(c) Copyright 2001 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
Aloha kakou,
I was a candidate for Trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the election of November 7, 2000. You may read a
general explanation
about who I am, why I ran for OHA trustee, and the legal decisions that made my candidacy possible.
Additional information
is also available about my spiritual background and personal reasons for being committed to Hawai'i as my permanent homeland. My
fundamental political beliefs about sovereignty
are also described.
Several candidates ran for OHA trustee whose views were close enough to mine that I could endorse them. You can find out
how the OHA ballot worked, which candidates I endorsed, and how to contact them.
For the first time in the history of OHA, all citizens of Hawai'i regardless of race were allowed to vote for OHA candidates. This desegregation of voting for OHA was made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Rice v. Cayetano.
Also for the first time in the history of OHA, all citizens of Hawai'i regardless of race had a chance to run for this office, thereby ensuring that all citizens of Hawai’i could select from a broad roster of candidates no longer restricted by race. This desegregation of candidacy for OHA was made possible by the decision of federal Judge Helen Gillmor in the case of
Arakaki v. State of Hawai’i
in which I was very proud to be the person who got the ball rolling, and in which I was one of a multiracial group of 13 plaintiffs, including 2 ethnic Hawaiians.
Despite the Rice and Arakaki decisions, some powerful institutions and some individual Hawaiian sovereignty activists consider my candidacy to have been improper. They think that only
so-called "indigenous" people
should be able to make decisions about the future of Hawai'i in general and Hawaiian sovereignty in particular. Some leading sovereignty proposals are
outrageously racist.
They ignore the fact that thousands of people with no native blood were historically
full partners
in the Kingdom of Hawai'i, with
citizenship, voting rights, and property rights equal to natives.
All descendants of Kingdom subjects, together with all who have helped make Hawai'i what it is today, are full partners and not mere guests.
OHA's whole reason for existing is to provide benefits to so-called Native Hawaiians -- people who have at least one drop of the blood of someone who lived in Hawai'i before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. Some of OHA's programs are further restricted to beneficiaries with at least 50% native blood quantum. But such racial restrictions are not constitutionally permitted for a branch of the government. OHA will be ruled unconstitutional sooner or later. In the meantime it is important to find ways to spend OHA's money on programs that focus on Hawaiian people and their culture but are not racially exclusionary.
Over 160 federal and state programs provide racially exclusionary benefits to ethnic Hawaiians. Advocates of such programs routinely make the same arguments about why the programs are legitimate. That's why it is helpful to take one such program and analyze all of the reasons given for supporting it. Such an analysis has been done regarding a piece of healthcare legislation:
S1929
. There were 29 false and twisted historical, legal, and moral arguments offered in defense of that bill, and all are analyzed and refuted.
The issue whether OHA is unconstitutional has already been explored in two packages of court documents. Much of the content of these documents is in plain English and makes interesting reading. An
amicus brief
was filed in the Hawai'i State Supreme Court ceded lands case explaining why OHA is unconstitutional and its demands for revenues from the ceded lands are improper. Also, On March 28, 2000 a multi-racial group of 23 citizens of Hawaii
moved to intervene
in OHA v. State in the Hawaii Supreme Court. Their
memo in support
charges the State Attorney General has a conflict of interest because he represents the interests of OHA in the Rice case. Their
proposed brief
challenges the validity of OHA itself based on the
Rice decision.
Kamehameha School (Bishop Estate) is a private tax-exempt charitable trust. Its
racially exclusionary admissions policy
is likely to be ruled illegal in light of the Rice decision, particularly in view of the tax exemption. Even private clubs or private schools without any tax exemption are no longer allowed to restrict themselves to "men only" or to "whites only." A government agency like OHA clearly cannot do so, and should not even try.
LIST OF ITEMS ON THIS WEBSITE IN THE ORDER CITED ABOVE. EACH ITEM HAS ITS OWN URL, WHICH MEANS IT CAN BE BOOKMARKED OR REFERRED TO ALL BY ITSELF.
My spiritual background and personal reasons for being committed to Hawai'i as my permanent homeland
My fundamental political beliefs about sovereignty
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano.
Were non-kanaka maoli historically full partners in Hawai'i, or only second-class guests?
On March 28, 2000 a multi-racial group of 23 citizens of Hawaii
MOVED TO INTERVENE
in OHA v. State in the Hawaii Supreme Court. Their
MEMO IN SUPPORT
charges the State Attorney General has a conflict of interest because he represents the interests of OHA in the Rice case. Their
PROPOSED BRIEF
challenges the validity of OHA itself based on the
RICE DECISION.
(c) Copyright 2001 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE