The Rice decision has resulted in a deluge of attacks on Hawaiian rights and entitlements by another group hell-bent on dismantling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Espousing “equal treatment for all,” H. William Burgess filed a lawsuit attempting to eliminate
The Rice decision has resulted in a deluge of attacks on Hawaiian rights and entitlements by another group hell-bent on dismantling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Espousing “equal treatment for all,” H. William Burgess filed a lawsuit attempting to eliminate the Hawaiians-only restriction for OHA candidates. It is part and parcel of the recent assaults on the Hawaiian community, which began with Freddy Rice’s challenge.
In his oral arguments before Judge Helen Gillmor, Burgess used skewed examples from Hawaiian history to plead his case. He claimed that Kamehameha had non-Hawaiian cabinet members, and that Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop had non-Hawaiians as trustees of her estate. While these statements are fact, Burgess fails to draw a parallel, as these are distinct and different issues. These non-Hawaiians were appointed—not elected, as are OHA trustees—to perform their duties.
Riding on the coattails of Rice, Burgess and 12 others have joined with the Campaign for a Colorblind America. This organization is the same one that assisted Rice with his case, and wrote briefs that helped to overturn at least 10 minority or Native American-related Supreme Court cases. Burgess’ group has retained a Texas-based law firm to assist them. This firm has also worked closely with the Campaign for a Colorblind America.
One of the plaintiffs in the new case, Kenneth Conklin, attempted to pull nomination papers for OHA, knowing that he would be denied because he is a non-Hawaiian. Conklin has lived in our islands for only eight years and is clearly ignorant on issues pertaining to ceded lands revenues.
If Conklin and his group were truly interested in justice for all, they would be suing the state for mismanagement of the other 80 percent of revenues that it manages for the general public, 20 percent of which is supposed to be used specifically for public education.
Thurston Twigg-Smith has also joined the Conklin lawsuit and has offered to finance it. In my view, Twigg-Smith is attempting to keep everything in Hawaii status quo. Twigg-Smith has consistently advocated anti-Hawaiian sentiments and continues to advocate that the “overthrow” never took place, even though his relatives (the source of his ill-gotten wealth) were involved in the “overthrow” that he says never took place. It is no secret that Twigg-Smith is anti-Hawaiian, as evidenced by his book.
It is for these reasons that Hawaiians should be vigilant in preserving their rights and entitlements. It is important to note that while there are people like Conklin, Burgess and Twigg-Smith who choose to ignore Hawaiian history, there are many more people of Hawaiian ancestry, along with others who have lived amongst us, that know the truth of our past and have tried to rectify the wrongs of the past. We will not be silent while these people degrade Hawaiian integrity by spreading falsehoods, misstatements and lies.
The judge has granted a temporary restraining order allowing Burgess and others to put their names, if they so choose, on the November OHA ballot. However, the operative word is “temporary,” as another hearing is scheduled for Sept. 8. If this hearing is not consistent with the temporary restraining order, those who are not Hawaiians will not be able to be actual candidates.
I encourage all Hawaiians to accept this latest challenge to our rights, and to join me in fending off this latest attack on Hawaiian rights and entitlements. The future generations of our keiki are counting on us.
ROWENA M. N. AKANA Trustee-at-large Office of Hawaiian Affairs
