The question of
whether to support or oppose building the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) atop Mauna
Kea, a dormant volcano on the island of Hawai’i, has recently attracted the
national media’s attention and preoccupied a significant portion of The
Episcopal Church in Hawai’i (TECH). The controversy came to a head in July when
TMT opponents physically prevented construction crews and their equipment from
using the only access road to the site. Over three thousand protesters have
spent time in the encampment that blocks access. In spite of final court
approval and issuance of all relevant permits, construction of TMT atop Mauna
Kea now appears unlikely.
As an ethicist, a
mediator and a Christian priest, I offer three observations.
First, the
discipline of ethics offers little help in resolving ethical dilemmas such as
this one that have valid, rational arguments on each side. The two sides rely
upon different, incompatible frameworks to justify their conflicting positions.
Proponents advance
utilitarian arguments, explicitly or implicitly seeking the greatest good (or
most love) for the greatest number of people. Construction and use of TMT will
provide jobs and economic benefits to Hawai’i’s people, native Hawaiians and
non-native Hawaiians alike. The telescope has a real if unknown and unquantifiable
potential to advance science and benefit humanity. A majority of scientists
contends that the Mauna Kea site will produce superior results to the
alternative location in the Canary Islands. Furthermore, the Canary Island site
probably entails higher environmental costs.
Opponents advance
deontological claims, refusing to comprise on important principles.
Construction is wrong because it would disrespect native Hawaiians and native
Hawaiian traditions, thereby denying justice to already marginalized people.
Pointing to God's preferential concern for the vulnerable and least amongst us,
opponents argue that respecting human dignity and seeking justice negate any
utilitarian calculus of TMT’s potential benefits.
TMT has polarized
Hawai’i’s peoples precisely because people on both sides fail to appreciate the
values, reasons and ethical frameworks that lead to opposite conclusions. Analogously,
narrow ethical perspectives which ignore conflicting views, when twisted and
inflamed by demagogues for personal benefit, explain much of the current political
polarization in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Second, unlike
litigation in an adversarial court system that produces a winner and a loser,
mediation strives for win-win outcomes. After years of litigation over possible
construction of TMT, the courts finally decided in favor of construction. Proponents
won; opponents lost. Ironically, native Hawaiian culture historically relied
upon a type of mediation (ho’oponopono) to resolve many disputes.
Mediation proceeds
by identifying the real concern(s) behind the issues and multiple options for
resolving a conflict. For example, is the real issue for native Hawaiians their
quest, their demand, for sovereignty? The U.S. illegally annexed the Hawaiian
Islands in 1898 after expat merchants, plantation owners and others overthrew
the Hawaiian monarchy. Unlike Native American tribes, the Inuit and Eskimos,
the U.S. has never recognized native Hawaiians as a sovereign nation. Can
several of the existing telescopes on Mauna Kea, whose technology is outdated
and whose useful lifespan may have been exceeded, be demolished to permit TMT
to be erected in their place? Are there other, not clearly identified, central
concerns? What alternatives to TMT as currently planned are possible?
Third, as a priest I
lack the authority, knowledge and wisdom to resolve the conflict over
constructing TMT. I’m not an expert environmentalist, trained labor economist,
world-renowned astronomer or other credible authority on any of the issues. I’m
not a native Hawaiian. I live on another island. At the most, I’m a stakeholder
at the third or fourth remove. Nor do I
have the wisdom to decide who should and should not sit at the table to
identify the pertinent issues and then to resolve the conflict.
Priests and, importantly,
all Christians can prophetically call for justice and reconciliation. Several
aspects of justice are especially relevant. Justice emerges out of a Christian
vision of God's beloved community, an inclusive community that embraces the
earth and all that dwells therein. God desires justice because God loves all. Queen
Lili’uokalani was Hawai’i’s much-loved last monarch and a genuine follower of
Jesus. TECH has authorized her local remembrance as a saint; congregations
often sing a hymn she authored as a prayer during their services. Before and
after the overthrow, Liliuokalani insisted that all people – regardless of race
or ethnicity – be allowed to enjoy the shaded coolness and beauty of her
palace’s grounds. This practice cohered with the Hawaiian culture’s openness to
intermarriage and acceptance of all people. The subsequent racism that has plagued
Hawai’i came from Caucasians. They, not native Hawaiians, defined a native Hawaiian
as someone whose bloodline was 50% or more native Hawaiian. Hawaiians
traditionally defined a Hawaiian as someone shaped by aloha for the land, the
sea, and the people. It’s an inclusive vision of the beloved community that
Jesus would applaud.
Justice depends upon
people having some degree of agency. Without agency, persons are devalued and
disrespected. Without agency, justice is impossible. Only a small minority of
Hawaiians harbor any hope that the U.S. will cede the Hawaiian Islands to
native Hawaiians for them to form a completely independent country. Most native
Hawaiian demands for sovereignty actually express their desire for respect and
to have their voices heard. These demands are integral to God's preferential
option for the marginalized and most vulnerable. The culture of white racism
introduced to the Hawaiian Islands when Captain Cook exploited Hawaiians
thinking he was a god continued with the expat overthrow of the monarchy and
plantation system that devalued non-white labor persists today.
Lastly, justice
connotes fairness. In some conflicts, compromise is inherently impossible. TMT
will either be built or not; there is no middle option of building only half a
telescope. When confronted with such an issue, experienced mediators seek to
package several issues together. Packaging issues allows all parties to win on
some issues, lose on some issues, and compromise on others. Nobody receives the
entirety of what they want, but everybody receives some of what they deem most
important. Living as God's beloved community requires this type of compromise. Fairness
requires that all parties, affirming their identify as part of the beloved
community and exercising some measure of agency, view the final agreement as fair
and just.
When mistrust and
alienation characterize relationships, beloved community does not exist. When
identity politics, of which racism is one form, distort relationships, power
imbalances undercut agency. And when those factors persist over time, fairness
and justice are possible only through reconciliation.
Reconciliation
requires parties working to incorporate those alienated into the beloved
community, embracing everyone as full and equal members, fully and equally
respecting the dignity and worth of every member. In addition to more usual
emphases on repentance (turning from sin) and reparation (trying to repair the
harm done), reconciliation also requires sharing power and agency equitably. No
voice is always heard more often, more loudly or more dominantly. These steps necessitate
emotional and value shifts by both those with and without power. Forgiveness is
the hopeful act of believing, tentatively trusting, that the parties engaged in
reconciliation are sincere, supported by evidence of genuine repentance and
practical steps taken toward reparations. Too often, people with power are
loathe to share. Conversely, people without power may develop a conflicting
sense of power and agency, cherishing their role as outsiders, reluctant to let
go of grievances and integrate into the beloved community.
Theologically, I believe
that reconciliation is always possible. Realistically, I know that is improbable.
The process of reconciliation allows the dialogue that permits movement toward
fairness. Perhaps too much time has passed since debate over TMT began; perhaps
an originally unnecessary urgency now surrounds the decision; perhaps positions
have hardened too much because of pre-existing alienation and power imbalances.
As a Christian and a priest, I prophetically call for stakeholders in the TMT dispute
to heal the divides in God's beloved community, to share agency and power
equitably, and to seek a just, fair solution to the broader issues that
fracture and harm our culture, the Hawaiian culture.
We, the Church and
its priests, will improve our success rate as reconcilers if we proactively
discern where and when God may heal brokenness. Identify the next issue(s) likely
to further splinter the beloved community or the wider culture; then
prophetically, preemptively, call for reconciliation, forgiveness and justice.
Reconciliation resembles healing an infection: it is best done before the
bacteria develops a resistance to antibiotics.
The national and
local attention focused on the TMT controversy demonstrates the power of a
small, still emerging element of God's people to reclaim their own agency and
in doing so to reshape the prevailing narrative, moving the larger society
toward a fuller embodiment of justice. For this, everyone – regardless of their
views about TMT – can give thanks.