Talk:Kamehameha Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Schools (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Things to do[edit]

Things to do:

  1. Song Contest (page created)
  2. Pre-1997 trustee situation (political?)
  3. 1997-200 trustee controversy and reorganization</strike)
  4. Admission of non-Hawaiians and pending lawsuits

Feel free to edit these and check these out.  :)

--KeithH 08:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kamehameha Disambiguation[edit]

Hey, I think this should be on the Kamehameha disambiguation page. Also, it should go straight to this page when a person types in "kamehameha school" or "kamehameha schools"

Admissions policy[edit]

Reverted JereKrischel's edit to this section because of quality-of-writing concerns ("clunkiness"). The exact same clause of the will was already quoted in the "Early history" section. That the interpretation of the policy is controversial follows in the very next paragraph after the edit. It wasn't clear what new information the edit was intended to provide; in any case, perhaps the point can be stated more clearly and integrated into the article in a smoother way. --IslandGyrl 01:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting JereKrischel's removal of "most" in the statement on who the policy excludes. That implies that every non-Hawaiian is excluded, which is inaccurate according to the article itself. I'm happy to search for a reasonable medium, but I feel some qualifier needs to be there to be accurate. Baricom 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there needs to be something besides "most"...I was tempted to put "all", but that seemed a bit much...maybe "nearly all"? The fact we are trying to portray is this - Kamehameha has a policy of preference, and this policy of preference has barred all by 1 non-Hawaiian (that I know of) from attending the schools (during normal session - summer school is different) over the past 20 years or so. How do we make it clear that when we say "most" we really mean "all but one"? I greatly appreciate your help on this one Baricom, it is awfully hard to state without pushing a POV. --JereKrischel 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
From 1946-1962, non-Hawaiian children of Kamehameha Schools faculty were allowed to attend. The last non-Hawaiian (before Mohica-Cummings) graduated in 1965. The caption for Mohica-Cummings picture notes another non-Hawaiian in the past 40 years, but I couldn't find any references to that. --JereKrischel 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "effectively" should be there because the policy doesn't actually exclude non-Hawaiians; it merely has the effect of doing so because of the overwhelming number of Hawaiian applicants. I was going to propose "nearly all" if you were unhappy with "most", so I'm fine with that. The press has reported that at least two students are attending (not sure if the current John Doe is), so "all but one" would be incorrect. I have been bold and made the proposed edits. Baricom 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Baricom, your help is greatly appreciated. I believe that the second student (John Doe in Doe vs. KS) was not allowed to attended. This year was his senior year of high school, and KS successfully got a stay on the judge's order to admit him pending the en-banc hearing, effectively ending any chance for him attending. The press reported that Mohica-Cummings was the 2nd student in the past 40 years to attend...which leads me to believe that they counted the last student graduating in 1965 under the policy of allowing KS faculty children to attend regardless of race. I have no further information regarding that widely cited phrase (2nd non-Hawaiian in 40 years), so I'm not sure if that's really what was meant. If you have a citation to the 2nd student currently attending (or recently attending), I'd greatly appreciate it. I changed the phrase "nearly all" to "all but two", but perhaps we could settle on "all but a few" since the press reports aren't very clear on the matter. Please feel free to edit further if you can think up any alternatives, I'm not particularly good at being a thesaurus. --JereKrischel 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The two attending are Mohica-Cummings and a John Doe who was voluntarily admitted to the Maui campus (they ran out of qualified Hawaiian applicants). I'm too lazy to look up a source for the second at the moment, but I do clearly remember his admission. I can live with the wording as it stands now. Thanks. Baricom 04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I changed my mind, as it was easier to find than I thought: http://starbulletin.com/2002/07/12/news/story2.html Baricom 04:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember that case...sorry, I associate "John Doe" with the lawsuit, and the Maui student was never part of any lawsuit. Thank you very much for the reference, and for helping smooth out the wording. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

General POV tone and Protestantism[edit]

Just happened upon this article and I have two comments:

  • First, a whole (and unintentional surely) POV tone. The article is obviously written by someone who doesn't really get the racism argument against letting in only hawaiians. In a year where every affirmative action admissions policy in the US has been voted down by a huge democratic margin, and the supreme court has pretty much universally shot down the exact same policies of admissions as they pertained to the University of Michigan, etc., you should probably make sure your treatment of this policy doesn't seem strikingly racist to the majority of readers. I'm not sure where I stand, since I don't believe that should be illegal, but I'm almost 100% sure this couldn't last a serious lawsuit these days, and I'm not sure I'd be sad if it didn't.
  • Second point of constructive criticism--you mention the no-haolis part and the Protestants-only part at once, and then never mention when the Protestants-only part was dropped, if it ever was. Again, any casual reader will not only be curious, but up in arms if any business were allowed to have a protestants only policy. If religious or racial discrimination is illegal at all, it seems it should be as illegal for these schools as it would be for... say... WalMart. If either of these policies still exist, maybe you should also mention parallel policies at other institutions, to palliate such concerns. But I'm not sure such exists.

Anyway, good article.--Mrcolj 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I have a third question now that I think is natural enough it should be addressed in the article... How does taking out the "top" 8000 native hawaiians affect the public school system? I am a Principal 4000 miles away, but had heard in the past that the public school system there was weak because it only had the kids who couldn't get into the Kamehameha schools; and there was some controversy whether the K schools were therefore perpetuating or exacerbating the native-education problem by effectively ghetto-izing more kids than they were taking out of the ghetto.--Mrcolj 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very late reply, but I've never heard anything about a continued Protestant-only stipulation. Many of the original requirements of the will have changed, such as the part where the Trustees are appointed by the Hawaii supreme court. They were changed as laws required, so if laws required the relaxation of the Protestant requirement, then I believe it was relaxed a long time ago.

    Also, KS shouldn't be blamed for "ghettoizing" any of the public school students, since even with its three campuses, it services only a tiny fraction of the total school population. Hawaii has the highest percentage of privately-schooled students, which means that the best students are taken out of the system anyway to not only Kamehameha but Punahou, Iolani, MidPac, Maryknoll, St. Louis, etc. the_one092001 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
even later follow-up: the religious discrimination case was covered in the Bernice Pauahi Bishop article for some reason. It was in 1992-1993. I will summarize there and move it here. W Nowicki (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)