Update: California Textbook Lawsuit Moves Ahead in Court
From Hindu Press International
-------
HPI
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, April 21, 2006: The California Superior Court ordered an expedited schedule be determined in the lawsuit of the Hindu American Foundation against the California State Board of Education over the adoption of sixth grade social studies' books for next school year. The lawsuit was brought when Hindus were dissatisfied with the book review process which left in place inaccuracies, distortions and an unbalanced presentation of Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions. See HPI, March 18, for a summary of the lawsuit issues: here.
In his ruling, Superior court Judge Patrick Marlette stated twice that he was "troubled" by the SBE review process in adopting the books. HAF had charged that what is supposed to be a documented and transparent system of review actually progressed through 2005 and 2006 in a haphazard manner. Parts of the review, HAF contends, were contrary to California State law.
The preliminary injunction was rejected by Marlette in favor of a speedy schedule to resolve the complex case prior to the school year. It would be rare for a preliminary injunction to be issued against a state government. He could have dismissed the case, if he felt it had no merit, but did not. He has instead ordered the SBE and HAF to confer and provide a schedule for hearing the case expeditiously, before the textbooks in question are distributed this fall. He also recommended the two parties explore any possible resolution of the issues between them.
One surprising testimony in the case is that of Stan Metzenberg, a member of the Curriculum Commission whose December 2 decision on the Hindu issues with the textbooks -- and supposed to be the final recommendation -- was tossed out by subsequent SBE actions. The SBE contended the Curriculum Commission failed to follow the guidelines laid out for it in reviewing the proposed Hindu "edits" (as the changes are called). As a result, the SBE held a separate, closed door meeting on January 6 to again review the edits, and arrived at a different set of recommendations less acceptable to Hindus.
Metzenberg, a professor at Northridge University in the California system argues in his testimony that the Commission did indeed follow the Board's instructions. He is no stranger to textbook issues, having been involved in improving the science curriculum in California and testifying before the US Congress on the same issue. During the December 2 meeting, Metzenberg, a molecular biologist, took issue with the claims that there was an "Aryan Invasion" in ancient times in India -- one of the main points of dispute with the texts. He took it upon himself to read the studies that had been done on the genetic makeup of individuals of the Indian subcontinent, and reviewed them with his wife, also a professor at Northridge and an expert in human genetics. At the meeting, he sided with the Hindus against the recommendation of several Western non-Hindu Indologists. In his testimony, he states, "My opinion as a scientist, and what I recommended to my fellow commissioners on December 2, was that Aryan Invasion Theory is not easily supported by genetic evidence, and in fact the preponderance of more recent genetic evidence would tend to rule out a major invasion of Europeans. This is why I believe that it would be inaccurate to portray Aryan Invasion Theory as a fact in California textbooks. Our [the Commission's] addition of a qualified statement, 'Aryan invasion theory has been contradicted by some scholarly evidence,' is a sensible solution."
Metzenberg's testimony carries special weight as he was part of the process of textbook adoption and is supporting the Hindu contention that the Curriculum Commission had followed proper procedure in considering the edits. The Board's contention that the Commission did not proper procedure is a major part of their defense.
Another declaration submitted is that of Dr. Shiva Bajpai, who was hired by the Board as an expert in Indian history to review the proposed edits. Upon the entry of the non-Hindu Indologists in December, he was sidelined in the process. At the critical January 6 meeting in which all contested edits were reviewed again, he was told that changes would only be made if he and Dr. Witzel of Harvard, leader of the non-Hindu Indologist group, agreed. This effectively gave veto power over the edits to Dr. Witzel, with the result that significant edits Hindus sought were not made. Bajpai concludes in his testimony, "It is my view and opinion that if the textbooks reflect only the edits recommended by the subcommittee [mostly the results of the January 6 meeting], those texts will portray Hinduism and Indian history inaccurately and in a manner that puts Hinduism in a rather unfavorable light. It is my view and opinion that the texts continue to require changes to make them comply with the Standards imposed by law for textbooks in California."
Also of interest in the court documents is an Amici Curiae Brief submitted by a group of political and social activist organization including The Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace and the Friends of South Asia. An Amici Curiae Brief is one filed by persons or organizations not directly part of the court case, but who wish to provide input. Most of the Brief is spent critiquing the edits still sought by the Hindu groups, attacking the same groups as "politically motivated," including a flow chart connecting all of them to the RSS in India, even though HAF and the Vedic Foundation -- two key players -- have no organization ties with the RSS, and the association of most others in the chart is tenuous as best.
Toward the end, their Brief states, "Indeed, 126 south Asia faculty and scholars have unequivocally stated that the edits approved by the SBE are an 'important and positive step in providing California school children with more accurate information on Hinduism and Indian history than in the current textbooks.' These faculty and scholars have reached consensus that the textbook edits approved by the SBE are 'a sizeable improvement over the earlier texts in attempting to present responsible scholarship that is sensitive to and respectful of religious and cultural difference.' "
The irony here is that the praised "edits approved by the SBE" are those 75% or so of the edits proposed by the Hindu groups and accepted. There was no input to the edit process by the groups submitting the brief.
The judge at the April 21 hearing requested the groups explore a possibility of settlement. The charges brought against the Board by HAF are fairly extensive, ranging from improper process to the specifics of five issues: women's rights, caste and untouchability, theology, comparison with other faiths and Aryan Invasion. Toward the end of January, prior to the final Board decision on the edits, HAF submitted a document with their recommendation on two dozen or so critical edits related these five issues. This proposal was rejected by the Board, which led to HAF filing the lawsuit. The possibility remains that the Board and HAF could revisit this list of edits and try to work out a solution that does not hold up the entire textbook printing process, as a trial might. A solution based on these specific edits would not address the larger problems with the texts, but it would establish the rights of Hindus to at least an equal part in the process with Western non-Hindu Indologist, many of whom appear to regard Hinduism with contempt. If, however, HAF prevails at trial, then court-ordered changes to the books to bring the treatment of Hinduism on par with the other religious would necessarily be quite extensive, as the court would not be limited to the relatively small corrections allowed in the Board's review process.
-------
HPI
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, April 21, 2006: The California Superior Court ordered an expedited schedule be determined in the lawsuit of the Hindu American Foundation against the California State Board of Education over the adoption of sixth grade social studies' books for next school year. The lawsuit was brought when Hindus were dissatisfied with the book review process which left in place inaccuracies, distortions and an unbalanced presentation of Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions. See HPI, March 18, for a summary of the lawsuit issues: here.
In his ruling, Superior court Judge Patrick Marlette stated twice that he was "troubled" by the SBE review process in adopting the books. HAF had charged that what is supposed to be a documented and transparent system of review actually progressed through 2005 and 2006 in a haphazard manner. Parts of the review, HAF contends, were contrary to California State law.
The preliminary injunction was rejected by Marlette in favor of a speedy schedule to resolve the complex case prior to the school year. It would be rare for a preliminary injunction to be issued against a state government. He could have dismissed the case, if he felt it had no merit, but did not. He has instead ordered the SBE and HAF to confer and provide a schedule for hearing the case expeditiously, before the textbooks in question are distributed this fall. He also recommended the two parties explore any possible resolution of the issues between them.
One surprising testimony in the case is that of Stan Metzenberg, a member of the Curriculum Commission whose December 2 decision on the Hindu issues with the textbooks -- and supposed to be the final recommendation -- was tossed out by subsequent SBE actions. The SBE contended the Curriculum Commission failed to follow the guidelines laid out for it in reviewing the proposed Hindu "edits" (as the changes are called). As a result, the SBE held a separate, closed door meeting on January 6 to again review the edits, and arrived at a different set of recommendations less acceptable to Hindus.
Metzenberg, a professor at Northridge University in the California system argues in his testimony that the Commission did indeed follow the Board's instructions. He is no stranger to textbook issues, having been involved in improving the science curriculum in California and testifying before the US Congress on the same issue. During the December 2 meeting, Metzenberg, a molecular biologist, took issue with the claims that there was an "Aryan Invasion" in ancient times in India -- one of the main points of dispute with the texts. He took it upon himself to read the studies that had been done on the genetic makeup of individuals of the Indian subcontinent, and reviewed them with his wife, also a professor at Northridge and an expert in human genetics. At the meeting, he sided with the Hindus against the recommendation of several Western non-Hindu Indologists. In his testimony, he states, "My opinion as a scientist, and what I recommended to my fellow commissioners on December 2, was that Aryan Invasion Theory is not easily supported by genetic evidence, and in fact the preponderance of more recent genetic evidence would tend to rule out a major invasion of Europeans. This is why I believe that it would be inaccurate to portray Aryan Invasion Theory as a fact in California textbooks. Our [the Commission's] addition of a qualified statement, 'Aryan invasion theory has been contradicted by some scholarly evidence,' is a sensible solution."
Metzenberg's testimony carries special weight as he was part of the process of textbook adoption and is supporting the Hindu contention that the Curriculum Commission had followed proper procedure in considering the edits. The Board's contention that the Commission did not proper procedure is a major part of their defense.
Another declaration submitted is that of Dr. Shiva Bajpai, who was hired by the Board as an expert in Indian history to review the proposed edits. Upon the entry of the non-Hindu Indologists in December, he was sidelined in the process. At the critical January 6 meeting in which all contested edits were reviewed again, he was told that changes would only be made if he and Dr. Witzel of Harvard, leader of the non-Hindu Indologist group, agreed. This effectively gave veto power over the edits to Dr. Witzel, with the result that significant edits Hindus sought were not made. Bajpai concludes in his testimony, "It is my view and opinion that if the textbooks reflect only the edits recommended by the subcommittee [mostly the results of the January 6 meeting], those texts will portray Hinduism and Indian history inaccurately and in a manner that puts Hinduism in a rather unfavorable light. It is my view and opinion that the texts continue to require changes to make them comply with the Standards imposed by law for textbooks in California."
Also of interest in the court documents is an Amici Curiae Brief submitted by a group of political and social activist organization including The Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace and the Friends of South Asia. An Amici Curiae Brief is one filed by persons or organizations not directly part of the court case, but who wish to provide input. Most of the Brief is spent critiquing the edits still sought by the Hindu groups, attacking the same groups as "politically motivated," including a flow chart connecting all of them to the RSS in India, even though HAF and the Vedic Foundation -- two key players -- have no organization ties with the RSS, and the association of most others in the chart is tenuous as best.
Toward the end, their Brief states, "Indeed, 126 south Asia faculty and scholars have unequivocally stated that the edits approved by the SBE are an 'important and positive step in providing California school children with more accurate information on Hinduism and Indian history than in the current textbooks.' These faculty and scholars have reached consensus that the textbook edits approved by the SBE are 'a sizeable improvement over the earlier texts in attempting to present responsible scholarship that is sensitive to and respectful of religious and cultural difference.' "
The irony here is that the praised "edits approved by the SBE" are those 75% or so of the edits proposed by the Hindu groups and accepted. There was no input to the edit process by the groups submitting the brief.
The judge at the April 21 hearing requested the groups explore a possibility of settlement. The charges brought against the Board by HAF are fairly extensive, ranging from improper process to the specifics of five issues: women's rights, caste and untouchability, theology, comparison with other faiths and Aryan Invasion. Toward the end of January, prior to the final Board decision on the edits, HAF submitted a document with their recommendation on two dozen or so critical edits related these five issues. This proposal was rejected by the Board, which led to HAF filing the lawsuit. The possibility remains that the Board and HAF could revisit this list of edits and try to work out a solution that does not hold up the entire textbook printing process, as a trial might. A solution based on these specific edits would not address the larger problems with the texts, but it would establish the rights of Hindus to at least an equal part in the process with Western non-Hindu Indologist, many of whom appear to regard Hinduism with contempt. If, however, HAF prevails at trial, then court-ordered changes to the books to bring the treatment of Hinduism on par with the other religious would necessarily be quite extensive, as the court would not be limited to the relatively small corrections allowed in the Board's review process.
at 11:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home