Kamehameha Schools sues white student

[LikaNui]

This breaking news (http://starbulletin.com/breaking/breaking.php?id=7494) just posted on the Star-Bulletin's website:


Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement

Kamehameha Schools is suing an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million settlement over his attempts to gain admission even though he isn't native Hawaiian.
The lawsuit by the school for native Hawaiians claims the student violated a confidentiality agreement when his attorney, John Goemans, revealed the amount of the settlement in February.
The settlement was reached in May 2007 as the case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Previous legal challenges in lower courts to the school's admission policy had failed.
Goemans has said he believed the settlement amount was important public information about a charitable institution given tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
(...)

[helen]

Shouldn't they sue the lawyer and not the kid?

[Leo Lakio]

Shouldn't they sue the lawyer and not the kid?Even if the lawyer is the one who violated the agreement, it's the kid who got the money - they need to go after where the money ended up. The boy's family can then sue the attorney, if they like.

[salmoned]

Don't be silly, the lawyer received his share. KS is just trying to stem the tide with respect to the new case. Until they realize their position is unconstitutional, they're fighting an uphill battle. Other similar cases have resulted in opening admissions to greater diversity, racial or gender, even when the institutions were willing to relinquish their tax-advantaged status to save their exclusionary admissions policies.

[timkona]

What is the new case?

You gotta know that every bloodthirsty lawyer in the State of Hawaii is looking at Kam Schools like a meal ticket.

Guess what? The color of your skin, or your pedigree, or who your parents were, or where you are from, JUST DOES NOT MATTER. Too bad. So sad. You got taught some pretty heinous crappola by those who influenced your mind at a young age.

One planet. All human. Get over it.

[Keanu]

Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy is restorative justice for an indigenous people whose culture, property and self-governance were nearly destroyed by 19th and 20th century colonialism.

I read the complaint filed by the Grant and Goemans, not suprising these opportunists are seeking compensatory damages for their clients claiming that they will suffer irreparable injury should the court rule against them.This claim is ludicrous! The civil rights of Americans are not threatened by an institution created by a beloved princess seeking to uplift her own people.

[timkona]

The civil rights of Americans are not threatened

Perhaps you have not heard of the 14th Amendment. The fact that you have been taught that one race is different (entitled) from another is shameful. Yet you carry the notion with a sense of pride that would make a Klan member proud.

[LikaNui]

What is the new case? Well, it appears the Star-Bulletin blanked out the link in the first post here and has replaced it with this story (http://starbulletin.com/breaking/breaking.php?id=7495) about two new lawsuits today:


Kamehameha Schools faces another challenge to admissions
School officials, meanwhile, are suing the plaintiff in an earlier case

Sacramento attorney Eric Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen have filed another lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy which gives preference to native Hawaiians.
The lawsuit was filed today in federal district court on behalf of four children and their families who seek an end to the admissions policy, according to the attorneys.
The lawsuit is essentially identical to another lawsuit filed in 2003 on behalf of a non-native Hawaiian student identified only as John Doe. That case was settled last year. According to former attorney John Goemans, the child and his mother agreed to a $7 million payment to drop the lawsuit after a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the schools' admissions policy.
(...)
"The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the Trustees' racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil rights laws. Our clients believe, and we agree with them, that such a ruling will have a significant impact in reversing unfortunate trends toward discrimination and even segregation in Hawaii," Grant said.
Kekoa Paulsen, a spokesman for Kamehameha Schools, said the school officials have been expecting the lawsuit. "We are certainly prepared to defend our policy."
(...)
Earlier today, Kamehameha Schools officials announced they were suing the plaintiff in the earlier "John Doe" case, claiming that the student violated a confidentiality agreement when his attorney, Goemans, revealed the amount of the settlement in February.
The unidentified white boy had sued the schools over his failed attempts to gain admission even though he isn't native Hawaiian. The settlement was reached in May 2007 as the case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Previous legal challenges in lower courts to the school's admission policy had failed.
(...)


Interesting that both suits were filed on the same day, and the KS says they were expecting the new suit.

[Keanu]

The civil rights of Americans are not threatened

Perhaps you have not heard of the 14th Amendment. The fact that you have been taught that one race is different (entitled) from another is shameful. Yet you carry the notion with a sense of pride that would make a Klan member proud.

Save your redundant vitriol for somebody who will take your inane rabmlings seriously, timothy. You lack both the credibility and intelligence to engage in a discusion on this issue.

[timkona]

So then, your defense of race based decision making certainly makes you seem credible?

Of course, the smartest folks have always been the racists. The xenophobes. The separationists.
Right?

:cool:

This thread will be so fun. And funny.

[Keanu]

So then, your defense of race based decision making certainly makes you seem credible?

I support Kamehameha's admissions policy because the policy reflects a broad remedial mission to right historical wrongs.

I'll leave the decision on credibility up to the other members of this message board. I will say however, that posts like the one you made below really don't help your cause. It merely serves to validate my comments regarding your credibility. :p


Of course, the smartest folks have always been the racists. The xenophobes. The separationists.
Right?

:cool:

This thread will be so fun. And funny.

[timkona]

Ahhhh yes,,,,,, the old "2 wrongs make a right" argument.

Brilliant !!

If that is the best you could come up with, that is WEAK !!!!! Turning back the clock is wishful utopianism at best. History cannot be changed. Children today have no culpability in the actions taken by those 120 years ago. That would be like punishing a child for the actions of their grandparents. Or conversely, rewarding a child for the inaction of their grandparents.

If you have issues with the actions, or inactions, of your ancestors, I am sorry that you can do nothing to change what they did, or did not, do. But that is not enough to validate bad decisions made in the present time.

Merit is a way to measure individuals. So is economic condition. But regardless of who your parents were, I would say that you are a great person.

[Leo Lakio]

Don't be silly, the lawyer received his share.Of course, the lawyer received his share - duh. But who do you think got most of the settlement, silly? One of the top rules of lawyers - always go after the deepest pockets (in other words, the ones with the most money).

[timkona]

I would also like to add that our society suffers from the fact that the poor students, who exhibit remarkable mental abilities and high academic achievement, are the lost talent in our culture. Frequently, they end up at Junior Colleges, paying for their own education, or never get to any college at all.

I would love to see a private institution dedicated to the education of poor, smart kids.

[Menehune Man]

The pendulum always swings from one extreme of wrong doing,
past the proper action of equality,
to the far extreme in favor of the other side.

My opinion?
I think all children that are residents of Hawaii should be able to apply for admission to Kamehameha School. Those that reach the academic level (passing the entrance exam) and had applied first, should be admitted.

If there needs to be a household income level cap in place... so be it.

Again, just my opinion.

[Frankie's Market]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kamehameha Schools should change their admission policy to base admission and preference to applicants based on their aptitude towards Hawaiian culture rather than on race. IOW, if applicants (Hawaiian or non-Hawaiian) excelled in areas like the Hawaiian language, music, dance, art, etc., then they should be given consideration for admission. This would accomplish the following:

1) It would likely pass legal muster and get KS out of all these legal entanglements.

2) Such an admission policy will still likely keep the KS student body predominantly Hawaiian.

3) If a few of the non-Hawaiians who get in through this policy put their peers to shame when it comes to things like speaking Hawaiian, it just might motivate the students with Hawaiian blood to apply themselves that much harder when it comes to taking pride and learning more about their culture.

[TuNnL]

Don't be silly, the lawyer received his share.If your referring to attorney Eric Grant, then yes, he received $2.8 million — but only after suing the keiki and his mother to get the money. If you’re referring to attorney John Goemans, he actually is in the process of suing Eric Grant for his share. I would say what I think of all these guys, but I might get sued. :rolleyes:
KS is just trying to stem the tide with respect to the new case.Like Timkona says, what new case are you referring to? This case was over (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/08/ln/hawaii802080371.html) in February. There are no new issues here. Kamehameha’s suit is basically bill collection. :rolleyes: There is the case Likanui refers to in post #8, but your comments appear to about his original post.

[Nords]

My opinion?
I think all children that are residents of Hawaii should be able to apply for admission to Kamehameha School. Those that reach the academic level (passing the entrance exam) and had applied first, should be admitted.

I don't know anything about the KS admissions process and I don't have any personal experience with it.

But neighbors up the street have two kids who meet the application criteria. One applied upon reaching 9th-grade age and was accepted after passing the admissions exam. That kid is now in Kamehameha's 11th grade and, except for the daily commute, doing fine.

The younger kid applied a few months ago and reportedly did better on the admissions exam than their older sibling. However, for whatever reason (more applicants?) they didn't make the cut. So that kid is now attending 9th grade at the local public high school, which is a bus ride of barely a mile...

I know another family with two kids in the same situation, split up by an admissions exam that seems to only establish a minimum qualification level before the real quota-based decision is made. The parents appreciate the educational benefits to their kids but they can't help but be a bit skeptical & cynical about the process.

I'm not implying that KS did anything wrong with the admissions process, but it seem somewhat ironic that the nation's largest charitable trust is unable to find room in the school for someone who meets all their admissions criteria and passes all their entrance exams. Perhaps the quality of mercy is indeed strained.

[Leo Lakio]

This is gonna be a long one, folks, and I apologize; it’s been percolating in my brain all night and well into today.

In the older case, the settlement was with the boy, not with the attorney. If KS seeks to invalidate, rescind, or otherwise be reimbursed for the payment they made, regardless of who violated the confidentiality aspect of the agreement, they would have to go after the party with whom the settlement was made. How much of that money ended up going into lawyer’s fees is not relevant to KS’s lawsuit.

Once this story came out, I knew that timkona would bring up his point, as he has done before. While I may not appreciate how he presents it, I recognize the validity of his argument. At the same time, Keanu has presented the KS side of the equation quite succinctly.

Here are some of the points, as I view them; I recognize that my personal bias will come through in these comments, and that some disagree with them, so I will not go so far as to call them “facts” in the case…

> Slightly more than a century ago, the legitimate ruling monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawai`i was overthrown, largely due to the interests of American businessmen.

> In the years since then, the majority of the native population of the Hawaiian Islands (referred to as “kanaka maoli”) have suffered a degradation in their quality of life, their social status, their educational opportunities, their economic circumstances.

> Many people would state a direct link between the former and the latter. The “takeover” of Hawai`i has led to a second-class status for many (if not most) kanaka maoli. (There are precedents in making this argument, based upon the treatment of Indian tribes on the Mainland, throughout the history of the American nation.)

> If one accepts the points made above, it would be understandable to see institutions such as the Kamehameha Schools viewed as an opportunity to balance out, and to some degree, rectify the imbalance between the status of kanaka maoli and that of other segments of the Islands’ population.

That last statement represents the KS side of the equation. Timkona argues that it is wrong to have any institution that promotes educational opportunities for one group over any other, based exclusively on racial characteristics – that it goes against the basic tenet that “all men are created equal.” I have argued on HT (as have many others) that such a desire for equality is aspirational, that it does not reflect the reality of today’s society, and should continue until such equality can be reached.

But the question that still lingers in my mind is this: how do we know when such a goal has been achieved? It’s one thing to say that we “know” it has not – but how do we measure the success rate? Is the ongoing exclusivity of KS helping to raise the overall status of kanaka maoli – or is it doing the opposite, by keeping a wall of separation between them and the overall population, as well as playing into the development of a “poor me – the man is keeping my people oppressed” mentality?

I don’t have the answers; just plenty of questions. I know what I presently believe, but I never like to confuse my “beliefs” as “facts,” so I can remain flexibly open to other perspectives. Let’s have ‘em…courteously, I would hope.

[timkona]

The "poor me" mentality is crucial to any underachiever in order to preserve self esteem. The "poor you" mentality is the #1 most important tenet in liberal philosophy. You simply cannot make it on your own, that is why you need us. The presumption of failure is essential in both cases. Gosh, what a terrible way to think.

I know lots of folks in Hawaii who own their own homes, whose children do well in school, be it private or public, whose yards, homes, and children are clean, who have good jobs, sometimes 2 of them. Success, or failure, is not based on skin color, pedigree, or history.

But I'm willing to listen to Leo's point near the end. Perhaps all men are NOT created equal. Perhaps some folks are just born with a natural inability to compete on a level playing field. Perhaps whole groups of people lack cognitive ability. Perhaps whole cultures have chosen to fail, and to teach failure as a virtue. Cultures who embrace failure, along with a sense of entitlement, are likely to die out.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror every day?

[Menehune Man]

"Slightly more than a century ago, the legitimate ruling monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawai`i was overthrown, largely due to the interests of American businessmen."
Yes, okay. The same type of scenario has happened over and over throughout history, including Pacific Islanders taking over others. Being the conquerer or the conquered is part of the human experience on planet earth.

"In the years since then, the majority of the native population of the Hawaiian Islands (referred to as “kanaka maoli”) have suffered a degradation in their quality of life, their social status, their educational opportunities, their economic circumstances."
Why is that? The working poor of Hawai'i come in all manner of peoples.
Each and every one of us needs to work for whatever quality of life we can achieve.

How has any group's educational opportunities being degraded over another's? The same student loans, grants, etc. are available to all. And there may even be some scholarships specifically for Kanaka Maoli. (I'm not sure?)

"Many people would state a direct link between the former and the latter. The “takeover” of Hawai`i has led to a second-class status for many (if not most) kanaka maoli. (There are precedents in making this argument, based upon the treatment of Indian tribes on the Mainland, throughout the history of the American nation.)"
We don't know how history would have played out without American involvement in Hawai'i. Second class status?! In today's world? Why?


"If one accepts the points made above, it would be understandable to see institutions such as the Kamehameha Schools viewed as an opportunity to balance out, and to some degree, rectify the imbalance between the status of kanaka maoli and that of other segments of the Islands’ population."
I disagree. It's an individual's perseverance and hard work that lifts one up.
IMO

[Leo Lakio]

The same type of scenario has happened over and over throughout history, including Pacific Islanders taking over others. Being the conquerer or the conquered is part of the human experience on planet earth.Yes. However, in today's perspective, many of us have grown to recognize that it is no longer an acceptable way to operate in world affairs. But that's today's view - not the one that was in place in the late 1800s or earlier in history. Would you accept the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, or the genocides of Rwanda, Serbia or Darfur by saying it's just "part of the human experience"?

The point was not about the overthrow, it was to put the concept of unique treatment of kanaka maoli in perspective.

[Menehune Man]

1)However, in today's perspective, many of us have grown to recognize that it is no longer an acceptable way to operate in world affairs. But that's today's view - not the one that was in place in the late 1800s or earlier in history.
2)Would you accept the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, or the genocides of Rwanda, Serbia or Darfur by saying it's just "part of the human experience"?

3)The point was not about the overthrow, it was to put the concept of unique treatment of kanaka maoli in perspective.

1a) I agree that we say it's not acceptable to (basically insert the 10 commandments), but that it always did and still does go on.

2a) All of those instances listed are real so must be "a part of the human experience" whether or not I like it.

3a) Don't believe it's very unique. Check the 2) list above.

[Leo Lakio]

2a) All of those instances listed are real so must be "a part of the human experience" whether or not I like it.The question is: do you simply accept it as is - or do you work to correct it, to improve circumstances so that it ceases to occur?
3a) Don't believe it's very unique.The "unique" aspect, MM, is the institution such as Kamehameha Schools, designed to rectify a perceived imbalance; not the overthrow itself. Does that help you to understand my point?

[Menehune Man]

1)The question is: do you simply accept it as is - or do you work to correct it, to improve circumstances so that it ceases to occur?
2)The "unique" aspect, MM, is the institution such as Kamehameha Schools, designed to rectify a perceived imbalance; not the overthrow itself. Does that help you to understand my point?

1a) I feel that the U.S.A. has become the "Police Chief" of the planet.
Having accomplished a lot of good along with bad in that role.

2a) Here's a link to some info I think will be helpful concerning the admissions policy at Kamehameha School...
http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/bio.php

An excerpt:
In addition, “She wished to establish an institution bearing the name Kamehameha, for which name she had high respect and preference, and a hospital or hospitals and schools for boys and girls were mentioned, and in consideration of the Queen’s Hospital already established…it was decided that schools would be preferred, not for boys and girls of pure or part aboriginal blood exclusively, but that class should have preference.” As a result, she left her estate, about nine percent of the total acreage of the Hawaiian kingdom, to found the Kamehameha Schools

So if the school admissions policy states that any percentage of Hawaiian blood is needed, then it goes against Princess Pauahi's stated wishes.

What is the latest version of percentage needed?

[alohabear]

The question is: do you simply accept it as is - or do you work to correct it, to improve circumstances so that it ceases to occur?
The "unique" aspect, MM, is the institution such as Kamehameha Schools, designed to rectify a perceived imbalance; not the overthrow itself. Does that help you to understand my point?
If that's the case then KSBE should help ALL the Hawaiian children, not only the ones who do good on a "test". Help the special needs Hawaiian keiki too.

[Amati]

Kamehameha Schools is also being scrutinized [again] on how much of the trust's money is spent on trustees.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/NEWS01/808030378/1001


On Sunday, the Honolulu Advertiser reported that Board members Diane Plotts, Robert Kihune, Corbett Kalama and Doug Ing could see their annual compensation jump from about $100,000 to about $187,000 and Chairman Nainoa Thompson could see his compensation increase to a maximum of $217,500 from the $97,500 he earned last year. The trustee compensation committee said its recommendations reflect the complexities of a board that sets policy for a $9.1 billion charitable trust. Recommendations are based on an analysis of board pay at multibillion-dollar foundations, publicly traded corporations, for-profit real estate investment trusts and some local publicly traded companies.

But the article notes that some point out an accurate study would have compared Kamehameha Schools board pay with that of large tax-exempt organizations such as the $12.3 billion in assets of the Ford Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which holds $9.4 billion in assets. Board members of those foundations receive $21,500 to $46,500 a year.

[Amati]

If that's the case then KSBE should help ALL the Hawaiian children, not only the ones who do good on a "test". Help the special needs Hawaiian keiki too.
You have hit the nail on the head.

[TuNnL]

So if the school admissions policy states that any percentage of Hawaiian blood is needed, then it goes against Princess Pauahi's stated wishes.This has been debunked numerous times in more than one thread. Like you point out, Pauahi asks that a preference be given to kanaka maoli students, and therefore, no one outside that group should be considered until the pool is exhausted.
The younger kid applied a few months ago and reportedly did better on the admissions exam than their older sibling. However, for whatever reason (more applicants?) they didn't make the cut. So that kid is now attending 9th grade at the local public high school, which is a bus ride of barely a mile... it seem somewhat ironic that the nation's largest charitable trust is unable to find room in the school for someone who meets all their admissions criteria and passes all their entrance exams. Perhaps the quality of mercy is indeed strained.As you can see, even today, kanaka maoli who have passed all admission requirements are being denied entrance. It stands to reason then, that to answer Leo Lakio’s question, Kamehameha Schools has not expanded its facilities to the point where it can accomodate enough students, and thus reach that level where the “imbalance is rectified.”

[Vanguard]

Hypothetically, I'd be intrigued to know whether a complaint will be made regarding this matter to the bar association grievance committee, and the outcome of such a thing.

[salmoned]

In the older case, the settlement was with the boy, not with the attorney. If KS seeks to invalidate, rescind, or otherwise be reimbursed for the payment they made, regardless of who violated the confidentiality aspect of the agreement, they would have to go after the party with whom the settlement was made. How much of that money ended up going into lawyer’s fees is not relevant to KS’s lawsuit.

That's true, but will the court hold the defendant liable for the subsequent misdeeds of his attorney?

> Slightly more than a century ago, the legitimate ruling monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawai`i was overthrown, largely due to the interests of American businessmen.

Granted. America has supported overthrows around the world, often against the wishes of the populace and/or existing governments. Iraq and Afghanistan most recently come to mind. We've done it in the past and, presumably, will continue in the future.

> In the years since then, the majority of the native population of the Hawaiian Islands (referred to as “kanaka maoli”) have suffered a degradation in their quality of life, their social status, their educational opportunities, their economic circumstances.

Not only not true, but patently false. Quality of life, educational opportunities and economic circumstances have all improved by any objective measure. As for social status, I don't really know what that means, but the descendants of that native population majority now enjoy equal status with every other American citizen, including their former superiors, which certainly appears a higher status than their forebears.

> Many people would state a direct link between the former and the latter. The “takeover” of Hawai`i has led to a second-class status for many (if not most) kanaka maoli. (There are precedents in making this argument, based upon the treatment of Indian tribes on the Mainland, throughout the history of the American nation.)

I agree that there's a direct link between the overthrow and the improvements the majority of the native population has enjoyed, but I don't see what you mean by 'second-class' status. Do employers discriminate against native descendants? Do the courts or schools? Can they not vote or run for office? Are they denied driver's licenses? Can they not get college degrees, practice law or medicine? What IS this 'second-class' status, other than an easy-going, hang loose lifestyle (which I enjoy as well)?

> If one accepts the points made above, it would be understandable to see institutions such as the Kamehameha Schools viewed as an opportunity to balance out, and to some degree, rectify the imbalance between the status of kanaka maoli and that of other segments of the Islands’ population.

Even were your points valid and accepted, a private, charitable organization would not be an acceptable way to rectify the situation.

[Amati]

An earlier article in the Honolulu Advertiser (Feb 8 08) gave additional details on why Goemans thinks he did not break the confidentiality clause.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/08/ln/hawaii802080371.html

"The settlement says that anyone who discloses its contents is subject to a $2 million penalty, but Goemans said he was not a party to the agreement and never signed it.
Goemans said an attorney representing Grant breached the confidentiality clause by mailing a copy of the agreement to Goemans last year.
Goemans added that Kamehameha Schools must disclose details of the settlement on its 2007 tax return, which is due to be filed later this year, and on annual financial reports the charity is required to file with the state attorney general's office and with the state court.
Tax returns of nonprofit institutions such as Kamehameha Schools are public records under federal law. The institution's annual financial accountings — which date to its founding by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in 1888 — are also open to the public."

[Random]

Ahhhh yes,,,,,, the old "2 wrongs make a right" argument.

Brilliant !!

If that is the best you could come up with, that is WEAK !!!!! Turning back the clock is wishful utopianism at best. History cannot be changed. Children today have no culpability in the actions taken by those 120 years ago. That would be like punishing a child for the actions of their grandparents. Or conversely, rewarding a child for the inaction of their grandparents.

If you have issues with the actions, or inactions, of your ancestors, I am sorry that you can do nothing to change what they did, or did not, do. But that is not enough to validate bad decisions made in the present time.

Merit is a way to measure individuals. So is economic condition. But regardless of who your parents were, I would say that you are a great person.
And you wonder why I like Hawaii separate from the United States, and returned that 50th tainted star. I say that as a non-Hawaiian.

Sorry, but even a child, if not his or her parent, should know better than not to apply for Kamehameha school if the child is not Hawaiian. Heck, I knew that. :rolleyes:

So, hypothetically, a white child adopted by black parents should qualify for a scholarship with the United Negro College Fund?

[Mililani]

Kamehameha schools is being sued by 4 other families? Greedy bastards! And whats all this talk about "unconstitutional?" Whose constitution are we talking about? America's? Why would the Hawaiians need to do what they say?

[timkona]

a scholarship with the United Negro College Fund?

I see no difference whatsoever between UNCF and KSBE.

I'm simply not a racist. I don't see in color. But if you keep patiently trying to teach me, I promise I will try to learn how to be a bigoted racist. And then I will try to learn the whole idea about how some races are just naturally superior, and some are just naturally inferior. At some point, right after that, I betcha I start to rejoice in the fact that I am lightskinned, making me the last minority that has received no special treatment. I am the minority in California where I was born. I am the minority in Hawaii where I live. And you don't hear me asking for handouts.

Glurg. :cool:

One Planet. All Human.

[Leo Lakio]

So many opinions and perspectives bouncing around, including disagreements with the points that I clearly stated were personally biased and thus NOT presented as "fact" - yet no one has answered my question about measuring success:But the question that still lingers in my mind is this: how do we know when such a goal has been achieved?(though TuNnL touched closest to it, with his comment that KS has not yet done enough to "rectify the imbalance").

[timkona]

Leo Leo Leo, how many times do I have to explain it?

Most social "causes" do not have success as their goal. If you feed all the hungry, you lose your mission. House all the homeless, nothing left to do. If those with a sense of entitlement suddenly find themselves on a level playing field, they might lose all their handouts. Wouldn't want that to happen.

Victory, or a sense of finishing the mission, has no place in some political philosophies, where dependence, or inferiority, is the source of power.

[Keanu]

Kamehameha's policy is of one of inclusion, not exclusion. No race is excluded from admissions. This is a fact that Tim and those who disagree with Kamehameha's policy just can't fathom.

[Keanu]

Most social "causes" do not have success as their goal.

Are you applying this logic to the will of Princess Pauahi Bishop and her vision to establish the Kamehameha Schools?

[Leo Lakio]

Most social "causes" do not have success as their goal. If you feed all the hungry, you lose your mission. House all the homeless, nothing left to do.Tim, you don't have to explain - you know I get what you are saying - which is why, my personal opinion aside, I ask what I ask.

Reminds me of the old March of Dimes: their original cause was the elimination of polio. Once that occurred, they shifted their focus to assisting those with "birth defects" - a cause that would never go away.

[timkona]

Racial preference is the root of the evil. I realize some kids get in who are not Hawaiian, but it is the preference that defies the 14th amendment.

I am also open minded enough to admit that some folks do not see racism as a problem, having been conditioned since childhood to believe that they are somehow entitled by birthright to something.

It is not the will that is the social cause, but rather the desire for entitlement, or rectifying past wrongs. That is the root of Leo's question. And for anybody to actually answer it would be just like Bush giving a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Victory is simply not an option in some political philosophies.

[Keanu]

Racial preference is the root of the evil. I realize some kids get in who are not Hawaiian, but it is the preference that defies the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were enacted to grant expanded freedom to recently freed slaves after the Civil War. Kamehameha was established by the will of Ke Ali'i Pauahi Bishop in 1887, when Hawai'i was still a sovereign kingdom.

I don't know how any logical person could draw a parallel between the plight of African American slaves and apply their struggle to a challenege against Kamehameha's admissions policy.


I am also open minded enough to admit that some folks do not see racism as a problem, having been conditioned since childhood to believe that they are somehow entitled by birthright to something.

Don't know what you are implying here but I don't consider Kamehameha's admission's policy as a policy of racism.


It is not the will that is the social cause, but rather the desire for entitlement, or rectifying past wrongs.

I doubt entitlement was a factor in Pauahi's vision. Just as an FYI, when Kamehameha was established, most of the past wrongs had yet to be committed.

[Random]

One planet. All human. Get over it.
Tell that to Al Qaeda.

Tell that to kids in one public school that is not as privileged as the other public schools who have shitloads of money given to them.

[timkona]

First Keanu says
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy is restorative justice for an indigenous people whose culture, property and self-governance were nearly destroyed by 19th and 20th century colonialism.

Then Keanu says
I doubt entitlement was a factor in Pauahi's vision. Just as an FYI, when Kamehameha was established, most of the past wrongs had yet to be committed.

I knew this thread was gonna be fun.

Used to be, back in the day, that human sacrifice was practiced in these parts. I guess we don't approve of that policy anymore either. Makes no difference how the times were back in Pauahi's time. Today, racism, and racial separatism is simply not acceptable.

[Keanu]

First Keanu says
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy is restorative justice for an indigenous people whose culture, property and self-governance were nearly destroyed by 19th and 20th century colonialism.

Then Keanu says
I doubt entitlement was a factor in Pauahi's vision. Just as an FYI, when Kamehameha was established, most of the past wrongs had yet to be committed.

I knew this thread was gonna be fun.



Used to be, back in the day, that human sacrifice was practiced in these parts. I guess we don't approve of that policy anymore either. Makes no difference how the times were back in Pauahi's time. Today, racism, and racial separatism is simply not acceptable.

Tim, your simplistic ideology really does you a disservice.

The restorative justice angle is my angle; it makes me feel better as a Hawaiian to view Kamehameha's admission policy from that perspective. However, Pauahi's vision for the school had nothing to do with entitlement or justice and everything to do with providing her people an avenue to enlightenment; one that would help them compete and succeed in their changing homeland.

You make these sweeping claims about "entitlements" without realizing that by refusing to embrace cultural sensitivity and acknowledge the history of these islands, YOU convey a sense of entitlement.This kind of attitude is quite common with people who move here from the continental states.

Racism and racial separatism are concepts that were brought to Hawai'i and facilitated by transplants such as yourself. The sooner you come to terms with that fact, the quicker you will be able to move forward.

[Random]

Today, racism, and racial separatism is simply not acceptable.
You're right. It's not.

That's why the US must continue to compensate for their wrongful deeds done to the Hawaiians. Leaving Kamehameha School to carry out the wishes of the Bishop Estate is one way to do so.

Their other option is to give back the islands to the Hawaiians but let's face it, they won't because of its prime military strategic location in the Pacific.

[Amati]

This kind of attitude is quite common with people who move here from the continental states.
And who says racism is not alive? (Unless you are including in that sentence, "is quite common with Hawaiian people who move here from the continental states", which I doubt.)

[Keanu]

And who says racism is not alive? (Unless you are including in that sentence, "is quite common with Hawaiian people who move here from the continental states", which I doubt.)

Who's saying racism is not alive? It's definitely not a factor in Kamehameha's admission policy, as Tim claims.

[Amati]

Kamehameha was established by the will of Ke Ali'i Pauahi Bishop in 1887
Anyone know if the will is accessible online?

[Mililani]

Yes, its accessible:

http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/will.php

[Amati]

Yes, its accessible:

http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/will.php

Thank you for the online link! For me, rereading the will always brings up "more" questions than I had in the first place.

[timkona]

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;

That must be the sentence that is the heart of the matter. So what is the most recent blood quantum needed for admission?

I would guess that the first Hawaiian was the first baby born here after the arrival of voyagers from somewhere south of here about 2000 someodd years ago. So does being born here make you Hawaiian? And if not, what is the criteria for being a Hawaiian?

I betcha there are plenty of keiki who are either orphans or in indigent circumstances that are not attending KS.

[Mililani]

Thank you for the online link! For me, rereading the will always brings up "more" questions than I had in the first place.

You're welcome - and I have to agree with you, the more I go back and re-read the will, the more questions I have.

[Amati]

"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;"

That must be the sentence that is the heart of the matter.

Yes, there is the rub. Does the will say:
(A) ophans/indigent children should be schooled (regardless of race), but with Hawaiians being admitted before an orphan/indigent child of another race
OR
(B) Hawaiian children should be schooled, no matter if they are ophan/indigent, even before an orphan/indigent child of another race.

So what is the most recent blood quantum needed for admission?
There is no minimum blood quantum for admission.

I betcha there are plenty of keiki who are either orphans or in indigent circumstances that are not attending KS.
Yes. But meanwhile there are many keiki from middle class and rich families that are, even though orphan/indigent keiki (including Hawaiians) have been denied admission.

[salmoned]

There IS a minimum blood quantum, namely, 'more than none'. That is the very issue which makes the policy exclusionary. We have many institutions with racial preferences that are not exclusionary, similar to the preference given to veterans when applying for civil service. What is intolerable, however, is a policy in which racial preference leads to an effective exclusion of non-preferred persons.

As I read the will, it clearly states that a portion of the income should be used for the support and education of orphans and indigents (not just children, not just Hawaiians), with a preference for those with Hawaiian blood (within that group of orphans and indigents). I do not believe ONLY orphans and indigents were intended to be supported and educated, nor do I believe ONLY Hawaiians were intended to be supported and educated. No matter how one reads it, however, the one aspect follows the other - so, if only Hawaiians were intended to be supported and educated, then only orphans and indigents were intended to be supported and educated, since both aspects are contained in the same clause and refer to the same portion of income. I find the will is non-exclusionary, but the admissions policy IS exclusionary. I don't believe this sort of segregation was intended then and I don't believe it to be constitutionally permissible now. The clause dealing with the religious affiliation of the teachers has already been challenged and overturned. It is only a matter of time for this other aspect to follow.

[TuNnL]

There IS a minimum blood quantum, namely, 'more than none'. That is the very issue which makes the policy exclusionary ... The will is non-exclusionary, but the admissions policy IS exclusionary.Since you correctly surmise that Bernice Pauhi Bishop’s will is non-exclusionary, please cite the specific wording in the Kamehameha Schools admission policy, that in your opinion, demands a minimum blood quantum as a prerequisite for admission.

[salmoned]

TuNnl, there's no need to look at the wording of their policy when we have already seen the effect of that policy - that applicants and students believed to have no Hawaiian blood quantum (actually, they may have HAD Hawaiian blood, but it couldn't be proven) have not had their applications considered or have not been admitted or have been expelled ON THAT BASIS. As well, we can see that KS has been willing to settle for $7 million (in at least one instance) rather than face further judicial challenge to their admissions policy.

[Leo Lakio]

that applicants and students believed to have no Hawaiian blood quantum have not had their applications considered or have not been admitted or have been expelled ON THAT BASIS.What about Kalani Rosell? '07 Kamehameha-Maui grad, NO Hawaiian koko whatsoever.

[Amati]

'07 Kamehameha-Maui grad, NO Hawaiian koko whatsoever.
Ah, yes, wasn't that the situation where the underlying message seemed to be, "Sorry, there just aren't enough Hawaiian children smart enough to qualify".

http://starbulletin.com/2007/05/20/news/story02.html

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.

[TuNnL]

there's no need to look at the wording of their policy when we have already seen ... that applicants and students believed to have no Hawaiian blood quantum (actually, they may have HAD Hawaiian blood, but it couldn't be proven) have not had their applications considered or have not been admitted or have been expelled ON THAT BASIS.As Leo Lakio and Amati have pointed out, your assertion is debateable. On that basis, I would ask you once again, if you are able to cite the specific wording in the Kamehameha Schools admission policy, that in your opinion, demands a minimum blood quantum as a prerequisite for admission. It’s a yes or no question. If you can’t, it’s okay. I just wanted to see how well-educated on the issue you are.

As well, we can see that KS has been willing to settle for $7 million (in at least one instance) rather than face further judicial challenge to their admissions policy.A settlement isn’t an admission of guilt. Kamehameha Schools had already won every appeal on the case up to this point. They simply chose to avoid the U.S. Supreme Court at this particular moment (i.e. an election year). Worthy of noting is the fact that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is the attorney that defended (http://starbulletin.com/1999/10/06/news/story1.html) the State in the Rice vs. Cayetano case. ;)

[Leo Lakio]

the descendants of that native population majority now enjoy equal status with every other American citizen, including their former superiors, which certainly appears a higher status than their forebears.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree that there's a direct link between the overthrow and the improvements the majority of the native population has enjoyed, but I don't see what you mean by 'second-class' status. Do employers discriminate against native descendants? Do the courts or schools? Can they not vote or run for office? Are they denied driver's licenses? Can they not get college degrees, practice law or medicine? What IS this 'second-class' status, other than an easy-going, hang loose lifestyle (which I enjoy as well)?Can anyone address salmoned's comments on this? Is he accurate in stating that there are no identifiable disadvantages to being a Hawaiian/kanaka maoli living in the State of Hawai`i in 2008?

[salmoned]

TuNnl, If it weren't debatable, there'd be no need to go to court. No one is suing over the wording of KS's admission policy, so I don't view it as relevant. You're just beating a dead horse on this point (as usual) as it has no bearing on the issue. If the policy indicated no preference whatsoever and yet non-Hawaiians were effectively excluded the relevant facts would remain unchanged.

Not every appeal ended in a win, there's the 2005 appeal that resulted in a 2/1 loss for KS (later reversed in a close decision). That KS chose to settle for $7 million proves they doubted the merits of their own case, since settling left the issue open to further cases against them, while allowing the case to be heard by the Supreme Court would likely have settled it once and for all.

That the now Chief Justice wound up on the losing side in Rice v. Cayetano doesn't come near to suggesting he believed the decision was incorrect. However, it does prove he is aware of the precedent decisions.

Leo Lakio, whoa! Are you suggesting you have no rationale for your opinion concerning the 'second class' status of Hawaiians in Hawaii (after having built your 'logical' argument on that premise), or is it only that you tire of reiterating the same old propaganda from many decades ago when it actually may have applied? I'm sure most everyone can identify the many advantages of being Hawaiian in Hawaii (including 'preferential' admission to KS, which is effectively exclusionary of others), so I eagerly await news of the disadvantages. [I do wish to note, however, that I never claimed there were no disadvantages to being Hawaiian in Hawaii (though the only one I can suggest is that of being over-served by regular and special governmental and charitable organizations), only that there is no 'second class' status to Hawaiians in Hawaii.]

Kalani Rosell? You really want to use that example as proof that KS admissions policy isn't exclusionary of non-Hawaiians? Are you suggesting that if KS allows one non-Hawaiian in every 10 or 20 years it will prove their POLICY is non-exclusionary?

[Leo Lakio]

That KS chose to settle for $7 million proves they doubted the merits of their own caseI'm sorry, but that is one of the most nonsensical statements in this thread. An out-of-court settlement "proves" naught. Most cases in this country are settled out-of-court - ask any attorney.

[salmoned]

Not quite. How many cases of dubious merit having been twice appealed are settled for $7 million or more just prior to being heard by the Supreme Court? Why would KS settle when settlement would inevitably lead to more cases against them, while allowing the case to move on ONE MORE TIME would likely settle the issue in a definitive manner? If you select and extract a small piece of what was said, it may sound ridiculous, I could easily do the same to anyone else's statements, but it doesn't make the entire statement ridiculous. KS has the monetary might and inclination to fight frivolous lawsuits. They fought this one through 2 appeals before deciding to settle rather than have the Supreme Court hear the case. That history conveys information extremely relevant to the issue. To ignore it is to be an ignoramus.

[Leo Lakio]

Clearly, salmoned, you confuse "assumptions" with "proof." Cases of "dubious merit" are settled all the time, for a wide range of reasons, from fear of loss to desire for conclusion and avoidance of further litigation. Unless you are a party to the private negotiations, one can only speculate as to why a case is settled; said speculation will be colored by one's own personal values.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the American legal justice system does not qualify you to classify others as ignorami. Name-calling also weakens your discussion points.

[salmoned]

I've confused nothing here. You suggest general cases as if they provide an explanation in this specific case. You assume I was not a party or privy to the considerations of KS in this case and you assume I lack knowledge of the American justice system. You also suggest I have engaged in name-calling. All these imaginings are without substance. If the facts are too obscure or disagreeable for you to address them directly, I suggest you hold your peace until it all becomes clearer to you, as making up stories about me or talking of 'generalities' fails to advance either side of this issue.

[Leo Lakio]

You also suggest I have engaged in name-calling. To ignore it is to be an ignoramus.Your case makes itself.

Salmoned - a number of posters have made note of your passive-aggressive style of "debate" - couching your statements in a vague enough (yet obvious to all) fashion that you can later attempt to deny having said what you wrote, as if the flaw is exclusively in the interpretation. You play -poorly- games with semantics. You make so many scattershot statements of "fact" that your occasional success rate is comparable to that of the proverbial "blind squirrel," yet when anyone comes up with direct refutation of one of your concepts, you are oddly silent.

It's a shame, as you clearly have intriguing perspectives on a number of topics and ought to be able to contribute to an adult level of debate, disagreement and discussion ... yet you regularly fail to do so.

[salmoned]

Leo Lakio, 'to ignore it [the history of this case] is to be an ignoramus' is a statement of fact, which would apply to myself as well as anyone else engaging in that behavior. If you prefer to understand it as name-calling, it is only your determined refusal to recognize what was actually stated that leads to your erroneous opinion. Your last two posts have had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion, dealing only in an ad hominem attack upon me, who I am, what I know, how I argue. I can assure you, my arguments are cogent and my semantics are well calculated to convey my position, can you say the same of your own? As for adult argument, I let my arguments stand or fall on their own merits and may criticize any argument in which I find a lack of merit. Of course, some opinions are so patently fallacious or impertinent no argument or response is deemed necessary. I'm not criticizing persons, only arguments. If YOU could restrict yourself to addressing the arguments and facts, we would BOTH be engaging in an adult-level discussion. That others [including you] have engaged in fallacious, ad hominem attacks against me (leaving my arguments unaddressed) suggests no fault on my part. Quite the contrary, it naturally leads one to suspicion of their arguments and/or character. If, from time to time, I hold a mirror up to their attacks, it is only to gently reprove their behavior.

I am keenly interested in any argument you consider a 'direct refutation', could you provide an example? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to start a new thread rather than hijack this one, though.

Now, is there a possibility that anyone else has something cogent to say concerning this topic?

[TuNnL]

'to ignore it is to be an ignoramus' is a statement of factCertainly then, by your definition, you are an ignoramus as you have repeatedly ignored my question.

I will ask it a third time, because I am really indifferent as to whether or not you think it is relevant (you are but one voice among a sea of rhetoric) or that your ego lends to the opinion that “there’s no need to look at it”:

Are able to cite the specific wording in the Kamehameha Schools admission policy, that in your opinion, demands a minimum blood quantum as a prerequisite for admission? At least have the civility to plead the 5th, instead of dancing around the issue like a snake-tongued politician.

[Leo Lakio]

Kalani Rosell? You really want to use that example as proof that KS admissions policy isn't exclusionary of non-Hawaiians? Are you suggesting that if KS allows one non-Hawaiian in every 10 or 20 years it will prove their POLICY is non-exclusionary?I use that example simply to prove that your blanket statement:applicants and students believed to have no Hawaiian blood quantum (actually, they may have HAD Hawaiian blood, but it couldn't be proven) have not had their applications considered or have not been admitted or have been expelled ON THAT BASIS.is flawed.

But I don't expect you to accept that, as you will now wriggle out of it by saying that it wasn't meant to be a blanket statement. Again, your vagueness in expression will apply.

[salmoned]

Take another look at my statement. Have you noticed something that doesn't jive with your view? My statement was NOT a blanket statement. I didn't say or imply that, '[ALL] applicants and students believed to have no Hawaiian blood quantum (actually, they may have HAD Hawaiian blood, but it couldn't be proven) have not had their applications considered or have not been admitted or have been expelled ON THAT BASIS.' No, my statement remains valid if even only a few students were subjected to that policy (not to suggest I believe this policy has not been pervasive, if not all-encompassing). The only flaw is in your misreading of the statement.

To suggest that my 'vagueness' allows me to slip away from your refutation proves your lack of understanding of the statement and denies your own failure to understand exactly what was stated. I meant what was stated and I didn't state what you have determined I meant. The statement is not vague, it is specific and cogent. Exceptions to the statement don't prove it false. That you see the flaw in your own argument makes me wonder why you advanced it in the first place and why you continue to assert it as valid. Certainly, you can't expect me to address every patently false or impertinent assertion against my positions - that would be a permanent occupation!

TuNnl, to ignore you is to love you.

[kani-lehua]

in the, "letters and commentary" section of this morning's advertiser:

lawsuit drains system, diminishes assistance:

"with 70,000 current school-age children of native hawaiian ancestry in the state and only 5,354 of them admitted to kamehameha schools, i fail to see how the plaintiffs can make a strong argument of how they would have been admitted if they were native hawaiian. how is it known that if not for their ancestry they would have been admitted?"

"...i didn't sue the school over its admissions policy, but do feel that i would have a much stronger case than those who are currently suing, especially with having the 2005 9th circuit court of appeals in san francisco's opinion in my favor. perhaps i would have sued if a prior identical lawsuit settled for $7 million..." shanelle naone

this letter to the editor represents the voice of one native hawaiian, but the sentiments of many.

[Leo Lakio]

You assume I was not a party or privy to the considerations of KS in this caseYes, that is correct. Feel free to "prove" me wrong right here, in this thread, for all to see.

And once you do, please explain why you would take the risky step of discussing the settlement publicly in an online forum, which would violate the terms of the settlement to which you imply you are "party or privy."

Your most recent post leads me to believe that perhaps, after all, you ARE in some fashion linked to the legal system. You write in the convoluted, non-answer, cover-your-posterior fashion of many of the bad attorneys I have known over the years.

[salmoned]

Leo Lakio, you and TuNnl prove yourselves wrong with nearly every utterance, far beyond my poor power to add or detract. You continue to pursue lines impertinent to the thread, questioning me, as a person, rather than addressing the issues. Clearly, you both need some TLC. Where's sansei when you need him [to complete the triumvirate]? ;)

[Leo Lakio]

Avoidance of a direct answer, yet again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, to stay on topic, let me ask another question to those on this thread: how many participants in this discussion consider themselves kanaka maoli? There's been all this back-and-forth in the thread from many non-Hawaiians (myself included); I'd like to hear more of the Hawaiian perspective on these issues.

Did you attend Kamehameha Schools? Did someone in your family? Nearly 124 years after the passing of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, what is your personal take on the relevance of her will to the Hawaiian people of today?

[kani-lehua]

answers to ll's questions:

1. kanaka maoli and other ethnicities.
2. did not attend kamehameha schools. graduated from SHA.
3. aunt was a lower school teacher--retired. uncle attended way back when. twin nieces applied, but were not admitted. their mother as well.
4. refer to my post #72. however, with mixed feelings.

back when, and i don't know if it applies now, i was told that the faculty's children were able to attend kamehameha whether or not they had koko? didn't tina shelton graduate from kamehameha? correct me if i'm wrong.

[salmoned]

Yes,... me wrong right here, in this thread, for all to see.

Ah, so you admit to being wrong. How refreshing! [Just an example of how taking comments out of context is counterproductive to intelligent discussion. If you want to extract and address bits and pieces, please extract entire ideas, rather than just nibbles from ideas.]

kani-lehua, in reference to your post #72 - I don't understand why the writer would not know the precise reason(s) they were not admitted to KS. Does KS not provide reasons for rejection (or acceptance)? Why do native Hawaiians view admission of a non-Hawaiian as a big stink, but accept a secretive selection process as business-as-usual (and not the 'stink to high heaven' that it is)? It seems the author should be praising the plaintiff(s) for bringing some light on the matter, rather than blindly accepting an unlawful and/or secretive process concerning admissions. If the author believes more students should be accommodated at KS, then pressing for increases in capacity would better meet the need, over wishing individuals wouldn't sue and force KS to pay the expense of going to court (or settling). Even better, how about pressing for an overtly open and legal selection process, so no court could be swayed to accept a case against it? As it is, KS is clearly hitting the ball down the line, hoping it isn't declared foul by the umpire, instead of keeping it well within the field of play.

[Leo Lakio]

Is there an emoticon for a "sigh"?

[Mililani]

It is not secretive as many believe. You want to know, just ask. They send results and scores to your home. If you still don't understand it, you can call them, and they'll explain it all to you.

As for the other poster, I remember hearing that staff members (with no koko) can have their children attend the school, BUT, it is not automatic. Their children must go through the whole process like everyone else. I suppose its one of the benefits of working at KS.

[salmoned]

That's what I thought. I've never applied to a school with a different policy. So, it leads to the obvious conclusion that those plaintiffs were TOLD they were being denied admission or consideration because they had no provable native Hawaiian blood quantum, rendering that letter writer's contention moot and contentious.

"The percentage of indigent and orphaned students at Kamehameha's Kapalama Heights campus was 19 percent during the 2005-06 fiscal year, which was up from 14 percent during the 2002-03 year." Now, having clearly seen [in her will] that orphans and indigents are to treated at least on par with the preference for native Hawaiians, how many of those orphans and indigents are non-Hawaiian? If we see nearly 100% native Hawaiians enrolled, we should expect to see nearly 100% orphans and indigents, too. How strange that that is not the case. Are there no non-Hawaiian orphans and indigents applying to KS? I suppose it's possible, but then KS should be actively recruiting them. We clearly see a greater 'preference' (why not call a spade a spade, it's an exclusionary preference) for native Hawaiians than we do for orphans and indigents! Wealthy native Hawaiian children are admitted before non-Hawaiian orphans and indigents. If the ostensible purpose of KS is to lift native Hawaiians out of their low socioeconomic state, why are wealthy native Hawaiians admitted? One can only surmise that the 'corrective' purpose has been considered fulfilled by KS. The near complete exclusion of non-Hawaiians from KS, my dear readers, is racism, pure and simple and not in accordance with the intentions expressed in the founding will. QED ;)

[Keanu]

Article 13 of Ke Ali'i Pauahi Bishop's will gives the trustees the flexibility to regulate admissions....

"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"

Like I've said before, Kamehameha's admission policy is one of inclusion, not exclusion. No one race is excluded from admissions.

[salmoned]

Keanu, you are just being silly. Any race or individual with no Hawaiian blood quantum has been effectively excluded and in certain individual cases explicitly excluded. Unless Hawaiians have managed to breed with every other racial strain and their progeny from each of these unions live in Hawaii, you are just plain wrong. Of course, in another sense, a ridiculous and trivial sense, you are right in saying no one single race has been excluded because ALL races have been excluded other than Hawaiian (which isn't even a race, but only a racial subgroup, anyway).

The will does give trustees the power to make changes, but then let's not refer to the intentions in the will anymore if they have been entirely superseded by the intentions of the trustees. Once we move past the founding document, the racial prejudice embodied in Kamehameha's admission policy becomes even less supportable because it's viewed in our modern day setting.

Okay, you say it's a policy of inclusion. So, who exactly is included? Is the entire African continental population included? The Asian continental population, are they included, too? I really wonder who is included in this policy of inclusion. It's a wonder so few apply, if they're all included in consideration for admission. No, I doubt they are included in this policy of inclusion. How many of us here in Hawaii are included in this policy of inclusion? Everyone? Can I apply and be accepted? No, this policy of inclusion excludes me. Some inclusion, eh?

[salmoned]

Final point - Human genetic variation is estimated to be 0.1%. That means we are 99.9% identical. Even chimpanzees have twice the genetic variation of humans. So it's not about who we are, it's only about our dead ancestors of a few generations back. Go a little further back and we're all one again, so it's all about a snapshot of history with no regard for all time before and after that brief moment in history. This sort of trivial fixation is malignant.