a half-victory for the haf in california textbook case

sep 2, 2006

this is far from being a complete victory, but sets precedents for further action. i hope the conclusion that the procedures were wrong will have the salutary effect of keeping irrelevant busybodies such as witzel out of the picture in future california discussions.

i do hope the HAF will appeal.

Fri Sep 1, 2006 8:00 pm (PST)

*Hindu American Foundation Wins Lawsuit-But Contentious California
Textbooks Retained *

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2006/9/1.shtml
www.hinduamericanfoundation.org
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, September 1, 2006: (HPI note: This is a momentous
victory for the Hindu community, despite the fact the books remain in the
schools. It puts other US states on notice that the kind of adoption process
seen in California is not acceptable.)

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.

"Our lawsuit was the first collective effort by a wide array of Hindu
American groups to counter a major injustice perpetrated against them," said
Mihir Meghani, M.D., President of HAF. "Our action, enabled entirely by the
support of Americans living throughout our nation, is a testament to the
Hindu community's potential and determination to ascertain a secure and
confident future for the next generation of Hindu Americans. Today, Hindus
have a voice, and they have asserted that they will never again remain
silent spectators as they shape their destiny in this great country."