| Q: |
Why was this applicant admitted to Kamehameha
Schools if he isn’t Hawaiian? |
| A: |
Applicants who meet the admissions criteria and seek
consideration under KS’ admissions preference policy
are asked to verify their Hawaiian ancestry before being
invited to attend Kamehameha Schools. In this case, inaccurate
documentation used to verify Hawaiian ancestry was submitted
on behalf of the plaintiff. KS allowed the applicant's
mother additional time to provide accurate documents.
When she failed to do so, the invitation was rescinded. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why were the “inaccurate” ancestry
verification documents accepted by the Admissions Department? |
| A: |
The plaintiff listed the student’s maternal adoptive
grandfather as a biological grandparent. KS requires birth
certificates of biological grandparents, or in cases of
adoption, a letter from the Family Court. All birth records
provided by the plaintiff listed Hawaiian ancestry, although
in the case of the student and his mother, Hawaiian ancestry
was based upon the mother's adoptive, rather than biological
father. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Is this applicant Hawaiian? |
| A: |
He has not been able to verify his ancestry. |
| |
|
| Q: |
If he can’t prove he is Hawaiian, why
is he attending Kamehameha? |
| A: |
Kamehameha Schools is abiding by a court ruling. Federal
Judge David Ezra believes that the student should be temporarily
allowed to attend Kamehameha while a law suit challenging
our admissions preference policy is litigated. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why did Judge Ezra rule that the boy should
be admitted and start school? |
| A: |
In his order, Judge Ezra indicated that he believed
the school waited too long to rescind its invitation and
the boy would suffer irreparable harm if he was not allowed
to attend Kamehameha as planned. The judge based his concerns
on that fact that the boy’s public school had begun
three weeks earlier and the boy and his family had already
made arrangements in preparation for coming to Oahu and
getting ready for the school year. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why did it take so long to rescind the invitation
to attend? |
| A: |
Kamehameha supports families in their efforts to verify
Hawaiian ancestry. When KS discovered the applicant's
mother submitted her adoptive father's birth certificate,
the School's allowed her, at her request, additional time
to obtain documents regarding her biological father. This
action is consistent with our organizational values and
commitment to support families in the application process.
It is unfortunate that, in this case, the courtesy extension
became the reason for the court’s decision. |
| |
|
| Q: |
What is the plaintiff’s rationale for
this lawsuit? |
| A: |
The plaintiff, through an attorney in California, is
challenging KS’ admissions policy giving preference
to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. The attorneys argue
that this amount to racial discrimination in violation
of the federal civil rights law. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Why are there two lawsuits? What is the basic
difference between the two? |
| A: |
The first lawsuit was filed on behalf of a non-Hawaiian
student. The second was filed on behalf of a student who
claimed he was Hawaiian but could not provide the necessary
documentation to verify his ancestry. |
| |
|
| Q: |
How is this like the other lawsuit? |
| A: |
It is very similar. The other lawsuit was filed by the
same law firm, on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff. The
only difference is the applicant in the first lawsuit
was never invited to attend Kamehameha Schools. The applicant
in the second lawsuit was invited to attend under KS’
admissions preference policy, based on documentation that
proved to be inaccurate. When the applicant failed to
submit proper documents during the additional time KS
provided at the mother's request, the applicant’s
invitation to attend KS was rescinded. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Are these cases related? |
| A: |
They are separate cases, but they both ask the court
to strike down the admissions preference policy based
on federal civil rights law. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Will KS’ arguments be similar to the first
lawsuit, Doe v. Kamehameha? |
| A: |
Yes. In both cases we will argue that Kamehameha’s
mission is to create educational opportunities to improve
the capability and well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry.
This is needed to correct educational imbalances Hawaiians
have suffered because of historical deprivations and disadvantages.
The policy giving preference to applicants of Hawaiian
ancestry helps us fulfill KS’ mission. We believe
this policy is consistent with applicable law and we are
confident we will prevail. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Do you think this is an indication of how the
court case is going to go? |
| A: |
Absolutely not. Judge Ezra said he was ruling very narrowly
based on irreparable harm to the boy. He was very clear
that his decision did not reflect any inclination on the
broader case, which he described as complex. |
| |
|
| Q: |
Does the fact that a non-Hawaiian was admitted
last year hurt KS’ case? |
| A: |
No. |
| |
|
| Q: |
What can we do to help? |
| A: |
You may help support Kamehameha’s defense of
its admissions preference policy in a variety of ways.
Please go to the “Admissions Lawsuit” website
at www.ksbe.edu for more information about how you can
make your voice heard.
|
| |
|
