— ADVERTISEMENT —
Letters to the Editor
Saturday, August 6, 2005
Is everyone's will vulnerable to judges?I can relate to the frustration and emotion felt by Kalena Anderson (Letters, Aug. 4). I, too, have applied my children to Kamehameha and although they are good students, none of them have been accepted. However, I am saddened by this ruling.
There's more to it than just having to consider non-Hawaiians for admittance. What concerns me is that if a panel of three judges can override the will and trust of Ke Ali'i Pauahi, what good is any will? Hawaiians have every right to be angry, but I hope this anger will be used to motivate rather than to hate and alienate. I, too, wish that Kamehameha Schools were able to admit all Hawaiian children who desire to attend; however, it is apparently not feasible. The school should not be forced to admit John Doe. When we receive our letters, we are not given a reason why admittance is denied. Therefore, this non-Hawaiian should not be given preferential treatment. There's always someone better qualified. Imua Kamehameha!
Hawaiian leaders make whites a scapegoatI am amazed but not surprised at the outcry of the Hawaiian population concerning the decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 4).
But let's look at this as what it is. It is the chance for some to point a finger at the United States (whites in particular) and blame it for their lot in life. The spokeswoman from the Center for Hawaiian Studies called the decision "one more time white racism wins." Her remarks about non-Hawaiians are racism to say the least. It is remarks like this that actually do more harm then good.
I also find fault with the comments that the will was intended to educate Hawaiians and not Americans. Hawaiians ARE Americans, and are protected by the same rights as anyone. I have asked numerous friends of Hawaiian heritage what they think of the Akaka Bill and have gotten different responses. None of them had an idea of what was wanted or expected from this bill. But as long as you have people out there to keep Hawaiians in the dark and blame good ole Uncle Sam, nothing will be resolved. You have leaders without objectives, and as long as there is blame to be passed around, everyone's focus on the issues will be blurred.
As you are being instructed to be mad and show that anger at a protest at Iolani Palace, just remember -- nobody is home, and the 9th Circuit that made the decision is 2,500 miles away. More wasted time, and the chance for your "leaders" to assign the blame.
Caucasian attitude must be foughtKamehameha Schools: Fight, Hawaiians, fight! People come into Hawaii and shove out those born to island roots, closing doors behind them. They force our keiki off island seeking jobs far from family and the lifestyle they know and love.
This ruling and the attitude that these "Caucasian" attorneys now smirk with must be challenged at any and all costs. Yes, our Hawaii with no Hawaiians left.
Hawaiian students can still get scholarshipsBefore anyone spins the recent Kamehameha Schools court decision for personal advantage, I hope Hawaii remembers that, to the extent a deceased person's wishes do not violate the law, U.S. laws give great deference to those wishes, because the deceased people are not here to defend themselves. So, I hope debate soon clarifies what, if anything, the court said about the princess' wish to benefit the "children of Hawaii."
Did the court decide that the trustees' current interpretation -- that the princess intended a discriminatory use of her money -- is wrong?
If so, then it just reversed a prior mistake by the trustees, and a fine nondiscriminatory school remains.
If the court did not override the trustees' current interpretation, then all the court ruled was that in America, it is not legal to use a segregated school to carry out that intent, but did not rule against other means.
For example, the trustees need only petition the court to relieve them from the now illegal method -- a segregated school -- the princess' requested, and permit them to substitute, say, scholarships exclusively for people descendent from the native bloodline. Courts can do that, and of course that forgoes continued tax exemption, as it should.
The important point is that although private money may be spent discriminatorily, it violates the law to pursue discrimination via an institution that isolates and segregates people by bloodline as the guard-gated campus now does, but as scholarships limited to people descendent from the native bloodline would not.
George L. Berish
Activist will be sore if Supremes get caseIf University of Hawaii Center for Hawaiian Studies professor Haunani-Kay Trask thinks that the judges' decision at the 9th Circuit was a "depressing disaster" (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 3), she should wait until the Supreme Court judges give their verdict; the left-wing professor might just get a migraine.
If the president is a right-winger, as the professor states, why has he appointed more minorities and women into high positions in his administration than any other president?
FTC stand on sale of station isn't logicalI have never before written a letter to the editor, but the Federal Trade Commission's rationale in opposition of the Mahalo gas station sale is so far off the mark, I cannot contain myself (Star-Bulletin, July 23).
With an oversimplified perception of the market, it not only concludes that higher prices will be an automatic result of the sale, but it goes so
far as to say by how much.
If the commissioners tried to understand the marketplace rather than rely on their statistics and textbook formulas, they would realize that consistent discount pricing has been fundamental in Aloha's success.
This is not a matter of sporadic discounts of 1 or 2 cents in reaction to Mahalo's prices, this is a program of consistent discount pricing that provides an appealing 10- or 15-cent difference compared to the national brands. In this light, a claim that Aloha intends to raise its prices, thereby eliminating its main competitive edge and completely alienating its price-conscious customer base is nothing less than an insult to Aloha's management. And further, it is an insult to the people of Hawaii to assume that we would continue to patronize a business that would victimize us that way.
It is deplorable for a government agency to use our tax dollars to fund this kind of action. Thanks to the FTC, Aloha must now incur legal fees and loss of productivity that must be passed on in the form of higher prices.
It's just not a football game without beerI have been a great admirer of the "Duke" (Lt. Gov. James Aiona) since the days when he made his reputation as a hardnosed judge sitting on the criminal bench. While I support his effort to remove alcohol from the University of Hawaii's dormitories, I don't know if I can support banning beer from the university's football games as well (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 4).
College football games and beer just seem to go hand-in-hand. If the reason for banning alcohol in university dormitories is because they are supposed to be somber places where students can engage in study, it seems only reasonable that a football stadium filled with reveling fans is the proper place for people to go to indulge in a little libation and merriment.
BACK TO TOP
© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://archives.starbulletin.com
— ADVERTISEMENT —
— ADVERTISEMENTS —
— ADVERTISEMENTS —