Hawaiian-Only Admissions Policy Struck Down

realtraveller · #1 08-02-2005, 08:26 PM

The Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii offered admission only to children of native Hawaiian descent.

Now that admissions policy has been struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBW0IMQWBE.html

On the one hand, should the government be telling private schools who to admit (assuming they take no federal or state dollars)?

On the other hand, I really dislike racially based school admissions policies.

rmthunter · #2 08-03-2005, 12:55 AM

There are scholarship programs limited to persons of a particular ethnic background, to women, and even to gay men and lesbians, but I don't know of schools that are permitted to discriminate -- except, I think, Bob Jones University. In this case, though, I'd say the court was out of line and will be reversed. After all, the Boy Scouts, which does receive federal support (although I understand even the Pentagon's funding to the tune of several million dollars for their annual Jamboree is going to be eliminated) is allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, per the Supreme Court.

poseidon · #3 08-03-2005, 08:22 AM

I dunno. As bad as it sounds, IMO, if the school wants to cater to natives only, why not let them? How is it different from say, an all-girl's Catholic school (aside from the throngs of horny guys starting at them from the other side of the chain-link) or a Jewish school or something similar?

rmthunter · #4 08-03-2005, 08:29 AM

I don't know that I necessarily consider it a bad thing. It's a school founded to redress a perceived (and real) injustice by providing educational opportunity to a group who have been shortchanged, and is doing so on its own. Seems to me something that should be encouraged. I think the Boy Scouts precedent is actually very relevant, and in this case, the facts seem much more clear cut.

**mrisch**[$] · #5 08-03-2005, 11:36 AM

This was a surprising decision to me. Interestingly, there was not one mention of the Grove City case, a title VI case related that said discrimination is OK in education so long as there are no federal funds.

The Ninth Circuit has now extended that to Title VII, saying that it is discrimination in commerce since it is a private school. I just don't see how that will be upheld, but I've been wrong before.

realtraveller · #6 08-03-2005, 01:13 PM

I skimmed the decision.

The school did not argue Freedom of Association (as the Boy Scouts argued). And apparently Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has certain exclusions for religious schools, which this is not.

The will of the Hawaiian princess that started the schools did not specify that the schools should be only for native Hawaiians. It was for the 'children of Hawaii". By the time she died, that included children of many races.

The case rests on Section 1981 of the Civil Rights law that forbids racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. The admission being the contract.

The excluded boy showed that the school was discriminating intentionally based on race. It was then up to the school to show that they had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason justifying the practice. The school failed to meet this test. When the school showed statistics on the low socio-economic status of native Hawaiian, the court shot back with a remark as to why "only the low socio-economic status of native Hawaiians counts". Anyone in the state with limited means should have the opportunity at this good free education, not just native Hawaiians.

poseidon · #7 08-04-2005, 09:29 AM

How would you, then, justify scholarships that are set up for an extremely limited segment of the population? Isn't that just as unfair?

rmthunter · #8 08-04-2005, 10:06 AM

Jeff, if your question is addressed to me, assuming the scholarships are privately funded, I don't have to justify them. Sure, they're discriminatory, but discrimination, as you've said yourself, is not by itself a bad thing, and most such scholarships that I'm aware of have been created to provide opportunities to populations perceived as underserved. Anything for which applicants have to fulfill a set of criteria is discriminatory.

You could almost make a case that, to be completely fair, employers would have to hire solely on the basis of first come, first served. Not real productive, maybe, but fair -- until someone sues because that discriminates against the slow.

realtraveller · #9 08-04-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

poseidon said

How would you, then, justify scholarships that are set up for an extremely limited segment of the population? Isn't that just as unfair?

Civil rights law is as clear as mud. I suppose the distinction is based on the fact that private money is involved. Is a scholarship a contract or is there an exception for scholarships based on race? Whether it's right in the moral sense to donate money only to people of a certain race is another issue all together.