Jump to content

California textbook controversy over Hindu history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.83.131.139 (talk) at 00:45, 23 August 2006 (removed unsourced (cited source does not mention dismissal with prejudice) original research). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|March 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Part of a series on
Hinduism
Origins
Historical

Traditional

Sampradaya (Traditions)
Major Sampradaya (Traditions)
Deities
Other major Devas / Devis
Vedic Deities:
Post-Vedic:
Concepts
Worldview
Ontology
God
Mokṣa-related topics:
Mind
Ethics
Practices
Worship, sacrifice, and charity
Meditation
Philosophical schools
Other schools
Gurus, Rishi, Philosophers
Modern
Texts
Divisions
Rigveda:
Yajurveda:
Samaveda:
Atharvaveda:
Hindu Culture & Society
Society
Hindu Art
Hindu Architecture
Hindu Music
Food & Diet Customs
Time Keeping Practices
Hindu Pilgrimage
Other society-related topics:
Other topics
Hinduism & Other Religions
Other Related Links (Templates)

A controversy in the US state of California concerning the portrayal of Hinduism in history textbooks began in 2005. The Texas based Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) complained to California's Curriculum Commission, claiming that the coverage of ancient Indian history and Hinduism in sixth grade History and Social Sciences textbooks was biased against Hinduism, and demanding that the portrayal be revised according to their organisations' views of Hinduism and Indian history.

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations

Late in the process, Michael E. J. Witzel, a Harvard Sanskrit professor "unexpectedly intervened" [1]. Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes. He suggested that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board. The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from all over the world.

Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal described the developments as follows: [2]

"The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups — including members of the 'untouchables' caste — entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflected "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history."

The Dalit Freedom Network is part of a Colorado based Christian organization run by Dr. Joseph D'Souza, leader of the "All India Christian Council." He later sent a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of the Dalit Freedom Network. It was co-signed by Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah,([3]) both prominent critics of Hinduism [4][5]. Further letters of support came from other Christian Dalit groups, ([6]) including the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.

Other Dalit groups that testified, and are on public record in California, include those with Buddhist Ambedkarite backgrounds, such as the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Indian Buddhist Association of America, New Republic India, and Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara [7].

The edits proposed by the VF and HEF were also opposed by a group of organizations that included the Friends of South Asia (FOSA), the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America[8], Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India, the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC).

Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies [9] co-signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars.[10] These documents have been made available on the website of the South Asia Faculty Network.[11]

Soon after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for India-West [12], wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition was likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups. Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, pointed out the parentage and close links between the VF and HEF and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the RSS. [13][14]

The State Board of Education decides

On 27 February 2006, after listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five member of panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE).[15] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.[16]

On 8 March 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the contentious changes pushed by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Aryan Migration Theory would be mentioned as disputed by scholars, and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), that had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit [17] [18] [19]. [20].

Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held."[21].

A PR firm hired by the VF and the HEF alleged that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture."[22] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved." [23].

Lawsuits

On March 10, 2006, the HAF declared it would sue.[24]. It did so at Sacramento on March 16, and a previously unknown group, California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), filed a separate lawsuit in Seattle on March 14.

An emergency hearing to consider a temporary restraining order applied for by HAF was set for March 21; it was dismissed by the judge. A motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the HAF against the California State Board of Education (SBE) to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks was heard and dismissed on April 21, 2006 in the California Superior Court.[25] According to a scanned copy of the court transcript distributed by FOSA, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette stated that "I am not convinced that Petitioner [HAF] has carried their burden to show the likelihood that they would succeed on the merits, particularly on the issue of content."[26] The HAF responded to reports of the dismissal with a press release critical of "errors in media coverage," reaffirming their "commitment to their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks accurately and equitably depict Hinduism," and explaining that "this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case."[27]. The court hearing is scheduled for September.

On August 11, 2006, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California gave his judgement allowed CAPEEM's lawsuit to go forward.[28]

See also

References

Press coverage

Listings of press coverage

Coverage In the American press.

Coverage on Radio and TV

Coverage by the Indian-American Press


Press coverage in India

The lighter side

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=71283110"