Californian Hindu textbook controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since March 2006. (help, talk)
Part of a series on
Hinduism
History · Deities
Denominations · Mythology
Beliefs & practices
Reincarnation · Moksha
Karma · Puja · Maya
Samsara · Dharma
Vedanta ·
Yoga · Ayurveda
Yuga · Vegetarianism
Bhakti
Scriptures
Upanishads · Vedas
Brahmana · Bhagavad Gita
Ramayana · Mahabharata
Purana · Aranyaka
Shikshapatri · Vachanamrut
Related topics
Dharmic Religions ·
Hinduism by country
Leaders · Devasthana
Caste system · Mantra
Glossary · Hindu festivals
Vigraha
Portal: Hinduism

This box: view • talk • edit

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 incorrectly or negatively potrayed. The Texas based Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) complained to California's Curriculum Commission, claiming that the coverage of ancient Indian history and Hinduism in sixth grade History and Social Sciences textbooks was biased against Hinduism, and demanding that the portrayal be revised according to their organisations' views of Hinduism and Indian history.

Contents

[edit] 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 Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. Some textbooks were objected by Jewish groups [2] and were rejected in September 2005. Over 500 changes proposed by Jewish groups and 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the CDE and SBE. [1][3] The changes proposed by Christian groups were also accepted. Only the Hindu edits, which were submitted for the first time, were opposed by the Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group.[2] The Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups didn't submit their edits to the textbooks for the first time in 2005.

The Jewish group (ICS) objected "to the use of the word "story" in reference to the Hebrew Bible, as they allege it conveys the idea that the events described are fictitious."[4] Some of the edits by Jewish groups were also objected by Shabir Mansuri, the founding Director of the Council on Islamic Education. [5] [6]

The Californian Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content [3] 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." [4]
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." [5]

[edit] Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations

Late in the process, Michael E. J. Witzel, a Harvard Sanskrit professor "unexpectedly intervened" [7]. Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by 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: [8]

"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."

The Dalit Freedom Network is not, in fact, a "Hindu group" but part of a Colorado based Christian organization run by Dr. Joseph D'Souza, leader of the "All India Christian Council." He later sent a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of the Dalit Freedom Network. It was co-signed by Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah,([9]) both prominent critics of Hinduism [10] [11]. Further letters of support came from other Christian Dalit groups, ([12]) including the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.

Other Dalit groups that testified, 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, and Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara [13].

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 [14], 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 [15] 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.[16] These documents have been made available on the website of the South Asia Faculty Network.[17]

Soon after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for India-West [18], wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition was likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups. 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 RSS. [19] [20]

[edit] The State Board of Education decides

On 27 February 2006, after listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five member of 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).[21] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system [citation needed] and migration theories.[22] [citation needed]

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 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 [23] [24] [25]. [26].

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."[27].

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."[28] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved." [29].

[edit] Examples of changes

Edits by HEF/VF (Hindu) CRP Action/ CFIR Recommendation/ Comments
Omit the following: “The Vedic peoples discriminated against the Dasa, a group of people who spoke a different language that did not sound at all like Sanskrit. The Brahmins sometimes made fun of the Dasa and said that they spoke as if they had no noses. (Pinch your nose and see what you would sound like.)[6][7] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group advised to delete the second part, noting that the first sentence was necessary for the last sentence of the second paragraph to make sense. Shiva Bajpai, a retired CSU historian hired on the recommendation of one of the groups [8] opposed the edit, saying that the issue in question was "contentious," and claiming further that "[t]he proponents of Dasa identity have tortured the Vedic text to extract a meager evidence [sic]. The Dasas probably spoke a corrupt language and had different beliefs than the Vedic Aryans did. (see Trautmann: Aryans and British India for a sober evaluation.)"[9]

The HEF also took issue with the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and regarded the invitations to students to talk like a Dasa or to pinch their noses as "frivolous" and the text "horrific." They also contended that the sentence referring to Brahmins making fun of the dark skin of the Dasas reflected 19th century racialist and colonialist views. [10]
Omit the first three words and the last sentence: “The monkey king Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. So look around — see any monkeys?”[11] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group approved the edit.
“Modern Hindus continue to visit temples to express their love of the gods.” Replace with “...visit temples to worship and express their love for God.”[12] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group advised not to change the original text.[13]
Replace "The language and traditions of the Indo-Aryan speakers replaced the old ways of the Harappans…” with "People from elsewhere in India replaced..." The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group supported keeping the original text, based on the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Bajpai disagreed on the grounds that the text "perpetuates the AI/migration Theory and the Vedic-Harappan dichotomy while the edit takes a neutral stance on the issue," referring to the disagreement between proponents of an Indo-Aryan migration and of the Out of India theory[14].
“The Ramayana, written later than the Mahabharata…” Replace with, “The Ramayana, written prior to the Mahabharata…”[15] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group commented: "Who in Sixth Grade cares which epic was “written” first?", and proposed to use the following phrase: “The Ramayana tells about...”[16] Bajpai replied: "It is not the question of who cares but who cares for historical accuracy. One can be silent about many issues, but if one mentions something it better be historically accurate." [30]

Friends of South Asia, a group opposing the HEF and the VF, took issue with several of the edits. [31], 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. [32]. They also pointed out that the HEF and VF did not object to several sections referring to untouchability in all the textbooks. [17]

[edit] Lawsuits

On March 10, 2006, the HAF declared it would sue.[33]. It did so at Sacramento on March 16, and a previously unknown group, California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), filed a separate lawsuit in Seattle on March 14.

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.[34] 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."[35] 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."[36]. The court hearing is scheduled for September.

On August 11, 2006, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California gave his judgement allowed CAPEEM's lawsuit to go forward.[37] The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubhramani, an attorney who has worked in the past with public interest groups, including ACLU, on civil rights matters[38].

[edit] Judgement in the HAF case

As of September 1 2006, the HAF case has been resolved. The court has ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board was flawed.[39] HAF has launched a circular confirming the decision by the courts and expressing a certain measure of satisfaction at the recognition of the illegality of the proceedings[40]. The brief published by HAF reports that the judge ruled in favor of retaining the edits on the grounds that he did not wish to disrupt the process of disseminating the revised editions at this stage. The legal team of HAF has posted an assessment of the result[41].

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."[42]

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"[43]

Shalini Gara, a member of the Friends of South Asia Organization, which opposed the lawsuit, also claimed victory Friday evening.

"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."[44]

The CAPEEM lawsuit is still ongoing as of this date.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  2. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  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. ^ The Ancient South Asian World Oxford University Press
  7. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  8. ^ New Battleground In Textbook Wars: Religion in History. The Wall Street Journal (January 25, 2006). Retrieved on September 27, 2006.
  9. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  10. ^ HEF Second CRP analysis P39
  11. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  12. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  13. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  14. ^ HEF Second CRP analysis p38
  15. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  16. ^ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  17. ^ “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- [1].

[edit] References

[edit] External links

[edit] Press coverage

[edit] Listings of coverage by involved organisations

[edit] Coverage In the American press

[edit] Coverage on Radio and TV

[edit] Coverage by the Indian-American Press

[edit] Press coverage in India

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy_a87b.html"