Published: Aug 2, 2005 HONOLULU (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down the exclusive Kamehameha Schools' policy of admitting only native Hawaiians.
Posted on 08/02/2005 1:30:22 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
Appeals Court Strikes Down Hawaiians-Only Admissions Policy at Kamehameha Schools
Published: Aug 2, 2005 HONOLULU (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down the exclusive Kamehameha Schools' policy of admitting only native Hawaiians.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the practice at the private school violates a federal law against racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts.
The case was brought by an unidentified non-Hawaiian student who was turned down for admission in 2003.
The Kamehameha Schools were established under the 1884 will of a Hawaiian princess to educate "the children of Hawaii." Admission is highly prized in Hawaii, both for the quality of education and the relatively low cost.
About 5,100 Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian students from kindergarten through 12th grade attend the three campuses, which are partly funded by a trust now worth $6.2 billion.
The admission policy was created to remedy socio-economic and educational disadvantages suffered by Hawaiians as a result of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
"I think it is a terrific decision," said John Goemans, an attorney for the boy. "It is a very big event for Hawaiian history."
The Kamehameha Schools had no immediate response to the ruling.
Goemans said that he expects the Kamehameha Schools to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but that he believes the high court will refuse to hear the case.
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.
AP-ES-08-02-05 1545EDT
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.
This is a private school?...........
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.
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.
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.
***...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.
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.
A good question for conservative Senators (what few there are):
How would John Roberts rule on this?
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'
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.
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.
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?
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.
L
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.
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.
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.
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
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.