GW Sucks

Wall Street Journal Op-ed

Aloha, Apartheid

By JOHN FUND
August 11, 2005

HONOLULU – For the seven million people who vacation in Hawaii every year, it is a magical island destination. For its 1.2 million residents, the 50th state is, in the words of its senior senator, Daniel Inouye, “one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace.”

But that peace is fraying as tensions rise over a bill the U.S. Senate will vote on next month that would create an independent, race-based government for Native Hawaiians. What some see as redress for past injustices, others see as the creation of a racial spoils system that could treat neighbors differently depending on whether or not they have a drop of native blood.

A Saturday rally of several thousand people here brought the state’s divisions to the surface. The protestors were angry at a decision last week by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the Native Hawaiians-only admissions policy of the exclusive private Kamehameha Schools. The court ruled that the policy violated federal civil rights laws. Supporters of the racial preference policy say any change will reduce the chances of Native Hawaiians, many of whom are poor, getting a good education.

No one denies that Native Hawaiians have grievances from the prestatehood era, when the islands were controlled by plantation owners who gave the rights of natives short shrift. But nearly a half century after statehood it is naive to think that U.S. federal civil rights laws don’t apply to the islands simply because of the 2,500 miles of water separating them from the mainland.

Cooler heads have advised Kamehameha trustees that they should return to the original wording of the 1884 will of Hawaii’s Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, which established the school. “The school is now backed by a $6.2 billion trust that is more than enough money to fund scholarships for anyone they wanted to admit while at the same time charging full tuition to non-Native Hawaiians,” says Bobbie Slater, a former teacher at Kamehameha. But instead the school plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit ruling. Eric Grant, a California lawyer who is representing a student challenging the Kamehameha admissions policy, says the school has rejected suggestions that it admit the boy, now entering his senior year, pending outcome of the appeal. Last Friday, he said he got a call from the school and “the trustees didn’t give me a reason; they just said no – or rather, they said, ‘Hell no.’”

Far from recognizing the school’s weak legal position, almost every politician in the state has scrambled to stand in solidarity with it. Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, introduced herself at the rally on Saturday as a “haole” – a foreigner – angry at the ruling. But she carefully skirted the issue of whether or not the school’s admissions policy violated civil rights law. “Regardless of the legal basis for this position, this is not a just position,” she told the crowd. She later told the Honolulu Advertiser that she believed the school’s admissions policy is “not about race, it’s about a political relationship between the Hawaiian people and the American government.”

Noting that many students at the Kamehameha school are 95% white or Chinese and only 5% Hawaiian, the governor claims “the school is a perfect example of the great diversity” of the state. She says the Ninth Circuit ruling makes it all the more imperative for Congress to pass a bill by Sen. Daniel Akaka that would create a separate “government entity” for Native Hawaiians. Then entities such as Kamehameha would have more protection from civil rights lawsuits.

But the very fact that so few students at the Kamehameha school are recognizably Native Hawaiian raises the issue of how much a separate government is possible or desirable. Only about 240,000 of Hawaii’s people classify themselves as Native Hawaiians. Just 5,000 or so – less than 0.5% of the state’s population – are of pure native blood. Over 90% of self-described natives are more than half some other ethnicity.

But that hasn’t stopped an explosion in funding for those who have Native Hawaiian blood. Anyone with even one drop of blood qualifies for Office of Hawaiian Affairs programs and have access to exclusive schools such as Kamehameha. Haunani Apoliona, chairman of the board of trustees of the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs, told me that passage of the Akaka bill is essential to help the 18% of Native Hawaiian families with children who are living in poverty.

But she also told National Public Radio that if the bill passes, the new “native Hawaiian governing entity” will enter into discussions with the state and federal governments “as to any transfer of land and/or natural resources and/or any other assets.”

If the Akaka bill creating a separate race-based government in Hawaii becomes law, look for other ethnic groups on the mainland to view it as a model for their own bids for political spoils.

Mr. Fund is a writer for OpinionJournal.com.

Not to sound judgemental, but you sound a bit like a liberal pologist there slimjim. What do you say we give the original 13 colonies back to Great Britain since we had no right to secede. How about giving the French more money because we grossly underpaid for the Louisiana purchase. As for Hawaii, could it survive if it seceded from the U.S.? Of course, no doubt, Japan would swoop down in a nanosecond. I served 3 years in the military out there, as a whole the natives don’t care for white, black or hispanic americans. My response, who gives a shit, I don’t, your a state and your not going anywhere.

I have relatives who were Nazis and I have relatives who were victims of the holocaust…I buy myself cookies

Bishop Estate is a private trust that received no funding from government sources. I’m unclear as to why you’re posting that article as a rebuttal.

[quote]croak wrote:
I have relatives who were Nazis and I have relatives who were victims of the holocaust…I buy myself cookies[/quote]

Congratulations.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Not to sound judgemental, but you sound a bit like a liberal pologist there slimjim. What do you say we give the original 13 colonies back to Great Britain since we had no right to secede. How about giving the French more money because we grossly underpaid for the Louisiana purchase. As for Hawaii, could it survive if it seceded from the U.S.? Of course, no doubt, Japan would swoop down in a nanosecond. I served 3 years in the military out there, as a whole the natives don’t care for white, black or hispanic americans. My response, who gives a shit, I don’t, your a state and your not going anywhere.[/quote]

I guess I am pretty much a bleeding-heart liberal. How about recognizing the fact that their government, and, in essence, their livelihood, was taken with the backing of American troops. How their situation is different from Native Americans who possess a bit of soverignty on their reservations is beyond me.

What you’re proposing then is that we give them a couple hundred acres fenced in, let them gamble and not have to pay taxes? You can’t run around the world apologizing for every wrong for the last 219 years. Many a liberal sounds ashamed to be American, if that’s the case do like Johnny Depp and please bless france with your presence. The only time I have ever been close to being ashamed of being American is when ole’ Billy boy was making a mockery of the presidency and I was fighting his mock attempt at a war on the ground in kosovo, anything to wag that monica dog.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
What you’re proposing then is that we give them a couple hundred acres fenced in, let them gamble and not have to pay taxes? You can’t run around the world apologizing for every wrong for the last 219 years. Many a liberal sounds ashamed to be American, if that’s the case do like Johnny Depp and please bless france with your presence. The only time I have ever been close to being ashamed of being American is when ole’ Billy boy was making a mockery of the presidency and I was fighting his mock attempt at a war on the ground in kosovo, anything to wag that monica dog.[/quote]

Couldn’t come up with a bigger cliche than questioning my patriotism and likening my positition to that of Johny Depp’s? You even went for the trifecta by throwing in a Clinton reference.

Slim, didn’t you know, if you say anything a republican doesn’t like, it is somehow related to Clinton, who happens to be the devil incarnate.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Slim, didn’t you know, if you say anything a republican doesn’t like, it is somehow related to Clinton, who happens to be the devil incarnate.[/quote]

I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush ther, vroom. Not all Republicans do that. I think Arlen Spector still busts a nut over a picture of WJC every night.

But I could be wrong.

Sarcasm has a brush size limit? Who knew!

A good op-ed from the San Diego Union-Tribune by USD law prof Gail Heriot – I include it as it has some interesting stats on the popularity of the initiative, and how it would work:

http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/2005/08/trouble-from-paradise-hawaiis-divisive.html

Trouble from Paradise: Hawaii’s Divisive Racial Politics Hits the National Agenda
By Gail Heriot

America’s 50th State has always been known for its friendly and welcoming “Spirit of Aloha.” But for the last decade or so, Hawaii has begun to earn a reputation for something else entirely: the nation’s most divisive racial politics. And with the proposed “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act” (known as the Akaka bill) currently pending before the U.S. Senate, it may only get worse. A prelimnary vote is scheduled for September 6.

Put simply, the Akaka bill will allow the nation?s approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians to organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe–the largest in the nation. A commission appointed by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and consisting of nine “Native Hawaiian” commissioners with “expertise in the determination of Native Hawaiian ancestry” will sit as judges to ensure that only those who can prove their Native Hawaiian bloodline are permitted to join.

Why would 400,000 American citizens want to retroactively declare themselves an Indian tribe? There’s a good chance they don’t. The only full-scale poll indicates that ethnic Hawaiians reject the notion of a tribe?48% to 43%?when they are informed that under a tribal government they would not be subject to the same laws, regulations and taxes as the rest of the state. And Hawaiians generally oppose the so-called “reorganization” by an astonishing 2 to 1 ratio. But vocal leaders in the ethnic Hawaiian community, many of whom no doubt fancy that they will be the tribal leaders themselves, consider tribal status a top priority. And politicians are falling in line behind them. Senator Daniel Akaka, for whom the bill is named, claims to have the votes he needs to pass the bill.

To understand why ethnic Hawaiian leaders want tribal status, one must know a bit about Hawaiian racial politics. In an age in which racial entitlements are an unfortunate feature of the political landscape in so many parts of the country, Hawaii is in a league by itself. The State?s Office of Hawaiian Affairs administers a huge public trust?worth billions?which in theory benefits all Hawaiians, but for reasons that are both historical and political, actually provides a bonanza of benefits exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians. Among other things, ethnic Hawaiians are eligible for special home loans, business loans, housing and educational programs. On the OHA web site, the caption proudly proclaims its racial goal, “Office of Hawaiian Affairs: For the Betterment of Native Hawaiians.”

The problem for supporters of special benefits came in 2000, with the Supreme Court case of Rice v. Cayetano. Unsurprisingly, the Court ruled that the Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits States from discriminating on the basis of race in voting rights, applied to Hawaii just as it does to every other state in the union. Hawaii could not prohibit non-ethnic Hawaiians from voting in state elections for OHA trustees.

That ruling caused an uproar in Hawaii that has not yet subsided. If the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits Hawaii from limiting voting rights to ethnic Hawaiians, the Fourteenth Amendment?s Equal Protection Clause and other civil rights laws might prohibit all or part of the OHA?s massive system of exclusive benefits. Cases like the Ninth Circuit?s decision last month prohibiting the Kamehameha Schools from operating for the exclusive benefit of ethnic Hawaiians only added to this controversy. The whole racially-exclusive system is in legal jeopardy.

That?s where the Indian tribe idea comes in. States cannot discriminate on the basis of race except in extraordinary cases. But Indian tribes can. They are essentially exclusive racial groups and are not directly (or in many respects even indirectly) bound by the U.S. Constitution (or by most civil rights laws). If ethnic Hawaiians can be morphed into an Indian tribe, and the State of Hawaii can then transfer the OHA?s functions (and the vast acres of real estate and other property it administers) to the tribe, the racial spoils system can be preserved?or so its advocates hope.

There are many reasons that the Akaka bill is a bad idea?including a strong likelihood that both the bill and the overall plan to transfer the OHA?s functions and property to the “tribe” are simply unconstitutional. If the State of Hawaii cannot confer preferential benefits on its citizens based on race, it cannot give away land and property to a newly-minted tribe created for the purpose of conferring benefits based on race. The Constitution?s requirements cannot be by-passed that easily.

But perhaps the most important reason to oppose the Akaka bill is the disturbing precedent it sets. The United States has long recognized the sovereign status of Indian tribes. But until now, it has done so only with groups that have a long, continuous history of self-governance. Tribes were treated as semi-autonomous entities, because they were; they had never been brought under the full control of both federal and state authority. Our policy towards them was simply a bow to reality.

By retroactively creating an Indian tribe out of individuals who are already full citizens of both the United States and the State of Hawaii, and who do not have a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, the Akaka bill will be breaking new ground. If ethnic Hawaiians can be an Indian tribe, why not Chicanos in the Southwest? Cajuns in Louisiana? Religious groups?like Orthodox Jews in New York or the Amish in Pennsylvania?may be particularly interested in gaining tribal status, since doing so will arguably allow them to take on governmental authority without being subject to Constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of religion. Who will say no to these (and other) groups?

Earlier this month, Senator Akaka was asked in a National Public Radio interview whether the sovereign status granted in the bill “could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.” The question might have seemed extraordinary for anyone unfamiliar with how strong the push for Hawaiian independence has become. Back in the 1970s, its supporters were considered kooks and lunatics. But today, although by no means a majority, they are a political force to be reckoned with. It?s hard to drive down a Hawaiian road without seeing an upside down Hawaiian flag, the symbol of the movement, flying over someone?s home. Even more extraordinary was Akaka?s answer: “That could be. That could be. As far as what?s going to happen at the other end, I?m leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Akaka?s fellow Senators should think long and hard about the whether the Akaka bill will, in the long run, lead to greater harmony among Hawaiians and among Americans?or less. Is our “One Nation” indivisible or not?

Slimjim : if this is implemented it would screw the hawaians over. If the preferential treatment that they give to the native hawaiians is too drastic, investment business ect will only be put elsewhere which overthe long term will hurt them. I dont wan’t them to shoot an entire state own foot , plus its not going to happen. Bet ya $5 .

Those of you who have posted on this thread are observing the whole situation from a distance and are fairly ignorant to the circumstances of this unique set of policies. The Akaka bill, it has it’s flaws and a lot of Hawaiians disapprove of it from the standpoint that it will limit their attempts for sovereignty, not because they are morally opposed to it. As for the point about OHA, I’m wondering what public trust they are referring to in BB post. If the multi-billion dollar trust they are referring to has to do with the Hawaiian Homes act, good luck doing away with that as it was an action passed by Congress in 1920. I wouldn’t bet five dollars against any of this not coming true and not because I agree with your shortsighted assessments, but only because those in power would never let something like this thru.

As this bill is coming before the Senate, here’s a good reading list from the Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wmHawaii.cfm

The United States Senate has scheduled a vote on a motion to proceed on the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act” (S.147), a bill to authorize the creation of a race-based government for native Hawaiians living throughout the United States, for the week of June 5, 2006.

The following resources discuss what the bill would do and whether creating a race-based government is constitutional or even a good idea.

The “Native Hawaiian” Bill: An Unconstitutional Approach in Furtherance of a Terrible Idea
by Ed Meese III and Todd Gaziano

( http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083005f.cfm )

Poll: Hawaii Residents overwhelmingly support Hawaii vote on the Akaka Bill Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
( http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/Akaka/PressRelease2006Survey.shtml’); )

Video: An Unconstitutional Act Is Back: The Return of the Native Hawaiian Sovereignty Act
Featuring Sen. Lamar Alexander, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Todd Gaziano
The Heritage Foundation
( http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev052606a.cfm )

A Hawaiian Punch to E Pluribus Unum
The Editors
National Review
( http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTA1ZDU0NWZmMTUwZWE0YzY3MmJjOGMxYjk1YjdhZjM=’ )

Briefing Report: The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
“The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act … or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.”
( http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/060508NatHawBriefReport.pdf )

A Raced-Based State: Hawaii wants a segregation that would boggle your mind
by Ramesh Ponnuru
National Review
( http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200507070816.asp )

Why Congress Must Reject Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians
by Senator Jon Kyl
Republican Policy Committee
( http://www.rpc.senate.gov/_files/Jun2205NatHawSD.pdf )

Senate May Approve Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians
by David Freddoso
Human Events
( http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8859 )

Move Over Kilauea ? ?Native Hawaiians? Legislation Threatens Fiscal Eruption
by Kristina Rasmussen
Human Events
( http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8839 )

E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii.
by former Senators Slade Gordon and Hank Brown
Wall Street Journal
( Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal )

Aloha, Apartheid - A court strikes down a race-based policy in Hawaii, while Congress considers enshrining one.
by John Fund
Wall Street Journal
( Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal )

Manifest Destiny in Reverse
by Rich Lowry
National Review
( http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508190812.asp )

The worst bill you have never heard of
by Tim Chapman

( Tim Chapman: Biography and Latest Articles )

New Racism in New Bottles
by Bruce Fein
Washington Times
( New racism in new bottles - Washington Times )

Trouble in paradise?
by Brian McNicoll

( Brian McNicoll: Biography and Latest Articles )

Hawaiian-Nation Bound
Kathryn Lopez
National Review
( http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200508300807.asp )

[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
4) It’s “moot” point.

No it’s not. At least not in my world. [/quote]

That is about as bad as it gets.

My favorite G.W.