Kamehameha Schools: defend as expression of sovereignty


In an Advertiser commentary Russell D. Motter talks about race being "an ideology, not a fact," and says:
By claiming that its admissions policy is a race-based affirmative action program for Hawaiians, Kamehameha Schools places itself in the ironic position of defending the very ideology that branded them as inferior people in their own land. Once Kamehameha's lawyers agreed with their accusers that Hawaiians are indeed a race, the court then placed the burden of proof on the school to prove that the policy was not racist.

He goes on:
In fact, Kamehameha's admissions policy has nothing at all to do with affirmative action. At its core, Kamehameha's claim is political, not racial, and it is best to eliminate the word race from the discussion altogether. Hawaiians are not a race but a nation, and this case is about defending the right of a sovereign nation to define itself, govern its institutions and to educate its children as it sees fit.

He is right that the argument should take place in the context of a nation. But not a domestic dependent nation; rather a nation-state.

Motter says, "Kamehameha's admissions policy can and should only be defended as an expression of sovereignty."

Quite right, but he ought to check the definition of sovereignty:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Please note the difference between sovereignty and government. Government is an organ that exercises sovereignty, but sovereignty is continuous even if the government is ineffective or "overthrown" and the territory occupied (see Iraq).

If there is a way to potentially defend the institution within that legal context, wouldn't the trustees have a fiduciary obligation to pursue it?

Meanwhile, in the Advertiser letters, Paul D'Argent says: "William M. Stephens claims Hawai'i 'asked' to be part of the U.S.A. (Letters, Aug. 18). Just like Iraq 'asked' for a U.S. invasion, occupation and the resultant catastrophic mess we find ourselves in?"


Posted: Thu - August 25, 2005 at 10:56 AM    
   
 
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Search
World Court Case DVD
Larsen Case on DVD
Larsen DVD
Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Hague, 2001
DVD Mini-Documentary & Booklet
Order your copy
FREE HAWAII STICKERS
Free Hawaii
Over at the Free Hawaii blog, Koani Foundation is giving away "Free Hawaii" stickers and pins, and will post photos of them displayed in interesting places. Spread them far and wide!
HAWAII DOCUMENTS
HAWAII LINKS
HAWAII BLOGROLL
HAWAII FORUMS
HAWAII PODCASTING
PROGRESSIVE BLOGROLL
TV Worth Watching
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
NOW with David Brancaccio
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Russell Simmons presents Def Poetry
Real Time with Bill Maher
Washington Journal on C-Span
PBN Friday with Howard Dicus
Portfolio
Archives
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Browse archives by date
CURRENT IMAGE
Support Organ Donation
DONATE LIFE
Comments powered by
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
TECHNORATI
SUPPORT THIS BLOG
If you find this weblog valuable, please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support its ongoing maintenance:

Mahalo!
Or contact me about sponsoring this blog in exchange for space in the Sponsored Links area above.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 27, 2005 10:15 PM
Powered by
iBlog


©