Hindu American Foundation Special Newsletter: California Textbook Revisions

[Guest guest]

700; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">SUMMARY OF EVENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE HAF LEGAL DEFENSE

FUND AND EDUCATION DRIVEDONATE NOW! | SIGN THE PETITION

BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing="0"

cellPadding="3" width="590" borderColorLight="#c0c0c0" border="1">

Introduction Dear Supporter,By now, many of you are familiar with the efforts

of Hindu groups to improve the portrayal of Hinduism in public school textbooks

up for adoption in the State of California. Increasingly, local and national

media outlets are covering this developing story. As you may know, a noble

effort by Hindu parents has been drawn into an ugly controversy due to the

efforts of a small minority of academics with no expertise in Hinduism and

South Asian groups aligned with communist and other radical ideologies. The

textbook adoption process has far-reaching implications.

First, the books adopted in California will be used in classrooms until 2013.

Second, publishers generally abide by the results of the State of California

school textbook edit process. And third, many states follow the lead of

California, the most populous state in the union. As such, the decisions made

in California, will likely affect public schools across the U.S.The Hindu

American Foundation (HAF) retained Olson, Hagal and Fishburn LLP of Sacramento,

CA when it became clear that the California Department of Education and its

State Board of Education were changing criteria and improvising its process in

dealing with proposed Hindu edits and corrections. To help our supporters

better understand the process and events leading up to retaining legal

representation, we have prepared a summary of events. It has also become

increasingly evident that most have not had an opportunity

to view the original portrayal of Hinduism as it is presented in the textbooks

books up for adoption; what specific edits and corrections have been suggested

by the two participating Hindu groups; which of these proposed edits and

corrections were originally approved by an advisory board to the California

State Board of Education; and how opponents of the Hindu efforts would have

Hinduism portrayed. We have provided a summary of events and summary of

textbook changes. HAF Legal Defense and Education Fund Drive HAF

announces the start of the HAF Legal Defense and Education Fund Drive. Through

the month of March, HAF asks Hindus across the U.S. and from around the world to

contribute generously to enable its work at this critical juncture in Hindu

American history. The goal of the HAF Legal Defense and Education Fund Drive

is to raise $ 200,000 by the end of March 2006 to meet mounting expenses due to

HAF's legal efforts in ensuring a fair

and balanced portrayal of Hinduism in public school textbooks up for adoption in

the State of California. The current textbooks accomplish little more than to

perpetuate negative stereotypes and promote prejudice against Hindu Americans,

despite California law prohibiting the adoption of any textbook that reflects

adversely upon persons because of creed or ancestry. The final outcome of this

effort is very much in doubt at this time as opponents to the Hindu effort have

vast resources and influence. HAF seeks to raise $1 million by the end of

2006 to be prepared for future legal battles involving textbooks in other

states and to continue HAF's strong track record in taking a Hindu American

voice to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress in matters involving religious

liberty and human rights and to the media in

presenting fair and balanced coverage of Hinduism. HAF has retained a law firm

in California to represent the Foundation, and by extension, the Hindu American

community at-large in interactions with the California State Board of Education.

Proceeds from this drive will be used to support this effort, and all future

HAF projects and initiatives seeking to improve textbooks and educate fellow

citizens about Hinduism, its practitioners and their concerns and aspirations.

Nothing less than the future of Hindu American children is at stake. Contribute

generously. Contribute now.

BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"

cellSpacing="0" cellPadding="3" width="590" borderColorLight="#c0c0c0"

border="1"> Issues with Current Text The Hindu American Foundation needs

the support of every one of its members at this critical time. The efforts of

Hindus in California to improve 6th grade textbooks so that these books

actually reflect their beliefs and their religious practices have been hijacked

by Michael Witzel, a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University and a few

like-minded colleagues with demonstrable anti-Hindu links. Below, just some of

the acrimonious, cynical and dismissive comments of Professors Witzel, Wolpert

and Heitzman (Witzel, et

al) are seen (For a full viewing of comments made by Witzel, et al on the

specific edits and changes recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee and CRPE Bajpai,

click here) We believe these comments clearly relay the urgency with which

Hindus must counter this insidious Hinduphobia. Justice will triumph with your

support! The Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) and Content Review Panel Expert (CRPE)

Bajpai recommended a correction stating that the Indian epic Ramayana was

written before the Indian epic, Mahabharata. Witzel, et al respond with,

'Who in sixth grade cares which epic was 'written' first?' AHC

and CRPE Bajpai recommended capitalizing ‘g’ in the words God or Gods to better

describe Hinduism as a tradition that is not polytheistic but instead one that

propounds a theology of panentheistic monotheism, recognizing that god is

immanent in all of creation and yet transcendent. Also, since the letter 'G' is

capitalized when referring to God in Christianity, the same respect, with use of

a capital 'G' should be given to Hindu Divinity. Witzel, et al want to retain

the text 'Many gods exist …' AHC and CRPE Bajpai recommended that textbooks

state that women enjoyed different rights than men and received some education.

There is also little or no discussion of the concept of shakti or feminine

divinity and the historical existence of brahmacarinis, sanyasinis and female

saints. (Noteworthy: the textbooks

portray the status of women in Islam sympathetically. They state that even

though women had fewer rights than men, Islam conferred on women several rights

that pre-Islamic Arab society had denied) Witzel, et al want to retain text

that said, 'Hinduism also taught that women were inferior to men.' They did not

want to mention the fact that women were saints and composers of the Vedas,

Hinduism’s ancient texts. Textbooks, while discussing other religions, do not

present the historic misuses of religion to perpetuate social evils such as

slavery, anti-Semitism or holy wars, all of which are part of the history of

other world religions. In contrast, social practices like untouchability and

caste discrimination are presented as central tenets of Hinduism. The textbooks

fail to mention that these are social customs also prevalent in

non-Hindu communities throughout South Asia. They also fail to mention that many

Hindu sacred texts were authored by 'lower castes.' Witzel, et al and their

supporters want to stress that caste discrimination is a central part of

Hinduism and do not want to acknowledge the contributions of ‘untouchables’ to

Hinduism. AHC and CRPE Bajpai suggested that Hinduism be portrayed as a

natural internal development of a composite Indian society, which also included

the Aryans. This suggestion reflects an alternative theory based on the latest

archeological, genetic and astronomical developments. Witzel, et al suggest

that no mention of newer theories that conflict with the Aryan Invasion Theory

(which Witzel, et al propound) be made. They also allege

that mentioning that Aryans were part of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization

was a crude Hindu attempt at creating linkage with that civilization.

(Noteworthy: For the portion on Islamic history, mention of converts to Islam

through conquest has been eliminated) Witzel, et al object to a well-written

explanation of ayurveda and yoga as systems developed by ancient Indians for

spiritual and medical well being. Dangerously, a coalition of anti-Hindu

academics, extreme left-wing activists, evangelical groups seeking converts

from Hinduism in the guise of Dalit advocates, and others who are ignorant

about California’s educational guidelines and Hinduism are working to have the

SBE overturn the original recommendations made by the AHC on November 8, 2005

as well as the latest corrections and edits accepted by

the CC on December 2, 2005. Significantly, these individuals and groups want to

maintain the textbooks as written, which as demonstrated above, misrepresent

Hindu belief and focus on the 'dark side' of Hinduism. They especially would

like to see Hinduism portrayed as a religion of oppression and a religion

foreign to India. Their main motivation: political, social and religious

agendas. The current textbooks, we believe, violate SBE guidelines because they

do not leave a student with respect for Hinduism, and in fact adversely reflect

on the child’s creed and ancestry. If anti-Hindu groups are successful, sixth

graders in California public schools, and in following California’s lead,

children in public schools across the U.S., will learn a warped, outdated

version of Hinduism which is not on par with the

portrayal of other religions. Summary of Events Background Every six

years the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California State

Board of Education (SBE) adopt a number of textbooks for use in public schools.

The Curriculum

Development and Supplemental Materials Commission (Curriculum Commission or CC),

an advisory body to the SBE, makes recommendations for specific edits and

corrections to be made in the textbooks. One of the components to the

corrections process is the opportunity for public comment. Christian, Jewish

and Muslim groups have long been participating. In 2005, two independent

Hindu groups, the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the Hindu Education Foundation

(HEF), unrelated to one another or to the Hindu American Foundation (HAF),

participate by reviewing and proposing edits and corrections for sixth grade

social studies textbooks that dealt with India and Hinduism.

FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Early September 2005 VF and HEF, along with Christian,

Muslim and Jewish groups submit reports to the California Department of

Education identifying extensive inaccuracies on Hinduism and India in the

textbooks. September 30, 2005 CC holds hearing in Sacramento where comments

from the public are heard. Representatives of HAF, VF, HEF, Jewish groups, Sikh

groups, and publishers speak in support of respective proposed edits and

corrections. Due to the high volume of public comments received from all

involved advocacy

groups, CC forms an Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) consisting of select CC members and a

Content Review Panel Expert (CRPE) to review the proposed edits and corrections.

CRPE scholars prescreened for conflicts of interests with the publishers and

advocacy groups. The academic expert retained as the CRPE for Hinduism is Dr.

Shiv Bajpai, Professor Emeritus in History, California State Northridge.

October 2005 AHC and CRPE Bajpai review the VF and HEF proposed edits and

corrections, approving most proposed edits and corrections and rejecting those

changes that do not meet academic scrutiny or do not meet state guidelines.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/socialcontent.pdf CC submits the

recommendations of the AHC and CRPE Bajpai to the SBE. November 8, 2005 CDE

releases a memorandum detailing all of the recommended edits and corrections

submitted to SBE by the CC for approval.

November 9, 2005 SBE President Ruth Green reads a letter from Professor

Michael Witzel, a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, which accuses

the Hindu groups involved in the public corrections process of submitting

unscholarly changes and of being politically and religiously motivated.

Witzel, in his letter, also threatens an "international education scandal" if

the proposed changes are accepted by the SBE. (Noteworthy: no mention is made

in the letter of specific edits or corrections, which concern Witzel or the

remaining cosignatories) In response to Witzel’s letter, the SBE delays

approval of CC recommended edits and

corrections on Hinduism and asks the CC to once again review the edits and

corrections. CC recommended edits and changes for Christianity, Judaism and

Islam are approved during this meeting. November 2005 CDE and SBE, behind

closed doors and without informing either participating Hindu group or CRPE

Bajpai, retain a second panel of CRPEs: Professor Witzel, Professor Wolpert of

UC Los Angeles who is a co-signatory to Witzel’s letter and Professor Heitzman

of UC Davis who is a supporter of Witzel’s letter. (Noteworthy: none of

the members of the second panel are scholars of or have expertise on Hinduism)

November 22, 2005 CDE releases a memorandum containing new final

recommendations, as determined by Witzel, Wolpert and Heitzman, to be submitted

to the SBE. December 1, 2005 HAF issues a letter to SBE President Ruth Green

and all members of the

CC calling attention to the lack of due process and fairness being afforded to

the Hindu groups as well as the conflict of interest in contracting as CRPEs

individuals who themselves are advocates with a stated interest in rejecting

the proposed edits and corrections.December 2, 2005 CC meets to address final

edits and corrections on Ancient India and Hinduism. CC conducts a line item

review of all proposed edits (third review in entire process). A CC member

highlights scientific and archaeological evidence supporting edits and

corrections submitted by Hindu groups.

Arial">CC defers to practicing Hindus over "scholars" as the final authority on

explaining their religious beliefs to sixth graders. CC submits results of this

meeting to SBE. SBE has not addressed or released to the public the changes

recommended during this meeting. December 20, 2005 SBE continues to refuse

open communication with Hindu groups. HAF retains the law firm of Olson, Hagel

and Fishburn, LLP of Sacramento, California to represent the HAF in its

interactions with the SBE. January 5, 2006 Upon being alerted of a private

meeting between the SBE and Witzel (see January 6, 2006), law firm representing

HAF sends a letter to SBE President Ruth Green with regard to private meeting

and highlights that any substantive decisions regarding the content of

textbooks may only be made in a public forum. January 6, 2006 An

unprecedented closed-door meeting is held with select SBE members, Professor

Bajpai and Witzel. HAF, VF and HEF representative are not invited, despite

requests to be present.

Arial">Essentially a fourth review of the proposed edits and corrections is

conducted in which Professors Bajpai and Witzel debate each line item before

SBE members. Where no compromise or concession is met, it has been alleged

that the text will remain as it appears currently. Results of this private

meeting have not yet been made public. Several edits that more accurately

portrayed Hinduism, may have been deleted, according to some sources. January

11, 2006 Prior to the January 12th public SBE meeting, law firm representing

HAF sends a second letter to SBE President Ruth Green urging a fair and open

process. Firm also mentions the issue

of some unaddressed edits submitted by VF that have not yet been considered.

January 12, 2006 Lawyers from firm representing HAF attend public meeting and

urge SBE for a fair and open process during public comments. SBE President

Ruth Green announces the creation of a new sub-committee. SBE appoints a five

SBE member committee, which will make recommendations to the full SBE to

consider at its next meeting on March 8-9, 2006. No further detail has been

given as to the impact of the final recommendations of the CC as of December 2,

2005

or the private meeting between select SBE members, Professor Bajpai and Witzel

held on January 6, 2006 Current events HAF announces its Legal Defense and

Education Fund Drive to meet mounting expenses of HAF's legal efforts, to

prepare for future legal battles involving textbooks in other states and to

continue HAF's strong track record in taking a Hindu American voice to the

Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress in matters involving religious liberty and

human rights and to the media in presenting fair and balanced coverage of

Hinduism. The law firm representing HAF continues to explore all legal and

non-legal avenues in pursuing fairness and openness in the remaining process.

HAF garnering letters supporting the proposed corrections and edits and

original recommendations of the AHC and CRPE Bajpai from well-reputed educators

of Hinduism studies; Hindu spiritual leaders; temple boards; practicing Hindus;

groups that promote human rights and pluralism and fight racism, hate and

bigotry; anti-defamation groups; and elected officials.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE HAF LEGAL DEFENSE FUND AND EDUCATION DRIVEDONATE NOW! | SIGN

THE PETITION Hindu American FoundationP.O. Box 48528Tampa, Florida

33647U.S.A.http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.orgTo , please send an

inquiry through our website

requesting removal from our distribution

list.Tired of

spam? Mail has the best spam protection around

Attachment: (image/jpeg) [not stored]

Attachment: (image/jpeg) [not stored]

Attachment: (image/jpeg) [not stored]