools admissions director Howard Benham, who graduated from the school in 1944.

The admission policy was upheld in December by 15 judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the case had been awaiting Supreme Court action before it was settled yesterday.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Doe won't be attending Kamehameha Schools because he has already graduated from high school.

The 1884 will of the school's founder, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, does not state the schools should admit Hawaiians exclusively, but that Hawaiians would have preference in admissions.

That opened the door for the admission of a handful of non-Hawaiian children of Kamehameha Schools employees over the years.

Up until the 1940s, many teachers and staff lived in faculty housing near the campus, which was then near the Bishop Museum in Kalihi.

To avoid the long commute to private and public schools elsewhere on O'ahu, some non-Hawaiian students were given special permission from the school's board of trustees to attend Kamehameha Schools, said Bob Springer, who served as a Kamehameha Schools teacher and administrator from 1959 to 1995. The practice was stopped in 1962 by president Jim Bushong.

"It wasn't a big thing in those days," said Springer, who headed the school's outreach programs in the early 1990s and now heads Island School, a small independent school on Kaua'i. "I was never aware of any problems with it."

David Scarlett, a non-Hawaiian student who graduated from the Kapalama Heights campus in 1963, said he felt privileged to attend the Kamehameha Schools. Scarlett, whose father was on the school's ROTC staff and headed its maintenance department, said he supports the school's current policy of giving preference to Hawaiian students, and that there should be no question that Pauahi meant for her endowment to be used for the Hawaiian people. "Attending Kamehameha Schools was a great privilege that has great meaning for me," said Scarlett, who is retired and lives in Folsom, Calif. "It's a privilege and an honor that I can never repay."

----------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS23/705150346
Honolulu Advertiser, May 15, 2007

Money buys time for Kamehameha Schools

By Gordon Y.K. Pang

With one legal battle over, many Hawaiian groups and individuals say their next focus should be defeating other challenges threatening programs that benefit Hawaiians.

"I'm telling you we still have to fight because while our challenge might be over right now, there are all kinds of challenges before us as a native people," Dee Jay Mailer, Kamehameha Schools chief executive officer, told students at the Kapalama campus. The speech was videotaped by the school and a copy given to the media.

But first it was time to celebrate at the Kekuhaupi'o Gym with songs of joy and thanks during an emotional assembly. Jared Ushiroda, a Kamehameha graduate whose son is in kindergarten there, had a "big sigh of relief" when he learned about the settlement. "The school was founded to help out the Hawaiian kids, and it's going to stay that way for now," he said.

Kamehameha board chairman J. Douglas Ing said that while school officials felt the Hawaiians-first admissions policy was correct and legal, they had no assurances the U.S. Supreme Court would have agreed if it had chosen to hear the case. "It was in our best interest to settle," Ing said. "We didn't think that there was a strong possibility but that risk is always out there. We went into this case with the idea that we're going to take this case as far as it can go and we're going to win. But there are no guarantees and there certainly were no guarantees from our lawyers that we would win the case."

The settlement does not bar others from challenging the admissions policy. However, Ing said, "They would have to go initiate the case before the United States District Court here in Hawai'i, and from there they would have to take it to the 9th Circuit and the law is in our favor there at the 9th Circuit." All of that, he said, makes a "very strong disincentive."

Attorney Bill Meheula, who has been helping defend the Office of Hawaiian Affairs against legal challenges, said it made good sense for Kamehameha to settle. "Given the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court at this time, it is unknown what the result may have been although based on case precedent, it should be that Congress has authority (over the admissions policy)," he said.

Moses Haia, an attorney with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., agreed. "That's a chance, a huge chance, that if the Supreme Court took it, the decision may have required some significant changes to the admissions policy," he said.

Even Richard Rowland, who heads the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii — which has opposed the federal Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, also known as the Akaka bill, and Hawaiian-preference programs — believes it will be a hard climb for the next student or group who challenges Kamehameha. But he also believes that there will be no shortage of opponents ready to step up to the plate. "There's still an open invitation for people who have their kids apply and then turned down, to sue," Rowland said. "I think it's probable that people will be standing in line looking for a way to sue Kamehameha Schools."

SEEKING UNITY

Mailer, in addressing the students yesterday, said the end of the lawsuit is important not only to the school and its community, but to federal programs aimed at helping Hawaiians. "We cannot ignore the treacherous landscape before us," she said. "We have all seen the systematic attempts to take Hawaiian Homelands, dismantle the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, to eliminate federal funding for programs that serve to improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians, as the indigenous people of this state, to manage and control our own resources."

The settlement allows Kamehameha supporters to refocus their energies at "the bigger picture of unity among all other Hawaiian organizations and maybe all the legal challenges they're going to be facing as a whole in the future," said Adrian Kamali'i, president of Na Pua A Ke Ali'i Pauahi. Kamali'i, a Kamehameha graduate, said he's not looking at any particular political or cultural issues. "I think all the different Hawaiian organizations know that legal challenges are a part of the future," he said. "How do they address that together?"

Many said they now believe Hawaiians should concentrate on supporting the Akaka bill. "What I'm concerned about is that the Congress recognize the Hawaiian people as an indigenous people or as Native Americans," said Roy Benham, a former teacher and OHA trustee. "Everybody else does." Formal recognition would help Hawaiians prevail in future lawsuits, said Clyde Namu'o, OHA administrator. "The need to pursue the Akaka bill becomes even more significant because we know there are going to be other challenges that may be trying to get past the 9th Circuit decision," he said.

Members of Hawai'i's Congressional delegation and top state officials — all of whom support Kamehameha's admissions policy — applauded the settlement. "I hope that Kamehameha Schools will now be able to carry forward its special mission and fulfill the dreams of Princess Pauahi," U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye said.

Gov. Linda Lingle, in showing her support, said in a release, "I believe Kamehameha Schools is perhaps the most important institution for preserving Hawaiian culture for future generations."

Hawai'i's Congressional delegation had filed an amicus brief in support of Kamehameha Schools that urged the Supreme Court not to review a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case, thereby upholding the admissions policy and "restating our position that Native Hawaiians are indigenous peoples, as are Alaska Natives and American Indians," said U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirono. The settlement allows Kamehameha Schools to focus on providing education for Native Hawaiian children, she said. Hirono said Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, author of the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, said he will continue to push the legislation through Congress. "I am pleased that both parties have resolved their differences. But the matter of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians remains unresolved," Akaka said in a news release. "I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation formalizing the existing legal and political relationship that Native Hawaiians have with the United States."

'NOTHING BUT POSITIVE'

The political implications and legal ramifications of the Kamehameha Schools settlement were "nothing but positive" for the Native Hawaiian bill, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie said.

On the Kapalama campus, sophomore Wiliama Sanchez said students erupted in cheers when principal Julian Ako announced the news via campus TV yesterday morning. "It was just like a giant weight was lifted for everyone, and everyone was just excited and ecstatic," said Sanchez, whose great-grandfather, grandmother and uncle attended Kamehameha. "There were cheers everywhere," he said. "Everyone was yelling. We were just relieved and happy about the news. ... It was so hard to do the rest of the day because we were so excited."

Parents also said they were relieved to hear the lawsuit had been settled. "Hawaiians have been stripped of so much that they should be able to have something of their own, a school where they can learn," said Mahele Nitahara, a Kamehameha alumnus whose daughter attends the third grade at the school. "The people who are challenging it, I don't know why they do it," said Nitahara, also a part-time teacher. "I don't understand because if they really wanted to go to Kamehameha they would see the values that are instilled in the children there. They wouldn't challenge it if they had any respect for the things that are taught." Jen Puaoi, who also graduated from Kamehameha and has a first-grade daughter at the school, said she was "overjoyed." "It was a battle that they were fighting for a long time," the 26-year-old payroll clerk from Pearl City said. "If others were allowed to attend, then they wouldn't be able to help as many Hawaiians as they are helping now." Jeff Domdoma, Puaoi's cousin, is not Hawaiian but was happy to hear about the dismissal. "It's a local lifestyle — everybody born and raised in Hawai'i knows that only Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian kids go to Kamehameha," he said. "It's from the will. We should just leave it alone."

KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

Founded: 1887
Assets: $7.7 billion
Chief executive officer: Dee Jay Mailer
Trustees: Douglas Ing, Nainoa Thompson, Diane Plotts, Robert Kihune, Corbett Kalama
K-12 enrollment: 5,400
Preschool enrollment, scholarships, early childhood and other programs: 10,000
Campuses: Kapalama Heights on O'ahu; Maui; and Big Island
Land ownership: 365,000 acres
2006 investment income: $897 million*
2006 Educational spending: $221 million
*Fiscal year ending June 30, 2006
Source: Kamehameha Schools

--------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS23/705150345
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Reaction from around the state to Kamehameha lawsuit settlement

"I hate to see the money that is supposed to go to Hawaiian children going to other people, but I don't question these legal eagles because they know what they are doing. My whole feeling is that (Pauahi's) will stated a desire and no one should question it. ... It would be like if your grandma left you money for a certain something and someone else is questioning it. That's wrong, and it's stealing."
Sandra Haskell of Volcano, whose son is a seventh-grader at the Kea'au campus

"According to Pauahi's will, (Kamehameha Schools) is to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry, and it should be followed. ... Hawaiians don't have that many opportunities."
Cerie Kamaunu, 36, administrative assistant, Hau'ula

"Sometimes it's hard for minorities to find a place in education, and it's good to have a school that supports them in that regard. It's a good policy that it's a school for people with Hawaiian blood, and I think it should be kept that way."
Steven Warne, 53, Kailua

"I really think Kamehameha Schools has been experiencing more than its share of negativity over the last probably 10 years, with the trustees as well as with the students and enrollment, and I prefer to have them just be left alone. They're doing a good thing up there."
Sasha Springer Asato, administrative assistant, Kailua

"I'm actually torn. With the history of the civil rights movement on the Mainland, it's sort of the opposite happening here. On the one hand, I don't think that there should be discrimination, but on the other hand ... I understand that there's a difference in having a native Hawaiian curriculum and having extra opportunities for Native Hawaiians in Hawai'i."
Farrah Greene, 31, psychology graduate student, downtown Honolulu

"Kamehameha Schools is for the Hawaiians. I think that's the goal. Let the Hawaiians have something no one else has."
Adam Killermann, irrigation consultant, Hanapepe, Kaua'i

"In theory, I don't think there's anything wrong with a privately funded trust that goes for any (group), whether it's Catholics or Muslims or women or men or Hawaiians. It's no different than an all-boys school or an all-girls school for me."
Leslie Niebuhr, 37, producer for advertising agency, Kailua

"Already it's hard to get in. People in the Hawaiian community have to compete to get in. They provide a lot of scholarships. You know Hawaiians are at the bottom of the economic totem pole. The harm would be much less choice for people in the Hawaiian community (if the school lost the lawsuit)."
Mike Aki, contractor, Lawa'i, Kaua'i, has four children who attended Kamehameha Schools

"I don't like the idea of not winning the case for Native Hawaiians, but I do like the idea of settling the case, thereby giving OHA and Hawaiian Homes an opportunity to work with Congress and prepare for the next lawsuit against us and Kamehameha Schools. It buys us the time that we need to prepare. The other option would have been risking the Supreme Court taking this case, and had that happened, there's not an attorney I know who would have placed money on winning the case for Kamehameha Schools. It would have been a complete and utter disaster for the Hawaiian people, because not only would the school lose, but Hawaiian Homes, OHA and every Hawaiian agency in Hawai'i would necessarily have been sucked up into this lawsuit."
Boyd P. Mossman, OHA trustee and retired Circuit Court judge, Pukalani, Maui. Mossman, a 1961 Kamehameha graduate, is on the Maui Campus advisory group.

"I'd rather they settle with money than by breaking the princess' will. ... (But) will they have to keep paying people off?"
Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr., Hawaiian cultural specialist, Pukalani, Maui

"I would have liked to see them go further, but I can understand why they settled. But for me, are we now going to face someone else coming forward (and suing)?"
Iris Mountcastle, Wailuku, whose son is a sophomore at the Maui Campus

--------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/OPINION01/705150311/1104
Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday May 15, 2007
EDITORIAL

Kamehameha accord signals need for more work

Kamehameha Schools started the week yesterday with extraordinarily good news, when the two sides in a raging court dispute over its admissions policy finally inked a settlement.

For the school, there is reason to celebrate. The end of Doe vs. Kamehameha means the end of a supremely divisive (not to mention colossally expensive) legal battle that has occupied its attention for four years. The mission of the school to improve the lot of Native Hawaiians is better served by bringing the dispute to a close, if it can do so without financially handicapping the charitable trust.

Regrettably, the accord is confidential — even the state's attorney general, who oversees Hawai'i's charitable trusts, said he doesn't know its terms.

But the fact that an agreement was reached at all is significant. It happened before the U.S. Supreme Court could decide on whether it would take the case on appeal. That means that technically the question of whether Kamehameha's Hawaiian-preference policy violates an old civil rights law is unsettled at the highest judicial level.

But in a practical sense, the settlement solidifies the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which favored the pro-Hawaiian policy. That means the bar to a future challenge has been raised so high as to make such a challenge unlikely in the short term. Any future challenger would need to start at Square One, incurring expenses as they battle back up the judicial ladder. Alternatively, the next plaintiff could argue that the policy violates the Constitution, rather than federal law, but that case would be harder to press.

So the status quo at the school seems fairly well insulated for now. Regardless, the settlement should not signal that the school should rest on its laurels.

For starters, the school trustees need to continue their support for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a political class. The Akaka bill seeking federal recognition for Native Hawaiians is key to that.

Failing the passage of that bill in Congress, there may be other clarifications in federal law that should be sought.

For example, the majority opinion of the circuit's judges argued that Congress has implicitly exempted Native Hawaiians from being covered by the civil rights law cited in the case. The majority opinion pointed to an update of that law in 1991 and cited various subsequent programs benefiting the education of Native Hawaiians as evidence that Congress affirms them as consistent with federal law.

The dissenters find fault with that conclusion, and in fact it would be prudent for a congressional delegation to seek more specific language in federal law spelling out the exemption as part of the special status Hawaiians have enjoyed under the federal umbrella.

Additionally, the appellate judges cautioned Kamehameha that its affirmative-action role, to improve achievement levels among Native Hawaiians, is not open-ended. It's being allowed only as long as Native Hawaiians need the added support to counter socioeconomic disadvantages.

This suggests that the school needs to redouble its focus on correcting the imbalance, with more outreach into the communities where Hawaiians live.

The private school campus programs themselves are an important component, but Kamehameha should continue — even intensify — its work with the public schools, where enrichment programs can be available to all students. Helping the broad population will enhance Kamehameha's standing within the community, and should be seen as central to the mission.

The Kamehameha Schools comprise an institution that has, especially in recent years, supplemented the state's own service to a critical sector of the population. With a legal impasse surmounted, that work must continue and expand to more children.

----------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/15/editorial/editorial01.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 15, 2007, EDITORIAL
OUR OPINION

Kamehameha Schools gets reprieve but no victory

THE ISSUE
Kamehameha Schools and a former student who was denied admission have settled a lawsuit challenging its admissions policy.

KAMEHAMEHA Schools' settlement of a legal challenge to its Hawaiians-only admissions policy has given it a reprieve but makes it vulnerable to similar lawsuits in the future. The only way to remove that risk might be to eliminate all tuition, a key ingredient in what was alleged to be a racially discriminatory contract between students and the well-endowed institution. The U.S. Supreme Court had scheduled and rescheduled its decision during the past month about whether to review December's 8-7 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the admissions policy. While terms of the settlement were sealed, Kamehameha trustees issued a statement that it "has the same legal effect as a denial" of such a review.

Legally, yes, the 9th Circuit ruling is now the law of the land throughout the circuit's Western states, including Hawaii, in the absence of a Supreme Court opinion. However, a denial to review the case would have had more sting, would have been interpreted as a Kamehameha victory and would have discouraged similar lawsuits.

Eight judges nominated to the 9th Circuit bench by Democratic presidents joined in upholding the Kamehameha policy, while six GOP nominees and a Democrat dissented. Justices nominated by Republican presidents control the Supreme Court, which struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program four years ago and likely would have overturned the 9th Circuit ruling.

The 9th Circuit majority made a strong case about the "special relationship" between the federal government and Kamehameha. However, a relationship equal to that of Indian tribes would be created only by enactment of Sen. Daniel Akaka's bill granting Hawaiian sovereignty, and that might not be sufficient in shielding Kamehameha from future lawsuits.

In the 9th Circuit dissent, Judge Jay S. Bybee asserted that "the special relationship doctrine (regarding Indian tribes) applies only to preferences by the federal government or by the tribes themselves. It does not apply to private parties discriminating on the basis of tribal status; indeed, we have been quite clear that such private racial discrimination remains illegal."

The lawsuit was based on an 1866 civil-rights law that prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. In Kamehameha's case, the contract is the agreement to exchange tuition for education. The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the law is binding on private schools, regardless of whether they receive federal funds, and protects whites as well as minorities. However, without tuition, no contract would exist.

The majority in the 9th Circuit maintained that Kamehameha's admissions policy is not an "absolute bar" to non-Hawaiians, as a three-judge panel had found, but that was also true at the University of Michigan. A non-Hawaiian can be admitted at Kamehameha only if Hawaiians have not filled all the slots.

---------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/15/news/story03.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 15, 2007

Akaka Bill's necessity stressed
Informal filibusters stall the measure in the U.S. Senate

By Richard Borreca

Kamehameha Schools' decision to settle instead of risk an adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling on its Hawaiians-only admission policy does not change the need for a native Hawaii federal recognition bill in Congress, according to supporters of the Akaka Bill.

"This action doesn't remove the need for the Akaka Bill," said Gov. Linda Lingle, an Akaka Bill supporter. "The need is stronger than ever."

Lingle, who just returned from lobbying for the measure in Washington, said the chances of passage for the bill have neither improved nor diminished.

The bill, first introduced in 2000, has been stalled in the Senate, where informal filibusters have blocked the measure from a vote on the floor.

The Akaka Bill needs 60 votes to break the filibuster, and neither the Democratic nor Republican supporters have been able to put together enough votes to advance the bill.

"We haven't lost any support on the Republican side, but it is still chasing 60 votes," Lingle said.

Asked about the opposition from the administration of Republican President Bush, Lingle said the bill must clear Congress first.

"I have talked to the president many times about it," she said. "He is very aware of it, but you still need 60 votes and I think it is premature to talk about what the administration is going to do when you need to ask, 'Where do you get the 60 votes?'"

Hawaii's congressional delegation also said the Akaka Bill is still needed.

"The need for the Akaka Bill remains critical," Rep. Mazie Hirono said. "The dismissal doesn't mean we are out of the woods as far as legal threats to other programs that assist native Hawaiians."

---------------------

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/05/14/opinion/edit01.txt
Garden Island News (Kaua'i), May 14, 2007
Letter to editor

New book is wake-up call

Some recent letters show strong zealotry for Hawaiian sovereignty. I'd like to make readers aware of a new book, "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."

This book is a wake-up call to all America, and especially Hawai‘i, regarding the growing menace of Hawaiian racial separatism and ethnic nationalism.

One chapter describes Hawai‘i's current racial separatism of over 160 racially exclusionary federal programs, plus OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha School, charter schools, immersion schools, and a proposal for racial separatist government through the Akaka Bill, S310/HR505.

Another chapter explores the secessionist independence movement, what it means for people with no native blood, and how the Akaka bill would empower secessionists. Other chapters examine some important historical falsehoods; junk-science victimhood claims of the Hawaiian grievance industry; anti-Americanism and anti-military activism; bogus claims to indigenous status; sovereignty frauds and scams; and an agenda for future action to revive unity, equality, and aloha for all.

The entire first chapter can be read at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa along with the detailed table of contents. The book's cover shows the U.S. flag with its 50th star ripped off, and the Great Seal of the State of Hawai‘i broken in half. It's not pleasant reading.

Kenneth Conklin
Kane‘ohe

================

** Following are 7 news reports and commentaries published late Tuesday May 15 and early Wednesday May 16, 2007. These articles are not in the order they were published, but rather in logical order so they "speak to each other" and also move from specific to broad.

1. Formal press release statement from Doe v. Kamehameha plaintiff's attorney Eric Grant.

2. Cartoon in Honolulu Star-Bulletin lampoons plaintiff and attorney for accepting money payoff to abandon high-principled civil rights lawsuit.

3. Honolulu Advertiser reports huge amounts of deferred pay being received by Kamehameha executives and by disgraced former Kamehameha trustees.

4. Press release from Hawaii Congressmember Mazie Hirono expressing gladness that Kamehameha admissions policy can continue, and citing the threat to Hawaiian racial entitlements as a reason why the Akaka bill must pass.

5. Commentary by Andrew Walden in Hawaii Reporter points out that the Kamehameha lawsuit is being used as a "dog and pony show" for the Akaka bill. Whether or not the Kamehameha lawsuit was successful and whether or not it still remained actively underway, Akaka bill supporters use such lawsuits to strike fear in the hearts of ethnic Hawaiians to goad them into supporting the Akaka bill and use such lawsuits to explain to Capitol Hill politicians why the Akaka bill must pass.

6. 1300-word Commentary by Ken Conklin in INSIGHT MAGAZINE [affiliated with The Washington Times] describes the big picture of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawai'i, and how the Akaka bill fits into that picture.

7. Hawaii Reporter commentary "Tribalism vs. Republican Governments" by Paul R. Jones of Arizona.

--------------------

(1)

From: "Eric Grant"
Subject: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools -- Statement of Eric Grant
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007

Interested Persons,

Following is my formal statement on behalf of John Doe, the plaintiff/petitioner in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools:

As revealed yesterday, my client John Doe has settled his civil rights lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools. As is typical in litigation, the terms of the settlement are confidential. Accordingly, although my client had sound reasons to enter into the settlement, I am not at liberty to discuss those reasons or the circumstances that led to this resolution of the case. I appreciate your respecting this constraint.

The trustees of Kamehameha Schools yesterday issued a statement regarding the settlement. The statement correctly observes that John Doe's petition for certiorari has been withdrawn, meaning that last December's 8-to-7 en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit "stands" -- though without the sanction of the Supreme Court.

The trustees of Kamehameha Schools appear to see that decision as a complete vindication of their racially exclusionary admissions policy. But I see it, and I think most impartial observers would see it, as a reprieve for that policy. I hope the trustees will take advantage of that reprieve to reassess the wisdom and justice of maintaining an admissions standard that categorically excludes children solely because they have the "wrong" ancestry or bloodline.

If the trustees continue to choose exclusion and separation, they should expect further legal challenges. I am confident that at the end of the road, long though it may be, the principle of equal justice under law will prevail at Kamehameha Schools.

Cordially,
Eric Grant
Attorney at Law
8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
http://www.eric-grant.com

------------------

(2)

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/16/news/corky.html

May 16 Cartoon by Honolulu Star-Bulletin editorial cartoonist "Corky" lampoons Kamehameha plaintiff and attorney. The cartoon plays on the fact that the plaintiff's name was kept secret [he was known merely as "John Doe"]. The cartoon mostly plays on the fact that a civil rights lawsuit filed for the seemingly high-minded principle of seeking to enforce the Constitutional principle of equal rights under the law ended up getting settled for money. Cartoon shows shows attorney [Eric Grant] and disguised child [face obscured by sunglasses and turned-up collar] accepting a bag [full of money]. First panel shows arm reaching in to hand over the bag to attorney and child seated at table, while lawyer with finger raised to make a point is saying "It's not about money! It's about principles! Equality! Upholding one's rights and the Constitution. It's the ..." Second panel shows lawyer carrying the bag, accompanied by child, as they walk away, and saying "Oh, OK. It's the money."

[** Ken Conklin's note: As I explained yesterday, an attorney has no choice but to accept a settlement offer when his client [child's parent or guardian] makes that decision and when it is clearly in the best interest of the client. The child in this case graduated from high school a year ago and is now in college. The lawsuit originally did not request money damages, but was amended as the child approached high school graduation to seek money damages so that the lawsuit could continue and not be dismissed as moot. When Kamehameha now offers a presumably large financial settlement that could very well pay for the child's college education and pay substantial attorney fees and expenses, the canons of legal ethics require that such a settlement be accepted in the best interests of the client. The attorney represents only the client [and not the civil rights principles or the community at large]. In this case, the lawsuit took 4 years to reach its conclusion, and would have taken 5 years if certiorari had been granted. Justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied. It's a very clever strategy by Kamehameha to use legal delays to effectively prevent any legal challenge to its admissions policy from being successful -- keep the case going until a child has graduated from some other high school, whereupon the child must accept a financial settlement as his only remedy and the case is thereby dismissed before the admissions policy can be overturned. Next time a lawsuit is filed against Kamehameha's racially discriminatory admissions policy, the plaintiff had better be a child no older than 4th or 5th grade to ensure that even with excessive motions and delays by Kamehameha the case will have time to reach a Supreme Court decision while the child still has at least a year remaining before high school graduation.]

--------------

(3)

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070516/NEWS01/705160410/1001/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, May 16, 2007

Deferred money to ex-trustees 'pretty big'

Newly released filings with the Internal Revenue Service show former Kamehameha Schools trustee Henry Peters received $428,835 in deferred pay last year.

The filings, which cover the year ending June 30, 2006, also show that former trustees Matsuo Takabuki earned $270,135 in deferred compensation last year, while former state Supreme Court Chief Justice William Richardson received $47,696.

The filings for the first time give details about the compensation for former board members of the $7 billion charitable trust.

A deferred compensation plan is a tax-savings strategy that allows an executive to postpone the payment of part of his or her annual compensation until a later date, when the executive is in a lower tax bracket.

Kamehameha Schools offered a deferred compensation plan for key employees and trustees from the mid-1970s until the early 1990s.

Contacted at home yesterday, Peters said his deferred compensation is part of a retirement plan that he set up to provide for his family.

Peters said his past trustee pay was performance-based and was determined under a state law that at the time allowed trustees of charitable organizations to receive up to 2 percent of the organization's annual income.

He added that many of the estate's court-appointed masters have found the compensation was appropriate in their annual reviews of the estate's finances.

"We didn't have any retirement, a health plan or any other kind of those amenities. We just have those commissions and from those commissions, it was our responsibility to provide for our own future," Peters said. "Our compensation was performance-based. It was based on results."

Takabuki, who retired in 1993, and Richardson, who retired as trustee in 1992, could not be reached for immediate comment. When these three served as trustees, the charity was known as Bishop Estate.

APPROACHES CEO'S PAY

Peters' deferred compensation is about four times the amount paid to each of the current Kamehameha Schools trustees last year. It's also about three-quarters of the $574,230 that the charitable trust's Chief Executive Officer Dee Jay Mailer earned in 2006.

"That is a pretty big number," said Linda Lampkin, research director at ERI Economic Research Institute in Washington, D.C., and an executive pay expert specializing in the nonprofit sector.

Peters received the money from an individual deferred compensation plan he set up with trustee pay that he received in the 1980s and 1990s.

Before his resignation in 1999, Peters earned as much as $1 million a year as a trustee.

Peters, 66, is a former state House speaker. He served as a Kamehameha Schools trustee from 1984 until 1999 when he resigned along with fellow trustees Richard "Dickie" Wong, Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Jervis and Oswald Stender.

The resignations came after the Internal Revenue Service threatened to revoke the charitable trust's tax-exempt status.

Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman Ann Botticelli had no comment on Peters' deferred pay.

COMPENSATION SLAMMED

When he resigned from the trust, Peters' deferred pay was criticized by the state attorney general's office. The AG's office — which had been seeking multi-million dollar fines against Peters and his fellow trustees — argued that Peters' deferred compensation was based on excessive pay that he received while he was trustee.

Deputy Attorney General Hugh Jones would not comment yesterday.

The estate's tax filings also show that Mailer's 2006 pay of $574,230 was up nearly $100,000, or about 21 percent, from her 2005 compensation of $474,240.

But even with the pay hike, Mailer was the estate's second-highest paid executive behind the trust's vice president of endowment, Kirk Belsby, who received $663,724 in total compensation last year.

Both Mailer and Belsby earned less than the $2.6 million average pay that the CEOs of Hawai'i's largest publicly traded companies received last year. But the salaries of the trust executives were in the general range of what top executives of the nation's largest nonprofits receive.

Lampkin, the Washington, D.C., executive pay expert, said the average annual compensation for top executives of charitable foundations with assets of $100 million or more was about $637,000 last year.

For large nonprofits including hospitals and universities with assets of $1 billion to $10 billion, the pay ranges between $513,000 a year and $1 million a year, Lampkin said.

HOW MUCH OTHERS MADE

Kamehameha Schools' tax filing for its 2006 fiscal year also listed the pay for several of its top executives, including:

Christopher Pating, vice president of strategic planning, who earned $461,415 last year;
Elizabeth Hokada, director of financial assets, who received $316,953; Michael Loo, vice president of finance and administration, who was paid $299,630;
Vice President of Legal Services Colleen Wong, who earned $248,285; Michael Chun, headmaster of Kamehameha Schools' Kapalama campus, who received $230,035;
Former state Budget Director Yukio Takemoto, who recently retired as the estate's director of facilities development, received $208,471 last year.

Founded by the 1884 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the Kamehameha Schools is a tax-exempt organization that educates children of Hawaiian ancestry. The estate is one of the nation's largest charities and is Hawai'i's largest private landowner with 365,000 acres.

EDUCATION SPENDING UP

The estate's 2006 tax filings also showed that the estate increased spending for its educational programs by $57 million in 2006 to $197 million.

Those expenditures included $11 million in financial aid for preschool to 12th-grade students, and another $12.7 million in post-high school financial aid.

The trust also spent $4.4 million in legal fees last year, with much of that going to defend its Hawaiians-first admission policy.

The trust announced Monday that it had settled a lawsuit that challenged its century-old Hawaiians-first admissions policy just as the U.S. Supreme Court was about to decide whether to take the case.

-----------------

(4)

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?187d9dd4-0faf-47fe-b530-0b8bcbc556f8
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Akaka Bill Will Provide Needed Protection for Hawaiian Race-Based Programs

By Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii

[** Ken Conklin's note: The headline of this press release was obviously not written by Congressmember Mazie Hirono. It was written by Hawaii Reporter editor Malia Zimmerman. While I agree with Zimmerman's viewpoint and disagree with Hirono's, it is unprofessional bad journalism for an editor to write a headline which the author of an article would most surely disapprove of, however accurate it might be.]

I'm extremely pleased with the May 14th settlement (between Kamehameha Schools and the challenger to its Hawaiians-only admission policy). This means this legal case is over and the school's admissions policy stands.

Our Congressional delegation filed an amicus brief in support of Kamehameha Schools urging the Supreme Court not to review the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the admissions policy and restating our position that Native Hawaiians are indigenous peoples, as are Alaska Natives and American Indians.

As a member of the House Education Committee, and a long-time proponent of quality education, I believe that, with this dismissal, Kamehameha Schools can focus on its mission to provide Hawaiian children educational opportunities and expand their programs to reach more beneficiaries.

The need for the Akaka bill remains critical. The dismissal doesn't mean we are out of the woods as far as legal threats to other programs that assist Native Hawaiians.

I along with Congressman Abercrombie and Senators Inouye and Akaka are committed to attain formal federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as indigenous people.

We look forward to Congress stating once and for all that Native Hawaiians have a legal and political relationship with the United States, erasing all claims that opponents have raised that various programs helping Hawaiians are so-called "race-based." The Akaka bill will provide that protection.

--------------------

(5)

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6c022975-c30c-4cd2-ac03-2e2931af28b4
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Kamehameha Schools/Doe Settlement: Akaka Bill Dog and Pony Show?

By Andrew Walden

Kamehameha Schools and a non-Hawaiian applicant to Kamehameha Schools known only as "John Doe" agreed May 11 to an out of court settlement ending efforts by Doe's attorneys to have the case heard before the US Supreme Court. The settlement leaves in place the ruling by a 15 judge "en banc" panel of the US 9th Circuit court that Kamehameha Schools Hawaiians preference in admissions is legal. The settlement ends one threat to Hawaiians-only admissions, theoretically weakening one of the key arguments for the Akaka Bill. But the timing of the settlement continues a pattern of manipulating disputes over Hawaiian-only entitlements in order to push otherwise dubious native Hawaiians into supporting the Akaka Bill.

This pattern was in full display earlier this year when Rep Neil Abercrombie March 21 moved to hold a House vote on HR 835, reauthorizing $8 million in annual funding for Hawaiian Home Lands road and water line construction, under a special motion to suspend House rules requiring a 2/3 Congressional majority. When the measure was defeated--with 262 for and 162 against—in part due to resistance to federal block grant spending, Abercrombie used the result to highlight the threat to Hawaiian entitlements. He told the Star Bulletin, "Unfortunately, there's an element in the Republican party that is hell-bent on attacking Hawaiians as symbolic of their opposition to native interests." The DHHL funding bill is now closely following the legislative track of the Akaka Bill allowing the two to be covered in the media as if they were similar in nature.

In the aftermath of the "Doe" settlement, Rep Mazie Hirono, a co-sponsor of the bill, said, "The opponents of federal recognition for Native Hawaiians will not be able to use the pending lawsuit to stall movement of the Akaka Bill."

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, another co-sponsor of the HR 505, the House version of the Akaka Bill echoes Hirono telling the Advertiser: "My understanding of both those rulings is essentially that Native Hawaiians are recognized as an indigenous people and that they have a political status…. That can move the Akaka bill forward."

Perhaps anticipating a lessening in public support for the Akaka Bill as a result of the lifting of the threat, Governor Lingle said, "While I am pleased a settlement has been reached in this case, Native Hawaiian programs will continue to be challenged, which is why it is so critical that the Akaka bill be passed."

The terms of the "Doe" settlement are confidential, but the Advertiser May 14 quotes Roger Clegg, president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity saying he believes that Kamehameha Schools settled because "they stood a good chance of losing before the Supreme Court."

"My suspicion is that they opened their wallets in a big way to make this case go away…. It's unusual for somebody to have won a case en banc then settle it on the steps of the Supreme Court." Clegg's group filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Doe.

One of Doe's attorneys, John Goemans, a former Hawaii State Deputy Attorney General and Democratic State Legislator who worked in the 1980s as an aide to then-State-Senator Malama Solomon said, "We've done the best we can for our client." Eric Grant, a Sacramento-based lawyer also representing Doe said only, "I expect to make a public statement on behalf of John Doe at a later time."

A May 14 statement released by Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate trustees said, "We have reached agreement with "John Doe" to resolve Doe's lawsuit seeking to overturn our admissions policy. The terms of the settlement are confidential. By settling this case, we protect our right to offer admissions preference to Native Hawaiians. The plaintiff has withdrawn his petition for U.S. Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding our preference policy as legally permissible.

"This means that the Circuit Court ruling stands – our legal right to offer preference to Native Hawaiian applicants is preserved…. Settling this case also reserves the rights of other private trusts – Native and non-Native, as well as the rights of all Indigenous people to control and use resources designated for their benefit.

"This settlement, which preserves a favorable 9th Circuit Court ruling, has the same legal effect as a denial of the plaintiff's petition for Supreme Court review."

KSBE Statement: http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20070514062928373

--------------------

(6)

Insight Magazine, May 15-21, 2007
[** Conservative weekly on-line magazine published every Tuesday, focusing on issues of national importance, and affiliated with The Washington Times]
To see the front page with list of all this week's articles, go to
http://www.insightmag.com
To see this particular article go to
http://tinyurl.com/23xo6p

Hawaii's racial separatism paves way to eventual secession

Commentary by Kenneth R. Conklin

There's trouble in paradise, and it threatens all of America. Racial separatism and ethnic nationalism are growing stronger in the Aloha State, with the U.S. as current accomplice and future victim.

Hawaii's gathering storm has been building strength for several decades. Most people don't recognize the danger. Some Hawaii politicians and community leaders who do recognize the danger prefer to ignore it, or to appease a growing Evil Empire by giving it money, land, and political power. Most U.S. senators were unaware of the issue until June of 2006. That's when the Senate spent several hours discussing the "Akaka bill." Every Democrat and several Republicans voted to bring to the floor an outrageous bill to authorize an apartheid regime for Hawaii.

In the 110th Congress the Akaka bill is S.310 and H.R.505. It has already passed its committees in both the Senate and House, with floor action likely soon.

Race-based institutions have grown so powerful they now control Hawaii's political establishment. A state government agency, eagerly supported by the Democrat legislature and Republican governor, is pushing the Akaka bill with millions of dollars in lobbying and advertising. It would authorize a racially exclusionary government to include 240,000 citizens of Hawaii (20 percent of the state's population) and 160,000 citizens of other states. Only one drop of native blood is required to be considered "Native Hawaiian."

Most support for the Akaka bill comes from Hawaii's large race-based institutions seeking to protect the vast wealth and political power they already enjoy. Polls show that 2/3 of all Hawaii's people, including about half of the "Native Hawaiians," oppose this bill. But the political establishment responds to the money and power of the institutions, and fears to go against a swing-vote of the 20 percent of citizens who have a drop of native blood and are regarded (wrongly) as a monolithic voting bloc.

Some see the Akaka bill as a path to secession. Most independence activists accuse supporters of the Akaka bill of selling out; yet most supporters of the Akaka bill privately dream of eventual independence for Hawaii. Some independence activists accept the Akaka bill as a short-term pragmatic necessity to acquire ever-larger amounts of money, land, and power to fuel a drive for complete secession of the entire State of Hawaii from the United States.

Over 160 racially exclusionary federal programs, plus massive state government programs, plus private race-based institutions valued at $8-15 billion, already provide a substantial amount of racial supremacy to a group that also shares all the benefits available to everyone else. At the end of 2006, nearly 60,000 of America's 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians had already signed a racial registry that would probably become the nucleus of the phony tribe's membership roll.

The situation in Hawaii is unlike any other state in regard to the severity of impact a tribal "recognition" would have on the population as a whole. No other state has 20 percent of its people eligible to join a single tribe, whose members would then be active participants on both sides of negotiations between the tribe and state government over money, land, and political power. No other state has an Indian tribe whose reservation lands, under tribal laws very different from the state's laws, would comprise 40-50 percent of the entire state in a great number of large and small enclaves scattered everywhere.

The Akaka bill to create a phony Indian tribe for ethnic Hawaiians threatens all America because it is based on a new theory of the U.S. Constitution which would encourage and accelerate the racial balkanization of our nation. The theory is that the Indian Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to single out any ethnic group (especially if they are "indigenous") and give them group rights similar to an Indian tribe, even if the group has never functioned as a tribe and even if its members are widely scattered and thoroughly assimilated into the general population. If that theory applies to ethnic groups in general, the Amish could seek tribal status, along with Louisiana Cajuns; and perhaps a Nation of New Africa for all of America's blacks. If the theory is restricted to so-called "indigenous" people whose ancestral lands were engulfed by the United States, then America's people of Mexican ancestry (most of whom have a drop of Aztec or Mayan blood) could demand the right for MEChA to form a Nation of Aztlan controlling those parts of America which formerly belonged to Mexico.

Hawaii is widely known as a paradise. We have a beautiful environment and excellent weather for enjoying it year-round. We are also known as a social paradise—the most racially diverse and harmonious state in America, with the highest percentage of intermarriage producing the world's most beautiful children.

Every racial or ethnic group in Hawaii is a minority. All are represented at every level of government, business, labor, media, etc. Governors and U.S. senators have been Chinese, Filipino, ethnic Hawaiian, Japanese, Jewish, and white. All races are found among owners of multimillion dollar corporations, laborers who work for them, farmers and fishermen, homeless people and prison inmates. Most neighborhoods have all racial groups represented among both homeowners and renters. We live, work, play, and pray in a fully integrated multiracial society. Many Hawaii citizens have a long list of ethnicities in their genealogies, and are very proud to recite them.

If there were to be an ethnic Hawaiian state within the State of Hawaii, its land base could only be filled with people through an exchange of populations similar to what was done when India (mostly Hindu) broke apart to create Pakistan (mostly Muslim). The Akaka bill is not intended to recognize a small Indian tribe living in a compact remote area. Ethnic Hawaiians comprise 20 percent of the state's population, and demand more than 50 percent of the state's land, especially if Kamehameha Schools (Bishop Estate) lands were included. Thus, the best name for the Akaka bill is apartheid—which literally means "apartness."

Hawaii's two Sens. Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka have spent their entire Senate careers as members of the Indian Affairs Committee. Hawaii is the only state which has both of its senators serving on that committee. Why would Hawaii's senators want to serve on the Indian Affairs committee when there have never been any Indian tribes in Hawaii? The obvious answer is: filling the pork barrel. Whenever major legislation was introduced to provide housing, health care, or education for all of America's real Indian tribes, Inouye and Akaka made sure to insert "and Native Hawaiians" into the bills. Over the years more than 160 federally funded programs intended for real Indian tribes have brought billions of dollars into Hawaii for ethnic Hawaiians. Since this "free" money then circulates through Hawaii's economy, the business community and politicians like it. The race-based institutions are sustained and strengthened by federal dollars flowing through their coffers, while other institutions are co-opted by the money they earn providing services. Thus Hawaii's Evil Empire thrives with federal assistance and constantly pushes for more.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has cited in legal briefs the fact that there are over 160 federally funded race-based programs for ethnic Hawaiians. OHA argues that the establishment of those programs over a period of about 30 years proves that there is a political "trust relationship" between the U.S. government and ethnic Hawaiians as a group. That claim of a political relationship is asserted in order to argue that the race-based programs are not subject to "strict scrutiny" under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but are subject only to a "rational basis test" appropriate to the government-to-government relationships between the U.S. on one side, and the states and the Indian tribes on the other.

It's time to put a stop to Hawaiian apartheid. The Akaka bill should be defeated, Hawaii's plethora of government-funded racially exclusionary programs should be ended, and Kamehameha Schools should be desegregated. Can't we all just get along together?

- Kenneth R. Conklin is a retired professor of philosophy. His book, "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State," has just been published. Go to http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa for more details about the book.

-------------------

(7)

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6fac008a-a6df-4780-b731-0f798fd76f6a
Hawaii Reporter, May 15, 2007

Tribalism vs. Republican Governments

By Paul R. Jones

Our Nation's Founding Fathers established a Republican form of government in the United States Constitution for the original 13-colonies (states). Congress-in Title 25 U.S.C. and its progeny inclusive of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act and Amendments-established federally recognized Indian ‘tribalism' (tribalism is inclusive of ‘pueblos,' rancheros, etc.) as a form of government for a blood quantum race based select group of U.S. citizens.

This begs the question of (1) what is the difference between ‘tribalism' as a form of government established in Title 25 et al and the ‘republican' form of government as established by our Founding Fathers in the United States Constitution? And (2) why should citizens of the United States of America be concerned about establishing ‘tribalism' (Native Hawaiianism) as a form of government within the United States including the select group of federally recognized Indian tribes whose governments are tribalism?

In order to address the two questions asked above this author asked GOOGLE the following question: Define tribalism.

GOOGLE provided:

Tribalism refers to a view of society as being divided into subgroups, or 'tribes'. Critics believe that tribalistic views can detract from the unity of society, creating an "us versus them mentality." This phenomenon is named for tribes in particular due to the fact that tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

'''This author then amplified the definitions above in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triblism The word "tribalism" can refer to two related but distinct concepts. The first is a social system where human society is divided into small, roughly independent subgroups, called tribes. Tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe, with each tribe consisting only of a very small, local population. The internal social structure of a tribe can vary greatly from case to case, but, due to the small size of tribes, it is always a relatively simple structure, with few (if any) significant social distinctions between individuals. Some tribes are particularly egalitarian, and most tribes have only a vague notion of private property; many have none at all. A shared sense of identity and kinship encourages the development of kin selection. Tribalism has also been sometimes been called "primitive communism" but this is rather misleading since allegiance to a communist state is not based on kin-selective altruism. One thing that is certain is that tribalism is the very first social system that human beings ever lived in, and it has lasted much longer than any other kind of society to date. The other concept to which the word "tribalism" frequently refers is the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from the members of another. This phenomenon is related to the concept of tribal society in that it is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism is an important one because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the western world, tribalism, by this second definition, is arguably undiminished. People have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages. See Tribalism and evolution below.

GOOGLE defined with one below: Republic.

In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic, amplified what a republic is: A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as among the requirements for a republic.

These definitions and amplification of Tribalism and Republican forms of government from GOOGLE and WIKIPEDIA answers the first question. A Republican form it would be and Article IV, Clause 4 is explicit:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The United States Constitution explicitly prohibits national and state governments from creating governments not Republic in form i.e. based upon a religion, race or origin.

Any creation of a ‘tribal government' based on Indian ancestry or Sunni or Shia orTutsi or Hutu or Native Hawaiian or any other from of ‘tribalism' brings it in to direct disobedience to the United States Constitution and is null and void Ad Initio (from the beginning).

The United States Constitution cannot be circumvented by cleaver semantics or bogus treaties nor can ‘exemptions' be applied to Constitutional tenets. Thus, part #1 for the answer to the second question is: No branch of the national or state governments can create any government based upon ‘tribalism' (or Native Hawaiian) any more than it can establish a ‘tribalism' form of government for U.S. citizens who are Sunni or Shia tribal members as no branch of government can operate outside of the Constitution.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution begins with, "We, the People, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union, …" The Preamble does not says, "We, the Indian tribes (Native Hawaiian), in Order to Form a More Perfect Indian Tribal Union (Native Hawaiian)…"

Our Republican form of government that invites into its house Indian Tribalism or Native Hawaiianism as a legitimate form of government sows seeds of its own destruction in a compact with the Devil in this author's opinion. This is answer part 2 to the second question above.

Paul R. Jones, a resident of Arizona, can be reached via email at ogauwood@qwest.net

-------------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30586
The Maui News, May 17, 2007
LETTERS TO EDITOR

Wealthy Kamehameha Schools ignores the needy

I am not a supporter of Kamehameha Schools although I am of Hawaiian descent. Today's news about Kamehameha School's "victory" was so disgusting (The Maui News, May 15)!

That is not what I call a victory, that was "a way too wealthy" school paying off this child's family! Doesn't anyone else see that? Do you realize that the money used to pay this boy off and the many more non-Hawaiian families that will now sue the school could go to opening schools for the Hawaiian children who are not the best and brightest!

I have a niece who is Hawaiian and is orphaned by one parent because her father is in jail for 20 years or so, and she was turned down by this school because she wasn't bright enough for them! It makes me sick to my stomach that Kamehameha Schools get so much respect!

I think about all the money that this estate has and how beautiful their schools are, but for what? Do something for the Hawaiian kids who need help to learn! Give them a beautiful school that they can have pride in and which will trickle down to pride in themselves! How hard is it to teach only bright and behaved kids?

Kelly Leialoha
Kahului

================

** Ken Conklin's note: A non-ethnic-Hawaiian boy has just graduated from High School at the Kamehameha School's campus on Maui. How did such a thing ever happen? Below are 2 news reports about this landmark event, plus an essay by the boy himself describing his experiences at school.

A few years ago Kamehameha Schools opened its first branch campus on the island of Maui. In 2002 Kamehameha Maui admitted a Caucasian student with no native blood into the 8th grade -- the first time in about 40 years that anyone lacking native blood had been admitted to Kamehameha Schools. The student's name was Kalani Rosell, and he has now graduated. There was a tremendous outpouring of protest in 2002 from the Kamehameha alumni groups on all the islands and California. The trustees basically promised never to let that happen again.

There are various explanations why he was admitted. One cynical explanation is that it was a mistake, because his first name is Hawaiian (many parents with no native blood choose Hawaiian names for their children). However, there is always a rigorous screening of ancestry during the final stages of the admissions process, so it is hard to believe that a Hawaiian-sounding name would be enough to win admission. Another cynical explanation is that the school decided to admit one token non-native in order to prove to the courts that the admissions policy is not racially exclusionary.

The official explanation is that the Maui campus was rapidly expanding its size, and after all qualified ethnic Hawaiian applicants had been admitted there just happened to be one more space. The school claims that its policy is to give "preference" to "Native Hawaiians", meaning that EVERY ethnic Hawaiian child whose academic and social skills are acceptable must be admitted BEFORE ANY non-ethnic Hawaiian can be admitted. There are always far more qualified ethnic Hawaiians who apply than the number of spaces available; thus giving the impression that the admissions policy is racially exclusionary.

Because of the strong protest in 2002 from Kamehameha alumni and from many ethnic Hawaiian racial zealots who have no actual relationship to the schools, trustees soon thereafter announced a new policy that they would greatly increase their outreach and recruitment activities in the ethnic Hawaiian community, and perhaps also provide extra tutoring to ethnic Hawaiian potential applicants to bring them up to the level of academic performance where they could be admitted; and perhaps to lower the admissions standards. But one way or another, they pledged, all future admissions would be for ethnic Hawaiians.

Interestingly, in September 2006 the list of National Merit semifinalists for all Hawai'i schools was published in the newspapers, and Kalani Rosell was the only student so honored at Kamehameha Maui; however, the media did not pick up on that story.

Following are news reports about Kalani Rosell's graduation, including an essay written by Kalani Rosell himself describing his experiences at school.

------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/20/news/story02.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin (and "Associated Press")

Kamehameha-Maui grad is first non-Hawaiian Non-Hawaiian Kalani Rosell calls his stay at the school "an honor"

Associated Press

Despite the controversy it created, the first non-Hawaiian to be admitted to Kamehameha Schools Maui said the teachers and other students there feel like family.

Kalani Rosell, 17, who was born on Maui and is of Italian and Swedish heritage, will graduate this month. He will attend Yale University this fall.

"Every teacher is like a parent or relative, and each student is like a brother or sister," Rosell said.

The decision to admit Rosell, after a list of qualified Hawaiian students was exhausted, caused an uproar with many parents and alumni saying Kamehameha was neglecting native Hawaiians.

WAILUKU, Maui -- The first non-Hawaiian to graduate from Kamehameha Schools Maui said he knew he had to do his best when he enrolled in the prestigious private school system dedicated to educating children of Hawaiian ancestry.

Kalani Rosell, 17, graduates next week, five years after his acceptance by the school sparked a debate about Kamehameha's recruiting efforts and admissions policies.

Rosell's mother, Maura Rosell, told the Maui News she insisted her son give the school his best.

"I told him his work ethic has to be excellent, super excellent," she said.

Rosell, who was born on Maui and is of Italian and Swedish heritage, agreed, saying "It was an honor to be there and I knew I had to do my best."

Rosell is due to attend Yale University, where he plans to study environmental engineering and law.

Kamehameha's decision to admit Rosell in 2002 forced the schools board of trustees to defend its recruiting efforts on Maui, its admissions procedures and its preference policy for native Hawaiians.

The trustees and the schools administrators explained at the time that Rosell had been selected to its Class of 2007 after a list of qualified Hawaiian students had been exhausted.

Alumni and parents organized a petition drive that called for a review of the admissions policies to maintain opportunities for Hawaiian students. No other non-Hawaiian has been admitted to the Maui campus since Rosell enrolled.

Other campuses have admitted some non-Hawaiian students in the past. There were three or four in the 1920s, and the children of faculty who were non-Hawaiian were allowed to enroll in the 1950s and '60s.

"It didn't even occur to us that it would be a problem," Rosell recalled Friday.

Rosell's mother recalled how she and her husband, John, were overjoyed that their only son had been accepted to the prestigious school. Kamehameha's admissions office staff had told them months before that "sure, anybody can apply," she said.

Rosell said he had been encouraged by his seventh-grade classmates at Iao School who also were applying to Kamehameha.

Race was never an issue, according to the Rosells. They recall indicating on his application to Kamehameha that he was Caucasian with no Hawaiian blood.

Rosell said he consulted with a Hawaiian teacher at Iao School, who told him he had "earned" his spot at Kamehameha and should enroll.

"I never felt like I did something wrong," he said.

The first day at the Pukalani campus was one of the hardest for him. Rosell's knees were shaking as his parents drove up into the school driveway. They noticed five police cars lined up outside the campus entrance.

At age 12, he insisted that he enter the campus unescorted. Maura Rosell said she cried as she watched her son walk with his head down into a Kamehameha classroom for the first time.

"I thought that boy is strong," Maura Rosell recalled. "I trust his soul. I trust the strength he had."

Maura said she continues to rely on her son's strength, especially today with her husband, John, fighting lung cancer on the mainland. John Rosell will miss his son's graduation ceremony Saturday.

The family will be reunited in Connecticut when Rosell enrolls at Yale on a full scholarship and his father undergoes cancer treatment at the university's hospital.

Rosell credited Kamehameha Schools for preparing him academically for the future, and instructing him in Hawaiian values -- respect and gratitude for people and land. His favorite motto comes from a Hawaiian proverb that translates: "Be grateful for what you have."

Rosell said his first days at Kamehameha were difficult. Students would not talk to him. That quickly changed, he said, and he says his friends at the campus now call him "Snowy" as a term of endearment.

The relationships have developed into camaraderie -- "the close feeling of ohana, of family. The school is small so you know almost everybody. Every teacher is like a parent or relative, and each student is like a brother or sister."

Non-Hawaiian students have sued Kamehameha to challenge its 120-year-old policy giving admissions preference to Hawaiians but the school has so far successfully upheld its tradition.

Last week, the school settled with the family of a Caucasian boy, ending a civil suit that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

-------------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30622
The Maui News, Saturday, May 19, 2007

It's been an amazing experience

By CLAUDINE SAN NICOLAS, Staff Writer

WAILUKU Kalani Rosell proudly accepts the distinction of being the first non-Hawaiian to graduate from Kamehameha Schools Maui.

"It's been an amazing experience, a unique experience I don't want to ever forget," said the 17-year-old, who was born on Maui with Italian and Swedish roots.

Rosell's admission to the Maui campus in 2002 generated a heated debate in the community and forced Kamehameha's board of trustees to defend its recruiting efforts on Maui, its admissions procedures and its preference policy for Native Hawaiians.

The trustees and the school's administrators explained at the time that Rosell had been selected to its Class of 2007 after a list of qualified Hawaiian students had been exhausted.

"It didn't even occur to us that it would be a problem," Rosell recalled Friday, just a week before he's due to graduate with his classmates at Kamehameha Schools Maui.

Kalani's mother, Maura Rosell, recalled how she and her husband, John, were overjoyed that their only son had been accepted to the prestigious school. Kamehameha's admissions office staff had told them months before that "sure, anybody can apply," she said.

Kalani said he had been encouraged by his 7th-grade classmates at Iao School who were also applying to Kamehameha.

"I heard of the school, and knew I could get a top education," he said.

Race was never an issue, according to the Rosells, and in fact, they recall indicating on Kalani's application to Kamehameha that he was Caucasian with no Hawaiian blood. The fact that he wasn't Hawaiian was never brought up, Kalani said.

Alumni and parents expressed anger and frustration after hearing that a non-Hawaiian student was accepted. They organized a petition drive that called for a review of the admissions policies to maintain opportunities for Hawaiian students. No other non-Hawaiian has been ad-mitted to the Maui campus since Kalani enrolled.

"The big outcry was a surprise," Maura Rosell said.

Kalani said he consulted with a Hawaiian teacher at Iao School, who told him he had "earned" his spot at Kamehameha and should go forward with enrolling at the school.

"I never felt like I did something wrong," he said.

After deciding to accept the admissions, Maura Rosell insisted that Kalani give the school his best.

"I told him his work ethic has to be excellent, super excellent," she said.

Kalani agreed. "It was an honor to be there and I knew I had to do my best," he said.

The first day at the Pukalani campus was one of the hardest for him. Kalani's knees were shaking as his parents drove up into the school driveway. They noticed five police cars lined up outside the campus entrance, "just in case something were to happen" with Kalani's arrival.

At age 12, he insisted that he enter the campus unescorted. Maura Rosell said she cried as she watched her son walk with his head down into a Kamehameha classroom for the very first time.

"I thought that boy is strong," Maura Rosell recalled. "I trust his soul. I trust the strength he had."

Maura said she continues to rely on Kalani's strength, especially today with her husband, John, fighting lung cancer on the Mainland. John Rosell will not be present for his son's graduation ceremonies May 26 at the Pukalani campus.

"I feel a little regret, but it's much more important for him to continue his treatments there," Kalani said.

Eventually, the family will be reunited in Connecticut when Kalani enrolls at Yale University on a full scholarship. John Rosell is scheduled for more intensive cancer treatment at the medical facility at Yale.

It was among the factors to consider. Kalani was offered full four-year scholarships at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech University.

Kalani said he plans to pursue studies in international environmental engineering and law. He's also been told he has a spot on Yale's swim team, after being among the top swimmers in the Maui Interscholastic League.

If he wants, Kalani can indulge in classes in drama and art, and continue his love for ballet.

His many high school accomplishments are include being named a National Merit Scholarship finalist. He's been selected three times for the Joffrey Ballet Summer Intensive National Programs in New York City. In one review, a critic noted that at age 16, Rosell was the youngest person ever accepted into the prestigious ballet program.

"If he wants, he can be to ballet what Michelle Wie is to golf," the critic wrote.

In athletics, Rosell has excelled at both swimming and track on both the Maui Interscholastic League and state levels. He has also excelled at long-distance swimming competitions and triathlons.

As a member of the Maui Ki-Aikido Society, Kalani holds the rank of 5th Kyu in the Japanese martial art.

An avid reader, Kalani was tapped for the Yale Book Award for writing. On his iPod, he has more than 5,000 songs from artists worldwide with a special fondness for Italian singers.

Kalani has traveled Europe, with a focus on history, friends and relatives, sports and eating. He's also been involved in the community, volunteering for fundraising projects for Special Olympics, in the Maui Visitor Industry Charity Walk and in public performance to increase interest in the arts.

All through his schooling at Kamehameha, his parents have been an integral, supportive force. The three – mom, dad and son – drove the daily commute between their Wailuku home and the Pukalani campus together. At times, Kalani needed to be driven to early-morning swim training sessions in Lahaina before heading Upcountry for school.

Kalani credited Kamehameha Schools for preparing him academically for the future, and instructing him in Hawaiian values – respect and gratitude for people and land. His favorite motto comes from a Hawaiian proverb that translates: "Be grateful for what you have."

"They reminded us all the time that we shouldn't take things for granted and always remember you have a gift," he said.

Kalani said his first days at Kamehameha were difficult. Students would not talk to him. That quickly changed, he said, and he says his friends at the campus now call him "Snowy" as a term of endearment.

The relationships have developed into camaraderie – "the close feeling of ohana, of family. The school is small so you know almost everybody. Every teacher is like a parent or relative, and each student is like a brother or sister."

The result is his childhood on Maui has been a positive experience.

"I never grew up thinking I'm a white boy, I'm different. I never felt myself as an outsider," he said.

While its Hawaiians-preference admissions policy has been challenged, Kamehameha Schools has been successful so far in maintaining the 120-year-old policy. There is a cost. Last week, the school settled with the family of a Caucasian boy who challenged the admissions policy, ending a civil suit that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Rosells would not discuss the policy, focusing on what the school has provided to them by accepting Kalani.

Maura Rosell said Kalani's accomplishments at Kamehameha and in the community have made her proud. "I am glad I trusted him and his decision. He grew into a wonderful young man," she said.

-----------------

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=30623
The Maui News, Saturday, May 19, 2007 12:15 PM

Admissions vs. acceptance

By Kalani Rosell

Renaissance poet John Donne has written poignantly in Meditation XVII, "No man is an island, entire of itself . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." His meditation expresses the idea that we are not separate from one another, but that humanity is interconnected.

In 2002, at age 12, I became the first student not of Hawaiian ancestry admitted into Kamehameha Schools, America's largest private school system via the "preference policy" of the trust of the last Royal princess, which was created to educate Hawaiian children. This unique experience helped form my values and shaped my interests, plans and goals, while teaching me an invaluable lesson. Although, getting into this exclusive school is a prized possession in Hawaii, admission is not acceptance.

There was a huge outcry from the Hawaiian people across the state. I had become the infamous "non-Hawaiian." The commotion that summer brought not only local TV stations and newspapers to my door, but also the New York Times. Many people insisted that I step aside to make room for a Hawaiian child and I was confused, but when my Hawaiian studies teacher told me, "You earned that place, now take it," I decided to try.

I had done nothing wrong, yet there was a strong desire in me to prove to everyone that I could be a valuable asset to the School. My mother always encouraged me to do my best but the admission to Kamehameha provided a purpose to her words. While the public scrutinized my every move, I saw this as an opportunity to shine. I wanted to be accepted by the Hawaiian community but also to represent the School – my school – as well.

I studied diligently, prepared my papers with care and established a position for myself at the head of the class. I began to live with an intensity and purpose that I hadn't known before and it carried over into other aspects of my life. As a result, I have excelled nationally and internationally in the arts as a ballet dancer and in athletics as a swimmer and runner, which along with my academic record, continues to open numerous doors for me.

A once "impossible dream" to enter a top university is now a distinct probability where I hope to combine my mathematical curiosity and analytical skills with history and international relations.

From the initial isolation and intimidation as well as being the object of hate, I gradually began to be accepted by most – not in loud or noticeable ways, but in the gentle smiles and simple nods of acknowledgment common among friends and equals. It also came in the words of encouragement from teachers and administrators and in the occasional note of congratulations from the school president and an estate trustee. The respect of my peers, something I had previously taken for granted, was earned one person at a time, one day at a time, day after day.

John Donne, not a physically strong man, was always aware of his mortality. He lived during a time when death was a constant companion and that energized his writings. Isolation is our companion now, even as others surround us. Donne's words continue to offer a meditation for us today, "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume."

In my journey as the lone Caucasian, the independence and leadership that I achieved on my own does not compare to the fulfillment that comes with belonging to a community. There is, in fact, an enormous difference between admission and acceptance.

===============

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/COLUMNISTS21/705230387/1157/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, May 23, 2007
VOLCANIC ASH [regular columnist commentary]

Another legal fight ahead for Kamehemeha

By David Shapiro

The day after Kamehameha Schools settled a lawsuit over its Hawaiian-first admissions policies, a local lawyer who has been a vocal critic of native Hawaiian programs was seeking clients for a new discrimination lawsuit against the 120-year-old school.

On May 15, attorney David Rosen sent an e-mail to prominent Hawaiian rights opponents H. William Burgess and Richard Rowland saying he was looking for as many as 20 plaintiffs for an action the same as the John Doe v. Kamehameha lawsuit that was settled the day before on undisclosed terms.

Rowland sent out an e-mail on May 18 spreading the word, "David Rosen has asked our help with finding plaintiffs for his lawsuit. ... If you are interested, call him. If you know anyone else who might be interested, please forward this to them."

Doe v. Kamehameha, filed by a non-Hawaiian student denied admission to Kamehameha Schools in 2003, was settled — presumably for cash — on May 14 as the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding whether to review a ruling in Kamehameha's favor by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The settlement did not require the school to change its policy of giving admissions preference to native Hawaiians.

In his e-mail to Burgess and Rowland, Rosen said, "As we discussed, I am attempting to put together a group of plaintiffs to bring an action challenging Kamehameha Schools' race-based admissions policy. The lawsuit will be identical to the John Doe lawsuit that was recently settled. I hope to have a group of at least 10-20 plaintiffs prior to filing the lawsuit."

Rosen said the lawsuit would involve "absolutely no cost to the plaintiffs" and would be filed as a John and Jane Doe action to protect the confidentiality of his clients.

"Identities will be disclosed only to the presiding judge and possibly opposing counsel subject to a protective order," Rosen said. "Interested plaintiffs and/or their parents may contact me directly. I will not disclose their identity to anyone without their prior consent."

Rosen described an ideal plaintiff as such, "To be a plaintiff, a party must either be or have a school aged child (i.e., 4-16 years old), must live in Hawai'i, and must have the intent to attend the Kamehameha Schools if accepted. It may also be necessary to apply for admission to Kamehameha Schools, although this need not have been already done."

Rosen will almost certainly face questions from Kamehameha Schools attorneys about the propriety of soliciting clients who they'll argue had no personal grievance against the school until the lawyer encouraged them to make a claim.

Kamehameha lawyers will likely contend that promising anonymity and a free ride on legal costs makes it too easy for plaintiffs to sue frivolously for damages without facing the risks usually inherent in lawsuits.

Attorneys defending other civil rights cases against Hawaiian programs have used this issue to challenge whether the plaintiffs had suffered sufficient personal injury to have standing to sue.

Rosen disputes any notion that his efforts are more about money than principle in the wake of the Doe v. Kamehameha settlement reached by attorneys John Goemans and Eric Grant.

"I can assure you that my offer to represent children (and their parents) who want to be considered on an equal playing field and not discriminated against because of where their grandfathers' grandfathers' grandfathers were born is not about money," he said.

"Likewise, given the way that other plaintiffs and their attorneys have been treated in similar cases in Hawai'i, preserving the anonymity of any potential plaintiffs (i.e., young school-aged children and their families) in any future lawsuits is an unfortunate necessity to protect their physical safety."

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.

----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/23/news/story05.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 23, 2007

Lawyer's search for clients to sue Kamehameha raises questions Attorneys' ethics rules prohibit using e-mail to solicit plaintiffs

By Alexandre Da Silva

A local attorney is looking for students to challenge Kamehameha Schools' policy of giving preference to native Hawaiian students -- a task he began a day after the school settled a civil rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen, in a May 15 e-mail, asked the head of a nonprofit group and a fellow lawyer to search for potential plaintiffs to sue Kamehameha over its 120-year admissions policy.

But some legal experts say the online request may have violated professional ethics codes that prohibit lawyers from soliciting potential clients through e-mail.

In a case raising ethics questions, a lawyer who e-mailed two people to look for students to challenge Kamehameha Schools over its Hawaiians-first admissions policy is defending his action.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen, in a May 15 message now being widely circulated, asked the head of a nonprofit group and a fellow lawyer to search for potential plaintiffs -- Hawaii residents between ages 4 and 16 who would be interested in applying to the school.

The request came a day after Kamehameha settled a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court with a non-Hawaiian student who was denied admission in 2003. The student, identified only as John Doe, charged that the school's policy of giving enrollment priority to Hawaiians violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

According to some experts, the e-mails possibly violated professional ethics codes.

Rules prohibit attorneys from soliciting clients through e-mail, though it is OK to use regular mail or advertisement, said James Kawachika, an attorney who gives lawyers ethics advice and represents them before the Disciplinary Board.

"He would still be violating ethical rules because he cannot do indirectly that which he himself is prohibited from doing directly," said Kawachika, a former chairman of the board, which oversees allegations of ethics violations and misconduct by attorneys.

Messages left yesterday with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the administrative arm of the board, were not returned.

But Rosen argues he never intended to have his message forwarded by Richard Rowland, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and attorney William Burgess, a critic of Hawaiian programs.

"It was an e-mail to two individuals. Who they disseminated it to is beyond my control," Rosen said. "To my knowledge, there's no problem with that."

The Hawaii State Bar Association, prompted by a wave of complaints it got about Rosen's e-mail, will investigate the matter at a regular board meeting tomorrow, said President Jeffrey Portnoy.

"I find this kind of solicitation of clients to be very troubling," he said, noting that courts have been loosening attorneys' solicitation laws to protect their free-speech rights. "It's a tough debate."

Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawaii constitutional law professor who has helped Kamehameha defend its preference policy, said those rules tend to be relaxed in civil liberties cases of high public interest.

In his e-mail, Rosen said he wants at least 10 plaintiffs to file an "identical" suit to the one Kamehameha stopped earlier this month through an undisclosed, out-of-court settlement.

Rosen says Kamehameha relied on its estimated $7.6 billion trust to reach that deal and prevent the high court from possibly hearing the case.

"A lot of people were hoping that the John Doe case being considered by the Supreme Court would have resolved this issue," Rosen said yesterday, declining to answer whether any potential clients have stepped forward. "I don't want to create a case that the school can settle by just throwing a bunch of money at people."

Kamehameha Schools vowed to aggressively fight any future challenges to its 120-year policy of requiring applicants to prove Hawaiian bloodlines.

Spokeswoman Ann Botticelli noted the school now enjoys the legal backing of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 8-7 in December to uphold the admissions prerequisite.

"We knew there was always a possibility we would get sued again," she said. "We are not interested in settling this case. We have legal precedent at the 9th Circuit level that our policy is lawful and that it does not trample the rights of non-Hawaiians. ... He is gambling, and it's a huge gamble."

Rosen, however, said the appeals court decision was narrow and that he believes the courts will agree to revisit "an issue that affects the community at large."

------------------------

On May 24, both Honolulu newspapers launched an attack on attorney David Rosen, trying to portray him as milking a cash cow or engaging in an internet scam comparable to the frequent spam e-mails from Nigerians claiming to have millions of dollars they want to place in your bank account. That's silly, of course -- David Rosen is trying to re-ignite the case that was settled for money, by finding clients who will sue on principle, and will take the case to final decision from the U.S. Supreme Court and not accept any cash settlement to vitiate the case before final decision. The newspapers' attack comes just in time to bring pressure on the Bar Association hearing to discuss this matter. The Advertiser published 4 letters to editor attacking Rosen, but none supporting him; by the time any letters supporting him get published, the hearing will already have happened.

------------------

Cartoon by Dick Adair in the Honolulu Advertiser of May 24, 2007. Original URL for the cartoon was
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?url=/misc/zoom.pbs&Avis=M1&Dato=20070524&Kategori=OPINION04&Lopenr=70523006&Ref=AR

------------------

Cartoon by Corky in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of May 24, 2007. Original URL for the cartoon was
http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/24/news/corky.html

-----------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/OPINION02/705240316/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, May 24, 2007
LETTERS TO EDITOR

LEGAL TACTICS
ATTORNEY'S SOLICITATION FOR CLIENTS UNETHICAL

I completely agree with David Shapiro's commentary (May 23) that described attorney David Rosen's solicitation for clients willing to file a new lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools. I find Rosen's appeal to be thoroughly disgusting and unethical.

Sadly, by offering a "no-cost" arrangement, Rosen is sure to dredge up his quota of 10 to 20 plaintiffs. And, once again, the school will have to put out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight a frivolous lawsuit in the court system, draining funds that would otherwise be going to address the educational needs of innocent and deserving Hawaiian children.

I hope that every person, Hawaiian or not, who believes that the will of Princess Pauahi should be upheld will write a letter to Rosen expressing their disgust over his solicitation.

Nanette Naioma Napoleon
Kailua

BOYCOTT WOULD SEND LAWYER CLEAR MESSAGE

Attorney David Rosen's challenge to Kamehameha's entrance requirements is interesting in what it reveals about him personally and professionally.

Does he not have enough cases to keep himself busy? How did he become so empty that he believes he is entitled to what he is not? What do his actions say about his lack of character, that he can tie up monies that could otherwise educate Hawaiian children?

Does he seriously think his threat will go unchallenged?

Let us send a message he will hear, in his pocketbook: Boycott his business.

Pat Kamalani Hurley
Kamehameha Class of '73, Mililani

SHAMEFUL TACTICS WILL EMBARRASS LAW FIRM

Never in my life have I been more ashamed to walk down Bishop Street than at this moment, knowing that a firm like the Law Office of David B. Rosen is allowed to practice law in Hawai'i under the guise that it is ethical or moral or, dare I say it, even have a heart. Never.

I'm sure you will get countless letters that say the same, but let me make sure you hear it loud and clear: "Shame on them."

The law firm is fishing for the worst kinds of people: opportunists. And nothing will come of this but embarrassment for the law firm and shame for everyone involved.

I believe that people like Rosen are greatly underestimating the resiliency of the Hawaiian people and the steadfastness of Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate and its commitment to protect Pauahi's dream.

His foundation is greed and, as always, such a shallow foundation will inevitably crumble.

R. McDonald
Honolulu

ATTORNEY'S CALL TO CASH IN UNFORGIVABLE

No one in their right mind can blame David Rosen for considering a new lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools. The KSBE trustees basically rolled out the red carpet to all such attorneys when they settled the John Doe case out of court.

What's unforgivable is Mr. Rosen's decision to issue an open invitation for others to cash in on this matter.

Young John Doe and his family chose to pursue their protest against KS's admissions policy because of their failed attempt to gain an invitation for enrollment.

Mr. Rosen, to his discredit, appears to be inviting non-Hawaiian students and their parents to help his "cause" (he says it's principle; everyone else knows it's about money) by applying for enrollment just so that they can get rejected by the school.

Shame on you, Mr. Rosen. There's no escaping this simple truth: What goes around will surely come around.

James Kauh
Makawao, Maui

-------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070525/NEWS20/705250367/1170/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, May 25, 2007

Lawyer's e-mail under scrutiny

By Ken Kobayashi
Advertiser Courts Writer

The Hawai'i State Bar Association's board of directors is considering issuing a statement today that says lawyers play a key role in helping protect constitutional and civil rights, but whether a Honolulu attorney seeking to challenge Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-first admission policy violated any ethical rules should be left to the state agency in charge of overseeing lawyer misconduct.

The statement was suggested by board member Hugh Jones at the monthly board of directors meeting, which took up the issue of whether the board should issue a statement in view of the reaction to an e-mail sent by Honolulu attorney David Rosen that some say is damaging to the reputation of attorneys.

Several board members said Jones' proposal is a good start in fashioning a public statement, but at least one board member suggested the members should take more time before making any public pronouncement.

Bar association president Jeffrey Portnoy said he would be circulating among the board members Jones' proposal as well as one suggesting no statement be issued.

Rosen's e-mail said he was trying to put together a group of 10 to 20 plaintiffs for a lawsuit similar to the one by an unnamed non-Hawaiian teen-ager known only as John Doe who challenged the school's 120-year-old admissions policy.

The e-mail followed a settlement in which Kamehameha Schools paid an undisclosed amount of money to the teenager in exchange for the dismissal of the challenge as the U.S. Supreme Court was considering whether to rule in the case.

The e-mail eventually wound up with Kamehameha Schools supporters, who were outraged by the communication. And it raised enough of a reaction that Portnoy placed on the agenda a discussion about the reaction to the e-mail.

Rosen said the e-mail is not a violation of any ethical rules.

He said his motivation behind the e-mail is not to make money, but to "eliminate discrimination."

"This is about principle," he told the board members.

He said although a complaint apparently has been filed against him with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, he's asked for a quick decision.

Some board members made clear that they did not want to get into the merits of whether the e-mail violated any rules, which, as reflected by Jones' suggestion, they felt is a matter for the disciplinary counsel.

But Portnoy said the matter involves a broader issue of the public's view of lawyers. He said if someone or a group believes the image of lawyers has been affected by the actions of a lawyer or group of lawyers, the board would be "remiss" in at least not considering the issue.

Portnoy said he wants to hear from members about proposed statements by noon today, but also indicated the board may decide to issue no statement at all.

At least two members of the board expressed concern about being involved in the matter because they do work for Kamehameha Schools, the state's largest private landowner. One formally declined to take part in any vote on a statement and the other also voiced concerns about participating.

Portnoy works for a law firm in which a partner does work for Kamehameha Schools, but Portnoy said after the meeting that he sees no conflict with him putting the issue on the board's agenda.

As president, he said, he has a responsibility to run the organization, and he had been asked by lawyers and nonlawyers, none of whom was associated with Kamehameha Schools, to address the matter which deals with the larger issue of the public's perception of the way lawyers get clients.

Portnoy said the alleged solicitation of clients for a suit against Kamehameha Schools may have triggered the issue, but indicated he would have done the same if it had involved another institution. He also said he doesn't vote on the matter.

Rosen said he thought the meeting involved a "fair discussion." He said he believed Jones' suggestion was "completely appropriate."

------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/25/news/story10.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 25, 2007

E-mail seeking clients spurs formal complaint, lawyer says

By Debra Barayuga

The state Office of Disciplinary Counsel has received a complaint asking the agency to investigate whether a Honolulu attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct by soliciting clients via e-mail.

Attorney David Rosen, who sent an e-mail May 15 to two acquaintances asking them to refer to him anyone seeking to challenge Kamehameha Schools' admission policy, said yesterday that he submitted a letter Tuesday explaining his actions to the office and seeking an opinion. He was advised that the agency had received a complaint.

He was not told who or what entity filed the complaint.

Carole Richelieu, chief disciplinary counsel, said she could not confirm nor deny whether a complaint has been filed against Rosen.

Under Hawaii Supreme Court rules, the ODC can only discuss matters that are public. Under the rules, a matter is public 90 days after formal charges have been served on the attorney, she said.

Generally, the ODC's first step would be to review whether the matter is within its jurisdiction and, if so, assign it to an investigator. Rosen will have an opportunity at some point to respond.

Rosen, who has practiced here for 12 years, said he proactively submitted the letter of explanation to the ODC asking for an expedited decision because he wanted to clear his name. "Any time my ethics are questioned, it affects me," he said.

"I want this cloud lifted so that the merits of what I want to do can be discussed, rather than my role in it," he said.

Rosen sent the e-mail a day after Kamehameha Schools settled a suit filed by a non-Hawaiian who was denied admission.

The Hawaii State Bar Association, which received complaints about Rosen's e-mail but did not submit the complaint to the ODC, discussed the matter yesterday at its regular board meeting.

The board is drafting a statement for review by its members and will decide later whether to make a public statement, said Executive Director Lyn Flanigan.

Rosen said that he does not believe he has done anything wrong and that no attorney has said his e-mail violated the rules of professional conduct.

-------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/26/editorial/letters.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 5, 2006

Both parties in lawsuit paid for 'justice'

It is interesting that many letters to the editor plus a recent Corky editorial cartoon fault the plaintiff in the Kamehameha Schools case because of the acceptance of some undisclosed payment to resolve the claim. Is it not just as "unprincipled" and noteworthy in our society to pay money to secure a judicial ruling as it is to accept money to settle a dispute?

It seems correct and indisputable that Kamehameha Schools paid to keep the 8-7 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling as law instead of taking a chance that the Supreme Court would hear the case.

Is this not the purchase of a preferred "justice"?

Let's be fair to both sides on this case; those who purchase justice and those who accept money to disappear.

My conclusion is, regardless of the merits of either side, that both parties are cut from the same unprincipled cloth and both seem to have a firm belief in the power of money.

The real loser here is the "rule of law" and that loss is priceless.

Paul E. Smith
Honolulu

==================

** Ken Conklin's note: David B. Rosen is the attorney who is seeking clients to file a new desegregation lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools, to take the case all the way to final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Following are two different commentaries Mr. Rosen published in the two Honolulu Sunday newspapers on May 27, 2007. The two essays are quite different in both tone and content.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070527/OPINION03/705270343/1110/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, May 27, 2007
COMMENTARY

Let high court hear admissions issue

By David B. Rosen

There has been much attention in the media and the community about my recent efforts to challenge the admissions policy of the Kamehameha Schools — specifically, the trustees' continuing decision to impose a racial classification to exclude those with no Native Hawaiian ancestry. There also has been speculation that my involvement is motivated by money, that I am anti-Hawaiian, and that I am just another Mainland haole who doesn't get it.

So let me set the record straight.

I am not anti-Hawaiian, nor am I pro-Hawaiian. I am neither anti nor pro any race. Like many others in Hawai'i, I believe that consideration of an individual's national origin or race is immaterial for any reason other than human interest. In particular, I believe that social services — education, healthcare, housing assistance, etc. — should be available based on need and/or merit as may be appropriate, but not simply because of what Warren Buffet has described as the "ovarian lottery."

I do, however, believe that culture and tradition are important, but these are best shared, not hoarded. In other words, I believe that someone can embrace the Hawaiian culture and "being Hawaiian," even though their ancestors may be from somewhere else. In this regard, I believe that while we need to understand the past and learn from it, we cannot return to the past or undo it.

I was, therefore, extremely disappointed when the trustees decided to pay "John Doe" to settle his lawsuit rather than allowing the United States Supreme Court to consider this issue and give the trustees guidance on their legal obligations.

Had the trustees allowed the "John Doe" case to be considered by the highest court in the land, I would have been satisfied with whatever decision was reached, and I would not be seeking to bring another lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools.

Most importantly, the community as a whole would have had an answer, and this issue could have been put to bed.

Because this resolution was not permitted, the need for another lawsuit exists. Despite the protestations of the trustees, their army of attorneys and public relations machine, a 7-8 decision by the 9th Circuit does not constitute well-settled law. To ensure that the trustees are not able to buy off another lawsuit, I am attempting to put together a sizeable group of plaintiffs for the next lawsuit.

I am not undertaking this case because it is going to be fun or because I need the work. I have a busy legal practice, and I would much rather spend what limited free time I have with my family rather than in my office writing legal briefs and reading angry e-mails.

However, my family and I have made the difficult decision to make this sacrifice because we do not want our children growing up as second-class citizens in their own home.

Those with whom I have spoken about participating in this lawsuit expect to make similar sacrifices for the same reason; none of them have made any mention of seeking a monetary settlement.

To those who still believe this is about money, I am publicly making this offer. I will agree to limit my fees in this case to $1, provided that counsel for the Kamehameha Schools and the trustees agree to do the same.

I am also willing to obtain an agreement from any potential clients I may represent in this case that they will not seek any monetary damages, provided that the Kamehameha Schools and the trustees agree to assist in having this issue put before the U.S. Supreme Court on an expedited basis.

----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/27/editorial/commentary1.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Sunday May 27, 2007

Why I want to sue Kamehameha, or, Who is this #$@!*%$ haole?

David B. Rosen

I AM THE attorney who is preparing to sue the Kamehameha Schools and its trustees to have their use of a racial classification to exclude those with no native Hawaiian ancestry declared illegal ("Lawyer's search for clients to sue Kamehameha raises questions," Star-Bulletin, May 23). I am not doing this for financial gain or to make a name for myself, as many have asserted. My motivation, while difficult to believe for some, is principle. I believe every child deserves a quality education and that the serious issues facing our community (drugs, homelessness/affordable housing, obtaining a quality education for our children) are best addressed from a socioeconomic perspective, not by different groups fighting for "entitlements" based on events that occurred during the time of our great-grandparents or their great-grandparents.

As an attorney, I have, among other things, advocated for equal rights for same-sex couples and challenged other race-based entitlement programs. I have a busy civil litigation practice, despite never having advertised for clients, so I do not need or desire any additional attention.

I AM NOT ABLE to take on these types of cases because I am independently wealthy. I am a local boy; born, raised and educated in Hawaii. My father is a social worker and former professor at the University of Hawaii. My mother was a public school teacher. My wife, my brother and his wife are all public school educators. Like most local families, we are multiethnic, we have given extensively to our community and we have sacrificed to live in Hawaii because it is our home.

I attended public schools from first grade through graduation. I spent my summers bodyboarding in Waikiki and working odd construction jobs. I put myself through college working as a waiter. At UH, I witnessed the unfortunate and indefensible use of race by a faculty member against a student. While working at the Legislature, I also witnessed the abuse of power by the Kamehameha Schools and their then-trustees. During that time I also worked to "Save Sandy Beach" and limit development around Mt. Olomana. I marched with Local 5 hotel workers and with our public school teachers when I felt they were not being paid fairly.

After graduating, I attended the University of Maryland's School of Law in Baltimore, where once again I was a minority. There I learned how my law school had shamefully advised future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall not to apply because of his race and how, as a lawyer, he eventually succeeded in desegregating the school.

These and other events helped focus my concern about the misuse of race and origin in Hawaii. Based on the comments I have received in response to recent media attention, I believe that my concerns are widely shared by individuals of all ethnicities and irrespective of whether they are recent arrivals or can trace their ancestry in Hawaii back six generations.

I HAVE BEEN ASKED by many what my vision of the Kamehameha Schools would be. The truth is that so long as race is not used to bar an applicant, I could respect the schools remaining elite college preparatory institutions, emphasizing Hawaiian language, culture, values and teaching methods, and/or devoting their vast resources to servicing the disadvantaged. However, as a member of this community, my personal preference is for the latter, as I believe that the trustees are not doing enough and that sufficient financial resources and demand exist for other campuses (e.g., on Molokai, in Waianae, and another campus in urban Honolulu) and educational services. In fact, many individuals who described themselves as predominately native Hawaiian have contacted me to express anger and resentment not at me, but at Kamehameha Schools for not helping their children.

I believe that addressing the educational needs of these and other disadvantaged people in a race-neutral manner is fully consistent with the intent of Kamehameha Schools' founder Princess Pauahi Bishop and her will. Based on recent financial disclosures by Kamehameha Schools, I also have no doubt that it has the resources to better serve the community at large.

--------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/29/editorial/commentary.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 29, 2007
Gathering Place (Op-Ed commentary)

Protect island culture -- stop the lawsuits

by Trisha Kehaulani Watson

I AM A MOM. I am a mom to a 4-year-old Hawaiian boy. His name is Kawika. He and other children like him are the potential victims of David Rosen's efforts ("Lawyer's search for clients to sue Kamehameha raises questions," May 23). His father and I plan to apply him to Kamehameha Schools next year. We pray he gets in. There are not nearly enough spots for all the Hawaiian children who apply. There will be even fewer if Rosen has his way.

I also am Hawaiian. I grew up with all the stigmas and stereotypes of being Hawaiian. I was made fun of in school (I am not a KS graduate). I am still never helped when I go shopping. People think I'm not as smart as my white or Asian peers. Anyone who thinks racism against Hawaiians no longer exists in Hawaii is obviously not Hawaiian.

This is not to say all non-Hawaiians are racist against Hawaiians. Few local people are, for true local people, people varied in their ethnic backgrounds and cultural experiences, appreciate the beauty of diversity. And they leave it alone. I love the Cherry Blossom Festival, but I would never think of entering because I am not Japanese. That is respect. That is appreciation for the traditions of an ethnic group different from my own. That is what it means to be a part of this local culture. Kamehameha Schools, the Narcissus Queen Pageant, the American Japanese League -- these are all facts of life in Hawaii. And they are all exclusive to certain ethnic groups. They are so those cultures can celebrate and perpetuate their identities. It's a wonderful and amazing thing.

THE ATTACK against Kamehameha Schools is an attack against Hawaii and our local culture. Rosen typifies the trouble-making elitist haole who has historically stolen lands and the kingdom from the Hawaiians in the 1800s and brought Asian laborers here under slavelike conditions during the plantation era. Rosen also was one of the attorneys who attempted to dismantle the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the Arakaki lawsuit.

Interesting how he didn't mention these things in his biography/commentary Sunday in the Star-Bulletin Insight section.

Rosen's ties to individuals like William Burgess reveal his true nature: one of intolerance and greed. It is deeply disturbing because it is the antithesis of everything Hawaii stands for: aloha, tolerance, generosity. These are the things I'm standing for when I stand against Rosen. I'm a "mixed plate/poi dog" -- Portuguese, Hawaiian, Chinese, English, German. My mother is haole. So is my husband. Neither is an activist. Each has been to only one protest. They were to support Kamehameha Schools.

This really is not about Hawaiians. This is about Hawaii and our local culture. Are we a culture of diversity and tolerance, or are we a culture that allows people like Rosen to consistently attack us and attempt to make us into one amorphous group in his own image?

I believe we are people of many histories, ethnicities and cultures who share one local culture -- and it is time for all of us to stand and defend that culture.

Trisha Kehaulani Watson is executive director of Kako'o 'Oiwi, a native Hawaiian organization, and a lecturer at the University of Hawaii. kehau@nativehawaii.org

--------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/NEWS20/705300374/1170/NEWS
Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Lawyer's e-mail highlights hot issue

The Hawaii State Bar Association yesterday issued a statement on last week's flap over a local attorney's e-mail about a possible new lawsuit concerning the Hawaiians-first admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools.

Bar association president Jeff Portnoy said in the statement that the e-mail, sent by lawyer David B. Rosen, highlights the sometimes controversial issue of lawyers soliciting clients. "There is an ongoing debate concerning lawyer solicitation" in Hawai'i and elsewhere that concerns "the commercial free-speech rights of attorneys with the high professional standards of the legal profession," Portnoy said.

Rosen's e-mail said that he was trying to put together a group of 10 to 20 plaintiffs for a lawsuit similar to the one by an unnamed non-Hawaiian teenager who challenged the school's 120-year-old admissions policy. The e-mail followed a settlement in which Kamehameha Schools paid an undisclosed amount of money to the teenager in exchange for the dismissal of the challenge as the U.S. Supreme Court was considering whether to rule in the case.

Rosen told bar association directors last week that the e-mail was not a solicitation of fee-paying clients and did not violate ethical restrictions on attorney conduct. Rosen could not be reached for comment last night. He said last week that the e-mail was the subject of a complaint filed against him with the state Office of Disciplinary Council, which regulates attorney conduct here.

Portnoy said yesterday the Disciplinary Council and the state Supreme Court "have sole jurisdiction over matters relating to attorney discipline." A committee is studying possible new rules on client solicitation by lawyers here and "expects to complete its work this summer," Portnoy said.

=================

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/OPINION02/705300352/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, May 30, 2007
LETTERS TO EDITOR

KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

ALL HAWAIIAN CHILDREN SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN

Clearly, Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate should be held to a higher standard and follow the will. It also should be held accountable for mismanagement because it is blocking many Hawaiian children from attending because these children have to pass a test and pay high tuition. All of the Hawaiian children are deserving of a chance, if they want to go to Kamehameha Schools, and they should not be blocked by testing and tuition costs. It's time to follow Pauahi's will, for real, and stop wasting her money.

Kawehiokalaninui-I-amamao Kanui
Waimanalo

LEGAL TACTICS
ATTORNEY DID NOT DESERVE PUBLICITY

Whether or not we agree with him, certainly it is in the public interest to hear the perspective of the attorney suing Kamehameha Schools. But to publish his outright solicitation for new clients is an outrage. Let him get clients the old-fashioned way, not by giving him thousands of dollars in free publicity. Shame!

Makana Risser Chai
Kailua

NATIVE HAWAIIAN KIDS DESERVE ASSISTANCE

How fortunate the children of David Rosen are. Their father is taking on a battle which will ensure that they aren't "second-class citizens in their own home." They are also privileged because with the wealth from his "busy legal practice," surely he's able to amply supply for their every want and need, and send them to whatever private school he wishes.

Native Hawaiian children aren't as fortunate. Most of their parents can't do the same for them. Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in the prison system, foster care system, welfare system, special education system and every other "system" there is in Hawai'i. There must be a more deserving cause for Mr. Rosen to take on, other than the admissions policy of the only school whose mission it is to "assist people of Hawaiian ancestry to achieve their highest potential."

Children of Hawaiian ancestry deserve a chance so that they aren't "second-class citizens in their own home." This is what Kamehameha Schools offers. What Mr. Rosen's children deserve is to have a father who fights a battle that can make them proud. This one's not it.

Kristine Palaualelo
Honolulu

RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARIES SHOULD BE PRESERVED

This letter is in response to the May 27 commentary by attorney David B. Rosen.

Rosen makes the pretense that he is not "anti-Hawaiian." I prefer the term "anti-kanaka maoli" to describe Mr. Rosen's statements.

He insults people of Hawaiian descent by stating that "there is a need for another lawsuit" to challenge the Hawaiian preference admissions policy at Kamehameha Schools.

Rosen further makes that pretense that he is willing to work for $1 so that his children do not grow up as "second-class citizens in their own home." Rosen fails to recognize that Kamehameha Schools is a private estate directed by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The princess had no children. Her will specified that her beneficiaries are children of Hawaiian descent, just as her natural children would have been. She desired that her children would receive an education. What mother would not desire to help educate her children?

How would Mr. Rosen feel if his estate was sued and the court decided that his children had no rights as beneficiaries? How would Mr. Rosen's children feel if their rightful estate was taken from them and given over to someone else? Is taking money for education away from children of Hawaiian descent the type of action that Mr. Rosen's children will feel proud of?

Jeffrey Kaumuali'i Lyons
Mililani

COURT'S BENT WOULD NOT ENSURE HAWAI'I JUSTICE

Attorney David Rosen tells us that it was Kamehameha Schools' decision to settle the Doe case rather than risk an adverse U.S. Supreme Court decision that prompts him to seek new plaintiffs to challenge the schools' admission policy.

He argues that the trustees should have allowed the case to be settled by the "highest court in the land," and that had that happened, it would have settled the matter for him.

Such reverence for law and judicial process would be much more respected in the Hawaiian community if it didn't come more than 100 years too late.

If Mr. Rosen doesn't understand that Kamehameha Schools and the resources of Princess Pauahi's lands were designated for our lahui when we were still a nation-state and constitutional monarchy, before we were invaded and occupied by the United States and before a foreign government was imposed on us against our expressed wishes by an American Congress that supposedly respected the rule of law, he might ask one of our high school students to educate him.

But Rosen's admonitions appear more cynical when one realizes that he wants a ruling from a high court with an ideological bent even more favorable to his thinking than the one that ruled against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 1999.

Rosen thinks that Kamehameha should seek a just ruling from a bench that has reached a peak of conservatism and from a federal system that has been distorted by right-wing politics under George W. Bush. Personally, I'm glad the trustees are not that stupid.

Jonathan Osorio
Director, Kamakakaokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai'i, Manoa

==============

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/30/editorial/letters.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 30, 2007
Letters to the Editor

Schools' significance lost on lawyer

David Rosen ("Gathering Place" column, Star-Bulletin, May 27) is one more in a long history of individuals who reside in the islands with little appreciation for their native hosts. The Kamehameha Schools (for all of its controversy) is a true gem to native Hawaiians. It is the visionary gift of a beloved princess to her children.

While it is true that her gift was not given to all residents of what would eventually become the state of Hawaii, Princess Pauahi's intent was not to exclude anyone but rather to ensure the inclusion of native Hawaiians who had been pushed to the margins of society. She saw the rapid decline of our people (from well over 400,000 at the time of Western contact, to fewer than 40,000 when she established her trust), and she felt a burden to assure our survival.

In his May 27 column, Rosen tried to compare his actions to the fight for civil rights in U.S. history. But if Rosen took the time to understand Hawaiian history, especially our unique history as the oppressed, indigenous people of Hawaii, he would understand the vital role Kamehameha Schools plays in the restoration of Hawaii's original inhabitants and he would leave us alone. To use his words, it's a "matter of principle."

Noelani Jai
Huntington Beach, Calif.

---------------

Suits against school insult princess

David Rosen's brewing suit against Kamehameha Schools insults Princess Pauahi Bishop's legacy and every Hawaiian, including our kupuna before us. He states he was raised in Hawaii and that all children deserve a quality education. It is hard to imagine he was raised in Hawaii and completely failed to learn the values of respect and integrity. He must realize his total lack of respect for the will of Pauahi Bishop. He must realize as well that there is no integrity in his continued efforts. When Pauahi's will was completed, the Hawaiians were an oppressed people in their own homeland. By his own actions, he continues the same oppression of Hawaiians.

He fails to think of the thousands of Hawaiians who apply to Kamehameha Schools every year and are not selected. Though disappointed, you don't hear about disrespectful lawsuits against Kamehameha when not accepted. We do not like receiving such regret letters, but the values we were raised with prevail and we respect Princess Pauahi's will.

Ka'iulani Damaso
Waikoloa, Hawaii

Past wrongs don't justify discrimination

In regards to the May 27 letter by Rodney Souza concerning the Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy: How can you justify racial discrimination just because it was done by someone else? So because missionaries started whites-only schools, that gives others an excuse to exclude someone else, despite laws enacted to prevent just this sort of thing? I guess African Americans should overthrow the country and put everyone under the yoke of slavery and oppression. Or us Native Americans should massacre all white people. Maybe Israel should invade Germany and put everyone into concentration camps. These may be extreme examples, but you can see where I'm going with this. Hawaii is quickly becoming a place where nothing is ever anyone's fault, it's all because of something someone else did. Let's all take some personal responsibility, grow up and start worrying about doing the right thing. Not just what's easy.

James McWilliams
Waikele

-------------------

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070601/OPINION03/706010331/1110/OPINION
Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, June 1, 2007
COMMENTARY

Critics fail to see injustices to Hawaiians

By Oswald K. Stender

Having read David Rosen's commentary in your May 27 issue regarding the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy, I am incensed and feel compelled to respond.

Rosen, along with others of the same mindset, refuse to admit that it is the Hawaiian people who have been discriminated against since the arrival of Capt. James Cook in 1778; and this discrimination has continued for more than 200 years.

With colonization of the Western world, all indigenous people of those lands have suffered cultural, economic and population genocide. Indigenous people of larger continents were "relocated" to make way for the new arrivals; Native Hawaiians, however, had nowhere to go.

With the arrival of colonizers, our language was suppressed, our cultural practices went underground and our population was nearly obliterated by foreign diseases. When Captain Cook arrived on our shores, our population numbered approximately 1 million Hawaiians, and when Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop died in 1884, our Hawaiian population had diminished to only 50,000.

Westerners, upon their arrival, occupied and confiscated lands that once provided the Hawaiians with strong, healthy cultural and economic communities. Immediately thereafter, as they influenced the ali'i, the Native Hawaiian economic structure, religion, language and population were slowly being dismantled and destroyed.

The ali'i, recognizing the fate of their people, began to organize and will legacies for the Native Hawaiians in an effort to provide for and, hopefully, save them. Today we see the fruits of their work for their people: Queen Emma founded The Queen's Hospital, Queen Kapi'olani left her legacy for Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, King Lunalilo willed his land for the elderly at Lunalilo Home, Queen Lili'uokalani created Lili'uokalani Trust for the Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Center that serves orphaned and indigent Hawaiian children; and, finally, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop left her legacy of the Kamehameha Schools for the education of Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian children.

History tells of the genocide of the Hawaiian people beginning with the arrival of Captain Cook; today, there are some whose ancestors are not the indigenous people of this land and who continue the battle to take what belongs to the Hawaiian people. As they continue to try to chip away at what Hawaiians have left, they cry "race" so that they may justify their actions. They cry "race" as they try to take away Hawaiian programs so as to divide these ali'i trusts amongst "all the people of Hawai'i."

Rosen and others just like him, along with their army of lawyers, continue to play the race card and encourage others "wronged" by the recipients of programs left for them — the Hawaiian people — to join them in their cause. Rosen and those just like him continue to rewrite history so as to justify their actions. They speak about "sharing the culture" and wonder out loud about the "aloha spirit." What they fail to acknowledge is that the culture they want so badly to "share" is the culture of the indigenous people of this land and they are merely spectators, for they will never really understand the culture like the Native Hawaiians understand it. What they fail to acknowledge is that the "aloha spirit" is the spirit of the Hawaiian people. Without Hawaiians, there would not be aloha spirit.

Rosen and his colleagues, with their cry to "share the culture and traditions," may sound nice and inclusive; but in truth, they really want to repeat historical events. Their continued onslaught on the ali'i trusts and the legacy left by our Hawaiian monarchy only proves that they are not satisfied to just "share," they want to "take." Though their legal battles will continue, they will never destroy the spirit of our Hawaiian people, for we will never surrender to them or their sense of "justice."

Oswald K. Stender is a trustee for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and a former Bishop Estate trustee. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

-----------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/02/editorial/commentary.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 2, 2007
Gathering Place [op-ed commentary]

Books explains attack on Hawaiians-only programs

by Kenneth R. Conklin

Why do civil rights activists attack Hawaiians-only institutions? What's wrong with the Akaka bill?

The aloha spirit, Hawaiian culture, and Hawaiian language are the core of what makes Hawaii special, belonging to all Hawaii's people regardless of race. Hawaii is under attack from racial separatism and ethnic nationalism. Benevolent intentions spawned nightmarish separatist institutions -- more than 160 federally funded, racially exclusionary programs, plus two racially exclusionary state government agencies, plus the $8 billion Kamehameha Schools, and more.

I speak the Hawaiian language with moderate fluency and participate in some Hawaiian cultural activities. Investment of time and effort proves my love and respect. Before helping clean a heiau, I gave an opening chant, offered a prayer to the ancient gods and presented ho'okupu when others (including Hawaiian children on a school trip) were unable or unwilling to do so.

Princess Bernice Pauahi's will founding Kamehameha Schools does not exclude non-Hawaiians. Her mere "preference" for "children of aboriginal blood" applies only to the single category of "orphans and indigents." All 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges agree the issue is the trustees' admissions policy, not the will. That policy has turned a great school into an ugly engine of racial separatism.

The conglomerate of Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and institutions spawned by the federal programs can properly be called an "evil empire." Empire because its enormous wealth and political power have come to dominate Hawaii's Legislature and media, reaching to the mainland as well. Evil because racial preference leads to racial entitlement, then racial separatism, then a race-based government (Akaka bill), then permanent conflict and hatred over how to carve up Hawaii along racial lines. Look to Bosnia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Fiji and Iraq for ethnic/religious strife.

My new book, "Hawaiian Apartheid -- Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State," explains all this. The entire first chapter is at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa , along with the detailed table of contents.

The book describes the existing evil empire of racial separatism, along with how the Akaka bill would protect and expand it. The ethnic nationalist movement is explored -- how it is based on a form of religious fascism, what it means for people with no native blood and how the Akaka bill would empower secessionists.

Other chapters examine important historical falsehoods; junk-science victimhood claims serving tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry; anti-Americanism and anti-military activism; bogus claims to indigenous status; sovereignty frauds and scams; and an agenda for future action to revive unity, equality and aloha for all.

The Filipino Cultural Center and the Cherry Blossom Festival neither control the Legislature and media nor demand a race-based government. So civil rights activists do not attack them.

Why can't attorney David Rosen's kids be happy with Punahou? Why did Martin Luther King's "Negroes" feel they had to march through suburban streets and go to (private) church in an all-white suburb? Why did they have to drink at the "whites only" fountain when they had their own nearby?

Kenneth R. Conklin has a doctorate in philosophy and is a retired professor. He lives in Kaneohe.

------------------------

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/06/02/opinion/your_views/letters01.txt
Hawaii Tribune-Herald (Hilo), Saturday, June 2, 2007

Racial discrimination

Remember the Hans Christian Andersen story of the emperor's new clothes, where the little boy at the end of the story states the obvious? I have lived in Hawaii for nine years and it's time to state the obvious: Kamehameha Schools is trying to protect a policy of racial discrimination, and people don't seem to blink an eye.

This policy of racial discrimination is an embarrassment to us as Hawaiians and Americans. It saddens and horrifies me to think that we have fought a Civil War and passed through the civil rights movement of the 1960s only to fall back to this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger on Dec. 1, 1955, her case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

It is sad that John Doe's family dropped their case, but I hope there will be others to take his place if need be.

To the trustees of the Kamehameha School's trust fund: Do you really want your students to grow up with the idea that racial discrimination is acceptable? How can they help but incorporate the idea into their core values if you continue to practice a policy of racial discrimination? Fellow Hawaiians and parents, is this what we want our children to learn?

Please forgive me if I have missed a major point. I have tried to find that point for the last nine years, but it continues to elude me. I finally feel compelled to speak up and say with the little boy in the story, "But he hasn't got anything on!"

Cami Weber
Hilo

=====================

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?09c220c0-dfe9-4e9f-9146-d1f3d8eddbd6
Hawaii Reporter, June 6, 2007
Special from Hawaii Free Press

Akaka Bill: Creating a Haven for Corruption?

By Andrew Walden

Proponents claim the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (Akaka Bill, S 310) will protect Hawaiian entitlements and assets. But the strong connections between the Broken Trust scandal of the late 1990s and the 2000 introduction of the "Akaka Bill" should raise questions about the wisdom of creating what will amount to a Hawaiian Indian reservation.

If the Akaka Bill passes the U.S. Senate and U.S. House and is approved by the President, corrupt politicians and their cronies, (both Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian), could find their activities shielded from federal and state law enforcement by ‘tribal' law.

Rather than being protected, Native Hawaiians organized into an Indian tribe may find themselves unable to halt activities that could endanger the entire Hawaiian patrimony.

According to the text of the Akaka Bill, "The purpose of this Act is to provide a process for the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity and the reaffirmation of the special political and legal relationship between the United States and that Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship."

By "reorganizing" a native Hawaiian government, the Akaka Bill goes far beyond what is necessary to protect Hawaiians-only admissions at Kamehameha Schools and Native-Hawaiian-only eligibility for leases with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

Use of the term, "government to government relationship" clearly directs the process towards establishing a Hawaiian Indian reservation and away from the model of the Alaskan Native Corporations, which are corporate entities, not government entities.

Why should this matter? Alaskan Native corporations have been very successful at making native assets serve native Alaskans. The Alaskan success stands in sharp contrast to Indian reservations which are often a third-world nightmare of corruption, drugs, poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. Yet the political class in Hawaii is almost 100 percent behind the Akaka Bill and the Hawaiian Indian reservation it would create.

What are the possible reasons for rejecting the successful model of Alaskan Native Corporations in favor of the unsuccessful model of Indian reservations? Contrary to popular opinion, Indian reservations already have a history in Hawaii.

An Oct. 12, 1999, article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin describes the efforts of Bishop Estate trustees in 1995 to evade oversight of the unorthodox doings which were soon to be exposed as the "Broken Trust" scandal.

The Trustees' self-serving investments had caused Bishop Estate losses over $264 million in 1994 alone. Their reaction? To avoid scrutiny, they commissioned a plan formulated by ex-Governor John Waihee's law firm to move Bishop Estate corporate headquarters out of Hawaii -- to the windswept plains of the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian reservation in South Dakota. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin explains:

"In an apparent attempt to circumvent state and federal oversight, the Bishop Estate paid Washington D.C.-based (law firm) Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand more than $200,000 to look into moving the estate's legal domicile, or corporate address, to the mainland, sources said.

"Verner Liipfert, whose local office is headed by former Gov. John Waihee, identified the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation as the top relocation prospect after reviewing the legislative, tax and judicial environments of 48 mainland states and Alaska.

"The study was part of a broader effort by the former board members to lobby against federal legislation limiting trustee compensation and to convert the tax-exempt Bishop Estate to a for-profit corporation."

The trustees' efforts are also described in The Cheating of America by Charles Lewis and Bill Allison of The Center for Public Integrity. They quote former Hawaii Attorney General Margery Bronster explaining Bishop Estate's proposed move to Cheyenne River:

"Their main motivation was to avoid oversight from the State Attorney General and the IRS."

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin further points out:

"Gregg Bourland, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribal council … said there is good reason for an entity like the Bishop Estate to make inquiries about changing its domicile to the South Dakota reservation ...

"Since the 1800s, the Cheyenne River Sioux have had a government-to-government relationship with the United States which allows them to operate their own police force, court system and legislative functions.

"Such a system may shield the trust from Hawaii Probate Court jurisdiction, although Bourland was unsure if the IRS would continue to oversee the trust."

"Government to government relationship" describes the relationship desired by the scandalous Bishop Estate trustees.

Whether relocated to South Dakota or creating the Indian Reservation here, such a move would shield Bishop Estate not only from the Federal government but also from the investigations that Bronster was forced to launch as Broken Trust revelations emerged in the press.

According to Lewis and Allison, the activities Bishop Estate trustees were attempting to shield included:

• Giving themselves significant pay raises, even while programs at the school were being cut;

• Investing in questionable ventures recommended by a trustee's personal acquaintances, including an Internet directory of would-be-adult-film actors and casting agents;

• Frequenting adult entertainment clubs and casinos using money from the charitable trust's coffers, reportedly inviting state legislators on such trips; and

• Lobbying Congress to defeat or alter legislation designed to give the IRS more authority to penalize their multi-million dollar compensation packages.

As U.S. District Judge Samuel King told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: "It's another indication of how arrogant, greedy and insensitive this whole bunch is ... Their claim that they are supporting Princess Pauahi's will is laughable."

Lokelani Lindsey, the last of the five Broken Trust Bishop Estate trustees, was forced to resign Dec. 16, 1999. Further investigation of the scandal was quickly halted.

A few months later, in 2000, the first version of the so-called "Akaka Bill" was introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka. Is this a coincidence?

Of the four members of the Hawaii congressional delegation now co-sponsoring the Akaka Bill, three were in Congress in 1995 and 1996. They were also personally and extensively involved in failed lobbying efforts to protect the Bishop Estate trustees from IRS oversight and enforcement.

According to the Hawaii best-selling book "Broken Trust", Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, co-sponsors of the Akaka Bill, and Rep Abercrombie, co-sponsor of HR 505, the House version of the Akaka Bill, fought to shield the Bishop Estate trustees.

"Broken Trust" (page 210) explains Bishop Estate trustees: "…lobbied against the enactment of intermediate sanctions, spending nearly $1 million of trust funds in the process….Despite the trustees' efforts and behind the scenes support from Hawaii's Congressional delegation (except for Representative Patsy Mink who stood up to the trustees), Congress passed the intermediate sanctions bill in 1996."

The ‘intermediate sanctions' law authorized the IRS to fine individual wrongdoers when charity assets (such as Bishop Estate) are stolen or misused.

This is not the only connection between the Hawaii Congressional co-sponsors of the Akaka Bill and the Broken Trust scandal. "Broken Trust" (page 163) explains that in August 1997, after the first Broken Trust essay was printed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, "(Senator) Daniel Akaka defended the trustees. He said the (nearly $1 million per year) level of (Bishop Estate trustees') compensation was not too high: If anything, the trustees deserved to be paid more."

Are the Broken Trust conspirators still powerful in Hawaii's political system? The 2006 Democratic Senatorial Primary pitted U.S. Senator Dan Akaka against then Congressman Ed Case.

In contrast to Akaka's support for the corrupt trustees, Case championed measures to control trustee compensation and reform trustee selection throughout his 1990s legislative career.

When Case was a state Representative in 1998, he proposed a state Native Hawaiian Autonomy Act to establish a State-recognized native Hawaiian corporation. His proposal was shouted down as "denying Native Hawaiians the right to self-determination" by many of the same shady political figures who were at that very moment profiting from the pillaging of Princess Pauahi's Estate.

Bishop Estate trustee Lokelani Lindsey was ordered off the board in May 1999 after the IRS threatened to revoke Bishop Estate's tax-exempt status due to the actions of the trustees.

Lindsey had invested Bishop Estate money in the ‘adult' website and had appointed Rockne Freitas (now Chancellor of Hawaii Community College) to micro-manage the Kamehameha School on her behalf. She called the dismissal of trustees, "the second overthrow."

Broken Trust (page 262) describes Bishop Estate trustee Henry Peters in 1999 reacting to his ouster claiming the real intention of the IRS was to end admissions preferences for Hawaiians at Kamehameha.

Of course, no such effort was made by the IRS. On the contrary, when new trustees were named, the IRS established conditions to avoid taking Bishop Estate's tax-exempt status, thus saving the estate about $1 billion which was then available to fund Hawaiian-only education.

A State-recognized Native Hawaiian Corporation as envisioned by Case would likely eliminate the legal threats against Hawaiians-only admissions at Kamehameha Schools and Hawaiians-only eligibility for DHHL leases.

Such a move would certainly ease federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian Corporation which definitely would end any legal threat to Hawaiian preferences.

Lifting the lawsuit threat would also eliminate the justification for creating the Hawaiian Indian reservation, which those with ill, self-serving intentions need to shield their illegal activities from state and federal law enforcement.

So they shout about "the lawsuits" to keep native Hawaiians distracted. All the while, they can plot ways to scam from native Hawaiians and their entitlements.

Andrew Walden is the publisher and editor of Hawaii Free Press, a Big Island-based newspaper.

--------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007706060377
Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, June 6, 2007

ON THE MONEY TRAIL
Trudging a well-trod trail, again

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Columnist

Reader Kathy Macdonald objects to the tax-exempt status enjoyed by Kamehameha Schools, arguing that no other charitable organization is allowed to practice "racial discrimination" and still get a free pass on federal (and state) taxes.

She quoted the schools' latest federal tax return which says the organization has "a racially nondiscriminatory policy toward its students" despite the fact that it only admits students of Hawaiian ancestry.

I have trudged this particular branch of the money trail several times in the past couple of decades.

Back in 1972, then-state Supreme Court Justice Kazuhisa Abe wrote an opinion about Kamehameha Schools that said, "under the Internal Revenue Code, no private school which practices racial discrimination is entitled to federal tax exemption."

That caused the schools' New York tax attorney to consult with the IRS about the matter. In 1975, the IRS upheld the schools' tax-exempt status. The IRS re-affirmed the ruling in 1999.

Kamehameha Schools vice president Ann Botticelli said this week the Hawaiians-only admissions are "consistent with federal public policy as supported by the myriad of congressional statutes providing programs and benefits exclusively to Native Hawaiians."

It's a complicated subject with many cultural and historical layers to it. And the financial stakes are enormous. In 1992, a consultant said loss of the tax exemption would cost the schools $1 billion in back taxes. A lengthy IRS investigation of the schools and tax-paying subsidiaries in the 1990s resulted in payment of nearly $100 million in back taxes, penalties and interest. Under IRS pressure, the former trustees, who had been collecting annual compensation of as much as $900,000, were replaced. But the tax-exempt status was retained.

Private attorney John Goemans sued the IRS over the tax exemption issue in 1997, but later dropped the suit because his client did not have the money to pursue it. Goemans later participated in another suit against the schools filed on behalf of a non-Hawaiian student. The suit attacked the admissions policy on civil rights grounds, but had direct implications for the tax exemption issue.

The suit was withdrawn last month after reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The schools agreed to pay an unspecified amount of money to the plaintiff in return for the suit's dismissal. The tax exemption and the admissions policy remain.

--------------------

** From Scott Crawford's blog "Hawaiian Kingdom Info" for June 9, 2007

[** Note that the statement of purpose on the masthead of this blog says "This Blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands."

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/

Report on anti-Grassroot Institute direct action

Rec'd via email

From: Ikaika Hussey
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:05:51 -1000
Subject: Report on anti-Grassroot direct action

Aloha Aina Kakou:

Mahalo to everyone for coming out today at such short notice for the action against the Grassroot Institute. Mahalo to Dee Jay Mailer and Ann Botticelli of KS, the haumana and kumu of the Hawaiian charter schools, Mervina Cash-Kaeo of Alu LIke, Jon Osorio of CHS, Uncle Kekuni Blaisdell, and our taroroots activists --- Uncle George Kahumoku Flores, Ben manuel, Lynette and James, and Regina Gregory and her daughter. And mahalo to Adrian Kamalii for the mea 'ai, and to the Democratic Party for allowing us to use their photocopy machine.

We started to show up shortly after 10 am. The actual action began at 10:30, when the students arrived. We opened with pule, and a lively rendition of Kaulana Na Pua, led by Jon Osorio. We discussed the parameters for the action, and the ground rules (no harm to businesses, focus only on GR Institute, abide by landlord's directives). Jon Osorio gave a great speech, congratulating the spirit of resistance, followed by Dee Jay Mailer's invocation that we were there to protect the inheritance left to us by our alii. She said that this kind of action isn't foreign to Kamehameha Schools, and that "it's just right." We couldn't agree more.

After the opening, the students and adults took the sidewalk with small handheld signs. The students performed powerful chants. Visually, it was a stirring sight --- bright t-shirts, majestic Hawaiian flags, and clear voices. We distributed an open letter to the tenants of the Interstate Building to inform passers-by about why we were there (enclosed below).

At about 11:30, a delegation of about 12 students and teachers went upstairs to speak with the Grassroot staff, and ask them to explain why they are attacking our rights. A student informs us that just as we were getting to their office floor, he saw someone quickly leave the office with a stack of boxes. By the time the delegation got to the office, it was completely vacated.

Jon Osorio made the excellent point that we (the lahui Hawaii) move in the open, in the light of the day, without fear or shame, while the Grassroot types move in the shadows, as if they are ashamed and afraid of confrontation. We should be proud of our wiwo'ole -- our fearlessness -- in our willingness to take action publicly.

We closed the event at about noon with pule and oli mahalo.

Reporters from Ka Wai Ola o OHA, KGMB, the Honolulu Weekly, and Olelo were there to document our action and our leo.

Several major organs of our Hawaiian nation are working now as a coalition to develop a strategy to protect against the lawsuits. The unity being built is impressive. Unfortunately, because of schedule difficulties, more organizations couldn't be with us today. Hopefully more people will be able to participate next time.

Aloha aina,
Ikaika

Flyer handed to building tenants in the extended entry...

** Extended entry includes all the above plus text of the flyer, at

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1295638618/E20070609172720/index.html

Flyer handed to building tenants in the extended entry...

Tenants of the Interstate Building
1314 South King St.
Honolulu, HI 96814

June 8, 2007

Aloha Tenants of the Interstate Building:

This morning, members of the Hawaiian community are gathering outside your workplaces for a single purpose: to shine a light on an organization housed here that is working to undermine and erode Native Hawaiian rights. That organization is the Grassroot Institute, located in Suite 1163. The Grassroot Institute, both corporately and via its members and affiliates, is part of a reactionary movement to expropriate the collective inheritance of the indigneous peoples of Hawaii. In so doing, they have misused the grand language of the U.S. civil rights movement to facilitate their goals, while continuing the deplorable tradition of the jingoists, the yellow journalists, and the annexationists of the 19th century.

On May 15, 2007, attorney David Rosen sent an e-mail entitled "Request for Plaintiffs" to two individuals, Richard Rowland of the Grassroot Institute, and attorney William Burgess. Mr. Rosen explained in the e-mail that he intended to file a new lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' admission policy, only days after a settlement in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools was announced to the public. Mr. Rowland accepted Mr. Rosen's request for assistance and forwarded the e-mail to an unknown number of recipients.

Mr. Rosen is a mere attorney – but it is the Grassroot Institute that serves as cheerleader, organizer, and think tank for the dissolution of indigneous rights.

And the Grassroot Institute does not operate alone: it is a local node in an ultraconservative sweep throughout the United States which aims to dismantle women's rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, ecological sustainability, international cooperation, and supports for working families.

It's our sincere hope that our presence here today does not hinder your daily business. Our intent is to educate the general public, and to defend our heritage. Thank you for your patience.

Aloha Aina

The People On the Sidewalk

** Ken Conklin's note on language: "Aloha 'Aina" salutation and also signoff superficially means "love for the land" but nowadays it is also being used to mean "patriotism" in the sense of "we are the patriots who love our land [nation of Hawai'i]"

** Ken Conklin's note on solidarity of the Evil Empire:

Ikaika Hussey's report in his e-mail posted on Scott Crawford's blog identifies some of the participants who cooperated in the anti-GRIH protest, as follows [Conklin translations and info in brackets]:

** From Scott Crawford's blog "Hawaiian Kingdom Info" for June 9, 2007

"Dee Jay Mailer and Ann Botticelli of KS {Kamehameha Schools], the haumana [students] and kumu [teachers] of the Hawaiian charter schools [government-funded "host culture" charter schools], Mervina Cash-Kaeo of Alu LIke [federally funded racially exclusionary programs], Jon Osorio [Chairman] of CHS [Center for Hawaiian Studies at University of Hawai'i], Uncle Kekuni Blaisdell, and our taroroots activists --- Uncle George Kahumoku Flores, Ben manuel, Lynette [Cruz] and James, and Regina Gregory and her daughter. And mahalo to Adrian Kamalii for the mea 'ai [food], and to the Democratic Party for allowing us to use their photocopy machine."

** Note also that Ikaika Hussey's message says that following an opening prayer [a form of religious fascism using Hawaiian-language prayer to the Hawaiian gods to invoke support for race-based political demands] the group "rousingly" sang "Kaulana Na Pua" -- the song composed in 1893 to protest the revolution that overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy and to pledge continuing support to the ex-queen Lili'uokalani. Today this song is a cornerstone of the secessionist movement. Also note that the leader of this protest, Ikaika Hussey, has been a lifelong secession activist; and was an elected delegate to the Hawai'i government-funded Native Hawaiian Convention, where Hussey became the leader and spokesman for the independence faction which eventually took control of the convention. It's very significant that OHA, Kamehameha Schools, and the Democrat Party are all acting in unison and in public under the leadership of the secessionists.

-------------------

http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/2007/06/10/the-people-on-the-sidewalk/
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Blog, June 10, 2007
Commentary by Jere Krischel, Senior Fellow

On June 8th, 2007, a motley group of native Hawaiian supremacists, radical sovereignty activists, Kamehameha Schools representatives and unfortunately indoctrinated students made a protest at the Interstate Building at 1314 South King Street. They were protesting the civil rights activism and educational activities of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, making the bold and unfounded claim that, "The Grassroot Institute, both corporately and via its members and affiliates, is part of a reactionary movement to expropriate the collective inheritance of the indigneous peoples of Hawaii."

They further went on to claim that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii engaged in "the deplorable tradition of the jingoists", while themselves stating with no hint of recognizing their own hyperbole that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii "aims to dismantle women's rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, ecological sustainability, international cooperation, and supports for working families." It is surprising that they did not also blame the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for global warming, hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, AIDS, cancer and the sexual abuse of parishioners by Catholic priests.

And why such venom for a local think tank? Their apparent trigger was the forwarding of a request for plaintiffs by David Rosen, who hopes to continue the civil rights struggle that was temporarily stalled by the large cash settlement presumably paid to John Doe by Kamehameha Schools to end the appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the racially discriminatory admissions policies of Kamehameha Schools.

"The People On The Sidewalk" stated that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has "misused the grand language of the U.S. civil rights movement to facilitate their goals." Apparently, the grand language of the U.S. civil rights movement is not allowed to include the preservation of equal rights for all people, regardless of race or ancestry. These native Hawaiian victimhood industry specialists cannot see the plain racism they practice, and cannot perceive the evil and wrong they do to the memories of their kupuna and our collective heritage as Hawaiians of all races and backgrounds. The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded through the cooperation of Kamehameha the Great, and John Young of Britain. The first constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii declared all people were "of one blood". The Kingdom of Hawaii never had any special privileges associated with race. But somehow, the native Hawaiian victimhood industry is hell bent on undoing the civil rights embraced by our ancestors, by our kingdom, by our state and by our country.

There is no "collective inheritance" to people of any specific "race" anywhere on this planet - we are all humans, and dividing us by arbitrary lines is the bane of racism exposed. The Nazis did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy in Europe during WWII, the white South Africans did not have any collective racial claim to supremacy during the era of apartheid, and neither do people with the smallest fraction of ancestry traced back to pre-1778 immigrants to Hawaii have any just claim against their own peers, neighbors and cousins.

I have one question for "The People On The Sidewalk" - where would you send other people not of the proper race to go to collect their "collective inheritance"?

Some seem to prefer a Hawaii that harbors exclusive rights for people of the proper racial background - the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, on the other hand, believes in equality and aloha for all. Apparently, such dedication to civil rights is worthy of protest by the rich and powerful leaders of the native Hawaiian victimhood industry - Auwe!

(Jere Krischel is a Senior Fellow with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, born and raised in Hawaii and currently living in California with his wife and two young children.)

-----------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/29/news/story11.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 29, 2007

Kamehameha Schools critic licks his chops over opinion

By Helen Altonn

Honolulu attorney David Rosen said a Supreme Court decision that race can't be used as the only factor in achieving student diversity in schools will support his challenge against Kamehameha Schools' policy of admitting only native Hawaiians.

"My goal is still to sue the school and get rid of its discriminatory admissions policy," said Rosen, who was looking for students as potential plaintiffs last month. "I think the decision helps a lot and I think the trustees ... should understand the court has said you cannot use binary concepts of race."

The court voted 5-4 to reject diversity plans in public school districts in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion that they failed to show their plans considered race in the context of a larger educational concept.

Stressing that he supports affirmative action, Rosen said, "Race can be a factor; it can't be the factor. You can't say if you are of a preferred race you can get in but if you are not of a preferred race you can't get in."

He said the two public school districts in the Supreme Court case "are using a binary approach to race in their admissions policy and the Supreme Court couldn't be clearer in saying you cannot do that. It's unacceptable. Period."

Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman Ann Botticelli said the case before the Supreme Court has no relationship to Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy.

Among differences, she said, the Supreme Court case involved public schools that accept federal money and issues that concerned racial balancing.

Kamehameha is a private school that receives no federal money and it has "indigenous roots," she said. Kamehameha's policy "is about providing a remedy for harm suffered by the Hawaiian people ongoing today and evident in a number of (negative) social indicators in which Hawaiians are overrepresented," she said.

Congress has acknowledged a special trust relationship between the schools and the Hawaiian people "that provides greater leeway for remedial action for issues," she said.

The latest challenge to the schools' Hawaiians-only admissions from a non-Hawaiian student who was denied admission was settled last month under undisclosed terms. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled 8-7 in December to uphold the admissions policy and the lawsuit was pending in the Supreme Court.

-------------

** Star-Bulletin Editorial cartoon of June 29, 2007 originally posted with URL
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/29/editorial/corkyed.html

-------------------

The editorial below illustrates the attitude of the Hawaiian racial entitlements establishment, and its control of Hawaii's media; in two ways:

(1) The editorial parrots what so many leftist commentators throughout America have said about last week's Supreme Court decision in the Seattle and Louisville school cases. They say that the decision undermines the Brown decision of 1954 and the intent of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Presumably the undermining comes from severely weakening a remedy for school segregation which has been used for 50 years -- the remedy of assigning children to attend particular schools based on their race, in order to force racial mixing in schools serving single-race neighborhoods. But, as conservative commentators have pointed out, the intent of the 1954 Brown decision and the spirit of the 14th Amendment are not to force government to promote mixing of the races, but rather to prevent government from using its power to keep the races separated. In Seattle/Louisville the Court has taken a major step to expand and clarify the true meaning of Brown and of the 14th Amendment, that race cannot be the decisive factor determining where a child attends school. It seems we are on a course toward treating the role of government in racial matters the same way we have long been treating the role of government in religious matters -- the role is to stay out. Just as there shall be "no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; so now we are coming to the conclusion that there shall be no law either keeping the races separate (legally segregated housing or schools) or forcing them together (using race as the criterion to force individuals to attend or not attend particular schools for the purpose of achieving short-term racial balance or long-term racial harmony).

(2) In the face of the Brown decision of 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many Southern states and local communities began trench warfare resistance. At first there were high-profile acts of defiant disobedience, such as a Governor standing in the schoolhouse door to bar the admission of the disfavored race; or a Governor using his National Guard to block desegregation (until President Eisenhower federalized that state's National Guard to remove it from the Governor's control). After the fireworks stopped, there were decades of painfully slow compliance, as states and communities tried every trick to evade, avoid, and circumvent compliance. One method of evasion was to privatize the public schools. The editorial below proposes a similar strategy. Kamehameha is already a private school (although its tax-exempt status provides a heavy taxpayer subsidy). However, by charging tuition the school thereby enters into a contract with the child's family (even though the tuition is highly subsidized by the endowment, and often waived for some very needy children). The existence of the contract brings the school under the authority of federal law saying there cannot be racial discrimination in contracting (even including private contracts). The editorial therefore recommends Kamehameha circumvent the law by not charging any tuition at all (its $8-15 Billion endowment makes that easily possible). In my opinion, Kamehameha has that concept in its back pocket as "Plan B." But contrary to the editorial there's no need to implement it yet. Kamehameha knows that it takes 4-5 years before a lawsuit gets decided. So just keep following the existing admissions policy, including charging small tuition, until the case gets all the way to the Supreme Court and there's a final ruling against Kamehameha. At that time Kamehameha will keep the race-based admissions policy but stop charging tuition; which will then necessitate the filing of a new lawsuit and another period of 4-5 years during which segregation continues. And when the school's race-based admissions policy is ruled illegal under some new theory other than contracts, then the school can dodge a bit with some new strategy. In the words of Alabama Governor George Wallace (who repented and mellowed later in life): Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit en banc panel, which ruled 8-7 to uphold Kamehameha's policy, gave Kamehameha free legal advice from the bench, speculating that a new policy of not charging tuition would rescue Kamehameha. Kozinski's short separate opinion appears as the very last opinion beginning on page 108 in the 111-page en-banc decision, at
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement

Here's the editorial showing that spirit of defiance.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/02/editorial/editorial02.html

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 2, 2007, EDITORIAL

OUR OPINION

Court ruling limited to public schools

THE ISSUE
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public school systems cannot consider a student's race in trying to achieve integration.

A HONOLULU lawyer seeking plaintiffs to resurrect a challenge to Kamehameha Schools' restriction of admissions to native Hawaiians says he is encouraged by last week's Supreme Court's invalidation of racial diversity in public schools. However, he is remiss in applying the constitutional issues in that case to a private school's admission policies.

The ruling casts a cloud over the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in protecting blacks in the landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Five justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., rejected student transfers on the basis of race as a "tiebreaker" for admission to particular schools. The ruling stands the amendment on its head.

The constitutional issue has no bearing on private schools. Kamehameha Schools was challenged as violating the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which forbids racial discrimination in contracts. On the same day in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that private schools' tuition agreements are contracts and that all races, including Caucasians, are protected, although the law, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, obviously was aimed at protecting blacks.

David Rosen, while confusing the 14th Amendment with the 1866 law, may have captured the flavor of the new court with its recent addition of Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Indeed, the court's general outlook on racial issues may create problems for Kamehameha if a new lawsuit is launched against its admission policies.

The safest way to avoid a new challenge to the policy would be for the well-endowed institution to stop charging tuition, thus eliminating contracts regulated by the Civil Rights Act.

---------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/04/editorial/commentary.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 4, 2007

Private schools subject to 5th, 14th amendments

by David Rosen

I WRITE in response to the Star-Bulletin's editorial regarding a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases involving purported affirmative action programs ("Court ruling limited to public schools," Our Opinion, July 2). In one of the cases children were classified as "nonwhite or white" and in the other as "black or other." In both cases, the first groups of children were given a preference in admission to certain schools based solely on their race. The Supreme Court, in ruling that both programs were unconstitutional, reaffirmed that while race could be considered as a factor in a legal affirmative action program, it could not be the only factor. The Supreme Court further reaffirmed that the appropriate standard for it to review the legality of programs that seek to use race as a factor was "strict scrutiny."

That standard, as it applies to grades K-12, requires that the party seeking to prefer a certain race(s) establish that it (not society in general) previously engaged in intentional discrimination against the group now sought to be favored.

While the Supreme Court's recent decision related to public schools, it is equally applicable to private schools that receive governmental support. Contrary to the protestations of its trustees, each year, the Kamehameha Schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in governmental support through federal, state and county tax exemptions. There also are a number of other factors that subject Kamehameha Schools to the 5th and 14th Amendments' prohibitions against illegal discrimination.

Consequently, ceasing to charge tuition is not going to allow the Kamehameha Schools trustees to continue a policy that all of the courts considering this issue (including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) have concluded is not only discriminatory, but also is not required or contemplated by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.

Rather, an admissions policy that would be legal and could benefit those Hawaiians most in need of the trust's resources would give a substantial preference to "indigents and orphans" of all races. This is the type of affirmative action that I support.

** Ken Conklin's note: David Rosen is the attorney seeking clients for a lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools' race-based admissions policy. Rosen's e-mail to a friend, inquiring whether the friend could suggest potential clients, sparked a huge outcry from defenders of Hawaii's apartheid regime. One element of that outcry was a street protest against Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, documented at http://tinyurl.com/2mapsr

==============

** HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN CELEBRATED 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF "BROKEN TRUST" SERIES OF ARTICLES

** HIGHLIGHT IN ARTICLE BY SENIOR FEDERAL JUDGE SAMUEL P. KING (following the editorial): "Please note that the Hawaiians-only admission practice which is under fire is only a policy adopted by the first trustees and continued today. The will itself contains no racial restriction except as to indigent and orphan children. In early days the schools did in fact admit a few non-Hawaiians without there being any uproar. The issue will probably come up again. "

http://starbulletin.com/2007/08/09/editorial/editorial01.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 9, 2007, EDITORIAL

OUR OPINION

Kamehameha Schools still faces challenges a decade after reform

THE ISSUE
The private schools continue to face legal challenges a decade after an essay published in the Star-Bulletin resulted in an overhaul of what then was called the Bishop Estate.

TEN YEARS have elapsed since the Star-Bulletin published an essay submitted by five distinguished community leaders challenging the way trustees were selected for the Bishop Estate and how they operated the hallowed institution. The estate has been revamped and renamed Kamehameha Schools, and its trustees no longer have the look of what the Wall Street Journal described as "shell-shocked lottery winners." The estate has continued to be embroiled in lawsuits and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Discontent with management of the schools became noticeably public on May 15, 1997, when more than 500 members of the Kamehameha ohana -- mostly parents and alumni -- marched from the Royal Mausoleum to Bishop Estate headquarters at Kawaiahao Plaza to present a list of concerns to the trustees. The essay, published Aug. 9, 1997, expanded the criticism to the trustees' pay and politicization of their selection.

But the controversy that triggered the essay had been germinating for years; an outgrowth of greed arising from a 1984 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Hawaii's 1967 Land Reform Act. Until that time, more than 80 percent of Hawaii's land had been owned by fewer than 40 landowners. The ruling allowed homeowners to buy land they had been leasing beneath their houses.

MORE THAN 14,600 homeowners did so, and proceeds totaling nearly $2 billion within a few years poured into the Bishop Estate, which had owned three-fourths of Oahu's lease lots. Much of it went into the pockets of the trustees, who by state law had been paid a percentage of the estate's income.

Trustees had been selected by justices of the state Supreme Court, which had turned the selection process into a political lottery. They had included a former state Senate president, speaker of the House and a former chief justice.

The essay, titled "Broken Trust," was co-authored by Randall Roth, a trust laws professor at the University of Hawaii law school; Samuel P. King, a U.S. District Court judge; Walter Heen, a retired state appellate judge; the late Gladys Brandt, a former Kamehameha Schools principal; and the late Msgr. Charles Kekumano, a Catholic priest. With the exception of Roth, the authors were of Hawaiian ancestry.

They called for changes in the way justices were chosen, an attorney general's investigation of trustee conduct and repeal of the law allowing exorbitant trustee compensation. A probate judge now properly chooses the trustees based on a screening committee's recommendation, and they are paid, by law, "reasonable" compensation.

AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S investigation opened by then-Gov. Ben Cayetano ended in criminal charges, which were dropped, and a civil court settlement. The reconstituted Bishop Estate caused the Internal Revenue Service to drop a threat to end the estate's tax- exempt status.

In recent years, the Kamehameha Schools has fought legal challenges of the Hawaiians-only admission policy. The policy was narrowly upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year, but the estate settled the case out of court as the Supreme Court was about to decide whether to hear the appeal.

The settlement did not end the controversy over the admissions policy. A Honolulu lawyer says he plans to file a new lawsuit challenging the estate on constitutional grounds as well as violation of the 1867 Civil Rights Act, which the settled lawsuit alleged that it violated.

--------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2007/08/09/editorial/special.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 9, 2007 SPECIAL EDITORIAL

Making it all pono a work in progress
Broken Trust: 10 years ago today

» Kamehameha Schools still faces challenges a decade after reform

Editor's note: U.S. District Judge Samuel P. King was among the five signatories to the Aug. 9, 1997, "Broken Trust" essay in the Star-Bulletin, which led to major reforms of the Bishop Estate, now Kamehameha Schools. King and Randall W. Roth, also a signatory of the essay, co-authored the 2006 book, "Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement & Political Manipulation of America's Largest Charitable Trust," named Book of the Year by the Hawaii Book Publishers Association. This column is derived from King's May address to Bank of Hawaii managers.

By Samuel P. King

HAVE THE problems that beset the Bishop Estate and led to the publication of the "Broken Trust" essay in the Star-Bulletin 10 years ago been resolved so that all is now pono? The three most important areas of controversy had been trustee selection and behavior, educational reach and student admissions policy. They are still areas of controversy.

Princess Pauahi named the first five trustees, all Caucasians including her husband, and decreed that the number of trustees "shall be kept at five" and that "vacancies shall be filled by the choice of a majority of the Supreme Court, the selection to be made from persons of the Protestant religion." The supreme court she was referring to was the court of three justices who had been appointed, and whose successors would presumably be appointed, by one of her relatives. During the early days of the constitutional monarchy, that supreme court was given the duties of a probate court and other initial proceedings along with the usual appellate jurisdiction. Eventually these initial proceedings were conferred on newly created circuit courts; and although the supreme court then no longer exercised the powers of a probate court the supreme court justices continued to select successor trustees of the Bishop Estate. The new selectees were then routinely sworn into office by the circuit court judge exercising probate powers.

SUPREME CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

When Hawaii became an organized Territory of the United States, the laws of Hawaii in this regard were carried over unchanged and the three Supreme Court justices of the territorial supreme court, who now were appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, continued to select successor Bishop Estate trustees. Eventually a circuit judge exercising probate powers ruled that the Supreme Court justices lost the power to select such trustees when they lost probate powers and that he as probate judge would name the successor trustee, which he promptly did. Of course, the matter was appealed to the challenged Supreme Court whose members held that they were acting not as a court but as individuals in their private capacity when they selected a successor trustee. Their nominee was sworn into office and the probate judge's selection was rejected. On further appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the Hawaii justices were supported in their rationalization. This in spite of the obvious conflict of interest when the Hawaii Supreme Court was presented with an appeal from an action by Bishop Estate trustees whom the members of the same court had selected.

When Hawaii became a state, the now five members of the Supreme Court who had been appointed by Hawaii's elected governor and confirmed by Hawaii's elected Senate continued to select Bishop Estate trustees although they were far removed from the arrangement contemplated by Princess Pauahi. The conflict of interest in this arrangement became even more obvious. The practice was again challenged and again approved by five circuit judges sitting by designation by the chief justice, as something the justices did in their private capacity and not as sitting judges. Nevertheless, when one of their own number was selected he presumably did not vote on his own selection, either as a judge or in his private capacity.

A few months after the Kamehameha ohana marched from the Royal Mausoleum at Mauna 'Ala to Bishop Estate headquarters at Kawaiahao Plaza on May 15, 1997, four of the justices announced that they would no longer select Bishop Estate trustees. They also withdrew from selecting trustees of the Lunalilo Trust. They gave as the reason for their action that their continued participation would "promote a climate of distrust and cynicism" and "undermine the trust that people must have in the judiciary." As the younger generation might say: "Hello?"

FLUID SELECTION PROCESS

So how are successor trustees to be selected? The initial replacement trustees were selected by the probate judge for staggered five-year terms. For the most recent selection, a procedure was adopted by the probate judge whereby a temporary search committee selected by the judge after considering the recommendation of interested parties, especially of Kamehameha ohana, presented a short list of three persons from among whom the probate judge selected one nominee after a period of time in which to allow for public input. The details of this process are open to change each time a new selection comes up, which would be at least once a year. Under the present procedure, incumbents could be appointed for a second five-year term, which might not require the full process.

The system has worked so far. There has been general approval of the recent selection of Corbett Kalama by Judge Colleen Hirai in her capacity as the probate judge for the First Circuit Court. Trustee Kalama is a senior vice president of First Hawaiian Bank. He is said to be a direct descendant of Keakealaniwahine, who is said to be a great-great-grandmother of Kamehameha the Great. Kalama is quoted as saying that he considers a Bishop Estate trusteeship to be a great honor and that he would be more than willing to serve without compensation. There has not been any similar statement by any of his fellow trustees.

Could other and future justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court take back the power to select Bishop Estate trustees? There have been expressions in the past that selection by Supreme Court justices gave the Bishop Estate, and especially the memory of Princess Pauahi, a certain special aura that should be retained. Much oratory has been devoted to the necessity of honoring the princess's legacy.

DEPARTING FROM THE WILL

Actually, the only part of her will that has been honored exactly is the number of trustees, which she decreed "shall remain at five." There has also been reasonable compliance with Princess Pauahi's wish that the trustees "devote a portion of each year's income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood."

Princess Pauahi decreed that there shall be "two schools, each for boarding and day scholars, one for boys and one for girls." Several years ago the two schools were combined, but the resulting combination was, and still is, referred to as the Kamehameha Schools; there also are schools on the islands of Hawaii and Maui.

She decreed that the schools "provide first and chiefly a good education in the common English branches," which was understood to mean "reading, writing, and arithmetic," and also "instruction in morals and in such useful knowledge as may tend to make good and industrious men and women," and that "instruction in the higher branches" was "to be subsidiary to the foregoing objects." The boys' school in fact started out as a trade school.

Today Kamehameha Schools offers a first-class college-preparatory education, as it has for many years past. It has expended considerable time, effort and money to the preservation and, indeed, promotion of the Hawaiian language and ancient Hawaiian cultural practices. The estate helps finance a college education for Kamehameha graduates. Recently it was announced that the estate had authorized a substantial contribution to assist the homeless, among whom were many Hawaiians. While these may all be laudable uses of Princess Pauahi's largesse, they were not mentioned in her will. On the other hand, she was establishing "schools," and only designating the subjects to be taught "first and chiefly." Still, it is a linguistic stretch to encompass all of present-day Kamehameha Schools' expenditures if one is serious about being faithful to Princess Pauahi's will.

Princess Pauahi decreed that the successor trustees and the teachers be "persons of the Protestant religion." The latter requirement relating to teachers was declared to be in violation of applicable federal statutes, and the former relating to trustees has been increasingly inoperative. In recent years, several successor trustees underwent last-minute conversions to Protestantism shortly before taking office as trustees. The impression an outside observer received has been that this requirement has been ignored by the Supreme Court justices when selecting a replacement trustee.

SCALED DOWN TRUSTEES' PAY

Princess Pauahi's will says nothing about compensation for the trustees. An early decision by the Supreme Court of the constitutional monarchy held that nevertheless the trustees were entitled to reasonable compensation. Years later under the territorial government, the Hawaii legislature passed a law that set percentages of income and principal, which the legislators thought would limit the amount taken by the trustees. The trustees interpreted this law as setting the amount they could take, completely ignoring the legal principle in the United States that the amount of compensation taken by a trustee of an eleemosynary trust can never exceed the value of his or her services. As a result, the compensation taken by Bishop Estate trustees eventually hovered around $1 million each.

State law now decrees that such compensation shall be "reasonable" as a result of legislative action during the height of the "Broken Trust" controversy. At present the compensation set by the probate judge works out at about $100,000 each with an extra $25,000 for the chairman. A few years ago, the probate judge had suggested that $200,000 each would not be unreasonable, but the new trustees accepted the lower figure.

Princess Pauahi's will did not limit the term of service of a trustee. Until the appointment of Hung Wo Ching in 1968, trustees served for life unless they resigned earlier. Ching was appointed to a term ending at his age of 70 years. Such a limitation was in fact suggested by the incumbent trustees (or some of them). The next appointment was of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Richardson, who held out successfully for age 72. For subsequent appointments, the age limitation went back to 70.

The will directs the trustees to "annually make a full and complete report of all receipts and expenditures" and to file "annually an inventory of the property in their hands and how invested, and to publish the same" in some Honolulu newspaper. Compliance with this requirement during the more than 100 years since the trust came into existence has been skimpy. Presumably under the new management, this situation will improve.

Princess Pauahi's testamentary trust is a 19th-century document that no practicing attorney would draft today. Full ownership of the trust's assets and full responsibility for the trust's operations fall upon the five individual trustees. If one wishes to sue the Bishop Estate or Kamehameha Schools for any reason, the suit will be against the five trustees. If one wishes to contract with the Bishop Estate, the contract is with the five trustees. The trustees have the final responsibility for hiring and firing, and for all expenditures, including the purchase of pencils. Their actions do not have to be unanimous, as the princess decreed that "three of them at least must join in all acts." This would have been the law anyway if she had not so decreed. Nevertheless, all of them would be named in any legal action. They may, of course, delegate various duties to others, and the new trustees have taken a step toward a more usual corporate arrangement by theoretically delegating day-to-day operational control to a CEO, but they remain ultimately responsible for everything that goes on at the several Kamehameha schools. As a result, the premiums on their liability insurance policies are what is referred to as humongous.

DEBATE ABOUT ADMISSIONS

The question of admissions to the Kamehameha Schools has received enough publicity for anyone to be expert on the subject. Please note that the Hawaiians-only admission practice which is under fire is only a policy adopted by the first trustees and continued today. The will itself contains no racial restriction except as to indigent and orphan children. In early days the schools did in fact admit a few non-Hawaiians without there being any uproar. The issue will probably come up again.

So, as no one seems to be adhering to the literal provisions of Princess Pauahi's testamentary trust, why not turn it into a not-for-profit corporation with directors elected by the Kamehameha alumni? Robert Midkiff has recommended such a step, citing Yale, Harvard and Punahou as current examples (Star-Bulletin, July 30-31, 2006). The trustees at some time in the past did look into such a move but decided against it. They also looked into the possibility of moving the trust to an Indian reservation to escape the impact of federal laws and even had their lawyers draw up the papers to do so, but they did not get around to signing them. Not the least advantage of a not-for-profit corporation is that directors who serve without compensation would have relatively little personal liability, which would translate into a substantial reduction in the cost of trust-paid liability insurance.

The Bishop Estate and Kamehameha Schools will be with us far into the future. The problems that faced the Kamehameha ohana seem to be under control for now, despite a horse-and-buggy organizational structure and a penchant for secrecy. Those who are affected by the estate's policies or actions will no doubt be vigilant and vocal.

On the Net:
» "Broken Trust" book, (University of Hawaii press, 2006)
www.brokentrustbook.com
» "Broken Trust" essay (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 9, 1997)
starbulletin.com/specials/bishop/story2.html

------------------

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071106/OPINION02/711060304/1108
Honolulu Advertiser, November 6, 2007, letter to editor

KAMEHAMEHA
COURT'S BENT WOULD NOT ENSURE HAWAI'I JUSTICE

He argues that the trustees should have allowed the case to be settled by the "highest court in the land," and that had that happened, it would have settled the matter for him.

Such reverence for law and judicial process would be much more respected in the Hawaiian community if it didn't come more than 100 years too late.

If Mr. Rosen doesn't understand that (Kamehameha) Schools and the resources of the Princess Pauahi's lands were designated for our lahui when we were still a nation-state and constitutional monarchy, before we were invaded and occupied by the United States and before a foreign government was imposed on us against our expressed wishes by an American Congress that supposedly respected the rule of law, he might ask one of our high school students to educate him.

Jonathan Osorio
Director, Kamakakaokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai'i-Manoa

-------------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Dec/19/ln/hawaii712190387.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Hawaii school helped 35,000 last fiscal year

By Loren Moreno
Advertiser Staff Writer

Through its community and outreach programs, Kamehameha Schools reached more than 35,000 Native Hawaiian children and families in its most recent fiscal year, up 27 percent from the previous year, Kamehameha officials said yesterday.

Of that, only 5,400 were students who attended one of the school's three campuses. The other 30,000 participated in a wide variety of programs ranging from classes for expectant parents to college scholarships funded by Kamehameha Schools.

Kamehameha Schools increased its spending on education to $250 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30, up $29 million or 13 percent from the previous year.

The trust, established by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, spends about 2 to 6 percent of its endowment on education programs each year. The endowment was worth $7.66 billion on June 30, 2006. The value for the most recent fiscal year will be released in January, but trust officials estimate it was about $9 billion.

Dee Jay Mailer, chief executive officer of Kamehameha Schools, said the trust is reaching out to Native Hawaiians who are unable to attend school at its main campuses.

"There are so many Native Hawaiians who are not on our campuses who we are seeking to serve," Mailer said. "It's a huge number."

There are an estimated 65,500 Native Hawaiian students enrolled in the public or private school system, and only 5,400 are in Kamehameha Schools.

To expand its reach, Mailer said, the trust has established relationships with dozens of community organizations to provide educational services on behalf of Kamehameha Schools.

The trust contributed $78 million to more than 60 community organizations statewide — from programs for expectant parents to early education to literacy programs to college scholarships, Mailer said.

"The reality is that the majority of our people live and learn in their communities and not necessarily on our campuses," Mailer said.

One of the largest partnerships is with the state Department of Education, she said.

Kamehameha Schools helps fund some 21 summer school programs in public schools across the Islands. Kamehameha also supports literacy programs, professional development for teachers, Hawaiian cultural education programs and scholarships.

Earlier this year, Kamehameha provided 14 Hawaiian-focused charter schools with $4.8 million in funding.

Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are on their own when it comes to paying for facilities. Not only do charter schools receive less money than regular public schools, but a significant portion of what they get is spent on facilities, charter school officials have noted.

Enrollment in Hawaiian-focused charter schools has been estimated at about 2,300 students.

In addition to more than $16 million spent last year on college scholarships, Kamehameha also increased the number of preschool scholarships by 37 percent.

Some 850 children received a total of $4.4 million in early-childhood education scholarships, up from $3 million a year before.

Christopher Pating, vice president of strategic planning and implementation at Kamehameha Schools, said one of the school's goals has been to reach more children from birth to age 8. Last year, Kamehameha Schools served about 8,800 children from birth to age 8 through preschools, preschool scholarships and other educational partnerships.

Kamehameha has 31 pre-schools statewide, but with an estimated 32,000 keiki in Hawai'i between birth and age 4, Pating said, Kamehameha has been supporting other early-childhood education efforts across the state in hopes of reaching more native children.

"The biggest theme over the past couple of years has been reaching out and collaborating with our community partners in a much different way than we have in the past," he said.

===========================

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

CONTINUE WITH THE HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS DURING 2008

SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOL; INCLUDING BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND NEWS COVERAGE FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE