LINGLE

SCHOOL REFORM CAN'T WAIT FOR RE-ELECTION

Gov. Lingle now says that she will focus on school reform if she's re-elected (Aug. 9). She's been talking about reform every time she's run but hasn't delivered anything. She says that in her second term she hopes to reach agreement with "a new set of lawmakers."

Why must helping our students achieve be a partisan issue? And why is the governor waiting until the 2007 session? After all, since she took office, the number of Republicans in the House has gone from 19 to 10. Is she waiting until the number shrinks even more before she takes action on school reform?

The governor should work with the superintendent of education and the current lawmakers now and not wait for another two years.

After all, school reform shouldn't simply be a campaign slogan for re-election but something that all of us, including the governor, take seriously every day.

ADMISSIONS

PRINCESS' WILL ISN'T BEING FOLLOWED ANYWAY

With so many people citing the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop in defense of Kamehameha Schools' race-based admissions policy, I thought it was time to read the will and see what it actually says.

In one part of the will, Pauahi directs the trustees to " ... erect and maintain in the Hawaiian Islands two schools ... one for boys and one for girls." According to the Kamehameha Schools Web site, the school has been coeducational since 1965.

Another part of the will reads, "I also direct that the teachers of said schools shall forever be persons of the Protestant religion ... " That restriction is no longer enforced in the hiring of teachers at Kamehameha.

The one passage that is so often quoted, "giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood," is actually part of a longer sentence that reads, " ... and to devote a portion of each year's income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood." When read in its entirety, the sentence takes on a completely different meaning.

Supporters of the school's raced-based admissions policy only cite the part of Pauahi's will that suits their cause and have taken it out of context. This would not be an issue if those supporters did not present the will of Pauahi as an inviolable document, while ignoring the fact that many of Pauahi's wishes have already been negated.

Isn't it time to admit that: (1) Nothing in the will of Pauahi restricts admission to Kamehameha Schools to those of Hawaiian blood, and (2) most of Pauahi's wishes are not being followed anyway?

KAMEHAMEHA

BASE ADMISSIONS POLICY ON ARRIVAL IN ISLANDS

What if Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy were based on the amount of time a person's family has lived in Hawai'i rather than on race? It would stand to reason that Hawaiians would have a distinct advantage as their Tahitian ancestors arrived here far earlier than the rest.

I know of some legal precedents, like common-law marriage and some property easement rights, that are based primarily on the principal of time establishing a legal status.

If the mission of Kamehameha Schools is to promote the perpetuation of Hawaiian culture, I think this approach could legitimately protect the rights of Hawai'i's first people.

KAMEHAMEHA

Why didn't editorial board back decision?

I can understand the anger of our Hawaiian population that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools. What I do not understand is why the editorial board of The Advertiser did not endorse the court's decision.

Didn't the board endorse similar federal court decisions to force the Citadel and Virginia Military Institute to accept female cadets and to force landlords to rent to homosexual tenants? Doesn't your board favor a legal interpretation of state and local discrimination laws that would force churches to hire homosexual employees? I do not understand the inconsistency. Gender and homosexual discrimination is wrong, but racial discrimination is right?

Perhaps The Advertiser's editorial board will now endorse Supreme Court justice nominee John G. Roberts. After all, Judge Roberts, to quote from an Aug. 3 article in The Advertiser, "supported a proposed change in Education Department regulations, making clear that an anti-discrimination law did not apply to schools that received no direct federal aid." This seems the perfect position for those opposing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Kamehameha Schools decision.

RIGHTS

STATEHOOD WASN'T FORCED ON HAWAI'I

I cannot believe those letters claiming that Hawaiian people were deprived of their rights, and their land, by the United States. When did all this happen? As I recall, Hawai'i asked to become a state. No one forced statehood on the people.

As a young U.S. Marine, I came to Hawai'i twice during World War II. I loved the Islands and I loved the people. And I still do. Currently, I'm a retired attorney living on Maui. I grew up in Tennessee in those dark days when we had separate schools for whites and blacks. When I attended law school, there was not a single black person in the entire school. (And only two women, by the way.) How times have changed, and for the better!

But the law cuts both ways, folks. It ain't legal to exclude students on the basis of race or national origin.

HAWAIIANS

YELLING AT TOURISTS WON'T HELP CAUSE

Gordon Pang's Aug. 4 article quotes Hawaiian activist Keali'i Gora as saying, "We're going to hit the economic situation, we're going to hit them hard and we're going to tell them leave, tell the tourists to leave. Because we're not pleased with what's going on."

Why is it that the first reaction to any situation like this is to attack the tourists and tourism in general? The only people who will feel the effect of a drop in tourism are the people of Hawai'i. It does not take a genius to see this.

If the activists really want to get their message across, a more constructive means of protest needs to be found. Yelling at tourists and calling them "stupid haole" does not accomplish anything, except maybe make the people of Hawai'i look like savages.

DRAMA

TEACHER RON BRIGHT NEVER LEFT CHILD BEHIND

Today we examine test scores in math and reading and ask about the value of other subject areas like drama, speech, music and student government. In the time of No Child Left Behind, don't forget the "Chorus Line."

In the 1960s, I saw a great performance by drama students of "South Pacific" in a gym with hanging mikes and was impressed with Mr. Ron Bright's dedication to a great performance — something to remember in your dreams. Recently, I saw "A Chorus Line" in the theater named for him and I witnessed that same dedication by Mr. Bright after 45 years as a teacher of life.

Mahalo, Mr. Bright, for never leaving a child behind in any of your classes. Thank you being a good teacher.

RAIL PROJECT

BRENNAN'S RESPONSE JUST MORE PR SHIBAI

Having just read the Aug. 9 commentary by ex-TV reporter Bill Brennan (who now serves as Mayor Hannemann's press secretary), I had to smile. Here we go again with the latest PR obfuscation and misdirection. Mr. Brennan is simply using a standard public relations tactic. That is, blame your opponent and his stance to make your own misconceived stance look that much better.

Mr. Brennan opines that the mayor has said all along that if someone doesn't like his stance on rail, then come up with something better. How about this: no rail, and no billion-dollar boondoggle for the citizens of this state.

Our politicians just don't get it. We are not against rail for the sake of it. Instead, we want real answers to real questions about how much traffic the rail system will remove from our overcrowded highways. Can you answer that?

Of course you can, Mr. Brennan, but you, the mayor and all other proponents of rail don't like the answer, so you twist the truth to the public because you know they wouldn't like the number, either.

Step right up, folks, and be taken for a ride by city

The old jalopy was falling apart, so I headed down to "Honolulu City Cars" to find myself a new one. As I was wandering around the lot, the salesman (let's just call him "Mufi") came up to me and asked if he could help out. After telling him I needed a car for the daily commute to Honolulu, he assured me he would be able to help. "No problem!" said Mufi. "For just a few hundred dollars, we can put you in the vehicle of your dreams."

"Great!" I said, "what do you have?"

"Well, I can't say specifically," he responded, "but if you start your payments today, and continue them forever (on our rate escalation plan), we can find something for you in about 10 or 15 years. Can't say what it will be — car, SUV, bicycle, hybrid, skateboard — but trust me, you'll love it and it will be worth every penny!"

Trusting in the good will of car dealers everywhere, I added, "What a deal, Mufi, thanks! I can pay now, and pay later, and have my problem solved in just 10 or 15 years. Will you call me when it is ready?"

"Sorry," Mufi replied, "I won't be working here then (I'm expecting a big promotion), but I'm sure my successors will back up my promises. They always do."

COURT RULING

Kamehameha: Why kill the mele?

In all great novels, the theme usually plays the most important role in its success, resonating in the reader's mind for days, years, maybe a lifetime.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" was no exception. In 1960, Harper Lee's novel was almost instantly recognized as one of the greatest American novels ever written because it addressed some of the most ancient questions and truths about humanity.

One of these questions was answered using the simple analogy about the mockingbird. When Scout asks her father why one doesn't shoot a mockingbird, Atticus answers by saying you just don't kill something that poses no threat and simply produces beautiful music.

The Kamehameha Schools has produced beautiful music for over a hundred years. The institution doesn't harm, but helps a minority of children who happen to be of an indigenous race. It only produces that which is good — a quality education for Native Hawaiians.

So why does American law supersede divine law?

America still hails "To Kill a Mockingbird" as "the great American novel" because it describes and sheds light on what our country is most proud of: our humanity and understanding of what is innately right, something that is not always reflected in the court system. So although there may be loopholes in the law or debatable clauses in Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop's will, the answer to the Kamehameha Schools admissions policy question should reflect what most people of the world believe in: that our humanity and divine laws cannot be ignored.

Some might argue that accepting non-Hawaiians into the schools will not "kill the mockingbird," that the schools will continue to educate. On the contrary, because a defeat in the courts will be regarded by the Hawaiian community as an injustice and another insult, we are dealing with the spirit of an indigenous people who deserve not only what is rightfully theirs, but an apology for the countless number of injustices that have occurred since Captain Cook discovered the Islands.

So when a court order weighs heavy on the spirit of a community like this, we indeed are committing a crime and killing that which is simply producing beautiful music.