This paper examines two interconnected grassroots efforts that advanced equity in Hawaiian higher education: affirmative action campaigns to diversify faculty representation and student protests to preserve Hawaiian language classes at the University of Hawaii. Drawing on televised debates featuring faculty members Marion Kelly and Mimi Sharma, a 1995 campus demonstration, and scholarly work on indigenous identity, the paper analyzes common misconceptions about affirmative action, the historical roots of language suppression in Hawaii, and the long-term outcomes of both movements. The paper argues that language preservation and affirmative action are complementary, proactive forms of self-empowerment rooted in the broader struggle against systemic racism and colonial acculturation policies.
Grassroots movements and peaceful protests have helped promote equality in Hawaiian higher education. In 1991, a fierce debate waged throughout the nation over the legitimacy of affirmative action programs. That debate helped to showcase the need to take action — affirmative action — to conscientiously and constructively address the problem of institutionalized racism.
In a KFVE news program entitled "Island Issues," two professors discuss the need for affirmative action and how it can be put into practice at the senior levels of education. Professors Marion Kelly and Mimi Sharma focus on faculty diversity as opposed to student body diversity. The professors debate the host of "Island News" about several common misconceptions surrounding affirmative action.
One such misconception is the "quality" question — a position that reflects a short-range vision. The quality question is rooted in the perception that promoting minorities would mean promoting people who are less qualified for their positions than members of the established dominant group, whether white or Asian. In this debate, the professors argue that the emphasis on existing qualifications is shortsighted and misses the point: the only way to ensure improved qualifications for all people is to develop talent systematically. Both students and aspiring professors need institutional supports in order to afford and participate in professional development.
Another misconception raised in the debate concerns policies that seem to unfairly favor some minority groups over others. The program uses the example of Asian Americans protesting affirmative action policies in the University of California system — policies designed to help Latino and Black students — noting that similar protests could have occurred in Hawaii. Kelly and Sharma argue that promoting the advancement of disadvantaged groups does not need to conflict with the promotion of other minorities. Essentially, policies that level the playing field create a better field for all players.
Finally, a commonly cited objection to affirmative action invokes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the "reverse discrimination" argument, which also ties into the unfair treatment argument. The purpose of affirmative action is not to discriminate; quite the opposite — it is activism on behalf of disadvantaged groups. Helping a disadvantaged group is not favoritism, and it is not unfair when some groups are systematically disadvantaged relative to others.
Kelly and Sharma discuss the ways women and minorities have been systematically discriminated against through means that are not always embedded in official policies, but in unconscious practices. For example, a student who is Native Hawaiian can easily be discouraged from pursuing a faculty position when there are no role models and no meaningful social or financial supports available to that student.
Kelly and Sharma also argue that official affirmative action policies are required to prevent the perpetuation of the status quo. At the time of the broadcast, only 1.4% of the university's faculty was Native Hawaiian, yet a tenth of the student body was Native Hawaiian. The professors highlight the importance of having a faculty that genuinely represents the composition of the student body, grounding their argument in the need to build and maintain harmonious educational communities and to promote egalitarian values.
Additionally, the university needs to provide financial, educational, and other structural supports to assist disadvantaged students after they complete their undergraduate degrees. Many students are forced to enter the workforce in service positions, potentially squandering their education because they cannot afford to go directly to graduate school. More must be done to encourage all earnest, ambitious students to pursue graduate studies — an effort that would, in turn, increase the number of minority faculty at the university.
"Student protest saves Hawaiian language classes"
"Measurable gains from affirmative action and language programs"
"Colonial roots of Hawaiian language suppression in education"
Taking away one's language takes away the power to think and communicate effectively in ways that differ from the dominant cultural paradigm. Even more significant from a practical standpoint is the long-term effect of creating socioeconomic class hierarchies by systematically dismantling language and cultural traditions. The reference to "industrious labor in their assigned jobs" reveals how Native Hawaiians were specifically being prepared for low-status positions in a social hierarchy that placed Haole at the top (McGregor & MacKenzie, 2014, p. 442).
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.