Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Ken Conklin, Candidate for OHA Trustee



(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.


Who I am, why I am running for OHA trustee, and the legal decisions that have made my candidacy possible

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.

Arakaki v. State of Hawai’i

Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai'i? Would the status of being indigenous give them special rights?

Voting Rights, Property Rights, and Hawaiian Sovereignty: The Outrageously Racist Demands of the Hawaiian Supremacists

Were non-kanaka maoli historically full partners in Hawai'i, or only second-class guests?

A Brief History of Citizenship and Voting Rights in Hawai'i (Kingdom, Republic, Territory, and State) by attorney Patrick W. Hanifin.

S1929 FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE RACIAL ENTITLEMENT FOR HEALTHCARE: POINT-BY-POINT REBUTTAL OF FALSE AND TWISTED HISTORICAL AND LEGAL CLAIMS BURIED IN THE FINE PRINT BY SOVEREIGNTY ACTIVISTS

Amicus Brief filed May 27, 1999 in Hawaii Supreme Court in OHA vs. State (OHA lawsuit seeking 20% of revenues from Hilo Hospital, Waikiki Duty Free Shoppers, public housing and other revenues). Amicus brief points out that OHA laws violate Constitution of United States.

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 Racially Exclusionary Admissions Policy, and Tax-Exempt Status, in View of Rice v. Cayetano



(c) Copyright 2001 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE

Email: ken_conklin@yahoo.com