|
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept.
8, 2006) – The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) legal
team continued to receive wide acclaim for the landmark ruling
last week that upheld its contention that the California State
Board of Education (SBE) followed an illegal process in adopting
sixth grade social studies textbooks. The mixed ruling in
California Superior Court, however, denied HAF’s demand
that if the process followed in adopting the Hinduism section
of textbooks was illegal, then all of those texts already
published must be thrown out and the adoption process revisited.
In a statement released today, HAF highlighted sections of
the ruling that they felt had not adequately been covered
in press reports thus far and responded to comments from a
group that tried to oppose HAF’s efforts.
“It’s important
to reiterate that HAF at no time submitted any edits or revisions
in the textbook adoption process, and HAF only entered this
controversy when the SBE acted arbitrarily and behind closed
doors, depriving Hindus of a fair and open process, said Suhag
Shukla, Esq., legal counsel for HAF. “We knew going
into the lawsuit that a good number of revisions suggested
by Hindu groups had already been accepted and the books had
been improved—though far from perfect—but our
focus was on proving the illegality of SBE actions vis-à-vis
Hindus.”
In his extensive ruling
covering the illegalities of the SBE and the merits of the
texts, Judge Patrick Marlette’s first decision was to
reject outright an amicus curiae, or friend of the court,
brief that a coalition led by Friends of South Asia (FOSA)
attempted to introduce. According to its website,
FOSA sponsors activities that seek to “build Indian
communism and fight the agenda of the global ruling class.”
The group worked with some non-Hindu and avowedly anti-Hindu
groups to file the brief together.
A six page rebuttal from
the HAF legal team to the FOSA led effort argued that the
amicus brief did not provide “any substantive legal
nor adequate factual support for the assertions contained
in their proposed brief, relying instead on materials that
are not properly subject to judicial notice, as well as several
irrelevant and highly objectionable declarations.”
Judge Marlette agreed with HAF and refused
to consider the brief. With that ruling, FOSA and other anti-Hindu
groups were effectively shut out of the entire legal process
and their allegations played no part in the judge’s
ultimate ruling. HAF leaders expressed surprise that some
journalists sought out FOSA members to comment on the ruling
when their anti-Hindu stance was ignored in the judge’s
ruling.
“Hindu parents worked hard in California
to bring on par the representation of the religion they practice
with the presentation of other major world religions in the
textbooks,” said Swaminathan Venkataraman, a member
of the HAF Executive Council. “While FOSA’s devotion
to communism may force it to repudiate all religion, it is
ironic that they reflexively opposed only Hindu efforts in
the name of ‘secularism’—completely ignoring
major revisions to sections covering other faiths prevalent
in South Asia including Christianity, Islam and Judaism—and
tragic that it also ran an ugly communal campaign by co-opting
non-Hindu groups to openly oppose Hindu parents and students.”
Sections of the texts on the other three religions were significantly
modified in response to comments from the Institute for Curriculum
Services, the Anti-Defamation League and the National Council
of Jewish Women, and the Council on Islamic Education.
HAF leaders also criticized again the SBE
process that illegally allowed Michael Witzel, a professor
at Harvard University who teaches linguistics, to accuse only
Hindus of sectarianism and act as a reviewer even after Professor
Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus of religion and history from
California State University-Northridge had already reviewed
the proposed edits and corrections to the textbooks.
“Allowing Prof. Witzel to poison the
process with his ugly accusations of sectarianism was only
the first error in an illegal SBE process,” said Shukla.
“With this ruling, Hindu Americans have collectively
demonstrated that we will never again accept unequal or discriminatory
treatment instigated by the overt hostility of a cabal of
anti-Hindu academics. Hindus must insist that a panel of professors
who actually teach, and in many cases even practice Hinduism,
such as those that supported HAF in the lawsuit, must be included
in the process over those that are antagonistic to practicing
Hindus.”
Academics who supported HAF’s contention
that there are significant inaccuracies and discrepancies
in the Hinduism section of the textbooks included a past president
of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and current co-chairs
of the Hinduism Unit of the AAR.
The Hindu American Foundation
is a non-profit 501(c)(3), non-partisan organization, promoting
the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance
and pluralism.
|
