Talk:Kamehameha Schools/Archive 1

Archive 1

Things to do

Things to do:

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

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

Kamehameha Disambiguation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, I changed my mind, as it was easier to find than I thought: http://starbulletin.com/2002/07/12/news/story2.htmlBaricom 04:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! --JereKrischel04:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement currently exists: "By the terms of its founding, the schools' admissions policy prefers applicants with Native Hawaiian ancestry. Since 1965 it has excluded all but two non-Hawaiians from being admitted." However, according to Justice Judge Bybee of the 9th Circuit Court in DOE v. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS (2002) "Pauahi’s will contains several instructions pertaining to the administration of the Kamehameha Schools, none of which establish race as an admissions criteria."

References

1. http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/Kamehameha9thCircuit070205.pdf

General POV tone and Protestantism

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Member of the Royal Family

Bernice Pauahi Bishop was never considered a member of the Royal Family of any reigning king during her lifetime. She was a descendant of Hawaiian royalty but not a recognized member of the Royal Family/Royal Court which very few individuals ever were recognized as. That's why she was never given a royal title or royal style unlike Charles Kanaina or Ruth Keelikolani who were recognized members of the Royal Family during the reigns of Lunalilo and Kalakaua. Her adoption --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pauahi was technically a Kamehameha because she was an adopted daughter of Kīnaʻu." - is a sourceless interpretation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Kamehameha Schools Song Contest

The result ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamehameha Schools Song Contest was that Kamehameha Schools Song Contest should be merged into this article, most likely into Kamehameha Schools#Song contest. @CalzGuy, Deli nk, and Imalawyer: I've pinged you since you participated in the AfD discussion and would like your input on the best way to do this. Most of the primary contributers to the article have been IPs so pinging them won't work; moreover, the article creater has been blocked so no point in pinging them as well. The article is a recreation of one PROD deleted in December 2016, but I have no idea how to find out who contributed to the deleted article; so, any feedback from others would also be welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the "History", "Purpose", and "Format" sections from the Kamehameha Schools Song Contest could each be summarized in a short paragraph and added to the "Song contest" section in this article. The "List of awards", "Kamehameha Song Contest Competitions", "Kamehameha Song Contest Statistics", and "Wins by Grade Level" sections are not important and can be just left out. Deli nk (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good place to start. I think File:Kamehameha Schools, First Annual Song Contest, Program.jpg could be moved as well. If we can narrow down the three sections oyou mentione to a small paragraph each of what just can be verified/sourced, then that would probably be a good addition to the school's article. I also think that all the results and statistics are not really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If, however, any former winners went on to Wikipedia notable succes,s then maybe mentioning them by name would be OK. By "Wikpedia notable success", I mean anyone notable enough for a stand-alone article who would be also be suitable for mentioning as a "notable alumni". Criteria should be agreed upon per WP:CSC if winner's names are going to be mentioned, so as to let others know who should and who shouldn't be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a first attempt at a merge. I might have trimmed things down too much, so perhaps more can and should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kamehameha Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628120536/http://www.ksbe.edu/about/facts.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/about/facts.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106215212/http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/ar11/KS_Annual_Report_2011.pdf to http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/ar11/KS_Annual_Report_2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verificationusing the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Kamehameha Schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918220553/http://ksbe.edu/admissions/admissions.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/admissions/admissions.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302111531/http://www.ksbe.edu/about/chiefs/headmaster_fortuna.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/about/chiefs/headmaster_fortuna.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120122601/http://www.ksbe.edu/about/chiefs/headofschool_delima.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/about/chiefs/headofschool_delima.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114163250/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/990/990.F2d.458.91-16586.htmlto http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/990/990.F2d.458.91-16586.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106233536/http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20100524102736858 to http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20100524102736858
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003044011/http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20110421101809420 to http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20110421101809420
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527104950/http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/ar08/annualreport08.pdf to http://www.ksbe.edu/pdf/ar08/annualreport08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918220553/http://ksbe.edu/admissions/admissions.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/admissions/admissions.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831142531/http://www.ksbe.edu/datacenter/hooulu-faq.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/datacenter/hooulu-faq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527113730/http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20080806140238351 to http://www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20080806140238351
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723124217/http://www.kitv.com/education/17115795/detail.html to http://www.kitv.com/education/17115795/detail.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/high/home/academics/files/CourseCatalog1213.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fnfp.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=226353&name=DLFE-902.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304132633/http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/elections/election-profile-state-house-district-4.html to http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/elections/election-profile-state-house-district-4.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kapalama.ksbe.edu/high/band/main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verificationusing the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auliʻi Cravalho

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Auliʻi Cravalho should be included in the "Alumni" section. Instead of continuousy reverting each other, it would be best to discuss the matter here to see if some kind of consensus can be reached either way. Personally, I do not "techinically" see her as an "alumnus" per se and don't interpret WP:ALUMNI and referring to current students of a school. However, that doesn't necessarily mean my interpretation is correct or that there isn't some other way to incorporate Cravalho into the article. Regardless, edit warring is really counter-productive and not conducive to collaborative editing at all and needs to stop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, I opened up a discussion a couple of hours ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines on this issue (I opened the discussion at that talk page instead of here because I figured the dispute revolved around the interpretation of a guideline that affects all Wikipedia articles about schools). I should note that I'm not wedded to the idea of including Cravalho in the "alumni" section -- previous versions of the Kamehameha Schools article listed her under a "Current students" heading or something similar, which is completely fine by me. My concern is that however we treat current students, it should be consistent across all articles. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notables section

Discussion continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines (see here)

I boldly removed the subheadings from the notable people section. My reason is a practical one. Having a section titled "students" is IMO an open invitation to add Suzy the prom queen or Paul the quarterback. If that's a problem, feel free to speak up.

However there are bigger problems there. Primary problem is the lack of order. It appears some were added alphabetically, some in grad date order, and some randomly. Alpha order is definitely preferable. Grad date order is really only useful to people associated with the schools, and we as a matter of policy are not targeting the article at them. The second issue is the grad dates themselves. That appears to be WP:OR. The date one graduates from high school is really only important in the context of the school. Unless a particular person on the list has had an actual biographical book written about them, the odds of that information being sourcable is pretty slim. For people connected to the school, that info can be on an alumni website (which would likely never meet our reliability standards). I'm going to remove them when I alphabetize the list. Again if there are objections, feel free to discuss how you propose to reference that here and how completely that can be done. John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly reverted back to the notable people / alumni / student sections. Please read through the sequence of events to understand why this is necessary.

On 2017-05-23, an IP editor deleted Auli'i Cravalho with the edit summary "Auli'i has not graduated yet and as such is not an alumni of the school". That was reverted by User:Marchjuly about 30 minutes later. On 2017-10-06, ‎Auli'i Cravalho was again deleted, this time by a different IP editor. Several minutes later, User:Aoi added "and attendees" with the edit summary 'rv vandalism; added "attendees" since it appears at Auli'i Carvalho is not an alumni (yet)'. Within the hour, User:Marchjuly removed "and attendees" with the edit summary "Undid revision 804129064 by Aoi (talk) per WP:Alumni you don't have to be a graduate to be listed in a section like this." On 2017-10-21, an IP editor added the graduation date to Auli'i Carvalho with the edit summary "Added content to the alumni section as the “graduate” Auli’i Cravalho did not techincally graduate yet." On 2018-01-24, an IP editor removed Auli'i Carvalho. 3½ hours later, User:Marchjuly reverted that as "per WP:DOREVERT to re-add sourced content removed without explanation."

I saw a need to mediate between those who wanted to remove Auli'i Cravalho because a current student obviously cannot be an alumni & those who want to rightly include Auli'i Cravalho in this article. Later on 2018-01-24, I made this change that introduced the ==Notable people==, ===Alumni===, & ===Students=== section headers. That seemed to solve the problem until an IP editor removed the ===Students=== section altogether on 2018-04-09, & rather than simply revert the edit, User:Aoi inserted Auli'i Cravalho under Alumni again. Just when we got the article back to the pre-deletion state that had been stable for 3½ months, User:John from Idegon changed it eliminating the nowiki>===Alumni=== & ===Students===</nowiki> section headers with the edit summary "unnecessary".

@John from Idegon: I read your comments that 'Having a section titled "students" is IMO an open invitation to add Suzy the prom queen or Paul the quarterback.' You are trying to solve a problem that simply has not happened. Auli'i Cravalho has been the only entry under Students. Even if someone did try to add Suzy the prom queen or Paul the quarterback, you know full well that such an entry would quickly be removed because of unnotability, as in the reversion I did here within 20 minutes.

IMHO, I believe the removal of Auli'i Cravalho because she is not yet an alumna is a far bigger problem. Because we had a stable solution for 3½ months, I am going to claim WP:EDITCONSENSUS unless there is a consensus to change it.

Besides, be a little patient. Come June 2018, we can transition Auli'i Cravalho into the alumni section when she presumably graduates from Kamehameha then eliminate the empty student section. For now, we have something that is working.

Peaceray (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alpha ordering the list. If you are having an issue with a disruptive editor, deal with them; don't change the layout of a high importance article to something non standard to mollify them. Your argument that it will be moot in 6 weeks is just as much an argument for my position as for yours. Let's hear from Marchjuly and Aoi before we claim a consensus for anything. We no longer have a notable "alumni" list here; we have a notable "people" list. That should shut the disruptive IP down, in and of itself. There's no need to subsection the list; keeping in mind MOS discourages short sections or subsections. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem was not with a single disruptive editor, but several IP editors. This problem largely stopped after the addition of the section headers. There is also WP:5P5: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". In this case I will note that we had a workable solution for 3½ months, & while it did not strictly adhere to MOS:MOS, it did not stray far either. It should suffice until Kamehameha Schools has had its graduation on 2018-05-26. Peaceray (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still think it poor practice to essentially let a vandal dictate content, and it looks to me to be the same editor using multiple IP addresses. That's what page protection is for. But whatever. We'll see what the others have to say. John from Idegon (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) EDITCONSENSUS is similar to WP:SILENCE and WP:BOLD in that a consensus is assumed until somebody comes along and changes things. As soon as somebody does that (excluding obvious cases of vandalism, or policy/guideline violations, etc.), then it should be assumed that a consensus does not exist and that talk page discussion should then take place to figure out what to do. Personally, I don't see an issue with a single section titled "Notable people" and not sure if there's a need to break things down into subsections at this point in time. If we were talking hundreds of individual entries like you'd find in the "Notable alumni" section of a major university, then sure subsections might make sense; here, however, we are talking about a single student who is expected to graduate in a little more than a month. I could even see going back to the heading "Notable alumni", but adding a hidden note to the Cravalho entry referring to this discussion to explain why she's being included. As for a "Current students" or "Students" section, I agree with John here in that it seems pointless for a section which will only be empty in a months time and possibly encourage WP:Namechecking (a problem common to sections like this in any article, not just school articles). Of course, non-notables can be removed as they are added, but how much is such a section really going to be used. It seems that Cravalho is a pretty exceptional person, but how many more students like her are there currently at the school. The best thing we can do here in my opinion is to establish some WP:CSC for inclusion so that it can be pointed to as needed whenever people question why a name they've added has been removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to including Auli'i Cravalho under Alumni until she is actually had graduated or left the school. A current student is not an alumni by definition. We have & will experience fairly constant churn by trying to shoehorn someone into a list of which one is obviously not a part.

I have no problems with calling the section Notable people & eliminating the Alumni & Student subheadings, then changing the heading to Notable alumni once Auli'i Cravalho has graduated or left the school.

Peaceray (talk)16:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree with John and Marchjuly that it would be better not to subsection the list. I'm fine merging the lists and just titling it "Notable people". 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Peaceray (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Educate children of Hawaiian descent" versus "educate the children of Hawaii"

I reverted this edit, which changed the phrase "It was developed at the bequest of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate children of Hawaiian descent" to "It was developed at the bequest of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate the children of Hawaiian" The edit was accompanied with the edit summary, "change clarifies actual trust document language".

The will that set up Pauahi's trust can be found here: [1]. The edit summary was flatly wrong -- nothing in the document mirrors the language "educate children of Hawaiian" or "educate children of Hawaii" as the phrase was subsequently edited to read.

The relevant language of the will provides as follows: "I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate real and personal...to erect and maintain in the Hawaiian Islands two schools...to be known as, and called the Kamehameha Schools. [...] I direct my trustees to invest the remainder of my estate in such manner as they may think best, and to expend the annual income in the maintenance of said schools; meaning thereby the salaries of teachers, the repairing buildings and other incidental expenses; and to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood." Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Thank you for keeping me honest with the revert. I just want to note that the reason why I did not add a reference to the item I was restoring is because the sentence I am challenging is in the article lead, and the material is already discussed and sourced in the body of the document. Specifically, see the second paragraph of the "History" heading, reference #7, which discusses Pauahi's intent that persons of Hawaiian descent be given preference and provides Pauahi's will as a source. Thank you, Aoi (青い)(talk) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original foundation considered "part aboriginal descent" as a possibility. This seems to be the case with many pupils.

Academic document about the admissions policy

I found https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol06x15RacistorRighteous.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]