Position Paper and report on Harvard Debate with Prof. Witzel last week

[Guest guest]

Krishna-- --

Krishna Maheshwarikmaheshwari (AT) mba2007 (DOT) hbs.edu

kkm9 (AT) cornell (DOT) edu--

The guidelines for religious education set down by the CDE [California Education

Code, 60044(a,b)] mandate that the curriculum "Instill in each child a sense of

pride in his or her heritage; develop a feeling of self-worth; eradicate the

roots of prejudice...and enable all students to become aware and accepting of

religious diversity while being allowed to remain secure in any religious

beliefs they may already have". The guidelines also state that no religion can

be portrayed as an improvement on another religion, and that no religion can be

portrayed as inferior to any other religion. These guidelines were created

because it is important to introduce students to the religious beliefs of their

classmates in as respectful a manner as possible, especially at the introductory

level. These guidelines, however, are not being followed in respect to the

depiction of Hinduism. As a result, it is necessary for the textbooks to be

changed, the corrections suggested by the Vedic Foundation and Hindu Education

Foundation are an important step in the right direction.

The textbooks contain numerous factual errors, such as the statement that Hindi

is written in Arabic or that the Ramayana was composed after the Mahabharata.

In addition, the textbooks use a very disrespectful tone when describing Hindu

beliefs. For example, when describing the Ramayana, one textbook states that

monkeys are said to be present whenever the story is told and instructs the

children to look for monkeys. This is a totally unnecessary statement that will

invite non-Hindu kids to tease their classmates and that trivializes the respect

for nature that is so central to Hindu philosophy. Most troublingly, the

textbooks describe certain aspects of Indian history, such as caste

discrimination, as teachings of Hindu philosophy rather than as social problems

of the kind that have plagued all of the world's major religions. On the other

hand, almost no mention is made of the positive aspects of Hinduism such as the

liberating yogas, the combination of science with spirituality and Hinduism’s

long tradition of tolerance.

Finally, it is troubling that while one standard has been used to describe

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, a vastly different and more negative standard

has been applied to Hinduism. Hindu scriptures are dismissed as myths or

legends, whereas the Bible and Koran are treated as accurate historical

accounts. The theologies of other religions are described in detail, whereas

Hindu philosophy is almost entirely ignored in favor of discussions about cows,

monkeys, and social problems. Buddhism is often represented as an improvement on

Hinduism (in direct violation of CDE guidelines), whereas Christianity is not

portrayed as an improvement over Judaism. Lastly, the textbook publishers have

been very careful to separate social problems in other religions from religious

beliefs. For example, the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, and witch burning

are not described as fundamental aspects of Christian theology, since they are

historical events that do not reflect the beliefs of American Christians.

Because of these differences in presentation, students will inevitably draw the

conclusion that Hinduism is inferior to other religions. Many people have lost

sight of the real reason for having a religious studies curriculum in the 6th

grade. In our multi-cultural society, it is imperative that students learn how

to respect the religious beliefs of other Americans. The 6th grade is the first

year in which religions are taught in public schools; for many students, it will

be the first time they are exposed to a religion other than their own. If

students are taught to be prejudiced against Hinduism or any other religion at

this age, that prejudice will be very difficult to eradicate later in life.

Therefore it is vital to teach all religions respectfully and to emphasize what

American practitioners of those religions believe. The CDE and publishers are to

be commended for the manner in which they have portrayed other religions,

because those portrayals help promote harmony and respect; all that is now

being asked is that our religion and our community be given the same

sympathetic treatment. The following are excerpts from an eye-witness account

of the meeting

held in Harvard Univ. on CA Textbooks issue on 3 Feb. 2006.

The debate was organized by the Harvard Dharma student club in a room a capacity

of about 100 people. The room was full. Most attendees were students with

several community members also present. Prof. Witzel opened the discussion with

a ten minute presentation on his background and a history of how he got involved

in the California textbook revision process for the edits recommended by HEF and

VF. He stated that he understands second generation American issues as he has

son born and brought up in that the edits being presented were by groups that

had associations with fundamentalist organizations. He agreed that textbooks

required revisions, but felt that the current revisions were not correct

because they did not stand up to a scholarly interpretation of history.

Krishna Maheshwari, a Harvard Business School student, spoke as a person who has

been following the California issue with interest but has not been involved with

any of the organizations involved. He was introduced as a co-founder of Hindu

Student Council of Cornell He began the debate by explaining how the portrayal

of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are presented with an insiders

point-of-view and present as fact events which are debated in academic circles

and have no authoritative claim on reality (ie. The fact that Mohammad had

visions is present as fact, but is not proven). He repeatedly asserted that the

presentation of materials on Hinduism needs to be on par with that of other

world religions and follow the regulations of California (which they currently

do not). In addition, he kept pointing out that the books are written for sixth

graders and the current text has physiologically harmed many Hindu kids and

encouraged other kids to not only have a negative feeling of India and Hinduism

but has resulted in them mocking their fellow Hindu peers. This is something

that damages the multi-cultural fabric of the United States.

Discussions and questions:

Krishna, and three more second generation Americans in the audience provided there

experiences when they were students of 5th-7th grade, how the text books were

denigrates when referring Hindu (asking the question “Where is the Beef” when

talking about vegetarianism, etc).

One white American girl in the audience was sympathetic and also shared her

school experience. At that time, another audience member got up and referred to

the letter written on Harvard letterhead and written by Prof. Witzel claiming

support of a legion of experts in Hinduism. He proceeded to point out that the

background of most of the signers ware in random topics including a professor

of Roman Entertainment—thus, the backing that Prof. Witzel claimed to have was

ephemeral.

A point brought out by several audience members was that the edits were not

inclusive of all the philosophy of Hinduism. Mr. Maheshwari pointed out that

the proposed edits were did not claim to be fully inclusive and infact the

foundations did not have the space to be all inclusive in their edits. However,

the edits were also made in a general manner and thus, were not exclusive of any

Hindu group. Another topic that came up was the fact that the texts in

California state that the Ramayana came after the Mahabharat. On this topic,

Prof. Witzel claimed that according to evidence in the texts, this was correct.

Mr. Maheshwari immediately asked why the Mahabharata refers to the Ramayana many

times and not vice versa? The professor didn’t respond. An audience member got

up and asked:

"I am Indian born, educated in India, have daughter going to school here so I am

a concerned parent. I understand frustrations expressed by some of the second

generation folks. I appreciate your work on Sanskrit and your eleventh hour

jump in the CA issue out of concern. You mentioned that the text books were not

perfect. You also accepted that books in the past did not appropriately

represent Hinduism or Ancient India. So I would like to ask, in your 30+ years

of dedicated work, did you ever try before to change anywhere textbooks to make

sure good impression of Hinduism?” On this question, Prof. Witzel smiled and

said very good question. But couldn't answer directly, but claimed ignorance.

He mentioned that had he known earlier he would have written a book himself. He

also mentioned that he had planned on writing a high school text book but it got

“snatched” by someone else.

Later on, Prof. Witzel, mentioned that the edits state that God in Hinduism is

presented as “Bhagwan” when that is a term used by Vaishnavs (a group of

Hindus) while the term “Ishwar” is used by Shaivites, another group. Mr.

Maheshwari mentioned that these terms are not exclusively used by the two

groups and are often interchangeable. On this, an audience member said,

"Krishna Maheshwari who refers to himself as a Vaishnav (in his talk) and in

his last name there is Ishwar, so what do you want to say?" Prof. Witzel

remained quiet. The same person than asked whether the Prof. had read the

textbooks himself and/or the edits prior to writing his original protest

letter. The professor responded by saying that "It is a court issue and I

cannot say anything". It is not known if there is a court case involving the

professor that would prevent the Professor from answering this question.

During the discussion, a point was brought up that the textbooks mention “gods”

and “god” with a lowercase G. The professor said that this is because Hindus

have multiple gods and why they can’t just accept it like the Chinese and

Japanese who have thousands of gods—why do Hindus want to be like Abrahamic

religions. Mr. Maheshwari responded by saying that Hindu belief is that there

is one God who has infinite manifestations.

Many times during the debate, Prof. Witzel fumbled through one of the textbooks

he brought (which is out of an approximate 6 foot pile of textbooks on which

edits were presented) and showed counter-examples to Mr. Maheshwari’s

arguments. In fact, he seemed to believe a lot in counterexamples than actually

arguing his case. Mr. Maheshwari mentioned after these counter examples, that

the representation of Hindusim was generally negative across the textbooks and

the one book Prof. Witzel repeatedly pointed to was not representative of the

set. Several times Witzel tried to discuss the link of the Hindu foundations to

allegedly fanatic organizations in India. Mr. Maheshwari effectively argued

against defamation based on association by showing what happens if we take the

same argument with the Prof. in the center. He asked, “Professor Witzel is

German and the Nazi’s were German, so by the same argument, we have to ask

whether the Prof. is a Nazi? I certainly don’t think so, but you can understand

why this line of argument is incorrect.” After Mr. Maheshwari's defence of the

Hindu organizations, the Prof. took a sly swipe at Mr. Maheshwari by saying

that Mr. Maheshwari was toeing the party line. Mr. Maheshwari asked the

Professor “which party are you referring to? I am not affiliated with any of

the involved parties.”

Attachment: (application/msword) Debate with Prof. Witzel on Ca Textbook edits -

Position Paper.doc [not stored]

Attachment: (application/msword) Debate with Prof. Witzel on Ca Textbook edits -

Report.doc [not stored]