Ruling on admissions
o7This week, we asked our parent panelists: Earlier this month, a
federal appeals court struck down a Hawaiian private school policy of
admitting only native Hawaiians, saying it was “unlawful race
discrimination.” Do you think there’s value in having schools that
cater to underprivileged students?f7
The native Hawaiians-only policy wasn’t really about
underprivileged students. It was about trying to provide extra
support to a historically underserved group of people. It worked well
and will continue to work just as well when non-natives are also
admitted. It’s very much the same process as integration has been in
all schools -- there is much concern at first, and then we get down
to the business of educating kids. The kids should not be taught that
school is a place for separating groups of people based on race,
origin or anything else.
As for having schools that cater to underprivileged students,
that’s a great idea, just as long as we mean that every school will
do something to help underprivileged students. Having some sort of
special school for any special segment of the population is
definitely not good. Anything that segregates students is a bad idea.
Some of the most important lessons kids learn in school aren’t
taught in the classroom. Learning to live with everybody else and
mixing things up in the melting pot are essential skills, especially
here in Southern California, where the pot is big and incredibly
diverse.
All schools need to cater in some way to underprivileged students,
as well as to overachievers, limited English speakers, handicapped
kids, poor kids, rich kids and everybody else. It’s a big job, but
it’s what we do to keep moving things forward from generation to
generation.
In order to break the cycle of poverty, especially among
minorities, there is great value to society when the private sector
reaches out to educate underprivileged children. The recent 9th
Circuit decision puts the education of these children, as well as of
the rest of the Hawaiian students, in jeopardy. That the government
is meddling in a 118-year-old private school’s freedom to carry out
its educational mission is troublesome for many reasons.
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, great-granddaughter and last royal
descendant of Kamehameha the Great, wanted to ensure future
generations of Hawaiians would be well educated and to preserve
Hawaiian values and traditions.
She founded the Kamehameha Schools through her will in 1883 to
“provide first and chiefly a good education in the common English
branches, and also instruction in morals and in such useful knowledge
as may tend to make good and industrious men and women.”
A portion of the school’s yearly income was to be devoted to “the
support and education of orphans, and others in indigent
circumstances.” Admission preference was to be given “to Hawaiians of
pure or part aboriginal blood.”
It is the preference policy that caused John Doe to sue the school
when he was denied admission. It is not known if Doe is
underprivileged, only that he is not of Hawaiian ancestry.
Kamehameha Schools receive no federal money. This case is
important for everyone because it involves a private school’s freedom
to set its own admission policy. The intent of Princess Bernice -- to
preserve the unique Hawaiian culture -- is being undermined by the
government. Years of traditions may be diminished by two judges who
favor the civil rights of one student.
This 2-1 opinion was issued by a panel, not by the full court.
School and alumni have said they will appeal the decision.
Kamehameha Schools’ right to keep their “Hawaiians only” policy
must be protected, not just for the welfare of all Hawaiian children
-- including underprivileged Hawaiian students -- but also to
maintain the right of all private schools to set their own admission
policies.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.