09-09-2006, 04:37 AM
Press Release
HAF Legal Team Assesses Victory and Comments on Failed Brief From Anti-Hindu South Asian Group
Representation of Hinduism in California Textbooks
Introduction - Summary of Events - Summary of Changes - Legal Defense Fund
HAF Assesses Victory and Comments on Failed Brief from Anti-Hindu South Asian Group - Older News
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 8, 2006) â 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 HAFâs 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 HAFâs efforts.
âItâs 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. âWe knew going into the lawsuit that a good number of revisions suggested by Hindu groups had already been accepted and the books had been improvedâthough far from perfectâbut our focus was on proving the illegality of SBE actions vis-Ã -vis Hindus.â
In his extensive ruling covering the illegalities of the SBE and the merits of the texts, Judge Patrick Marletteâs 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 âbuild Indian communism and fight the agenda of the global ruling class.â 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 âany 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.â
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 judgeâs 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 judgeâs ruling.
âHindu 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,â said Swaminathan Venkataraman, a member of the HAF Executive Council. âWhile FOSAâs devotion to communism may force it to repudiate all religion, it is ironic that they reflexively opposed only Hindu efforts in the name of âsecularismââcompletely ignoring major revisions to sections covering other faiths prevalent in South Asia including Christianity, Islam and Judaismâand tragic that it also ran an ugly communal campaign by co-opting non-Hindu groups to openly oppose Hindu parents and students.â 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.
âAllowing Prof. Witzel to poison the process with his ugly accusations of sectarianism was only the first error in an illegal SBE process,â said Shukla. âWith 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.â
Academics who supported HAFâs 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.
HAF Legal Team Assesses Victory and Comments on Failed Brief From Anti-Hindu South Asian Group
Representation of Hinduism in California Textbooks
Introduction - Summary of Events - Summary of Changes - Legal Defense Fund
HAF Assesses Victory and Comments on Failed Brief from Anti-Hindu South Asian Group - Older News
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 8, 2006) â 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 HAFâs 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 HAFâs efforts.
âItâs 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. âWe knew going into the lawsuit that a good number of revisions suggested by Hindu groups had already been accepted and the books had been improvedâthough far from perfectâbut our focus was on proving the illegality of SBE actions vis-Ã -vis Hindus.â
In his extensive ruling covering the illegalities of the SBE and the merits of the texts, Judge Patrick Marletteâs 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 âbuild Indian communism and fight the agenda of the global ruling class.â 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 âany 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.â
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 judgeâs 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 judgeâs ruling.
âHindu 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,â said Swaminathan Venkataraman, a member of the HAF Executive Council. âWhile FOSAâs devotion to communism may force it to repudiate all religion, it is ironic that they reflexively opposed only Hindu efforts in the name of âsecularismââcompletely ignoring major revisions to sections covering other faiths prevalent in South Asia including Christianity, Islam and Judaismâand tragic that it also ran an ugly communal campaign by co-opting non-Hindu groups to openly oppose Hindu parents and students.â 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.
âAllowing Prof. Witzel to poison the process with his ugly accusations of sectarianism was only the first error in an illegal SBE process,â said Shukla. âWith 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.â
Academics who supported HAFâs 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.