It’s maddening how much casuistry the Times can pack into a mere 370 words. I’d just add a couple points to Ramesh’s post below, before the Senate debate gets under way at 3 p.m. (Live on C-Span 2 or online here.)
The Times writes: “For Native Hawaiians, the last two centuries have been a struggle against extinction. Not long after Captain Cook sailed up in 1778, disease, poverty and political and economic exploitation began pushing their culture toward the vanishing point.” Back in the days before Captain Cook, when the government was at its most “native,” the people could not vote; everyone worshiped idols; men and women were not allowed to dine together; and there was no written constitution, only the king’s word. Is that the native culture so decimated by the West? So far, no proponent has made any effort to define the “distinct identity” of native Hawaiians, which, apparently, is determined solely by blood quanta.
“As has always been the case on those islands, everyone will have to find a way to get along.” I imagine this will be rather difficult for the great grandchild of a Filipino immigrant trying to compete with a business across the street that is exempt from state taxes and OSHA regulations–because the great great great great great great grandfather of that owner was native (that’s 1/256 native, if you’re counting).
The Times has one thing right: “The bill’s central aim is protecting money and resources–inoculating programs for Native Hawaiians from race-based legal challenges.” The goal, as most proponents admit, is to protect the extensive network of race-exclusive programs administered by the Office of Hawaiian affairs, a quasi-state entity with $300 million in assets (annual budget: $30 million). The administrators of OHA would almost surely have the inside track for positions in the new government. It is worth considering the summary of OHA’s most recent state audit: “OHA has shown little improvement in its ability to serve Hawaiians since our last audit in 2001. . . . The Board of Trustees still has not provided the State with a comprehensive master plan for bettering the conditions of native Hawaiians and Hawaiians. . . . OHA is still grappling with the effects of poorly planned reorganizations. . . . OHA lacks basic policies and procedures to guide the actions of its staff, and its organizational charts and functional statements are inconsistent. . . . OHA’s casual administration of its finances does not demonstrate respect for its fiduciary duty to all Hawaiians. . . . Certain protocol and trustee expenditures appear questionable.” It seems unlikely the new government will fare any better–especially since it will lack any accountability and have more money, land, and other resources at its fingertips.