The University of Hawaii Board of Regents recently approved a master plan for Mauna Kea.
According to Greg Chun, executive director of the UH Hilo Center for Mauna Kea Stewardship, the new master plan is separate from the issuance of the Thirty Meter Telescope and does not authorize, adopt, or fund any new projects or land uses. Nonetheless, the Regents spent two hours listening to testimonies, mostly from local Hawaiians, who strongly opposed the TMT and the future of the existing complex of observatories at the summit.
Chairman Randy Moore made what I believe to be intuitive and somewhat clarifying comments about the genesis of the TMT-Mauna Kea controversy before calling for the vote: “Mauna Kea is, in a way, symbolic of injustices that go back 129 years… Whatever happens to the master plan, whatever happens to the telescopes, it’s not going to address those issues. It’s something we as a whole community need to figure out how to do things right.”
I think he’s spot on when he suggests that Mauna Kea has become a hotly contested battleground as a result of the implacable, illegal fall of the Hawaiian kingdom and a plethora of unresolved issues.
The 129 years of transgenerational trauma suffered by Native Hawaiians since 1893; the loss of ancestral lands and with it the dignity of a nation; and since statehood in 1959, the state’s failure to live up to its trust responsibilities fully on so many issues, beginning with the thousands of Hawaiians who have died on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands waitlist. Mauna Kea and the TMT have become a melting pot, harboring the decades of pain and anguish following the loss of sovereignty and the fall of the Nation of Hawaii.
Along the road
Mauna Kea, its observatories, and the central science and technology framework that emerges from Mauna are fundamental to Hawaii expanding its global leadership in the field. The TMT, if approved and built, will signal a unique opportunity for Hawaii to become a global center of astronomical and related scientific activity.
But any expectation of forging peace between supporters and protesters requires exceptional leadership. Indeed, it seems that such leadership for such an important public policy controversy cannot be entrusted to the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii alone. The top two state agencies — the Legislature and the Governor — must address the Mauna Kea issue with heightened urgency.
To that end, Rep. Mark Nakashima, Chair of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs, confirmed that his 2024 House Bill will allow the Legislature to consider an alternative to the university’s approach to its Mauna Kea master plan. HB 2024 would create a corporation separate and independent from the University of Hawaii. So it looks like the controversy over what to do with Mauna Kea will first be preceded by the question of who will exercise ultimate authority over the fate of Mauna Kea. Right now, the who seems to matter more than the what.
Hawaiians shared
The TMT-Mauna Kea issue has been painfully divisive for the native Hawaiian community. The protesters have been very successful at managing social media and other platforms to garner a global following of thousands of supporters, including high-profile figures and movie stars. So effective was their media management of the controversy that the prevailing public perception is that the native Hawaiian community is united in their opposition to the construction of the TMT on Mauna Kea.
However, opinion polls from 2018 and 2020 showed a divided Hawaiian community, with a majority of Hawaiians supporting the TMT. I’m sure things have changed, but I’m not aware of any recent polls that would tell us to what extent.
But no matter what the polls say, it’s clear that Native Hawaiians are making little headway in resolving their differences over Mauna Kea because there is no culturally legitimate authority within the Hawaiian community to process such matters and make judgments. With the decline of the ancient religion as a result of the Battle of Kuamo’o in 1819, the priesthood, a religious body that ruled over claims to holiness, was dissolved.
Without royal rule, no subsequent counterpart of the priesthood has developed. What has evolved is an unofficial validation system that does not involve any government agency. The highest level of validation of what constitutes a traditional, customary, or sacred “kapu claim” must be based on a mixture of three perspectives: archaeological finds, oral traditions (chants such as the kumulipo), and the works of contemporary scholars in newly developed Hawaiian language sources.
The TMT-Mauna Kea mystery revolves around the protesters’ claim that the entire mountain is sacred. In the absence of a culturally authoritative decision-making body to affirm or deny such a religious claim, there is not even the possibility of dialogue. Holy means no discussion. So while attempts to actually seek compromise may be on the table, both sides must be willing to compromise.
As HB 2024 begins its journey in this legislative period, we hope for transparency, patience, tolerance and a respectful dialogue. It should be noted that at this early stage, HB 2024 will first be considered in the House of Representatives with the assumption that it will go to the Senate for consideration once the House of Representatives amends it. Certainly Mauna Kea will be a lively discussion in both houses.
Year of the Hawaiian
Vice Speaker of the House John Mizuno added that there is a sense of urgency in this legislature to prioritize a number of longstanding Hawaiian issues, and Mauna Kea ranks at the top. Mizuno’s sense that this could be a Year of the Hawaiian appears to be borne out by other actions, including House Finance Chair Sylvia Luke’s HB 2511 and Senator Jarret Keohokalole’s SB 3359, which raised $600 million for the Special Housing Fund of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Also add Senator Kurt Fevella’s SB 2122, which provides $638 million to settle an OHA claim for back payments for the OHA’s 20% interest in the state’s ceded land trust fund. An additional $15.7 million in SB 3351 would be used for grants to private nonprofit organizations for community-based Hawaiian Native services.
These proposals will be the subject of much discussion and this raises other questions related to the purpose of the proposals.
The reality, of course, is that the original content of a bill in no way guarantees that it will survive the legislative gauntlet of public hearings, trials and amendments. But it should be encouraging for the native Hawaiian community that this session seems to be shaping up as a good opportunity to be heard. Imua.
Comments are closed.