Closing geographical distances: The value of a New Zealand perspective on the admission policy of a Native Hawaiian School

Abstract

This article examines the legal narratives evident in the American federal court decision in Doe v Kamehameha Schools (Kamehameha).' The article first describes the historical development of everyone/ no-one, someone and Indigenous equality narratives and their particular impact on the narration of Indigenous peoples in the law. It then examines how the opinions of the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case exhibit significant narrative confusion and distrust about the relationship between Indigenous identity and equality, with the Ninth Circuit interpreting the Native Hawaiian schools' preference for Native Hawaiian students as either reverse racial discrimination or an exception to the general rule of homogeneity and anonymity. For comparison, the article then examines similar equality narratives in New Zealand law, which reveal few legal challenges to admission policies which, either explicitly or implicitly, prefer Maori and demonstrate a narrative complementarity between equality and Indigenous identity. The article recognises that, while complementarity could clarify the narrative issues in Kamehameha for future American federal courts, it also provides the opportunity for New Zealand to pause and reflect. Ultimately, the article advocates a weaving of equality narratives across geographical distances.