/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

HI school not allowed to discriminate by race

--posted by Tony Garcia on 8/09/2005

When I first saw this story I thought, "Another racist double-standard." But then I saw this story and realized the answer is not so clear.

The basics: A school in Hawaii reserved enrollment for only Native Hawaiians. The courts have basically said that this is racist and not allowed. OK, I dig that.

The first article talked about the protests in the streets because of the court ruling. Very little from that article brought any sympathy from me. Here is a sample:
Among the demonstrators was Pua Maruyama, her daughter and grandchildren. Maruyama's father graduated from Kamehameha in 1933.

"Well you know, I feel like all Hawaiians, that's why we're here. It's sad and everything like that, but I guess if we all get together and support and that's what it's all about," Maruyama said.

She said she brought her grandchildren to the rally so they could bond with other Hawaiians.

Not very support-building. Like I said, at this point I'm thinking that the courts were 100% right. Racism is racism. I even said out to the empty office that I was reading this in, "Yank their funding if they want to be racist."

Then I read the second article which was about something that mattered. (By that I mean the protest was like so many others: vacuous and worthless.) The key of the whole story came out.
Kay ruled that the private school may continue to deny admission to non-Hawaiian students because of its unique and historical circumstances. Kay emphasized that Kamehameha receives no federal funding and because of that, the private school isn't held up to the same scrutiny as public schools.

OK, all of you 'prayer in private schools should be allowed' people should be standing up and shouting against the courts on this. It is a private school and, like the parochial schools and "historically black" schools, should be allowed to make its own rules. If they want to be racist then they should be allowed. They should be allowed to discriminate if they want to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, statehood, race, religion or any other criteria. The key word is private.

What bothers me is that the NAACP should be consistant on "racism" and pissing at this school for engaging in racism against a minority (Native Hawaiians are the majority of the islands). But in typical hypocritical fashion they are not. The NAACP should be out there whining to be intellectually honest. They would still be on the wrong side.

The bottom line is that "private" should mean "free from government" which should mean that a school, business, golf club, membership organization or any other entity should be allowed to make any membership criteria it wishes.

The court was wrong.

3 Comments:

Blogger lloydletta said...

Private should be private. In the case of the Boy Scouts, they are a private organization. But they shouldn't be getting public funds, nor should they be able to get special deals on public property - this is more because they require boys take a religious oath in order to participate, and that violates the first amendment.

OT: I checked your site again - and finally saw Michele Bachmann. I didn't see her there - because you had to scroll down to see her listed. I made the correction.

Your site isn't very usable. You might talk to Mitch Berg about this - he does usability design for a living.

August 11, 2005  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

The site is a purchased template that I can make content modifications for, but not design modifications.

As for the Boy Scouts, simply making a "religious oath" (which is an incorrect assessment of the oath, but the anti-religious groups don't care about accuracy in their crusade) should not disqualify them from being treated like the GLBT groups in schools.

Let's be honest. The ONLY reason you take a stance of freezing out the Boy Scouts is because they do not follow your GLBT dogma. If the Gay Scouts were being frozen out of "public funds" or "special deals" because of their pledge to "Gays and their country" you would flip your position faster than Anne Heche switches sexuality.

So, be honest in your (incorrect and hypocritical) animus against the Boy Scouts.

You're right...private should be private...so get your "queer safe zones" out of the schools.

August 12, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly, Tony!

August 12, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home