California Board of Education Committee Approves Most Hindu Changes to Textbooks
Hinduism Today
HPI
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, March 1, 2006: (HPI note: For continuity on this issue, please reference HPI articles here and here. The following report is drawn from first-person accounts of those attending the meeting. An article on this issue, current as of February 1, which appears in the April, 2006, issue of Hinduism Today, and Hinduism Today's testimony to the Board of Education may be downloaded in PDF form here. The article include six sample text pages of a lesson on Hinduism.)
By 9:45, every seat was taken in the main meeting room and the overflow rooms were pressed into service. More than 150 Hindus, including parents with their children, were here to attend this meeting which was part on an on-going controversy over the H indu chapters in ten 6th grade social studies books up for adoption by the State of California. Hindus had requested 152 changes ("edits" as they are called) be made to these books where they are inaccurate or not in accord with the California Standards which require each religion to be described respectfully. This meeting was the latest, and likely the last, chance to address the issues. Under discussion was a proposed set of edits worked out at a closed-door meeting January 6, 2006, with Board of Education staff, Dr. Shiva Bajpai and Dr. Michael Witzel. This unusual meeting arrived at agreement or compromise on many of the 152 edits, but left a substantial number, twenty or thirty critical ones, unresolved. These mostly had to do with the Aryan issue, caste, untouchability, women's rights and the Hindu concept of God.
This meeting was of a five-member committee formed by the Board of Education to listen to public commentary and make recommendations. By the end of the day, it was apparent that the committee had already decided in advance to accept the January 6 closed-door meeting results, and this meeting was only to fulfill the legal requirement for public input. As soon as the many speakers finished in the late afternoon, the Chairperson, Ruth Green, closed the meeting to further public comment. She said they had made a good faith attempt to hear from all sides, "a difficult task." She said their goal was to remain religiously and scholastically neutral. A previously prepared motion was then read and approved to accept the results of the January 6 meeting without change, meaning that no comments by any speaker impacted the edits. The committee procedure went so rapidly that one Hindu in attendance, of the Dalit community, stood up and said, "Excuse me, but many in this room have driven hundreds of miles to see what you would do. Could you explain what you just did." A committee member said "After due consideration of all the pub lic comment, we have just approved the edits and corrections [from the January 6 meeting] which were posted on the web site and distributed to you."
These committee recommendation still have to be approved by the full Board of Education when it next meets March 8 to 10, 2006. But as the Board will almost certainly approve them as is, there is not really any opportunity for further adjustments at this point short of legal action.
Hindus were not happy with this meeting, even though 75% of the edits they had requested were approved in some form or another. The 25%, however, represented key issues. Still, for a first attempt at altering the textbooks, it was a decent showing, said Khanderao of the Hindu Education Foundation, one of the key players in the process. Other communities, he pointed out, have been working for more than a decade on bias in the textbook. Here, he said, we have already made significant progress in our first attempt in California.
For example, when Hinduism Today first wrote about problems with the California textbooks in 1991, the Muslim Institute for Islamic Studies was already formed and working to change the presentation of Islam in the books. They have been so successful over the last 15 years that there is now a backlash against the presentation of Islam, with Christians and others considering it too rosy a history.
The Hindu American Foundation, which had entered the process later than the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation, was displeased with the process the Board has chosen to follow. Speaking for HAF, Suhag Shukla told HPI, ""The public hearing today as well as the call by the State Board of Education for written public comment last week were unfortunately a farce. The SBE has made a mockery of what is legislated to be a democratic and open public process. Over one hundred and fifty committed Hindu Americans took time off of their regular weekly schedules an d travelled, at their own expense to address the subcommittee, even if only for sixty seconds. Instead of taking into consideration the evidence and comments submitted by the public, the SBE essentially read a pre-written motion reaffirming its flawed recommendations of February 27th."
Public testimony at the meeting went on for several hours, with groups getting two minutes and members of the public one. This included groups other than the Hindus who had requested edits to the texts. However, none of those edits were being opposed. For example, the Institute for Curriculum Studies, a Jewish group, thanked the committee for accepting all 256 of their edits and corrections, which included deleting any reference to Jews killing Jesus, and deleting any reference to Jews being considered "chosen people" as they said this had been a source of anti-Semitism.
The Hindu Education Foundation, Vedic Foundation and Hindu American Foundation all protested the Janua ry 6 results, with HAF submitting in writing a request to reconsider 18 key edits from the January 6 meeting.
Academics came supporting one or the other side. For example, Dr. Robert Goldman, a Sanskrit instructor at the University of California, Berkeley, testified that the Aryan invasion theory was outdated. He said recent archeology shows no invasion occurred.
Jayant Point said we should make sure our children are not ashamed. He pointed out the Muslims successfully removed any mention that a woman is required to provide 4 witnesses before she is believed in an Islamic courtroom, and that the textbooks don't mention that Christian scripture says a woman was made out of a man's rib and provided only for his pleasure. "So why," he asked, "is Hinduism singled out for such negative portrayal?"
Surta Suthe, a history professor at the University of California at Davis, pointed out that there is hardly any mention in the texts of slavery which ex isted in other cultures.
One group opposed the Hindu edits, the Friends of South Asia, a leftist political group, objected to any edits dealing with caste. They were joined by The Ambedkar Center for Peace and Justice, the Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America and the Coalition against Communalism.
Chetan, a student Monte Vista High School, said in her social studies class teacher told them widows thew themselves in the funeral pyre of their husbands and Hindus worshipped monkeys.
Bharka Patel, Monte Vista High School said that at her 2,100 student high school, 300 are Hindus. On Deepavali she organized a support group to teach about Hinduism. Only 15 students showed up, she said because Hindus are so embarrassed by the education given in the textbooks. "There is more to Hinduism," she said "than the caste system."
One student, of the first name Varijay, said a teacher told her class, "learning about Hinduism doesn't really matter." Her classmate s also teased her, saying, "A cow to you is steak to us." She said controversial issues should be studied in high school perhaps, but not presented in a 6th grade introductory textbook.
Samjana Prabhakar, said, "My daughter came home in tears after her teacher told her about sati, the ancient and rare practice of a widow throwing herself on her husband's funeral pyre. 'You say my teacher is always right,' the daughter cried, 'Will I have to go in the fire, too, if my husband dies? Then my children will be orphans.' It took me many years and multiple trips to India to undo this trauma. Students will remain in the dark unless the books are changed."
Suhag Shukla of HAF said, "Current edits still will not reflect the beliefs of religious leaders or practicing Hindus. Dr. Witzel infected a democratic process with false accusations."
Kama Kishor said, "If you insist on writing that Hinduism is a religion which promotes caste and other negatives, then since there are many reports of Catholic child molesters, you must say Christianity is a religion of child molesters. And since most terrorists are Muslim, you must say Islam is a religion of terrorists."
Ramesh Rao, asked, "Why ignore all the great contributions of Hinduism? It is the greatest pacifist religion in the history of the world and the fountainhead of world spirituality. Why is it so negatively portrayed?" Ramesh also injected some welcome humor in an otherwise somber meeting.
At the end of the public input section, several school children were allowed to speak. They had taken the day off from school to attend. One, Kartikeya Katir of Davis, California, said, "I am an sophomore at Da Vinci High School in Davis. During my studies about Hinduism in school I learned that: Hinduism is a man-made religion and that all other religions came from God; that my religion condones discrimination against a certain segment of society in India throug h the caste system; that my religion is based on myths and legends while all other religions are based on holy texts and revealed knowledge; that God in Hinduism is spelled with a small 'g' and God in other religions is spelled with a capital "G." None of this is right, and I feel hurt that you allow this religious discrimination against Hindu citizens of California to continue. I was taught this is the land of the free and home of the brave. On behalf of all students who believe these ideals, I encourage you to bravely allow us to have our own voice, as you do the Christian and Jewish faiths, so that we may also be free."
Dr. Munger, a member of the Curriculum Commission which had first heard the edits in December, was present for the meeting. Even though he had opposed many of the Hindu edits at the Commissions December meeting, he wanted to follow the debate. He said that it is a long process, and that the textbooks today are much better than 20 years ago, and that with all the edits that have been approved, next year's textbooks will be much better. "They are far from perfect," he said, "but will be better." He expressed great admiration for Indian civilization, and was very cordial to our reporter.
It is important to understand these issues in the light of the California laws governing school textbooks. It is likely that few of those testifying against (or in favor of them, for that matter) the Hindu edits at this meeting are aware of the California laws. The news reports appearing in the American newspapers show little or no awareness of these governing laws.
There are two documents which contain these laws. One is the "Standards for Evaluating Instruction Materials for Social Content," (here), and the other is the "History-Social Science Framework," (here). They are manifestly an attempt at social engineering through the school system. The idea is to educate children into a harmonious view of California's pluralistic society while not perpetuating stereotypes and prejudices of the past.
The first document defines the guiding principles. With regard to religion, it reads in full: "Purpose. The standards enable all students to become aware and accepting of religious diversity while being allowed to remain secure in any religious beliefs they may already have. Method. The standards will be achieved by depicting, when appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the United States and California, as well as in other societies, without displaying bias toward or prejudice against any of those beliefs or religious beliefs in general.
"Applicability of Standards. The standards are derived to a degree from the United States and the California constitutions and relate closely to the requirements conc erning the portrayal of cultural diversity. Compliance is required. .... 1. Adverse reflection. No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior. 2. Indoctrination. Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief. 3. Diversity. When religion is discussed or depicted, portrayals of contemporary American society should reflect religious diversity." The Jewish groups often cited these principles in making edits, especially "adverse reflection."
The second document, the "Framework," lists in detail what is to be taught. Hinduism appears in section 6.5 on ancient history. It reads: "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of India. 1. Locate and describe the major river system and discuss the physical setting that supported the rise of this civilization. 2. Discuss the significance of the Aryan invasions. 3. Explain the major beliefs and practices of Brahmanism in India and how they evolved into early Hinduism. 4. Outline the social structure of the caste system. 5. Know the life and moral teachings of the Buddha and how Buddhism spread in India, Ceylon, and Central Asia. 6. Describe the growth of the Maurya empire and the political and moral achievements of the emperor Asoka. 7. Discuss important aesthetic and intellectual traditions (e.g., Sanskrit literature, including the Bhagavad Gita; medicine; metallurgy; and mathematics, including Hindu-Arabic numerals and the zero)."
The Framework requirements governing other religions are far more philosophically and spiritually rich. For comparison, here is part of Framework section 6.3 on Judaism: "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the Ancient Hebrews. 1. Describe the origins and sig nificance of Judaism as the first monotheistic religion based on the concept of one God who sets down moral laws for humanity. 2. Identify the sources of the ethical teachings and central beliefs of Judaism (the Hebrew Bible, the Commentaries): belief in God, observance of law, practice of the concepts of righteousness and justice, and importance of study; and describe how the ideas of the Hebrew traditions are reflected in the moral and ethical traditions of Western civilization. 3. Explain the significance of Abraham, Moses, Naomi, Ruth, David, and Yohanan ben Zaccai in the development of the Jewish religion. 4. Discuss the locations of the settlements and movements of Hebrew peoples, including the Exodus...."
The Judaism Framework section is far more comprehensive in terms of theology than the Hindu section is. Under Hinduism, students learn Aryan Invasion and caste more than theology, and the Bhagavad Gita is listed under "aesthetic and intellectual traditions ," rather than religion. Neither God nor religion is mentioned under Hinduism, while both appear twice under Judaism. The Framework comes up for review in 2008, at which times Hindus are planning to request changes to bring the teaching of Hinduism in line with the other religions.
California Hindus have achieved at least a modest victory on the textbook issue. Their successes, failures and lessons learned will be of strategic help in dealing with the same issues in other states, and even internationally. The Vedic Foundation and Hindu Education Foundation through months of diligent work have begun to change the depiction of Hinduism in US classrooms.
