Bold claim: The public deserves to know who is challenging Kamehameha Schools’ policy, and that demand for transparency should guide how this case unfolds.
Since the start of the new millennium, a recurring theme has surfaced: lawsuits challenging KS’s admissions policy land in court, followed by the same familiar pattern—an established argument, a vigorous defense from the school, and a surge of anxiety within the community.
I remember the early attempts vividly. When the first lawsuit appeared in 2003, my father, then a Hawaiian language teacher at KS’s Kapālama campus, discussed it with my grandfather with a mix of concern and curiosity. Over the years, the players—plaintiffs, lawyers, and the reporters covering the story—change, but the effect remains: issues that feel foundational to Hawaiʻi are brought back into debate, challenging what many thought was settled.
Civil Beat has a focus on transparency, accountability, and ethics in government and institutions. If you have ideas or anecdotes, you can share them at sunshine@civilbeat.org. Read more at Civil Beat’s ideas page.
The most recent case, filed last October by the Virginia-based activist group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), seems different in tone and stakes. While it borrows many arguments from earlier suits, to me it marks an escalation.
A major factor is the current national political climate, which is more polarized and volatile than ever. SFFA’s notable wins against Harvard and UNC, coupled with an expanding circle of sympathetic voices in Washington, have energized their effort. The KS case feels more threatening and potentially transformative for Hawaiʻi and for Kāneka ʻōiwi students.
Last week, Civil Beat reporter Blaze Lovell reported on the intense backlash against the plaintiffs and their request to remain anonymous. KS lawyers objected, arguing, among other points, that the minor plaintiff will soon reach adulthood and that transparency is crucial for building a robust defense.
I find that argument reasonable. Given the gravity of the situation and what a potential SFFA win could mean for Hawaiʻi, openness in the process is appropriate. The public should know who is asking the courts to overturn a policy deeply woven into our history and civic life.
Before sharing my stance, I want to acknowledge the plaintiffs’ concerns, especially the young woman at the center of the case. Journalists know what it’s like to face harassment after publishing stories. Personal information can be leaked, and threats are disheartening. No one deserves that, and our community should reject ugliness in all its forms.
That said, it’s fair to weigh whether anonymity—rare in litigation—outweighs the public’s right to know who is driving the case. My view is that it does not, despite the circumstances.
I’m not a judge or a lawyer; I’m offering one perspective shaped by logic and emotion. Fortunately, federal courts have already weighed in on this question. The 2008 KS case sought anonymity and was denied by a Hawaii federal court. The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which upheld the lower court’s decision in 2010. The court acknowledged the complexity of the case but affirmed that the public’s interest in open court proceedings outweighed the plaintiffs’ fears of harm.
To me, the 9th Circuit’s decision is correct. Its emphasis on open courts feels especially pertinent to the current KS suit, given SFFA’s national profile.
There’s evidence that earlier cases drew support from activist attorneys or groups, yet they retained a distinctly Hawaiʻi-centered character. With SFFA, the center of gravity has shifted to the continental United States, tied to broader culture-war dynamics that challenge diversity initiatives.
Even the tax environment complicates matters. An increasingly politicized IRS could jeopardize KS’s tax-exempt status or pursue back taxes, adding another layer of risk. While this may sound far-fetched, we live in an unpredictable landscape.
Kamehameha Schools has long served Hawaiʻi’s youth for nearly a century and a half, often flying under the radar for audiences on the mainland. Now, the institution finds itself swept up in a volatile political moment beyond its control.
All of this raises the stakes. The current fight is much more consequential, and transparency is not a punitive gesture toward the plaintiffs. It’s a normal, necessary aspect of fair litigation.
I recognize the burden this places on the plaintiffs, especially the young woman at the center. It’s a heavy burden, but one that should be borne in a system that values openness when the stakes are so high.
If you’d like to stay informed with clear, timely journalism, consider joining Civil Beat’s free morning newsletter.
Honolulu Civil Beat is a nonprofit publication. Your support helps sustain local reporting that matters to Hawaiʻi.
Contribute at Civil Beat’s donation page.
