Posted on 08/07/2005 12:31:18 PM PDT by dila813
HONOLULU -- Blowing conch shells and chanting Hawaiian prayers, some 15,000 people marched through downtown Honolulu Saturday to protest a federal court ruling striking down Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admissions policy as unlawful.
"We are outraged," said Lilikala Kameeleihiwa, a professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii. "This is a great setback for our people. Here we are on our own homeland and we can't educate our children."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the private school's policy of admitting only native Hawaiians amounted to "unlawful race discrimination" even though the school receives no federal funding.
The decision shocked school officials and devastated the Native Hawaiian community. The school has defended the exclusive policy as a remedy to socio-economic and educational disadvantages Hawaiians' have suffered since the 1893 U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Protests against the ruling were planned throughout the islands Saturday.
"Our hearts have bled in these past four days," Michael Chun, headmaster at the school's main Kapalama campus on Oahu, told the massive crowd blanketing the courtyard surrounding Iolani Palace - the former residence of the Hawaiian Kingdom's last two monarchs.
"We must stand together to focus and right this wrong," Chun said. "March tall, march proud, march strong."
The Kamehameha Schools were established under the 1883 will of a Hawaiian princess. 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. Admission is highly prized in Hawaii because of the quality of education and the relatively low cost.
Non-Hawaiians may be admitted if there are openings after Hawaiians who meet the criteria have been offered admission.
The lawsuit was brought by an unidentified non-Hawaiian student who was turned down in 2003.
The appeals court wrote that the school's admission policies are illegal because they operate "as an absolute bar to admission of those of the non-preferred race."
Kamehameha Schools has said it will appeal. An injunction asking the court to order the school to accept the teenager for the fall term is pending.
At the Honololu rally, Gov. Linda Lingle, introducing herself as a "haole" and "a non-Hawaiian," said the court's decision was "not just."
"The Hawaiian people have been tested many, many times," Lingle said. "This is just one more test that you will show you will overcome."
Amber Marquez, 17, a senior at the school's Kapalama campus, said Kamehameha has given her a future.
"We are just trying to preserve what little we have left because everything is being taken away," she said. "We just deserve this; we feel blessed."
---
On the Net:
Kamehameha Schools: http://www.ksbe.edu/
BTTT!!!!!!!
Sorry, Surfers. The laws that apply to 49 states also apply to the 50th. Private schools are not allowed to discriminate. The 5th Circus actually got this one right.
This school has no treaty. Give it up
that be a changing
From the School's website:
Kamehameha Schools is the largest private landowner in the state of Hawai‘i. Income generated from its residential, commercial and resort leases, as well as diverse investments, fund the schools’ maintenance and educational services. KS subsidizes a significant portion of the cost to educate every student. Families of students pay a modest tuition to cover the remaining cost, which is $2,170 for a high school day student and $4,040 for boarders. Special financial aid is available to students who demonstrate additional need.
In this instance no treaty. No federal money either.
Since when does the Federal Governnment have the right to dictate the policy of an independant institution on private land which uses only private money?
I suppose you have no problem with Kelo, either. or any of the host of recent laws which decide how private entities must operate their businesses in regard to smoking, etc.?
Actually, I am really sick of "giving up" basic rights. I don't think anyone should have to. If we do not defend the rights of others we will neither have nor deserve rights ourselves.
OTOH, if their rights are upheld, as a completely private entity, then any other group should have the right to decide admission to their entirely private, entirely privately funded school on whatever basis they choose.
Freedom of association includes the freedom to associate with whomever you please, or not associate with whomever you do not.
If I had the resources and decided to fund an entirely private school, using no federal or state money or facillities, (and decided that because I am bad with names and want to know the name of every student that regardless of any other factor, your christened name has to be "Joe" or you do not get in (last minute changeovers do not make the cut), I suppose you would say the Government has the right to meddle with my admissions policy and force me to let in any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
I do not agree.
What you are saying is just a tweak away from saying I have to let other people who want to live in my home live there, whether they are members of my family or not. That just because they are not related by blood or marriage does not give me the right to kick them out.
Both (my home and this school) are private, privately funded entities.
Public institutions should go by 'public' rules, we are all paying for that. Private entities pay their money and should be able to choose their own policy.
even in a private school you are not allowed to say whites only or blacks only or whatever
It is illegal, end of discussion.
Don't like the law, change it.
No matter what the d@mned law says, it is wrong, just as so much else that is "legal".
My home is a privately owned, privately funded institution. I have a right to say who comes in and who cannot. That school is a privately funded, privately owned institution also. If that right to allow or deny access does not extend to them then it is a miniscule step in jurisprudential logic to say I no longer have the right to allow or deny anyone access to my home--for any reason. NOR DO YOU.
If you want to end your 'discussion' as a doormat for the overstepping judiciary, enjoy it.
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.