On September 28, 2010 the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs issued a press release about a new report it created entitled “The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System.” The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published an article about it the following day. The complete report, filled with many beautiful photos of taro, is at
http://tinyurl.com/2aweono
There are important scholarly/statistical issues raised by the report, and equally important political issues. It’s clear that the OHA report is an exercise in political propaganda rather than a serious scholarly analysis or civil rights inquiry.
A major rebuttal is now available at
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja
Here’s an outline of topics covered in great detail in the rebuttal:
1. What the OHA report said, and how the underlying study was conducted. Data collected and analyzed in secret was then destroyed, making peer review impossible. OHA and the group who produced this “study” should be embarrassed if their methods are compared with legitimate work done by scientists developing new drugs or reporting experiments in physics, biology, etc.
2. Slick, artistically composed pages show that the purpose of the report is political propaganda rather than scientific scrutiny. Emotional appeals are made to a creation legend from the ancient Hawaiian religion, and the report is filled with emotionally rousing artistic photos of taro patches (because taro plays a key role in that creation legend). Unverifiable claims are made that ethnic Hawaiians suffer more trauma than other races when sent to prisons outside Hawaii, because their spiritual link to the land is broken. Emotional appeals are made by quoting the inspirational words of Kamehameha The Great on his deathbed, and by quoting the words of a song written by ex-queen Lili’uokalani when she was “unjustly imprisoned” (just like ethnic Hawaiians today!!). [By the way, her imprisonment was entirely justified, and was a very mild punishment for the crimes she committed. See section 6 below. Her activities after release showed she was never rehabilitated! But she did stop participating in violent activities.].
3. Youthfulness is an important factor in explaining why ethnic Hawaiians (allegedly) have higher rates of arrest and incarceration, and longer jail sentences and probation, than criminals of other races. In the last decennial census the median age for ethnic Hawaiians was 25, while the median age for everyone else was 39. Criminal behaviors — especially violent crimes deserving lengthy prison sentences — are the sins of youth rather than middle age. But the OHA report does not adequately examine and does not draw appropriate conclusions about age.
4. Percentage of native blood quantum must be taken into account in analyzing data alleging racial disparity. Someone who is only 1/8 Hawaiian should clearly not be counted as Hawaiian. An incarcerated criminal who is 1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Filipino, 1/8 Irish, and 1/8 Hawaiian would properly be counted as Chinese if outcomes are to be attributed to only one racial group. The best method would be to allocate fractional tally marks when attributing outcomes to racial groups. But nobody at OHA or any other racial-partisan institution bothers to collect or analyze racial data that way because the results would undoubtedly torpedo most of their racial grievance claims.
5. If the author of a so-called scientific report has a motive to tell falsehoods or skew the results, then the facts alleged in the report, and the conclusions, can be set aside as lacking credibility. In the case of OHA’s report alleging disparate treatment of ethnic Hawaiians in the criminal justice system, OHA has strong motives to portray ethnic Hawaiians as victims of unequal or unfair treatment in order to spur political support for the Akaka bill now pending in Congress. OHA has especially strong motive to undermine an agreement between Governor Lingle and Hawaii’s two Senators to amend the Akaka bill in such a way to deny the Akaka tribe immediate sovereign jurisdiction over the criminal justice system. Also, the Justice Policy Institute in Washington D.C., which helped write this report, has its own political motives which include dismantling America’s punishment-oriented prison system.
6. If a witness in court — even an expert witness — says something false about one topic, then it is reasonable to doubt his credibility on other topics. This OHA report makes false and misleading statements about Hawaii’s history, which ordinary people can verify are wrong. Also, the historical content is presented in a chaotic narrative which scrambles the chronology. Therefore even people lacking expertise in scientific knowledge and statistical methodology are justified in doubting what OHA’s report says about technical issues, and we can wonder whether the gathering and analysis of data was as chaotic as the chronology in the history section. Some wrong statements about Hawaii’s history contained in this report are described in the rebuttal, and proof is provided that they are wrong.
7. Are disparate bad outcomes for ethnic Hawaiians in health, economics, and the criminal justice system found only in Hawaii? A recent study shows that ethnic Hawaiians living in California are doing better than the average of all Californians. Why are Hawaiians thriving in California but not in Hawaii, despite the fact (or is it because of the fact?) that Hawaii provides a plethora of racial entitlement programs not available to them in California?
For extensive analysis and evidence regarding these seven topics, see the full rebuttal at
http://tinyurl.com/3xxc5ja