Misplaced Pages

California textbook controversy over Hindu history: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:23, 11 July 2007 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →External links: clnup← Previous edit Revision as of 08:25, 11 July 2007 edit undoHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Coverage by the Indian-American Press: rm self-pubs, forums, non-RS ELsNext edit →
Line 165: Line 165:


====Coverage by the Indian-American Press==== ====Coverage by the Indian-American Press====

*-Newstoday.net
*
* Interview M.Witzel Rediff/India Abroad * Interview M.Witzel Rediff/India Abroad
* Rediff * Rediff
* ''Counterpunch Magazine'', 1/1, 06
* ''Dissident Voice''
* ''Dissident Voice''
* By Viji Sundaram, ]
* ''Dissident Voice''
* ''India Herald''
* ''New Insight''
* ''India Post'' * ''India Post''
* ''Thendral Magazine'', Jan 2006
* ''India Abroad'', January 30, 2006 * ''India Abroad'', January 30, 2006
* ''News India Times'', Feb. 17. 2006 * ''News India Times'', Feb. 17. 2006

Revision as of 08:25, 11 July 2007

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (March 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series on
Hinduism
OriginsHistorical

Traditional

Sampradaya (Traditions)
Major Sampradaya (Traditions)
Other Sampradaya (Traditions)
Deities
Absolute Reality / Unifying Force
Trimurti
Tridevi
Other major Devas / Devis
Vedic Deities:
Post-Vedic:
Devatas
Concepts
Worldview
Ontology
Supreme reality
God
Puruṣārtha (Meaning of life)
Āśrama (Stages of life)
Three paths to liberation
Liberation
Mokṣa-related topics:
Mind
Ethics
Epistemology
Practices
Worship, sacrifice, and charity
Meditation
Yoga
Arts
Rites of passage
Festivals
Philosophical schools
Six Astika schools
Other schools
Gurus, Rishi, Philosophers
Ancient
Medieval
Modern
Texts
Sources and classification of scripture
Scriptures
Vedas
Divisions
Upanishads
Rigveda:
Yajurveda:
Samaveda:
Atharvaveda:
Vedangas
Other scriptures
Itihasas
Puranas
Upavedas
Shastras, sutras, and samhitas
Stotras, stutis and Bhashya
Tamil literature
Other texts
Hindu Culture & Society
Society
Hindu Art
Hindu Architecture
Hindu Music
Food & Diet Customs
Time Keeping Practices
Hindu Pilgrimage
Other society-related topics:
Other topics
Hinduism by country
Hinduism & Other Religions
Other Related Links (Templates)

A controversy in the US state of California concerning the portrayal of Hinduism in history textbooks began in 2005. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu groups complained that their religions were in part incorrectly or negatively portrayed.

Background

Christian, Jewish (led by ICS, the Institute for Curriculum Services), Islamic (led by businessman Shabir Mansuri and founding Director of the Council on Islamic Education) and the two Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. Two textbooks were objected to by Jewish groups and were initially rejected in September 2005. but readmitted on Nov. 9. After intensive scholarly discussions, over 500 changes proposed by Jewish and Christian groups and 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE); these scholarly discussions extended to Jan. 6, 2006. Some of the Hindu edits, which were submitted for the first time, met with opposition.

The Californian Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content contain the guiding principles for the textbooks.

They say: "The standards will be achieved by depicting, when appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the United States and California, as well as in other societies, without displaying bias toward or prejudice against any of those beliefs or religious beliefs in general."
They also say: "No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior.", and "Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations

Late in the process, Michael E. J. Witzel, a Harvard Sanskrit professor "unexpectedly intervened". Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a person claiming to be a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes . He suggested that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board. The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from all over the world.

Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal described the developments as follows:

"The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups — including members of the 'untouchables' caste — entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflected "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history."

Further letters of support came from Christian missionary organizations like National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.()

Dalit groups that testified before the SBE in January and February 2006, and are on public record in California, include those with Buddhist Ambedkarite backgrounds, such as the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Indian Buddhist Association of America, New Republic India, as well as Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara..

The edits proposed by the VF and HEF were also opposed by a group of organizations that included the Friends of South Asia (FOSA), the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America, Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India, the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC).


Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies co-signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars. These documents have been made available on the website of the South Asia Faculty Network.

Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, pointed out the parentage and close links between the VF and HEF and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the Indian right wing organization RSS.

The State Board of Education decides

After extensive further discussion of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu edits by specialized scholars on Jan. 6, and after several public SBE meetings, a decision was reached on 27 February 2006. After listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five member panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE). The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.

On 8 March 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the changes suggested by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Indo-Aryan Migration theory would be mentioned as disputed by scholars, and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), that had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit..

Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held.".

A PR firm hired by the VF and the HEF alleged that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture." Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved." .

Examples of changes

The full text of changes proposed by the CDE after deliberations extending to January and February 2006, and subsequently adopted by SBE on March 8,2006 is available at

Friends of South Asia, a group opposing the HEF and the VF, took issue with several of the earlier edits. , including the removal of sentences from the textbooks that claimed that men had more rights than women, and the editing of other sentences dealing with the caste system. The Hindu Education Foundation responded by pointing out that several of the edits relating to untouchability — though not all of the ones FOSA objected to — were approved by the Witzel group. . FOSA also pointed out that the HEF and VF did not object to several sections referring to untouchability in all the textbooks.

Lawsuits

HAF case

On March 10, 2006, the HAF declared it would sue.. It did so at Sacramento on March 16.

An emergency hearing to consider a temporary restraining order applied for by HAF was set for March 21; it was dismissed by the judge. A motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the HAF against the California State Board of Education (SBE) to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks was heard and dismissed on April 21, 2006 in the California Superior Court. According to a scanned copy of the court transcript distributed by FOSA, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette stated that "I am not convinced that Petitioner HAF has carried their burden to show the likelihood that they would succeed on the merits, particularly on the issue of content." The HAF responded to reports of the dismissal with a press release critical of "errors in media coverage," reaffirming their "commitment to their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks accurately and equitably depict Hinduism," and explaining that "this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case.".

However, the court put aside these protestations and on September 1 2006, the HAF case has been resolved. The court has ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks as approved by SBE in March 2006, providing extensive discussion and justification of the most contended issues (Womens' rights, Dalits, Aryan invasion, Hinduism as monotheistic religion) , while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board had not sufficiently been updated to recent changes int California laws.

HAF responded to the verdict with a circular that expressed a certain measure of satisfaction at the recognition of the illegality of the proceedings. and that claims that the judge ruled in favor of retaining the edits because "he did not wish to disrupt the process of disseminating the revised editions at this stage".

Mihir Meghani, President of the Hindu American Foundation, described the judgement as a "mixed victory". He says:

"This ruling now forces the California Board of Education to comply with the law — to have a fair and open public process to benefit all California students."

as well as:

"The (foundation) is disappointed that ... (the judge) has not ordered the textbooks on hand to be modified to be more accurate ... and a flawed and illegal procedure leads to flawed textbooks"

Shalini Gara, a member of the Friends of South Asia, also claimed victory.

"The judge has upheld that the texts will stay as they are, and that is good news for us because we thought they were historically accurate and we were bothered that the (Hindu American Foundation) wanted less importance to be given to negative aspects of Hinduism."

Following the lawsuit, the Hindu American Foundation reached a post-judgment agreement with the Board of Education in which the SBE agreed to pay part of HAF's legal costs.

CAPEEM case

The "California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials" (CAPEEM), a group founded specifically for the Californian schoolbook case after SBE's March 8 decision, filed a separate lawsuit in a Federal Court in Sacramento on March 14.

The Counsel for the officials of the State Board of Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE) rejected the validity of CAPEEM's claims, and while the Court rejected a case against SBE and CDE due to existing legal rules, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California allowed, on August 11/September 28, 2006, a reformulated case to go ahead against some individual members of SBE and CDE.

The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubramani, an attorney who has worked in the past with public interest groups, including ACLU, on civil rights matters.

As of June 2007, the case still is in the Discovery phase, and CAPEEM announced it will request documents from the SBE and CDE, and subpoena various interested parties to strengthen its case.

See also

References

  1. Textbook rejected for anti-Jewish bias JTA
  2. California Curriculum Commission Accepts Most Hindu Changes to Sixth Grade Textbooks Hindu Press International
  3. Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  4. Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  5. Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  6. New Battleground In Textbook Wars: Religion in History The Wall Street Journal
  7. Letters supporting FOSA/CAC's position on the California textbook controversy Friends of South Asia
  8. Friends of South Asia
  9. Letter to California State Board Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America
  10. South Asia Area Center Title VI Report on California Textbooks Unknown
  11. “California Vistas, Ancient Civilizations”, by Macmillan/McGraw Hill – , “Ancient Civilizations” by Harcourt School Publishers, “Ancient Civilizations” by Holt, “Ancient Civilizations” by McGraw Hill, Glencoe., “History Alive, the Ancient World” by Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, Houghton Mifflin and McDougel Littell, “The Ancient South Asian World” by Oxford University Press-.

External links

Government links

Press coverage

Listings of coverage by involved organisations

Coverage In the American press

Coverage on Radio and TV

Coverage by the Indian-American Press

Press coverage in India

Categories: