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.