In Paradise, “Diversity” Means No Whites

I’ve observed a number of times that “diversity” no longer means diversity; it has come to be a synonym with black or Hispanic, as in “School X is 32% diverse,” etc. Thus I suppose it should come as no surprise that, according to the estimable Ninth Circuit, “diversity” now means “no whites,” at least in Hawaii.

I am referring to the fact that the Ninth Circuit has just decided that the Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii, a private K-12 school, can exclude whites (or all those who are not descended from aboriginal Hawaiians, even if they and their parents were born in Hawaii) without violating the Civil Rights Act. (I have written about this controversy here, here, here, and here.)

The headline of the Los Angeles Times article on this decision states, incorrectly, that “Court Upholds School’s Hawaiians-First Admission Policy.” True, the official policy admissions policy is only to give “preference” to native Hawaiians, but the Ninth Circuit quite clearly understood that in fact this was a no whites policy. As Judge Susan Graber wrote in the majority opinion,

Part of the Kamehameha Schools’ stated admissions policy is to give preference to students of Native Hawaiian ancestry, defined to include any person descended from the aboriginal people who exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778. Practically, the policy operates to admit students without any Hawaiian ancestry only after all qualified applicants with such ancestry have been admitted. Because there are many more qualified students of Hawaiian ancestry than there are available places at the Schools, it is very rare that a student with no Hawaiian ancestry is admitted to the campus programs. But the admissions policy is not an absolute bar to non-Native Hawaiians; instead, it is intended to last only for so long as Native Hawaiians suffer educational disadvantages.

Since, as Judge Graber also notes, “[t]here are about 70,000 school-aged children in Hawaii who meet the Schools’ definition of Native Hawaiian, but the Schools’ total enrollment is only about 4,856 students,” the theoretical possibility that at some point in the future some non-aboriginal Hawaiians might be admitted will probably satisfy no one but Justice Souter that the schools do in fact have an admissions policy based on racial exclusion. (I have discussed Justice Souter’s views on racial exclusion here.)

Please watch this post for UPDATES. I’m sure I will have more to say once I’ve had time to read all the opinions, which I have not yet done. For now, let me close by noting the interesting but hardly surprising lack of comity and consensus among the Ninth Circuit judges: the LAT article pointed out that “[e]ight Democrats on the court permitted the policy and seven Republicans opposed it.”

UPDATE 1

The Wednesday New York Times article on this case says that all eight judges upholding the racially exclusive admissions policy were appointed by Democrats, but that only six of the seven judges opposing it were appointed by Republicans.

And Howard Bashman has noted that one of the judges who voted with the 2–1 majority of a Ninth Circuit panel to bar the racially exclusive policy was not selected to serve on the 15 member en banc panel that just decided to uphold the policy. “Thus, of the 16 Ninth Circuit judges to vote on the lawfulness of the Hawaiian school’s policy, the court is evenly divided 8-8.”

UPDATE 2 [6 Dec. 11:45AM]

For some reason the Los Angeles Times seems congenitally incapable of recognizing that the Ninth Circuit has given its approval to a school admissions policy that does not, in actual practice, “favor Native Hawaiians,” as the headline to its most recent article on the case — this one by Henry Weinstein — states. It excludes all non-native Hawaiians.

Weinstein probably didn’t write the headline, but he presumably did write the following in the text:

[Judge] Graber [in the majority opinion] said the schools’ admission policy “is not an absolute bar to non-Native Hawaiians; instead it is intended only for so long as Native Hawaiians suffer educational disadvantages.”

In fact, as Judge Graber also stated, and as I quoted above (I repeat the quote in case anyone from the LAT happens to read this; apparently the text of the opinion and one quote here once isn’t enough):

Because there are many more qualified students of Hawaiian ancestry than there are available places at the Schools, it is very rare that a student with no Hawaiian ancestry is admitted to the campus programs.

Given the large number of Native Hawaiians who suffer various “disadvantages” of poor performance in schools and the limited number of students Kamehameha can accommodate, there is no reason to believe that the policy of excluding all non-native Hawaiians will ever end.

UPDATE 3 [6 Dec. 12:10PM]

In one of my earlier posts on the Kamehameha Schools I responded to a another blogger who, noting that Kamehameha is private, asked:

why shouldn’t these schools be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want? Is this a free association issue?

I responded as follows:

It’s a good question. I hope he gets comments from some of those who think it was proper for Bob Jones University to lose its tax exemption (discussed here) over a discriminatory policy that was much less sweeping than the one being defended in Hawaii but who presumably see nothing wrong with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation having a charitable tax exemption (I assume) even though its Gates Millenial Scholars scholarships are racially restricted to students who are “are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American.”

I have just put that same question to Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a frequent commenter here who wrote an excellent amicus brief opposing racial school assignments. I thought his take on this would be interesting because CEI is in sympathetic association with many Libertarians, a number of whom oppose government regulation of private organizations even for the purpose of fighting discrimination. And, indeed, his reply was quite interesting:

I am open to the idea that private schools should be free to do whatever they want (even if it means they misguidedly want to discriminate). But for better or for worse, Section 1981 has been held to apply to private schools as well as public (Runyon v. McCrary (1976)). And the RATIONALE of the Ninth Circuit’s decision could easily be extended to PUBLIC schools, in a future case, by discarding a few sentences in this bad opinion as “dicta.”

Say What? (10)

  1. superdestroyer December 6, 2006 at 12:22 pm | | Reply

    The racial activist are beginning to sound like a bad John Kerry cliche:

    1. They were for diversity until they were against it.

    2. They were against “separate-but-equal” until they were for “separate-but-equal”.

    3. They were against racial profiling until they were for it.

    4. They were for busing until they were against it until they were for it.

  2. logipundit December 6, 2006 at 11:17 pm | | Reply

    Interesting take on the “Private” issue. My hunch is almost always to let Private Institutions do what they want.

    For instance I really don’t think the Boy Scouts should have to accept girls as members or homosexuals as Scout leaders; Augusta National shouldn’t have to accept women members, etc…

    It sounds to me like we have given up on keeping the courts from forcing doctrine on private institutions. Is that a good idea?

    Logipundit.com

  3. Anita December 7, 2006 at 11:45 am | | Reply

    The Judge wrote that the preference for native hawaians “is intended to last only for so long as Native Hawaiians suffer educational disadvantages”

    re the educational disadvantages: does that mean that native hawaiians’ grades are not as good as other groups?

    if it was discovered that american poles suffered educational disadvantates relative to italians, would the poles be forever put in a “preferential” position?

    if the grades of a particular group never reach those of another group, that means the preferences should be permanent?

    I know liberals and many, probably most black people, think this is good. But what it really does is justify discrimination based on race, overt discrimination. I am black. I would rather have the disadvantages of having one standard for all than to have different standards for different groups. The disadvantage of the first option is that blacks have lower grades. The advantage is that we have an opportunity to raise the grades, those of us who are interested enough. But the second option says racism is okay as long as one group can be perceived as being somehow unfairly treated and the evidence of the unfair treatment is the fact that one group does not do as well as others according to whatever criteria is used. So are whites disadvantaged in football and basketball. Have they been deprived of a opportunities to get up to blacks performances. The more you discriminate by race, no matter what the rationale, the more harm you do.

  4. Cobra December 11, 2006 at 1:34 am | | Reply

    Anita writes:

    >>>”The more you discriminate by race, no matter what the rationale, the more harm you do.”

    Where have you been all these years? Americans have always discriminated by race. Americans do so to this day. California has racial discrimination after Prop 209 was passed. Michigan will have racial discrimination after Prop 2.

    Where is your “outrage” about this? Why do you constantly attack fellow African-Americans for wanting corective policies in an undeniably discriminatory nation?

    Anita writes:

    >>>”I would rather have the disadvantages of having one standard for all than to have different standards for different groups.”

    Need I remind you that America has always maintained “different standards” for non-whites, particularly African-Americans like you and me?

    Whether it be in the justice system, citizenship, lending, hiring, housing, you name it, people who look like you and I have received not just the short end, but the sharp point of the stick in the eyes for centuries here. Yet, you’re willing to passively accept whatever pro-white-think-tank-funded-minority-progress-repellent-propaganda that gets spewed forth?

    My question to you is why?

    Anita writes:

    >>>”I know liberals and many, probably most black people, think this is good.”

    Hello, if it wasn’t for white liberals, we’d still have separate fountains. The majority of white conservatives weren’t fans of the Civil Rights Movement, if you recall.

    –Cobra

  5. logipundit December 11, 2006 at 5:04 pm | | Reply

    Cobra:

    Since I’m not black, maybe I shouldn’t comment, (but since I’m an evil white conservative I just can’t resist).

    Do you feel past (or even current) discrimination is a fair enough rationale for “corrective” discrimination against whites? Isn’t it also fair and reasonable for someone of color NOT to prefer special treatment because of race.

    The Civil Rights Movement was predicated on color blindness and equal treatment, not “corrective” measures against “institutional” racism. Anita’s comments are firmily in line with the ideas of the Civil Rights movement, and you completely miss her point.

    You actually answer, “The more you discriminate by race, no matter what the rationale, the more harm you do.” with essentially…

    “Hey they did it to us, and they’re still doing it to us, so we should do it to them; it’s only fair.”

    How insanely disingenuous and hypocritical.

    Hey but that’s just me; I’m white what do I know?

  6. Cobra December 13, 2006 at 12:11 am | | Reply

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”Do you feel past (or even current) discrimination is a fair enough rationale for “corrective” discrimination against whites?”

    I don’t believe America has EVER been “fair” in regards to race relations. If Affirmative Action was abolished at midnight tonight, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native-Americans and women of all races and ethnicities would still face discrimination. Scroll back through Discriminations, where I’ve posted what must be PAGES of documentation attesting to this reality; a reality that doesn’t seem to bother many white conservatives, at least the ones who post to this board who are ardently against Affirmative Action. Apparently, you simply want me to “take one” for a team that is loathe to let me even step on the field in the first place.

    Sorry.

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”The Civil Rights Movement was predicated on color blindness and equal treatment, not “corrective” measures against “institutional” racism. ”

    First of all, many white conservatives, (as you claim to be yourself), were against the Civil Rights Movement no matter revisionist definition you seek to place upon it today.

    From William F. Buckley to Bull Connor, right wingers just weren’t very accommodating to this “color-blind” rhetoric you claim to espouse.

    Why do you think that was?

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”How insanely disingenuous and hypocritical.”

    Really? How so? Because I’m against a strategy that would be detrimental to African-Americans like myself? Because I understand that discrimination in hiring, lending, law enforcement and housing are still prolific in America, and I choose not to live in DENIAL about it?

    Hey, I never said I didn’t UNDERSTAND white conservatives, or why they’re against Affirmative Action. Rooting for the home team is a very tempting proposition. That’s why I thank God for my millions of white liberal brothers and sisters who don’t share your point of view.

    –Cobra

  7. logipundit December 13, 2006 at 9:43 pm | | Reply

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but your vehemence is only exceeded by your arrogance and I will not continue this conversation to give you an excuse to insult me.

    I will only point out:

    “First of all, many white conservatives, (as you claim to be yourself), were against the Civil Rights Movement no matter revisionist definition you seek to place upon it today.

    From William F. Buckley to Bull Connor, right wingers just weren’t very accommodating to this “color-blind” rhetoric you claim to espouse”

    So a) you believe color-blindness is not a tenet of the original Civil Rights movement

    OK, I disagree, but we can agree to disagree on that.

    b) Whether it was or wasn’t, you say William Buckley and Bull Connor did not support a color-blind view.

    You may be right. But I am neither of those people, and I do support and believe in a color-blind strategy, and I firmily believe (like Anita) that a not-color-blind strategy produces more racism; just as it did before the Civil Rights Movement.

    c)my color blindness is “rhetoric” and I only “claim” to espouse it. And “white conservative” means automatically racist.

    You have accused me of being racist about four times in the same sentence. You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support this.

    If you cannot entertain the THOUGHT that preferential treatment and “corrective” measures MIGHT have been harmful at least on some level to the African American Community, then you will never understand the real (MODERN) Conservative view. And if you sincerely believe racial discrimination should be answered with more racial discrimination, then this is one issue we will never agree one.

    I don’t know you that well, and I don’t want to judge you as harshly and prematurely as you have judged me, but based on your tone, the chip on your shoulder is so large on this issue, I don’t know how you walk around if you’re thinking about it.

    I have a feeling you’re very sincere and hope your prejudices against white conservatives can be overcome.

    Maybe we can talk about something else, though…like Fantasy Football?

  8. Cobra December 14, 2006 at 12:13 am | | Reply

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”Don’t take this the wrong way, but your vehemence is only exceeded by your arrogance and I will not continue this conversation to give you an excuse to insult me.”

    I will certainly admit to being “vehement.” Heck, I’m downright confrontational on certain issues. Not even my cartoons are what you would describe as “subtle”:

    http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/WOOD-SHAMPOO-STREAM-OF.gif

    “Arrogance” is a matter of opinion. I guess when somebody stands up for themself despite the odds, he or she could get that label. Such is life, but I’d love to know exactly where I “insulted” you.

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”c)my color blindness is “rhetoric” and I only “claim” to espouse it. And “white conservative” means automatically racist”

    My friend, “color blindness” IS rhetoric, IMHO. It is a theory that has NEVER existed in American reality.

    It doesn’t exist in California after Prop 209.

    It doesn’t exist in Washington after Prop 200.

    It doesn’t exist in Michigan after Prop 2.

    There are SCIENTIFIC STUDIES refuting this mythology called “color blindness.”

    >>>”In a fascinating new study, sociologists at the University of Minnesota asked whites, blacks and Hispanics what caused whites in the U.S. to have an advantage and blacks to have a disadvantage, and how much they adhered to “color-blind” ideals.

    Among the findings (which I summarized in another article) were these telling nuggets: First, most whites believe that prejudice and discrimination put blacks at a disadvantage — 75% agreed with that statement, compared with 88% of blacks and Hispanics. But fewer whites say those factors gave white people an advantage (62%, versus 79% of the non-whites). Second, whites are only about half as likely as blacks or Hispanics to attribute white advantage and black disadvantage to laws and institutions. White Republicans in the survey specifically resisted crediting the legal system as important to white advantage.

    One of the major questions the researchers were trying to answer, according to Douglas Hartmann, a co-author of the study, was “whether whites see the problem of race as one of white privilege as opposed to African-American disadvantage.” And this is no small distinction.”

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1532599,00.html

    Also, a very provocative book on the subject has been written:

    >>>”In Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva examines how whites use color-blindness as a tool to perpetuate racial inequality without themselves sounding racist. He asserts that white America’s justifications for the continued second-class status of African Americans stem from a new, post-Civil Rights racial ideology that he calls color-blind racism. Bonilla-Silva argues that color-blind racism, which is founded upon the belief that race no longer matters, is currently the dominant racial ideology in the United States. This Book Review ratifies Bonilla-Silva’s argument through an examination of the recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action in higher education, which demonstrably undervalue the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Through the use of a color-blind ideology, the Justices mask the seriousness of racial inequality in the United States and may be hastening an end to racial progress before its time.”

    http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bctwj/24_2/07_TXT.htm

    Now I haven’t read this book yet, but from the abstract and overview, Bonilla-Silva’s arguments are VERY intriguing.

    As far as your belief that I myself accused you of being a “racist”, well..let me tell you something that John can probably validate. I’ve been posting here for literally years (scary, huh?) and I’ve read some of the most shocking, inflammatory posts regarding minorities–including some visceral ad hominem attacks on myself, but I can’t recall EVER actually calling a fellow poster a “racist.” If somebody dives into the archives and finds where I did, that would be definitely be news to me.

    Don’t get me wrong though, logic..I seem to have an uncanny knack for bringing out the “best” in some posters, LOL.

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”If you cannot entertain the THOUGHT that preferential treatment and “corrective” measures MIGHT have been harmful at least on some level to the African American Community, then you will never understand the real (MODERN) Conservative view.”

    Cobra Argument #1 has always been that America is still racist and discriminatory, therefore it still needs Affirmative Action.

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”And if you sincerely believe racial discrimination should be answered with more racial discrimination, then this is one issue we will never agree one.”

    We’ll have to disagree, then. That’s no felony. But I’d love for you to explain to me how REDUCING opportunities for minorities is a BETTER plan than what we have now, and what your plan is for eliminating the ROOT of the problem, which is racial discrimination in America?

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”I don’t know you that well, and I don’t want to judge you as harshly and prematurely as you have judged me, but based on your tone, the chip on your shoulder is so large on this issue, I don’t know how you walk around if you’re thinking about it.”

    C’mon now. I type this stuff with a grin on my face you wouldn’t believe. This is the blogosphere, baby! You know doggone well you couldn’t have these kinds of discussions down at the Sunset Lounge during happy hour. There would be broken glass everywhere.

    logicpundit writes:

    >>>”I have a feeling you’re very sincere and hope your prejudices against white conservatives can be overcome.”

    Well, if it’s any consolation, the co-manager of my Fantasy Football team is a white conservative. Helluva a guy, too. Would definitely be a groomsman if I ever walk the aisle. Yes, we’ve also had some interesting discussions over the years.

    No hate though. Nuthin’ but luv.

    –Cobra

  9. logipundit December 14, 2006 at 2:48 pm | | Reply

    Sincerest thanks for the shift in tone…you’ve managed to keep me around a little longer. (Nuthin’ but luv!)

    Just one question:

    How would you define “color-blindness”?

  10. Cobra December 19, 2006 at 10:32 pm | | Reply

    logipundit writes:

    >>>”How would you define “color-blindness”?”

    It apparently means different things to different people. Miriam-Webster defines it:

    >>>”Main Entry: col·or-blind

    Function: adjective

    Pronunciation: -“blīnd

    1 : affected with partial or total inability to distinguish one or more chromatic colors

    2 : INSENSITIVE , OBLIVIOUS

    3 : not recognizing differences of race ; especially : free from racial prejudice

    – color blindness noun”

    I think that in America 2007, we are still NOT at the point where race “doesn’t matter.” American Society as a WHOLE still recognizes the differences of race.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t needle people who advocate “color-blindness” just to be a difficult guy.

    I actually believe there are SOME among that movement who have noble intentions based upon admirable principles. But the problem is, the theory is doomed to failure for the simple fact that the vast majority of people are only “conveniantly” color blind–in other words…

    People will still distinguish race, ethnicity and skin color, if only on the subconscious level.

    Take for example, the title of this thread.

    “In Paradise, “Diversity” Means No Whites”

    Now, a TRUE advocate of “color-blindness” should find absolutely nothing wrong with this title because one would be “insensitive” or “oblivious” to racial demographics in the first place.

    Time and time again on Discriminations I’ve been told that the paucity of minorities in any given setting doesn’t signify a lack of diversity…that diversity of THOUGHT and IDEAS is “true diversity.”

    But in a Hawaiian school, a paucity of whites seems to be a “problem.”

    It’s this type of philosophy among many of the anti-affirmative action types that leads to the great conflict between mostly well-meaning people.

    Mostly.

    –Cobra

Say What?