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.”

SACRAMENTO, Ca (Sep. 1, 2006) - The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) prevailed today in its legal action on behalf of Hindu parents from California against the California School Board of Education (SBE). But in a mixed ruling, the demand by HAF that the SBE be required to throw out the currently approved textbooks and revisit the entire textbook adoption process was denied.

HAF brought the lawsuit contending that the procedure through which the SBE reviewed and approved revisions in sixth grade textbooks, especially as to their presentation of Hinduism, was not conducted under regulations required under the California Administrative Procedures Act and contravened the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. As a result, HAF held, anti-Hindu academics were illegally allowed to bias the process against Hindu parents and students in California resulting in textbooks that presented the debunked Aryan Migration Theory as fact, misrepresented caste as central to Hinduism and left the impression that Hinduism devalued the role of women.

In his ruling on Hindu American Foundation, et al., v. California State Board of Education, et al, Case No. 06 CS 00386, Judge Patrick Marlette of the California Superior Court upheld HAF’s claim that the textbook adoption process was flawed and illegal. Judge Marlette wrote that the California SBE, “at all times relevant to this matter has been conducting its textbook approval process under invalid ‘underground regulations.’” He withheld an opinion on the violation of the open meeting act deciding that since the entire process was already “invalid” a specific ruling would be redundant.

In his conflicted ruling, however, Judge Marlette ruled that the “relief” demanded by HAF—that is to reject the textbooks adopted under an illegal process—would be disruptive not only to those affected sixth graders, but potentially every California public school student using any and every textbooks adopted under the SBE’s unlawful policies. Judge Marlette wrote, “The Court therefore determines…that respondent [SBE] should be permitted a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its regulatory framework governing the textbook approval process…while maintaining the current system in the interim.”

“We are pleased, of course, that Judge Marlette agreed with our position all along that the process in adopting the textbooks was flawed and illegal,” said Suhag Shukla, Esq., legal counsel of HAF who coordinated the lawsuit with attorneys at Olson Hagel and Fishburn, LLP in representing HAF and Hindu parents. “It would seem logical that if the process was illegal, then the resulting textbooks must be tossed out and the adoption process repeated. Apparently, Judge Marlette is reluctant to reject possibly millions of books, in addition to those in this case covering sixth grade social studies, that could be implicated and allowed them to stand for now—that is very disappointing.”

Despite stating that he considered the declarations and correspondences attesting to the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the Hinduism section of adopted textbooks from several scholars that actually teach Hinduism, including a past president of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and current co-chairs of the Hinduism Unit of the AAR, Judge Marlette held that the textbooks were not necessarily illegal in terms of the standards set forth by the education code because they were not “grossly inaccurate.”

HAF attorneys interpreted the ruling to mean that the focus of Hindu parents and HAF in California and other states should shift to changing the standards and framework that set the criteria that must be covered in any textbook covering Hinduism. If those standards accurately reflect the Hinduism that most Hindus practice, then the textbooks will necessarily comply. Current standards, they held, are grossly outdated and inaccurate.

So while the process followed in adopting the contentious Hinduism sections, and all recently approved textbooks in California, was illegal—as HAF had argued—the judge apparently decided against a sweeping ruling that could open the door to other lawsuits discarding textbooks in the most populous state in the United States. HAF attorneys are considering their options for an appeal of this lawsuit to force revisions to the Hinduism section in the contested textbooks.

Importantly, Judge Marlette read versions of the textbooks that already had been significantly improved in their coverage of Hinduism due to the efforts of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation. This success was in spite of the efforts of a subsection of non-Hindu academics historically antagonistic to practitioners of Hinduism, and a coalition of Indian communist and anti-Hindu groups.

While the immediate goal of revising textbooks beyond the changes was unmet, HAF leaders expressed satisfaction that their efforts will ultimately benefit all Californians in having reinstated public accountability to the actions of the SBE.

“Over 14 years ago, in 1992, another California court ordered the SBE to revamp its textbook adoption processes to bring it in compliance with the law and all of this time, the SBE has been ignoring that. It’s taken HAF’s lawsuit to put the SBE’s proverbial feet to the fire,” said Shukla. “HAF, and the efforts of a talented team of attorneys at Olson Hagel and Fishburn, have ensured that the SBE will end its pattern of misleading California public school students by acting arbitrarily, and in the case of Hindus, unfairly and inequitably.”

Judge Marlette in his ruling also rejected outright an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief against HAF and Hindu parents filed by a coalition of anti-Hindu and communist groups, as it lacked merit and relevance.