Bold claim: transparency is not a luxury when a court case could reshape Hawaiʻi’s history and the future of kānaka ’ōiwi children. And this is the part most people miss: the public has a right to know who is challenging Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy, not just what is being argued.
Makana Eyre argues that the process should unfold with complete openness. Since the start of the new millennium, lawsuits challenging KS’s admissions policy have periodically reached court, usually followed by a familiar pattern: a baseline argument, a strong defense from the school, and a spike in community tension. I remember the early cases well. When the first lawsuit appeared in 2003, my father — a Hawaiian language teacher at KS’s Kapālama campus — discussed it with my grandfather with cautious concern. Over time, the players change — plaintiffs, their lawyers, the reporters — yet the effect remains: foundational aspects of Hawaiʻi’s civic life are dragged into dispute once again.
Civil Beat has centered its work on transparency, accountability, and ethics across government and institutions. If you have ideas or anecdotes, you can share them at sunshine@civilbeat.org. Read more at Civil Beat’s ideas section.
The latest challenge, filed last October by the Virginia-based activist group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), follows many prior arguments but feels more threatening and consequential. The national political climate has become more polarized and aggressive. SFFA’s notable wins against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, along with more sympathetic voices in Washington, have energized the movement. This time, the suit against KS appears more dangerous and potentially far-reaching than earlier efforts.
Last week, Civil Beat’s Blaze Lovell reported the intense backlash against the plaintiffs and their request to remain anonymous. KS’s lawyers objected, noting that the minor plaintiff will soon turn 18 and that transparency is necessary to prepare a full, effective defense. This argument is sensible given the severity of the case and what a potential SFFA victory could mean for Hawaiʻi and thousands of kānaka ’ōiwi youths. It seems reasonable that the process reveal who is seeking to overturn a policy deeply woven into our history and civic life.
I want to acknowledge the concerns of the plaintiffs, especially the young woman at the center of the case. Journalists know what it’s like to be harassed or have personal information published without consent. It’s disheartening for anyone. Our community should reject such ugliness and strive for civility.
Still, evaluating whether the plaintiffs’ anonymity should override the public’s right to know who is behind the case is a valid question. My view is that transparency should prevail. Federal judges have already addressed this issue in a relevant prior case, and their ruling supports openness. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision denying anonymity for plaintiffs challenging KS’s admissions policy, stating that prejudice to defendants and the public’s interest in open courts outweighed fears of harm. That precedent strengthens the case for openness today, particularly given SFFA’s national profile.
Historically, earlier KS challenges drew strong local support and were framed within a Hawaiʻi-centric context. With SFFA, the focus has shifted to the continental United States, linking to broader national culture-war dynamics that threaten diversity initiatives. The IRS’s potential scrutiny of KS’s tax-exempt status adds another layer of risk, underscoring how unpredictable the environment has become.
Kamehameha Schools has served Hawaiʻi’s youth for over a century and a half, often quietly and without fanfare from outsiders. The current moment, however, places the institution in the middle of a political maelstrom that it cannot fully control. In this light, openness in the legal process is not about being cruel to the plaintiffs; it’s about ensuring fair, scrupulous proceedings that the public can trust.
I don’t pretend to be a judge or a lawyer. This is one perspective, shaped by logic and emotion. Yet the 9th Circuit’s stance on open courts in the 2010 decision remains a compelling point of reference as the KS case unfolds. The shift from a Hawaiʻi-centered debate to a national contest changes the stakes and the potential impact on local communities.
The core takeaway: the case’s high-stakes nature demands transparency. It’s not about scorning the plaintiffs; it’s about upholding the integrity of the judicial process and the public’s right to see who is driving major changes to a policy that touches Hawaiʻi’s history and public life.
If you value in-depth local reporting, consider supporting Honolulu Civil Beat’s nonprofit journalism, which aims to deliver timely, accurate coverage that serves Hawaiʻi’s communities. Sign up for our free morning newsletter to stay informed.
