Kamehameha School and non-Hawaiian students

"OmMaNiPadMeHum" <gdead@4realtech.garcia> wrote in message news:<1061486404-sch@news.lava.net>...
> I'm of the opinion that government (or individuals) have no business
> dictating what privately funded groups set as their criteria for admission
> in the group.
>
> Plain and simple - even if the group is biased and racist (which the facts,
> and the history of admissions of Kamehameha prove that it clearly is
> *NOT*.) But in cases that are, still, you can't force people to see the
> "right way" you just create anger and resentment which bolsters their desire
> to be separate.

Exactly! According to Pauahi's will, article 13 she says to "expend
the annual income in the maintenance of said schools [Kamehameha
Schools]" and "devote a portion of each years income to the support
and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving
the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood".

The Princess only did that b/c she knew the circumstances of the
Hawaiian people. The will was signed in 1883, when it was still part
of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Even if it is now part of the U.S., this is
a school that she wanted built w/ specifics, and that is to school
orphans and others in indigent circumstances GIVING preference to
Hawaiians.

People on the mainland do not like it when all the foreign countries
population settle in our crowed big cities and do not speak English.
Seattle, Calif Canada is getting filled with Asian people.

The traffic is terrible so they say they want to leave these areas,
guess what they are become the problem to the Hawaii Island so that the
Hawaii people are being forced off their land, schools
by people of the states. They are part of the problem they are trying
to run away from.

Then they have a need for schools and the schools are built for their
needs not the Hawaiian people and their children, they bring their
mainland ideals along and want to change the Hawaiian way of life to
suit them.

Schools will be more crowed with the
children from the States thus the less fortunate children and families
are being
pushed aside.

We from the mainland destroy the quality of life for the Hawaiian
people.

The mainland people are thinking of a easy life on the Islands that this
will solve all their problems they become the part of the problem.

Why come to place that is overpriced real estate and no jobs and the
homeless are
causing problems. Water, Sewer, Power,
demands all go up.

Solution stay on the mainland and take care of your family and stop
making it harder on the Native People of Islands. or any other Island.

On the mainland all they worry about is the school sports programs
Schools sports are only for a few that get to play.

Sports like wrestling football, even baseball on= the most part are
sports that cause life time injuries. Wrestling is the most disgusting
sport and boxing both are so worthless sports.

You sports people will not agree but I think education is more important
then
playing contact sports that injuire
legs, knees, backs etc.

"Kalani M." <mamoahina@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1061612409-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> "OmMaNiPadMeHum" <gdead@4realtech.garcia> wrote in message
news:<1061486404-sch@news.lava.net>...
> > I'm of the opinion that government (or individuals) have no business
> > dictating what privately funded groups set as their criteria for
admission
> > in the group.
> >
> > Plain and simple - even if the group is biased and racist (which the
facts,
> > and the history of admissions of Kamehameha prove that it clearly is
> > *NOT*.) But in cases that are, still, you can't force people to see the
> > "right way" you just create anger and resentment which bolsters their
desire
> > to be separate.
>
> Exactly! According to Pauahi's will, article 13 she says to "expend
> the annual income in the maintenance of said schools [Kamehameha
> Schools]" and "devote a portion of each years income to the support
> and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving
> the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood".

That is kind of interesting. Giving "preference to Hawaiians" does not mean
exclusivity, i.e. only accepting people of Hawaiian ancestry. What happened
to the first two parts of her wish, i.e. the education of orphans, and
others in indeigent circumstances." After all there are a whole lot of them
who do not have native Hawaiian ancestry.

Anyone want to answer?

"Bob Marencin" <anonomoo@anonomoo.us> wrote in message
news:1061612416-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> additionaly we see that the federal government says that colleges have the
> right to discriminate based on race durring their admissions. I find that
> totaly appauling and when I think this could mean that a person could get
a
> degree they don't deserve because they are not at the top of the rank of
all
> people that can be scarry if they become doctors or engineers.
>
How does one get a degree that one does not deserve? Let me suggest that
anyone who graduates from a college "deserves" the degree they obtained.
They earned it by passing the courses they took. And if someone graduates
from college, regardless of how they got in, as an engineer or to become a
doctor (which by the way one does not become a doctor with only four years
of college) they do so because they have the qualifications to do that job.

>That is kind of interesting. Giving "preference to Hawaiians" does not mean
>exclusivity, i.e. only accepting people of Hawaiian ancestry. What happened
>to the first two parts of her wish, i.e. the education of orphans, and
>others in indeigent circumstances." After all there are a whole lot of them
>who do not have native Hawaiian ancestry.
>
>Anyone want to answer?

Are you suggesting that the school drop it's focus on Hawaiian children and
instead
focus on non-Hawaiian children? I think
if children of Japanese ancestry want they
can go to Japan (where I might point out
one cannot even more unless one is of Japanese ancestry), children of Chinese
ancestry can go to China, etc... and so on.
Hawaiian children can only stay in Hawaii if they wish to recieve support based
on their
enthnicity. They can't go anywhere else and recieve support whereas children of
other background already have options. Seems to me some people want what they
already have plus what is not theirs as well.
As far as blood not being as important as perpetuating the Hawaiian culture
that's nonsense. Reminds me of Vanilla Ice who is White but wants to get over
playing Black because there's a benefit to be had.
He ain't Black, never will be and I like my
Black people Black not White.

In article <1061612409-sch@news.lava.net>,
Kalani M. <mamoahina@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>"OmMaNiPadMeHum" <gdead@4realtech.garcia> wrote in message news:<1061486404-sch@news.lava.net>...
>> I'm of the opinion that government (or individuals) have no business
>> dictating what privately funded groups set as their criteria for admission
>> in the group.
>>
>> Plain and simple - even if the group is biased and racist (which the facts,
>> and the history of admissions of Kamehameha prove that it clearly is
>> *NOT*.) But in cases that are, still, you can't force people to see the
>> "right way" you just create anger and resentment which bolsters their desire
>> to be separate.
>
>Exactly! According to Pauahi's will, article 13 she says to "expend
>the annual income in the maintenance of said schools [Kamehameha
>Schools]" and "devote a portion of each years income to the support
>and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving
>the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood".

Right now the tuition is fairly low for everyone. Therefore
it is supporting all students, not just the "indigent".

Seems to me, from reading that sentence, that the funds should
be used to support orphans and indigents, and out of those orphans
and indigents, give preference to Hawaiian aborigines. The
present arrangement of supporting all students does not agree
with that will.

People say, with Akaka bill, K.S. can continue with its
preference. I don't see how. It is still a private school
within the U.S. and subject to federal law. It may have to
give itself up to the future Hawaiian sovereign entity, and
the entity then decrees, students are citizens of the entity
only. Then it might evade application of federal law, because
possibly of sovereignty.

Seems to me, that better solution is open admission to all,
but charge market rate of private schools. Give scholarships
to those who cannot afford, and then give preference to Hawaiians
in giving scholarship. That would probably satisfy federal
law.

Wing

>
>The Princess only did that b/c she knew the circumstances of the
>Hawaiian people. The will was signed in 1883, when it was still part
>of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Even if it is now part of the U.S., this is
>a school that she wanted built w/ specifics, and that is to school
>orphans and others in indigent circumstances GIVING preference to
>Hawaiians.
>

As just a general response to this thread, I've thought long on the
subject and done some research on past cases (although not very
extensive as of yet). I understand the deep pride that Native
Hawaiians have in K.S. and its admissions policy, having grown up in
the islands. I, however, never understood the admission policy
myself. That may seem like a standard point of view coming from a
haole, but my view didn't come from any desire to challenge the
policy. As a kid, I just felt left out (I didn't understand why this
kid could go to this school but I couldn't even apply)... then I
didn't really think about it. After I became more educated, I simply
didn't understand how private schools all across the country were
denied tax-exempt status if they had a racially discriminatory
admissions policy, yet K.S. has maintained its tax-exempt status for
so long.

Somebody pointed out earlier that most of the students attending K.S.
are a mix of several ethnicities -- hawaiian, white, asian, etc. As
sad as it is that there are not as many full native hawaiians as there
used to be, it is a reality that the purpose of the policy (advancing
a group of people who were previously brought down) doesn't
necessarily comport with what the school is actually doing. There are
students that attend the school that have about as much experience in
the Hawaiian culture as I do -- it's simply that they can prove their
grandfathers have some Hawaiian blood. There is relatively no
difference in our upbringing, socio-economic status, ability to
succeed, etc., yet somehow they have this need that I don't have. Is
blood so important? Does blood make the person? It's this line of
thinking that brought about the original Civil Rights Act and its
subsequent incarnations.

K.S., in its answer to the complaint, admitted that it bears no
animosity towards other racial groups and admits all racial groups.
It states that its policy is to give "preference" to those possessing
Hawaiian ancestry. I'm not sure I understand this answer in light of
its actual admission policy. These students may also have other blood
in them, but you can't get away from the fact that the absence of a
certain ancestry disallows you admission to the school. K.S.
essentially says in its answer that all may apply to the school, even
if they don't have Hawaiian blood. Yet how many without Hawaiian
blood are admitted? There was one Maui student last year and the
protest from that led to no non-Hawaiian students this year (and if
you believe what the local news states, K.S. re-affirmed it's
Hawaiians-only admission policy). From reading the answer, it sounds
like K.S. is really stating that the only reason the child's admission
was rescinded was because his mother lied and, therefore, "preference"
was given to him that shouldn't have been. Yet does that make a
difference when no other non-Hawaiian student was admitted at all?
The student was obviously qualified. The fact is that he wouldn't
have gotten in had he stated he wasn't Hawaiian (if, indeed, adopted
children of Hawaiian families are not considered Hawaiian). Another
child of Hawaiian ancestry, who would have been less qualified than
this student would have taken the spot. I'm not sure I fully believe
K.S.'s answer in light of what its trustees, its board and its
representatives say about the reality of its admission policy. There
is no actual real system of admission (percentage, layout of entrance
exams, qualified vs. non-qualified students) to prove that there is a
preference, rather than an exclusionary policy.

I admit that I don't know what it's like to be a Native Hawaiian.
Possibly some may think that my views are naive. But we're discussing
the wealthiest private school in the nation which caters to one of the
smallest population in the nation. It's not even the population that
was originally set forth in the will (indigent students, orphans) --
but a population that was interpreted into the will (preferance
changed to exclusion). Times change, the world changes, and what was
previously an honorable goal now becomes a way to set people apart.
Am I so wrong about this?

>Come on now. Why are you changing the subject. My question was very simple
>and it was based on what someone posted about what Pauahi's will said,
>nothing more and nothing less. Now if you want to dispute what the will
>says, that is fine. I made no comment about the policy at Kamehameha.

If the will states that the school focus on
indigent Hawaiian children and then other
indigent children, I'm sorry to have to say
that there are plenty or I should say too
many indigent Hawaiian children and by
the time we get to other children they'll
be no space left in the school for them . Does that answer your question?

"Wing C Ng" <wing@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1061833801-sch@news.lava.net...

> >Yeah... Im Protestant. All of the teachers are Protestant. That is what
she
> >wanted her money to be used for.
> >
>
> According to newspapers, that provision has been long gone.
> Employment cannot discriminate on basis of religion.
>
Isn't there some incomsistency between the two messages? It "may be"
against the discrimination laws, but someone has basically said, they are
violating the law.

"RobeFortu1" <robefortu1@nojunk> wrote in message
news:1061796917-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> >Come on now. Why are you changing the subject. My question was very
simple
> >and it was based on what someone posted about what Pauahi's will said,
> >nothing more and nothing less. Now if you want to dispute what the will
> >says, that is fine. I made no comment about the policy at Kamehameha.
>
> If the will states that the school focus on
> indigent Hawaiian children and then other
> indigent children, I'm sorry to have to say
> that there are plenty or I should say too
> many indigent Hawaiian children and by
> the time we get to other children they'll
> be no space left in the school for them . Does that answer your question?
>
>
Nope