The fight for transparency in Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy is more crucial than ever, and we deserve to know who is behind the challenge.
It’s a recurring drama that has played out in Hawaiʻi’s courts periodically since the dawn of the new millennium: a lawsuit questioning Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy. The script often looks familiar – a well-trodden line of argument, a robust defense from the school, and a collective surge of community anxiety. I vividly remember the first three times this policy was challenged. For many local families, including my own, it was a constant topic of conversation. I recall my father, then a Hawaiian language teacher at Kamehameha’s Kapālama campus, discussing the first lawsuit in 2003 with my grandfather, a palpable unease in the air.
While some elements shift – the faces of the plaintiffs, their legal teams, the journalists covering the story – the outcome remains remarkably consistent. Each time, something that feels like a bedrock of Hawaiʻi’s identity is brought into question and debated.
But here's where it gets controversial... The most recent challenge, however, feels different. Filed last October by the Virginia-based organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), this lawsuit echoes the arguments of its predecessors, but to me, it signifies an escalation. A key factor driving this heightened tension is the current national political climate, which is undeniably more polarized and intense than before. SFFA's significant legal victories against admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, coupled with a growing number of sympathetic voices in Washington, have provided them with considerable momentum. Consequently, the current suit against Kamehameha Schools feels more threatening and potentially more impactful than any previous challenge.
Just last week, a report highlighted the intense backlash faced by the plaintiffs in this suit, leading to their request to remain anonymous. While the school’s legal team objected, citing reasons such as the minor plaintiff nearing adulthood and the need for transparency to mount an effective defense, this argument holds water. Given the gravity of the situation and the potential ramifications of an SFFA victory for Hawaiʻi and countless Native Hawaiian children and adolescents, it’s only right that this process unfolds with complete openness. This includes the fundamental right of the public to know who is asking the courts to dismantle a policy so deeply woven into our history and our societal fabric.
Before I delve deeper, I want to acknowledge that I’m not insensitive to the plaintiffs' concerns, especially the young woman at the heart of this. Like many journalists, I’ve experienced the sting of being targeted and harassed. My personal information has been exposed without my consent following articles I’ve written, and I’ve endured threats and harassment. It’s an awful feeling, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. To be perfectly clear: no one deserves such treatment, and as a community, we are capable of better than to descend into such ugliness.
However, I believe it’s entirely valid to question whether the plaintiffs’ request for anonymity – an unusual exception in most legal proceedings – should supersede our right to know who is driving this case. In my view, it does not, even considering the difficult circumstances.
I’m not a judge or a lawyer, so my perspective is simply that – an opinion shaped by the imperfect blend of logic and emotion that defines us all. Fortunately, federal judges have already weighed in on this very issue. In the 2008 lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy, the plaintiffs also sought anonymity from the U.S. District Court for Hawaii on similar grounds. Their request was denied. An appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco followed, and that court upheld the lower court’s decision.
In their 2010 ruling, the 9th Circuit acknowledged the contentious nature of the case but affirmed the district court’s decision, stating that the “prejudice to the defendants and the public’s interest in open courts outweigh plaintiffs’ fears of harm.”
To my mind, the 9th Circuit’s decision was spot on. Its commitment to open courts is particularly relevant to the current suit against Kamehameha Schools, especially considering the nature of SFFA. There’s substantial evidence suggesting that previous legal challenges to the admissions policy received support from activist attorneys or groups on the mainland. Yet, those cases somehow felt more rooted in the islands, more intrinsically connected to Hawaiʻi.
And this is the part most people miss... With the SFFA’s case, and their determined efforts to find plaintiffs, the center of gravity has undeniably shifted to the mainland. The political forces behind this movement are now national, closely aligned with the broader culture war trends of the MAGA movement, which has actively sought to dismantle diversity initiatives.
Furthermore, a strained and increasingly politicized IRS poses an additional threat. The IRS possesses the authority to revoke Kamehameha Schools’ tax-exempt status and, theoretically, demand back taxes. While this might seem improbable, we are living in an era of profound unpredictability.
Sadly, Kamehameha Schools, an institution that has diligently served young Hawaiians for nearly a century and a half – largely flying under the radar for those on the mainland – has been caught in a political storm far beyond its control.
All of this underscores that the stakes in this fight are now significantly higher, and the risks feel far more menacing. Transparency in this matter isn't about inflicting undue hardship on the plaintiffs; it's a standard aspect of litigation and is absolutely essential for this process to proceed in a transparent and scrupulous manner.
I am fully aware that I am asking the plaintiffs, and particularly the applicant herself, to bear a substantial burden. However weighty it may be, it is a burden they should be expected to carry. The stakes are simply too high to permit this process to unfold in secrecy.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe the public's right to know outweighs the plaintiffs' request for anonymity in this specific case? Share your perspective in the comments below!
