(c) Copyright 2002 - 2003 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
A pernicious racial supremacist ideology dominates the University of Hawai'i. It is like an octopus, whose head is the Center for Hawaiian Studies (CHS). Its tentacles reach into every academic department which services substantial numbers of CHS students. These cognate departments enjoy lucrative collaborative projects and consulting contracts for academic research, field studies, and community activities.
For example, Kamehameha School might be the owner of real estate which includes an ancient Hawaiian fishpond or taro patch system; a community group would like to restore the fishpond or taro patches and gets permission from Kamehameha; then CHS might offer a course on historical, cultural, and environmental aspects of fishponds, taro patches, and ahupua'a, including field trips and hands-on restoration work. Professors in cognate departments might attract CHS students into their related courses, or use fishpond and taro patch restoration work as field activities for their own students in departments like biology, biochemistry, anthropology, sociology, political science, urban and regional planning, ethnic studies, religion, etc.
The medical school recently established a program to take advantage of federal grants to study breast cancer, diabetes, and general healthcare in the ethnic Hawaiian population; naturally that will require collaboration with CHS specialists in Hawaiian culture and social work. The law school hosts many ethnic Hawaiian sovereignty activists seeking to become attorneys; and law professors for many years have enjoyed huge consulting fees from work done for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, and Kamehameha School. Professors publish papers attacking the Rice v. Cayetano decision and its progeny, thereby gaining academic prestige, promotions, and credit toward meeting their "community service" obligations. A proposal to give federal recognition to a phony Hawaiian Indian tribe, if successful, would feed this octopus with tremendous power and wealth.
The Center for Hawaiian Studies controls a building paid for by the taxpayers, including a large auditorium for mass meetings where every lecture or panel discussion takes place against a backdrop of a red-colored political call to "resist." The faculty, with high salaries, assistants and secretaries paid by taxpayers, indoctrinates a new generation of activists into the party line, rewarding zealous freedom-fighters with race-based tuition waivers, scholarships, good grades, and degrees. CHS students swell the enrollments of classes in cognate departments taught by professors who actively promote the CHS party line. Professors of History or Political Science who might be inclined to be politically neutral or academically rigorous (if any such exist in these departments!) dare not act responsibly, for fear of low enrollments, loss of government grants, and loss of jobs.
In April, 1996, Honolulu Magazine published an article on pp. 26-28 by local commentator Bob Rees, well-known as politically liberal. Rees criticized Hawaiian Studies professors for teaching "therapeutic history" less concerned with fact than with establishing racial pride, winning polemical battles, and getting race-based political power.
The strangle-hold by the Center for Hawaiian Studies on the UH academic community became so strong that the Governor of Hawai'i, Ben Cayetano, repeatedly complained about it in public. On March 22, 2000 the UH student newspaper "Ka Leo" published an article by staff writer Lisa Asato, quoting Governor Cayetano complaining about "revisionist history" being taught at UH, and quoting CHS director Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa confirming the accuracy of the accusation. Reporter Asato wrote, "Gov. Ben Cayetano said the University of Hawai'i should counter the "revisionist history" being taught by the Center for Hawaiian Studies. At a press conference on Thursday at the State Capitol, Cayetano told a group of UH journalism students that the university — by keeping silent — has "abdicated its academic freedom and intellectual objectivity." "There's a lot of revisionist history being taught at the Hawaiian Studies Center, and no one has challenged it," he said. Cayetano, responding to a question of what he meant by "revisionist history," replied: "Knowing Haunani (Trask) and some of the people up there, I think that they have been teaching history which fits their particular view of things ... "The thing about the university setting is there should be people there who feel a duty and obligation if they disagree to say something, and that community out there has been silent." Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, the center's director, confirmed her department's ideological brainwashing of students when she said "In the Center for Hawaiian Studies, we represent the native point of view. We are looking at politics and history from a native point of view." A few months later (September 13, 2000), protesting Governor Ben Cayetano's action on a different issue, CHS Professor Haunani-Kay Trask stood on the street in front of the Governor's mansion holding a sign expressing the "native point of view" in language apparently reflecting her erudition as a full professor. The sign said: "Fuck Ben."
On April 18, 2002 a panel discussion was held at the Law School on the Rice v. Cayetano decision and its progeny. This panel is a good illustration of the way the CHS party line rules the UH curriculum, and how CHS spreads its tentacles through other departments.
The panel discussion on Rice and Its Progeny was yet another example of political propaganda rather than balanced scholarly inquiry. All three panelists were outspokenly hostile to the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano. All three panelists viciously attacked the four Rice progeny cases as being part of a racist conspiracy to undermine the civil rights or "indigenous rights" of Native Hawaiians. Although the panel was held at the UH Law School, its three members included only one visiting professor, one Hawaiian attorney who is a rabid political activist and recent OHA trustee, and one attorney from Idaho who is active in litigation on behalf of Indian tribes. The panel presentation, like so many other sovereignty rallies disguised as panel discussions at UH, was videotaped for future use in UH courses and perhaps for cable television broadcast.
Conspicuously missing from the panel, but sitting in the audience, was Mr. Patrick W. Hanifin. He was specifically not invited to serve on the panel, even though he is a graduate of Harvard, lives in Honolulu, is a partner in his law firm, has published scholarly articles in legal journals over a period of 20 years, and served as an attorney of record in three of the four Rice progeny cases (Arakaki #1, Barrett, and Arakaki #2). Someone at the Law School had informed him about the panel discussion, asked him to attend, and asked him to contribute a paper responding to the panelists in order to provide just a bit of balance to the published collection of articles. Another distinguished Honolulu attorney, Paul M. Sullivan, who opposes the Native Hawaiian recognition bill (also known as the Akaka bill), was also later invited to write an article for balance.
Then, perhaps fearful of too much balance, an Associate Professor at the UH Law School was asked to write an article to balance the balancers. Professor Chris Ijima's published articles include such balanced titles as "Race over Rice ... Twenty-First Century Endorsement of Nineteenth Century Imperialism in Rice v. Cayetano", and "The Colonizer's Story: The Supreme Court Violates Native Hawaiian Sovereignty -- Again" published in the distinguished "Colorlines" magazine. Although Professor Ijima is the most senior faculty member represented in the series of articles, he makes a stunningly ignorant and incorrect statement falsely describing plaintiff Patricia Carroll in the Arakaki lawsuits as the wife of John Carroll of the Carroll lawsuit: "Shortly after the Barrett and Carroll dismissals, yet another case was filed contesting the constitutionality of OHA, the HHC, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (“DHHL”) by a group of “taxpaying citizens” of Hawai`i, including the wife of John Carroll, the original plaintiff in the Carroll lawsuit." (Ijima, page 6)
Anyone who reads the articles in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal or on Conklin's website (see below) will easily recognize the superior scholarship and legal analysis of Patrick W. Hanifin and Paul M. Sullivan; especially when their work is held up for comparison against the polemical diatribes of the regular UH Law School professor, the visiting professor, the former OHA trustee, and the Indian lawyer from Idaho.
A rumor impossible to substantiate says that this event at the Law School was organized in its typical one-sided way as a payoff to the Hawaiian sovereignty activists and CHS in return for their assurances that they would not embarrass UH by protesting and disrupting the visit to UH Law School of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy who had been the principal writer of the Rice v. Cayetano decision.
For further information about the Rice and Progeny panel at UH, and to read the papers presented afterward that were published in the Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal, see
Another example of the CHS octopus reaching into the liberal arts academic departments can be found in a tenure decision being made by the Political Science Department in Fall, 2003. Assistant Professor Noenoe Silva should have been teaching in the Center for Hawaiian Studies all along, because all of her research, teaching, and “community service” activities were devoted to zealous activism in support of the independence faction of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. But CHS has been successful in sprinkling such activists among other academic departments where their activism can be fully effective for sovereignty even while their salaries get paid by someone else and they occupy a position that should rightfully be occupied by a real scholar of a real academic discipline. To read about the Political Science Department’s decision regarding tenure for Noenoe Silva, see:
The arrogance of CHS director Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa in trying to control public discourse about ethnic Hawaiians is graphically demonstrated in her attempt to censor a movie being made about the life of Kamehameha the Conqueror. Not only does she demand that all academic departments at UH Manoa and the community colleges must knuckle under to her control of curriculum and views on Hawaiian sovereignty -- she has the audacity to demand that movie directors cannot make a movie about a Hawaiian cultural hero without following her party line. In fact, she demands that the star of the movie, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who is of Samoan/African ancestry, be replaced by an ethnic Hawaiian, and that the screenwriter and production company should be ethnically Hawaiian. She claims that the story of Kamehameha and of Hawaiian history is the intellectual property of ethnic Hawaiians and is protected as such under international law. Here are excerpts from the July 4, 2002 Star-Bulletin story:
According to the writer of "Kamehameha," starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the upcoming film production is a train already on the tracks. But at least one Hawaiiana scholar is already working to derail it.
Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, director of the Gladys K. 'Ainoa Brandt Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, met with screenwriter Greg Poirier two weeks ago to discuss the project, and this week emailed him a response that was then distributed over the UH email network.
Poirier contacted Kame'eleihiwa after receiving the email, which read, "I must ask that you NOT continue with the project. Please stop writing today," wrote Kame'eleihiwa. "What you are doing will result in hewa" -- the Hawaiian word for mistake or error.
"For Hawaiians it is not acceptable that Hollywood should be allowed to misrepresent the history of our ancestors in any way. Nor do we want Hollywood's warped sense of 'Hawaiiana' portrayed to the world.
"The story of Kamehameha should wait for a culturally knowledgeable Hawaiian to write the screen play, for a Hawaiian movie company to make the film, and for a Hawaiian descendant of Kamehameha to play the role," continued Kame'eleihiwa ... "you don't believe Hawaiians should have the final say over the telling of our history. You think you have the right to make money off of us, off of our culture and those things we hold sacred. You do not have this right. The saga of Kamehameha is Hawaiian intellectual property, guaranteed by the United Nations, and if you have any respect for Hawaiians you will stop your project now."
Those who believe that if Poirier stops writing the movie will not be made are mistaken, the screenwriter told the Star-Bulletin. There is no copyright on historical fact. Although Poirier said he can understand Hawaiian concerns, "all I can do to assuage them is continue researching and being as faithful as I can be, given the limits of a screenplay," said Poirier. "I've gotten many positive responses from the Hawaiian community as well, by the way. If I leave, I'll just be replaced by someone who may not care as much about historical accuracy or cultural sensitivity as I am.
"This movie is being made; that's the bottom line. If some people don't agree with certain aspects of it, I respect that and understand their point of view, and they'll do what they feel they have to do. "But thinking that by complaining that Kamehameha's story won't be told is unrealistic. If any historical figure is in the public domain, (Kamehameha) is it."
Additional comments opposing the Kamehameha movie were made by numerous UH Professors in an outrageously racist essay “Haolewood: The Last Epidemic” in the “Honolulu Weekly” newspaper of July 10, 2002. Commentators included UH Center for Hawaiian Studies Professors Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Haunani-Kay Trask, and Jon Osorio, plus Political Science Professor Noenoe Silva and an assortment of other characters. Their comments do not bear repeating here, but can be seen at the newspaper’s on-line archives at
by scrolling down to the date July 10, 2002.
At the same time Governor Cayetano was complaining about the muzzling of academic freedom at UH in 2000, CHS professors were openly and flagrantly using university facilities to launch a new ethnic Hawaiian political party called "Aloha 'Aina" under the leadership of hula master and political activist Vicky Holt Takamine. Organizational meetings and rallies were held in the CHS auditorium. Faculty offices at CHS and in the Political Science department were used as collection stations for signature petitions needed to get the political party placed on the ballot. Fund-raisers were held at UH. All these activities were clearly illegal under the policies of the State Ethics Commission, but apparently nobody complained.
If Hawaiian Studies is a legitimate academic discipline, then it should be possible for conflicting theories and interpretations to be presented and debated there. Members of the public should be welcomed when they attend public events at a public university, even if their views are contrary to the CHS party line. But the CHS staff regards CHS as some sort of private place where people with undesirable views are persona non grata. Events at CHS often resemble political rallies or fundamentalist religious revivals more than academic analysis and debate. For example, on July 21, 2002 the Honolulu Advertiser reported that a noted opponent of racial entitlement programs had dared to attend a public forum at CHS on the racially exclusionary admissions policy at Kamehameha School; and the newspaper further reported that a CHS staffer expressed outrage that he was present. The newspaper article reports:
"Patrick Barrett — the California native who has sought to invalidate a 1978 amendment that created OHA, adopted the federal Hawaiian Home Lands program and provided for native gathering rights on private property — quietly attended the forum at the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa. While a federal judge tossed out Barrett's lawsuit on a technicality, the legal merits it raised have yet to be tested. '(The Kamehameha Schools decision) is one small part of everything that is going on,' said Mehanaokala Hind, who said she was outraged that Barrett would attend the forum."
Muslim fundamentalist extremists are outraged that American troops were allowed into Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and that American military bases remain there. The outrage is based on religion as well as politics. Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Muslims -- all Muslims throughout the world are required to face toward Mecca five times per day on their knees for prayer. Saudi Arabia guards the sacred relics of the faith; it is the place where all Muslim men are expected to go for a pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime. Americans are seen as sacrilegious barbarians, eating pork, drinking liquor, not observing the Sabbath or Ramadan, uncovered unchaste women traveling without male relatives and driving vehicles. Patrick Barrett, an unbeliever in the articles of faith of Hawaiian supremacy, a blasphemer who dares to publicly oppose racial entitlements and ethnic nationalism, pollutes the CHS temple by his mere presence there. Barrett is as welcome to sit quietly at the Center for Hawaiian Studies as Salman Rushdie would be welcome to walk around the Kaaba in the grand mosque in Mecca.
A television program called "First Friday," broadcast live on Friday September 6, 2002 on Channel 53 NATV, 7-8 PM, included an amazing 3-minute diatribe by CHS Professor Haunani-Kay Trask. On Thursday September 5 the Honolulu Advertiser had reported that threats of violence had intimidated the director of the Academy of Lifelong Learning and frightened away the elderly students who had signed up for Dr. Conklin's course on Hawaiian sovereignty. On Friday the Advertiser published an editorial strongly supporting academic freedom at UH, and Dr. Conklin's right to teach his course. For the news report and editorial, see:
Thus, the Friday evening live broadcast was very timely.
Professor Trask said she thinks the intimidation is a good thing; Conklin is merely a recent arrival to Hawai'i and doesn't know about sovereignty; Conklin doesn't share the values of the ethnic Hawaiians; Conklin's intentions are really bad; Conklin is rude; Conklin is a classic rude outsider; Conklin has a psychological problem that causes him to crave attention; the Center for Hawaiian Studies would not want to invite Conklin to speak, because he behaves in a way that's injurious to ethnic Hawaiians.
Trask's outrageous comments illustrate the arrogance of the Center for Hawaiian Studies. She apparently thinks of CHS as a private home where undesirable outsiders need not be invited as guests -- but in reality CHS is (supposed to be) an academic department in a public university, where robust debate of controversial issues should be normal. She repeatedly portrays Conklin as a recent arrival to Hawai'i, although she knows he has lived permanently in Kane'ohe for ten years. She seems to think that so-called "recent arrivals" should not be taken seriously -- that would mean that President Dobelle (only 14 months in Hawai'i) and Chancellor Englert (only one month in Hawai'i) should be totally discounted.
Trask's expression of pleasure that "it's great that somebody came back at him and threatened him" places her stamp of approval on intimidation. Here is a professor expressing joy at the intimidation and silencing of another professor whose views she doesn't like. Professors of mathematics who disagree with each other over standards for proving theorems would never try to silence or intimidate each other. CHS is not functioning as an academic institution where scholarly issues can be debated openly -- CHS is functioning as a political machine, a religious shrine, and a propaganda factory. Heresy is not tolerated.
Perhaps the most arrogant aspect of Trask's diatribe is her assumption that she and/or CHS have any right at all to comment on a course being taught in a completely different department, in an outreach program for elderly people. Why would such a course be of any interest or concern to her? Clearly, she thinks she should be the arbiter of what should be taught on the topic of Hawaiian sovereignty, and who should have the right to teach on that topic.
Here, between the lines, is the complete transcript of the three-minute on-air live conversation between Professor Haunani-Kay Trask and her sidekick straight-man Shane Pale:
Shane Pale: "Um, moving on, I hear there's some controversy up at the university with Mr. Ken Conklin"
Trask: "Yes, Mr. Conklin. He's such a twit. Conklin, for most of you, I think, is known because he wanted to vote in the OHA elections. He's a recent arrival, he is not from Hawai'i, doesn't share any of the values that he keeps saying Hawaiian culture evinces .. um .. because if he did he would not be trying to take away our entitlements, which is what he's doing. He ran for office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee, he loves all the public attention he gets, because it's his way of being in the news .. um.. but really his intentions are really bad. So he signed up with kind of a continuing education program to teach a course on sovereignty -- as if he knows anything about it. He should teach a course on bad manners. And he claims he was threatened, and therefore the course was dropped. And I think that's wonderful. I think it's great that somebody came back at him and threatened him the way he has been threatening all of us, and he is truly a despicable person, I mean, he's very difficult to deal with in public forums. I myself was accosted by him in a forum in Kane'ohe where my grandfather lived and I lived. He tried to tell me that I didn't live in Kane'ohe and I didn't come from Kane'ohe. He knows nothing about it; he just got to Hawai'i. He is a classic maha'oi outsider that's what he is and he loves attention. So this is his way, apparently, of satisfying his psychological needs is to create problems and controversy. Anyway, his course was cancelled, and now he's claiming that he was, you know, uh, dishonored. There's no right for people to teach courses at the university. Um, he said that the project director was threatened and so she canceled the course. Then he went on to complain that he's never been invited to the Center for Hawaiian Studies. And of course that's another maha'oi example. You are not invited to somebody's place if you behave in a way that's injurious to those people, which he has. So our response at Hawaiian Studies is: no, my goodness, you're the one who hates Hawaiians. Why do you want to be invited to the Center for Hawaiian Studies. He's essentially a crybaby. He's a malcontent. Obviously he has some psychological need for publicity so .. now he's complaining that, you know, people are treating him badly. But in fact, you know [Trask interrupted by Pale]"
Pale: "You wouldn't invite Hitler to a bar mitzvah"
Trask: "No! No. He should look very carefully at his own behavior. He's the one who's been behaving badly since the day his plane landed."
Before leaving the subject of Professor Trask, readers of this webpage are advised to read her slim volume of essays: “From a Native Daughter” (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1993 second printing somewhat revised in 1999). Four of the essays are especially interesting: (1) “What Do You Mean ‘We’, White Man?” (2) “Racism Against Native Hawaiians at the University of Hawai’i: A Personal and Political View” (3) “The Politics of Academic Freedom as the Politics of White Racism,” (4) “Native Student Organizing: the Case of the University of Hawaii.” In these four essays Professor Trask says there can never be full partnership between whites and Hawaiians; there is severe white racism against ethnic Hawaiians at the University of Hawai’i; the concept of academic freedom is is a bourgeoisie white intellectual construct designed to allow whites to analyze and criticize natives and native culture and thereby to continue to oppress natives; and it’s entirely appropriate for ethnic Hawaiian students to engage in identity politics by supporting only ethnic Hawaiian candidates for student government offices.
Professor Trask’s definition of “racism” is found in a sort of glossary near the end of the book: “A historically created system of power in which one racial/ethnic group dominates another racial/ethnic group for the benefit of the dominating group; economic and cultural domination as well as political power are included in this systematic dominance of the exploiting group ... “ Readers should consider that definition while pondering the kind of future envisioned for Hawai’i under the proposals of the sovereignty independence activists, who see a two-tier system of citizenship where only ethnic Hawaiians have full voting rights and property rights while all others are second-class citizens. These proposals for an ethnic nationalist independent nation of Hawai’i are clearly racist according to Professor Trask’s own definition of that word. For analysis, see:
Professor Trask also offers a definition of “righteous anger” which helps explain why she and her supporters at the Center for Hawaiian Studies feel perfectly justified in intimidating UH professors, staff, and students who disagree with the CHS party line: righteous anger is “the emotional/psychological response of victims of racism/discrimination to the system of power that dominates/exploits/oppresses them. Righteous anger is not racism; rather, it is a defensible response to racism.”
In 1990 Professor Trask published an inflammatory anti-American and anti-white letter-to-editor in the student newspaper, blasting a white undergraduate student in her department who complained about the perjorative use of the word “haole.” In 2002 Professor Trask was still preaching the same anti-American and anti-white hatred, as found in a speech she gave at ‘Iolani Palace. The 1990 letter and the 2002 speech can be found at:
A pernicious doctrine hostile to democracy and academic freedom seems to be getting established both at UH in particular and in Hawai'i generally. The doctrine is that the only people who have any right to analyze or criticize Hawaiian sovereignty are ethnic Hawaiians (plus supporters who know their place and follow the party line). This doctrine has been preached aggressively by CHS, and enforced by CHS students who intimidate faculty, staff, and students who violate it (see sections 4 and 6 of this webpage). This doctrine not only violates academic freedom -- it also violates the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and the 14th Amendment (equal protection of the law), and threatens the very foundation of democracy itself.
Here is a complete letter to editor published in the student newspaper "Ka Leo" on October 4, 2002:
"I would like to respond to the article in Monday's Ka Leo about the seminar, another
perspective on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I am a Caucasian who has been living in
Hawai'i off and on for 20 years. I feel it is extremely insulting to the Hawaiian people to
have any perspectives on Hawaiian sovereignty made by non-Hawaiians; especially in an institute
of higher education which should serve to educate and better Hawaiians rather than contribute
to their further repression. I am deeply saddened and ashamed by the University of Hawaii's insensitivity to hold such a seminar which leaves perspectives on Hawaiian sovereignty and perspectives on future determination to non-Hawaiians. Sovereignty or anti-sovereignty; that determination should be made for the Hawaiian people by Hawaiian people. -- Kristen Clyne, Senior, English."
A similar attitude has been taken by both the Republican and Democrat candidates for Governor, Linda Lingle and Mazie Hirono. When asked whether they favor Hawaiian sovereignty, and if so what version of it they prefer, their answer is "That is a matter for [ethnic] Hawaiian people to decide." When questioned further: "Yes, but how do you personally feel about it," the answer comes back: "That IS my personal opinion -- that it is up to [ethnic] Hawaiians to decide." In other words, both gubernatorial candidates, along with the student letter-writer above, feel that 80% of Hawai'i's people have no right to analyze or decide whether and how the State of Hawai'i should be carved up along racial lines. Candidate Ed Case, who ran a close second to Mazie Hirono, publicly groveled in apology before an ethnic Hawaiian audience for having dared to offer legislation a few years previously to combine OHA and DHHL, without begging permission first; and he also seemed to say it should be up to Kamehameha School to decide whether to maintain a racially exclusionary admissions policy (regardless whether it is contrary to law).
"The basic principle of Native Hawaiian self-determination is under attack. ... I believe in and will support Native Hawaiian entitlements both nationally and locally. I draw this line in the sand: as your governor, I will bring the full weight of your government to bear in defending challenges to those entitlements wherever and whenever they may arise. I also will support the Kamehameha Schools as an institution for Native Hawaiian children-an issue that should be addressed within the Kamehameha Schools community. I apologize for failing to consult with the Native Hawaiian community in advance when, as chair of the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, I introduced a bill to provide greater autonomy to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. E kala mai, I'm sorry for what I did, and hope you can see now that my intentions were only to help. I won't make that mistake again."
Here are a few large and small programs at UH that barely scratch the surface to show the pervasiveness of the CHS/OHA octopus stretching its tentacles into academic departments that might at first seem unrelated to ethnic Hawaiian issues.
In April, 2002 the Office of Hawaiian Affairs approved a grant of $1,525,000 to the Center for Hawaiian Studies for scholarships to help students study agriculture, aquaculture and oceanography, as well as allow students to conduct an inventory of ceded lands (from which OHA expects to collect tens of millions per year if the Legislature cooperates). Thus CHS is functioning as a contractor and labor-supplier for OHA. See:
CHS is also the home base for a Hawaiian culture immersion charter school, providing a racially separatist, “liberatory pedagogy” paid for by taxpayer dollars as part of the public school system. Here there are opportunities for collaboration with the College of Education and the public school system.
The Native Hawaiian Leadership Project (NHLP) is a racial separatist program funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Native Hawaiian Higher Education Act. Headquartered at the Center for Hawaiian Studies, it has been granted approximately $9.2 million to implement various projects that will encourage and assist Native Hawaiians to attain undergraduate, graduate and doctorate degrees. ”We incorporate a theme of leadership throughout our financial support, counseling, mentoring and community service projects. Our mission is to develop leadership skills in our participants so that they may utilize these skills in their own Native Hawaiian communities.” See http://www.cba.hawaii.edu/nhlp/
The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa has partnered with Na Pua No‘eau, The Center for Gifted and Talented Native Hawaiian Children (funded through OHA and administered at CHS). High school seniors in the program continued on to attend UH Manoa as freshmen in Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Bioengineering, Food Science and Human Nutrition, Plant and Environmental Biotechnology and Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences. They also became part of CTAHR’s freshmen learning community in the fall, which provides continued academic guidance and social support. See http://www.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/uhnews?20020626164003
These programs, and many, many others like them, could be wonderful if they were available to all students regardless of race, and if they were focused on producing scholars and professionals who serve society at large instead of seeking to produce leaders for an ethnic enclave.
You may now visit any of the following:
Expanded introduction explaining how all the below-listed pieces fit into the big picture at the University of Hawai'i
(1) A look at the racial supremacist doctrine which is the CHS party line and which President Dobelle actively supports; and a comparison with the fundamental democratic principles of unity, equality, and aloha for all.
(2) A discussion of the UH propaganda factory known as the Center for Hawaiian Studies, and why its monolithic party line in support of racial supremacy has become the unchallenged orthodoxy in every academic department that shares students and curriculum with CHS
(3) A review of the short history of President Dobelle’s tenure as President at UH, focusing on his aggressiveness in pushing the CHS agenda and his recent pledge to politicize UH even further, harnessing UH as a partner in bringing about a racial supremacist government entity
(4) The first exchange of e-mails between the director of the Academy for Lifelong Learning and Dr. Conklin which then resulted in the newspaper article and editorial
(5) The Honolulu Advertiser article of Thursday September 5, 2002, the Advertiser editorial of September 6, 2002, and the articles published in the UH student newspaper “Ka Leo” September 30, 2002.
(6) Other examples of threats, intimidation, property damage and career damage caused by CHS activists and timid administrators
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2002 - 2003 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved