Participants who oppose the bill are:

The public forum will be moderated by Family Court Judge Michael Broderick.

For more information on the public forums, please call HIPA at 585-7931 or the League of Women Voters at 531-7448.

Following are summary statements of four of the participants:

BRUCE FEIN — NO

The Akaka bill defiles the Constitution.

Its creed is E Pluribus Unum. The Akaka bill presages racial balkanization.

The Constitution honors individuals irrespective of race or ethnicity, a standard echoed by Dr. Martin Luther King in pleading to judge by character in lieu of skin color. The Akaka bill makes ancestry determinative of individual destiny under a Native Hawaiian sovereign by and for Native Hawaiians alone. The bill disenfranchises based on race, a flagrant violation of the 14th and 15th amendments.

The Constitution grudgingly exempted Native American Indian tribes from its protections against government abuses for three reasons: Indians were neither citizens, nor skilled in democratic arts, nor able to defend themselves against state government predations. None of these reasons holds true for Native Hawaiians.

Yet the Akaka bill would treat them as Indian tribes endowed with powers outside the constraints of the Constitution and federal laws — for example, the authority to discriminate because of race, ethnicity, gender or religion, or take private property without just compensation.

Under the Constitution, the fusion of Native and non-Native elements in Hawai'i into a flourishing multiracial society has been as much to be marveled at as imitated. In 1994, Sen. Dan Inouye exulted: "Hawai'i remains one of the greatest examples of a multiracial society living in relative peace."

The Akaka bill would split asunder what the Constitution has magnificently joined.

ROBERT G. KLEIN — YES

Federal policy toward Native Hawaiians must be clarified in order to protect against the elimination of Hawaiian trust assets such as Hawaiian Homelands, the ceded lands trust and possibly Kamehameha Schools. These trusts have been the subject of several lawsuits, one of which has recently succeeded against Kamehameha Schools.

There will be more to come. The goal of the Akaka bill is to establish a Native Hawaiian government that provides the same legal and political status granted to Indian nations and Alaska's natives. Such status defeats equal-protection lawsuits designed to end all Hawaiian programs as we know them.

Giving in to the arguments of the bill's opponents leaves all Hawaiian trusts and Hawaiian people vulnerable to legal attack. Underlying that chilling specter is a frightening rationale that denies the very existence and identity of the Native Hawaiian people.

Opponents charge that Hawaiians do not deserve sovereign rights under the Akaka bill because there are no Native Hawaiians — they have all been assimilated into the overall population. The bill's opponents do not stop at obliterating the past; they would also destroy forever the distinctly Native Hawaiian identity. To deny Native Hawaiians political status under the bill is to deny their very existence as a native people.

Federal political recognition is nothing new. There are more than 500 such governments operating in the United States today. Because the Constitution supports the existence of native governments, the Akaka bill is needed to achieve parity with the nation's other native peoples.

The Akaka bill is the only practical means available to Native Hawaiians to achieve federal political recognition and political status. It is essential to protect Hawaiian assets and Hawaiian identity. The bill's opponents want to eliminate both, ending the coup against the Hawaiian government that started 112 years ago. The Akaka bill is the best antidote to their virulent plans.

MARK BENNETT — YES

The Akaka bill provides long-overdue federal recognition to Native Hawaiians, a recognition that has been extended for decades to Native Americans and Alaska natives. It is a simple matter of justice and fairness.

The wrongs done to Native Hawaiians were no less severe than those suffered by America's other indigenous people —why should the recognition be less? The bill is supported by Gov. Linda Lingle, our entire congressional delegation, 75 of 76 members of the Legislature, and all four of our mayors.

The bill is neither race-based nor unconstitutional. The Constitution itself provides for the recognition of the native peoples of America, and the Supreme Court has said that such recognition is constitutional.

The bill sets up a Native Hawaiian governing entity, and provides for negotiations among that entity and the United States and the state. The status quo will not change without future acts of Congress and amendments to Hawai'i statutes and the Hawai'i Constitution.

The bill does not allow for secession or independence, period. It will, however, bar gambling by the Native Hawaiian entity, and will not change zoning, taxes, or criminal or civil jurisdiction.

The bill will help preserve current federal and state programs, like the Hawaiian Homelands. And it will end the injustice of Native Hawaiians being second-class citizens among America's native peoples. It will help preserve the Hawai'i we all know and love.

ANNE KEALA KELLY — NO

For Hawaiians who don't understand what's being done in their name, it's worth pointing out that as a people we have options beyond federal recognition that are being ignored.

Instead, OHA, DHHL and others are investing millions to convince us that this is the best we can hope for. I believe the same amount of money the state is spending to pass the bill should be given to Hawaiian groups opposing it.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the manner in which agencies and organizations have promoted and propagandized their position is their unapologetic enthusiasm for intentionally disregarding and/or maligning other Hawaiian perspectives.

Historical wounds of profound significance (such as the overthrow) have been turned into excuses for abandoning our rights to self- determination under international law and advancing the American version, which means plenary powers of Congress. That will eventually lead to signing over claims to the crown and government lands of the Hawaiian kingdom (ceded land).

Supporting this bill and nothing else means we don't want real self-determination. And yet, the political and social push for the Akaka bill relies entirely on a false sense of Hawaiian pride and empowerment, a manufactured, counterfeit culture in place of the real one.