From: Kamala Visweswaran
Sent: 05 September 2006 00:00
To: newsouthasia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: California Court rules for State Board of Education
1) a summary by FOSA and 2) a summary by Michael Witzel.
___________________________________________________
(1) Update:
As you are aware, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) had filed a lawsuit
against the California State Board of Education (SBE) because SBE refused to
accept some of the sectarian changes demanded by HAF to the proposed new
social-science/ history textbooks for the sixth grade.
In a judgment delivered today, Judge Marlette of the Superior Court of
California has upheld that the textbooks as approved by the SBE meet all
legal requirements of accuracy and neutrality, and has denied HAF's demand
that the textbooks be rescinded.
Background:
The HAF's complaint against the SBE was mainly on two counts:
(a) procedural issues: HAF complained that the SBE did not have proper
procedures in place to approve textbooks, and
(b) substantive claim of discrimination: HAF claimed that the sixth grade
ancient world history books (as approved by the SBE) were presenting the
students with a negative portrayal of Hinduism, and this violated the
neutrality requirements of the CA education code. It was this claim that
many secular community groups, including FOSA, CAC, FeTNA, CSFH, ACJP and
the Dalit Gurudwaras, and scholars of South Asia vigorously opposed,
pointing out that the version of history that HAF is promoting is sectarian
and inaccurate.
The Ruling:
Today (September 1, 2006) the Court held a hearing on the writ of mandate
for the case. The ruling states the following:
1. The Court upholds the complaint that the Board of Education has not
updated its procedures to match the current legal requirements, and the
Court instructs SBE to set them up.
2. The Court has REJECTED the HAF claims that the books are discriminatory.
This is a very significant ruling, upholding the point of view of the
secular community groups and scholars of South Asia.
The Court noted in its ruling that the Petitioner (HAF) would like the Court
to conclude from Point 1 above that the sixth grade history textbooks are
invalid, because all the procedures are not in place. However, that could
potentially invalidate many of the existing books and have far-reaching,
unintended consequences. In view of this, the Court took the extraordinary
step of reviewing all of the challenged sixth grade history textbooks
*independently* and judged them as meeting all legal regulatory requirements
of accuracy and neutrality. This means, that even though SBE erred in not
having the proper procedures in place, the textbooks themselves are valid
and will remain exactly as they were approved by the SBE.
It must be noted here that the substantive issues of discrimination were the
most crucial ones for all groups involved: the HAF as well as the community
groups and scholars who opposed the changes demanded by the HAF. The
procedural issues were only raised by the lawyers of HAF as a way to try and
invalidate the textbooks. This is evident from the fact that HAF had
publicly stated that it would not sue SBE if 18 of its proposed edits were
accepted, regardless of valid or invalid procedures.
On the substantive issues, it is important to note that the Court's
observations on all the key issues under dispute, caste, status of women,
aryan migration/invasion, theology, reflect the arguments advanced all along
by the various scholars and community groups.
Textbook content under dispute:
The most contentious issue was HAF's demand that the textbooks downplay the
effects of gender and caste inequalities on significant segments of society
in ancient India. Most of these suggestions were dismissed outright by the
court. For instance,
* On the issue of caste and patriarchy: The HAF had wanted the textbooks to
whitewash the issues by cutting out discussions of the negative aspects and
presenting the remaining as good for society! The HAF argued that
discussions of caste and gender inequalities create a negative impression
about Hinduism amongst students.
The Court ruled:
"The caste system is a historical reality, and indisputably was a
significant feature of ancient Indian society. Nothing in the applicable
standards requires textbook writers to ignore a historical reality of such
significant dimension, even if studying it might engender certain negative
reactions in students. Indeed, it appears to the Court that to omit
treatment of the caste system from the teaching of ancient Indian history
would itself be grossly inaccurate."....
"Just as the regulation does not require textbooks to ignore unpleasant
historical realities, it does not require them to present such realities in
an unnaturally positive light... "
"On all of these points, the possibility, or even probability, that some
students might react negatively, based on their own religious, political or
social beliefs, to what they read in these books does not make the books
legally invalid. The law does not insure against negative reactions or
prejudices, it merely requires that the textbooks not instill them. .."
* On the issue of Aryan Migration/ Invasion: The updated textbooks
present the migrations of Indo-Aryans into present-day India from Central
Asia as the accepted theory of Aryan arrival in India. During the review
process, the SBE had directed the publishers to also add a sentence that
this theory is under "debate." However, HAF wanted SBE to present the
so-called theory of Aryan indigeniety (that Indo-Aryans originated in India)
as equally valid history. This demand by HAF was also opposed by scholars,
South Asian faculty, and community groups as false and historially
inaccurate.
The Court denied the HAF demand, ruling that:
"First, it appears from the evidence submitted by respondent [SBE] that the
publishers of the challenged textbooks have in fact been directed to
recognize the ultimate uncertainty of these theories, at least in general
terms."
"More fundamentally, even if such direction had not been given, the texts
would not be invalid for that reason. While some scholars may question the
Aryan invasion or migration theories, there is no showing that such theories
are not widely or even generally accepted at this point, such that
presenting them without significant qualification would be grossly
inaccurate. "
* On the issue of Hindu theology: HAF had argued that the textbooks were
wrong in describing Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, and in their use of
the term "gods and goddesses" instead of "God" or "various forms of the
Divine". They had also suggested that portraying Hinduism as a polytheistic
religion promotes a *negative* image of the religion in a child's mind.
Community groups and faculty had also opposed this proposed edit since
polytheistic strains are very much a part of the lived tradition of
Hinduism.
To this the Court ruled,
"The argument focuses on the use in some of the texts of the terminology
"gods and goddesses" instead of terms such as the actual Hindu terms "devi"
and "devata" or even "various forms of the Divine", which petitioners [HAF]
contend is a more accurate way to describe Hindu religious belief. Beyond
that, petitioners charge that some of the texts do not adequately state that
a significant current of Hindu belief sees all deities as manifestations of
a single absolute divinity, or recognize that there are many forms of Hindu
belief. Petitioners' contentions on this point are not persuasive. At
most, they have demonstrated that there may be differing English words that
could be used to describe the manifestations of the divine in Hindu
religious belief, but not that the words chosen in any particular textbook
are grossly inaccurate."
In sum, the Court ruled that even though the SBE should have put updated
procedures in place prior to the review and adoption process, the textbooks
as such are not flawed. As such, the Court judged the textbooks to be
accurate and neutral, and upheld their legal validity.
"[T]he essential inquiry is whether the texts appear to be neutral. In this
case, the Court finds that they are, and thus do not violate the applicable
standards."
"Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioners [HAF] have not
demonstrated that the challenged textbooks violate applicable legal
standards. The relief that will be granted in this matter therefore shall
not include an order that a writ of mandate issue requiring respondent to
rescind its approval of the challenged texts or take steps to remove them
from use."
The full text of the ruling can be obtained from:
http://www.saccourt
.com/courtrooms/ trulings/ dept19/sep1d19- -06cs00386. doc
(2)
HINDUTVA GROUPS DEFEATED IN CALIFORNIA COURT
IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO SAFFRONIZE TEXTBOOKS
Sacramento,
California, Sept. 1, 2006, 2: 40 p.m. PST
As we have been predicting for long, the California court has ruled
*against* the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and *for* the State Board of
Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE) in all
matters of the content of the current (2006) textbooks.
The judge sums up, in Legalese: '.. the Court has not found that the
content of the textbooks challenged in this action violates applicable legal
standards, the writ shall not include any provision requiring respondent
[SBE/CDE] to rescind its approval of those textbooks or otherwise take steps
to remove them from use.'
This denial of the HAF petition concerns all points regarding the caste
system, position of women, description of Hindu gods/goddesses, and the
so-called 'Aryan invasion' or Aryan immigration. (See HIGHLIGHTS below)
Thus, the court has upheld the current version of the textbooks, already
printed and in the school districts.
In addition, the court has ordered the State Board of Education/Department
of Education to come up, during a suitable period of time, with more
detailed rules for ALL future adoptions of textbooks. This does not affect
the current textbooks (now in use for the next 6 years).
This order will be very beneficial for future cases, as SBE/CDE are not
required to accept any proposed edits, never have so in the past, and in
fact have made a mistake bending over backwards for such groups. That for
sure *will not* happen again.
In sum: HAF, VF, and HEF have lost on all counts as far as the textbooks
are concerned. Their current printed version will stand.
Those who have fought this Hindutva onslaught since last November, even in
the face of numerous smear campaigns, are totally vindicated. As major
smear campaigner Rajaram un-prophetically wished recently: Let the courts
decide!
The court decision also does not bode well for future Hindutva initiatives
in other states.
My congratulations and warm thanks to all involved.
Michael Witzel
-------------------------------
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE COURT DECISION of 9/1/2006
Quoted verbatim (except for my headings and a few [comments] ):
Court finds that the challenged texts comply with the applicable legal
standards.
Petitioners [HAF] claim that there are a number of significant inaccuracies
.. The Court finds that petitioners have not demonstrated that respondent's
[SBE/CDE] approval of the challenged texts should be invalidated on this
basis .. the inaccuracies have been corrected in the final versions of the
texts
CASTE SYSTEM
The caste system is a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant
feature of ancient Indian society.
.. it appears to the Court that to omit treatment of the caste system from
the teaching of ancient Indian history would itself be grossly inaccurate.
Just as the regulation does not require textbooks to ignore unpleasant
historical realities, it does not require them to present such realities in
an unnaturally positive light. Moreover, nothing in the challenged texts
uses the discussion of the caste system as a take-off point for comparing
Hinduism unfavorably with other religions, or for advocating other religions
over Hinduism. In this respect, the texts therefore have satisfied the
requirement of neutrality.
WOMEN AND DEITIES
... status of women in ancient Indian society, and their description of
Hindu religious belief in numerous deities as multiple aspects of the
absolute divinity.
These discussions appear on their face to be neutral, objective,
dispassionate, factually accurate, not derogatory or accusatory in their
tone, and not such as would instill prejudice against the Hindu religion or
believers. Such passages are descriptive and do not advocate certain
religions over others.
.. The law does not insure against negative reactions or prejudices, it
merely requires that the textbooks not instill them. The challenged books
meet that requirement
[Petitioners, HAF] have not demonstrated that the textbooks' description of
Hindu theology are grossly inaccurate.
In the Court's view, the books broadly and accurately describe the outlines
of Hindu religious belief, which is all the law requires.
.. the Court finds that the manner in which the books treat the Hindu
religion does not violate this standard.
.. the Court finds nothing in the way of derogatory language or examples
from sacred texts or other religious literature that could be classified as
derogatory, accusatory or that would instill prejudice against the Hindu
religion or its faithful
.. Nothing in this discussion appears to the Court to violate the
applicable standard. .. Similarly, petitioners have not persuaded the Court
that the textbooks tend to favor religions such as Christianity or Judaism
over Hinduism
'ARYAN INVASION'
.. so-called "Aryan invasion" or "Aryan migration" theories ..
.. First, it appears from the evidence submitted by respondent [SBE/CDE]
that the publishers of the challenged textbooks have in fact been directed
to recognize the ultimate uncertainty of these theories, at least in general
terms.
More fundamentally, even if such direction had not been given, the texts
would not be invalid for that reason. While some scholars may question the
Aryan invasion or migration theories, there is no showing that such theories
are not widely or even generally accepted at this point, such that
presenting them without significant qualification would be grossly
inaccurate.
Moreover .. the History-Social Science Content Standards for California
Public Schools specifically require sixth-grade students to study and
recognize the significance of the Aryan invasions of India.
The Court therefore does not find that the references to Aryan invasions or
migrations make the textbooks grossly inaccurate or otherwise in violation
of law.
IN GENERAL
.. the essential inquiry is whether the texts appear to be neutral. In this
case, the Court finds that they are, and thus do not violate the applicable
standards.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioners have not
demonstrated that the challenged textbooks violate applicable legal
standards.
.. the Court has not found that the content of the textbooks challenged in
this action violates applicable legal standards, the writ shall not include
any provision requiring respondent to rescind its approval of those
textbooks or otherwise take steps to remove them from use.
LEGALESE PROCEDURAL part: [requirement to prepare more detailed
regulations for *future* textbook adoptions]
The Court grants the petition for writ of mandate based upon its finding
that respondent has not complied with a specific statutory mandate that it
enact regulations governing its textbook approval process as formal
regulations pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. A writ of
mandate shall issue to require respondent to comply with that statutory
mandate within a time certain, such time to be established by the Court,
along with any other terms required to preserve the status quo in the
interim.
Since the ruling on the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] issue addresses
the validity of the entire existing textbook adoption process, the Court
declines to address the violations of the Open Meeting Act that petitioners
allege took place during that process.
Finally, because the Court has not found that the content of the textbooks
challenged in this action violates applicable legal standards, the writ
shall not include any provision requiring respondent to rescind its approval
of those textbooks or otherwise take steps to remove them from use.
=================
PS. The CAPEEM case.
There remains another case, precariously suspended like Trita in the well.
It is based on some very general items (the 14th and 1st constitutional
amendments: equal protection and free speech/free association).
It was brought by a new, so-called parent group (CAPEEM) that was founded
only after the decision of the State Board of Education on March 8. The case
had first been registered at the Federal Court in Seattle on March 14, but
had to be re-registered in California as the group itself did not even
legally exist when their lawyer brought the case to court.
The lawsuit is now in animate suspension in the Eastern District Court of
California. On August 11, the judge did *not allow* the case to go forward
against the State Board and the Dept. of Education. Instead, gave CAPEEM 20
days time to reformulate their complaint against *individual* members of the
Board and Department, that is, until yesterday.
Specialists think that this case is even weaker than the HAF one, and quite
amateurish at that (as above history clearly indicates). Amusingly, some
Hindutvavadins since January, have touted this then already prepared
lawsuit as 'professionally planned.'
We await the eventual decision of the court in all serenity.
M.W.
