Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Hawaiians-Only Admissions Policy at Kamehameha Schools
AP ^ | AP-ES-08-02-05 1545EDT

Posted on 08/02/2005 1:30:22 PM PDT by TheOtherOne

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
The appeals court reversed a 2003 by a federal judge who ruled that the Kamehameha Schools could continue the Hawaiians-only admissions policy because of its unique historical circumstances.

Ahh, yes, the 'old "unique historical circumstances" defense. It's not allowed under the Constitution, but I [the dumb judge]think my finding of "unique historical circumstances" is paramount to the Constitution.

1 posted on 08/02/2005 1:30:25 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

This is a private school?...........


2 posted on 08/02/2005 1:32:41 PM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? GOOOOGLE your own name. Want to have fun? GOOOOGLE your neighbor's......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

What's the government doing regulating private schools?


3 posted on 08/02/2005 1:36:25 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
"What's the government doing regulating private schools?"

Your masters can regulate whatever they want, according to the SCOTUS. Back when we had a constitution (pre-1930's) this would not have been possible.

4 posted on 08/02/2005 1:45:04 PM PDT by Neanderthal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private, nonsectarian, commercially operated school, which receives no federal funds, purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit.

The plaintiff, John Doe, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Kamehameha Schools and the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate and its individual trustees. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which forbids racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. For the following reasons, we agree with Doe and find that the Schools’ admissions policy, which operates in practice as an absolute bar to admission for those of the non-preferred race, constitutes unlawful race discrimination in violation of § 1981. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Kamehameha Schools.


5 posted on 08/02/2005 1:45:49 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Appellees argue, nonetheless, that the need is so great that the Schools should be permitted to admit only native Hawaiians until the educational deficits affecting that community disappear. They present abundant evidence demonstrating that native Hawaiians are over-represented in negative socioeconomic statistics such as poverty, homelessness, child abuse and neglect, and criminal activity; they are more likely to live in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and attend low-quality schools; and, because of low levels of educational attainment, they are severely under-represented in professional and managerial positions, and over-represented in lowpaying service and labor occupations. In sum, they urge, even though the admissions policy creates an “absolute bar,” it is necessary for the Schools to “trammel” the interests of nonaboriginal applicants in order to reach its goal.


6 posted on 08/02/2005 2:00:47 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

***...the three campuses, which are partly funded by a trust now worth $6.2 billion. ***

Partly funded by a trust. Does this mean that the government also funds the school? If so, I can only say that NO school should have started taking money from the government years ago. True, there wouldn't be any luxury swimming pools; money for the football team to travel; etc but most schools would have the necessities and the RIGHT to teach patriotism.


7 posted on 08/02/2005 2:32:16 PM PDT by kitkat ("We're not going to let anybody frighten us from our great love of freedom." GWB, 7/22/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

There should be no need whatsoever to prove "need" or any other special circumstances in order for a private school to be able to exclude people from attending. This is no different than forcing an all-male private club to admit women. This is just one more example of the courts exanding government into the everyday lives of private citizens. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will overturn this decision, but it is a sad day when our freedoms depend on the whim of a few people in robes.


8 posted on 08/02/2005 2:35:40 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

A good question for conservative Senators (what few there are):

How would John Roberts rule on this?


9 posted on 08/02/2005 2:46:37 PM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will overturn this decision, but it is a sad day when our freedoms depend on the whim of a few people in robes.

So you are in favor of affirmative action giving preference to blacks? I am against any preference based on race or 'purity of one's blood'

10 posted on 08/02/2005 3:17:48 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

I am against seperating people by race BUT this is a private school and they should be able to determine their own criteria.

Of course, this has long been struck down for all white or all males in clubs, groups, etc for some time, so I guess the dog done turned back on itself.

Predictibly, liberals will be pissed off, but fail to see that NO ONE else has been allowed to do this for some time now. Basically the government getting involved in private organizations business ONCE again.


11 posted on 08/02/2005 3:46:55 PM PDT by packrat35 (reality is for people who can't face science fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

The mixed messages are too many to count. However, my personal opinion is that there should not be racial preferences at schools in the united states, of any kind. I think we are past the need to discriminate to promote.


12 posted on 08/02/2005 3:53:48 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
So you are in favor of affirmative action giving preference to blacks? I am against any preference based on race or 'purity of one's blood'

From what is in the article, this has nothing to do with affirmative action. A bunch of people set up a private school which they wanted to limit to native Hawaiians. It's their money, they can do what the hell they want with it. Affirmative action is completely different in that it involves giving an advantage to one group over another which are competing for the same publicly-available resources.

The key here is the word private. If the government can tell citizens what to do with their own money and their own property, then there is no such thing as private money or private property (Kelo was bad enough as it is). It is no coincidence that the far left-wing 9th Circuit was the culprit here, because leftists don't believe in the right of citizens to own anything, or associate freely, or live their lives without government guidance.

But yes, if a group of people wished to start up a private school only for black kids, I would say they have every right. Same for people who wanted to start up a private all-white school, although hell will freeze over or revolution will come before that ever happens here.
13 posted on 08/02/2005 4:07:13 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
But yes, if a group of people wished to start up a private school only for black kids, I would say they have every right.

What if a group of people wanted top start up a private military school for men only? They could even name it "The Citadel" or "VMI" right? And they could exclude women?

14 posted on 08/02/2005 4:11:36 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

I agree that morally it may be wrong, BUT it doesn't violate the Constitution and the courts shouldn't be involved in a private groups business.


15 posted on 08/02/2005 4:25:07 PM PDT by packrat35 (reality is for people who can't face science fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
They take Federal funds, therefore federal regulations apply.

L

16 posted on 08/02/2005 4:28:09 PM PDT by Lurker (" Many are already stating that the decision in Kelo renders the contract null and void." I agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Holy Cow! Under the terms of this ruling, the American Indian College Fund, NAACP scholarships, and a whole slew of other racially limited programs are now ILLEGAL because they constitute the establishment of a contract limited by race. It also has interesting implications for religious schools since religious discrimination is as federally protected as race. Under the terms of this ruling, a private Amish school would be powerless to keep a fundamentalist Muslim, or even a satan worshipper, from attending.

Something tells me that the judge didn't quite think this one through.


17 posted on 08/02/2005 4:33:45 PM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

A friend of mine was a son of a Navy Vet and attended schools there. He stated that he had not ever seen the amount of racism practiced by the Hawaiians and Japaneese. They hated white Americans with a passion.


18 posted on 08/02/2005 4:41:36 PM PDT by Lewite (Praise YAHWEH and Proclaim His Wonderful Name, His Son Yahshua Messiah is coming soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
I agree that morally it may be wrong, BUT it doesn't violate the Constitution and the courts shouldn't be involved in a private groups business.

I am so confused. Honestly, I am not sure what rules we are playing under anymore. Am I for this or against it?

Under the rules, as I understand them, I am for this decision.

19 posted on 08/02/2005 4:41:39 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Under the terms of this ruling, the American Indian College Fund, NAACP scholarships, and a whole slew of other racially limited programs are now ILLEGAL because they constitute the establishment of a contract limited by race.

I think the only thing everyone can agree on is that the law in this area is an unmitigated mess.

The actual decision is pretty interesting. They chose not to try some defenses, resting solely on others. So some of the groups you list above would try to mount additional defenses, but it might not help. You can find it here:

http://www.ksbe.edu/lawsuit.php

20 posted on 08/02/2005 4:45:18 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson