CA School Board Removes Anti-Hindu Statements from Textbooks

[Guest guest]

California School Board Accepts Most Hindu Changes

to Sixth Grade

Textbooks

HPI

 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, December 4, 2005: California

Hindus breathed

a sigh of relief after yesterday's meeting of the

State Board of

Education Curriculum Commission. The Vedic Foundation

(here) and

Hindu Education Foundation (here) worked for months

through the

California Department of Education (CDE) procedures

suggesting

improvements for the sections of California textbooks

that deal with

India and Hinduism. Their 170 corrections ("edits," as

the CDE calls

them) were initially reviewed by an "Ad-Hoc Committee"

which

included renowned Indologist, Dr. Shiva Bajpai, who

had been hired

by the Commission, and CDE staff. But then at the

intervention of

Dr. Michael Witzel of Harvard University, a

last-minute "Content

Review Panel" was set up to go over the changes

approved by Dr.

Bajpai's committee again. Witzel claimed the changes

were motivated

by "Hindutva" forces a nd would "lead without fail to

an

international educational scandal if they are accepted

by the

California's State Board of Education." This panel,

comprised of Dr.

Witzel, Dr. Stanley Wolpert of UCLA and Dr. James

Heitzman, Director

of Summer Sessions, University of California, Davis,

rejected 58 of

the proposed Hindu edits, especially those dealing

with an "Aryan

Invasion" of India in ancient times. Their

recommendations and

evaluations are posted here.

 

Hindus despaired as they believed the Curriculum

Commission would

accept the Witzel panel recommendations in their

entirety. This is

not, however, what happened. Near the beginning of the

meeting on

Friday, Commissioner Dr. Stan Metzenberg, a professor

of biology at

California State University Northridge, made a motion

to accept all

of the original recommendations of the Hindu groups as

approved by

Dr. Bajpai's committee, with the provision to go

through the Witzel

panel rejections of 58 one by one. This motion passed.

 

The Commission then went through the 58 rejections,

ultimately

accepting only about a dozen.

 

Ten textbooks were under consideration for adoption

for 6th grade

social studies classes in the California schools. The

text book

manufacturers produce preliminary editions of their

books, which are

then distributed throughout school districts in

California and

comments and corrections requested. The Curriculum

Commission

considered changes from certain groups. These edits

had to be

relatively minor, and not represent major additions or

deletions to

the texts. Each group might submit from dozens to

hundreds of edits.

Everything had to be in line with the California

"Framework" or

guidelines for the subject, which will be explained

further on in

this article.

 

Much of the discussion during the five-hour meeting

was between

Commissioner Dr. Charles Munger, Jr., physicist,

Stanford Linear

Accelerator Center, and Commissioner Metzenberg.

Consultant Heitzman

was the only one allowed to address the Commission on

any questions

until Janeshwari Devi, Director of Programs for the

Vedic

Foundation, complained to Commission members that no

Hindus were

being consulted. She was allowed to make a few

comments, and then no

further questions were addressed either to her or Dr.

Heitzman.

Commissioner Munger, who identified himself as an

Episcopalian, was

the only Board member who advocated accepting the

edits of the

Witzel panel. Commissioner Metzenburg took the view

that Hindus

should at least be able to recognize their own

religion when they

read these textbooks. Some Commissioners abstained

from voting,

citing lack of expertise on the subject. Commissioners

Man and

Levine actively made and seconded motions to get the

Commission

through the long list of edits in a timely way, and

Commissioner

Munger's attempts to get Witzel's version of Hindu

religion into the

texts were voted down time and again.

 

On the contentious point of an "Aryan Invasion" of

India 1500 bce,

Heitzman agreed to soften this to "Aryan migration,"

as there is no

evidence found of a violent invasion. But Commissioner

Metzenberg, a

biologist, objected on scientific grounds. He said,

"I've read the

DNA research and there was no Aryan migration. I

believe the hard

evidence of DNA more than I believe historians." It

was finally

agreed to say, "Some historians believe in the theory

of an Aryan

migration." This is not as much change as Hindus

requested, but it

was a major step.

 

One change recommended by the Vedic Foundation was the

use

of "deity" for "statue" in referring to the carved

image of a God or

Goddess, called "murthi" in Sanskrit. This change was

recommended by

Bajpai and rejected by Witzel's group. The Commission

agreed to the

Hindu request to change "statue" to "deity."

 

Another issue the Witzel panel disapproved was to use

upper-case "G"

for God when referring to Hindu worship of God.

Commissioner Levine

noted that for Hindus there are many forms of the one

God.

 

Hindus requested one sentence in one book be changed

from

saying, "Modern Hindu continue to visit temples to

express their

love of the gods," to "...visit temples to worship and

express their

love for God." This was rejected by Witzel's group,

but accepted by

the Commission. Similar changes were accepted

throughout the books.

 

At one point, Dr. Heitzman said to the Commission, "I

advise you to

err on the side of conservatism and be very careful

about adopting

any of these changes." Commissioner Metzenberg replied

pointedly, "On the contrary, to err on the side of

conservatism, we

should use the Hindu suggestions. After all, it's

their religion."

Metzenberg also felt a comment by Witzel's panel on

one edit

was "insensitive." The edit was to fix the incorrect

statement that

the Ramayan was written later than the Mahabharata.

Witzel's group

wrote, "Who in Sixth Grade cares which epic was

'written' first?"

Metzenberg observed that it obviously matters to

Hindus."

 

Another edit was to change the definition of yoga from

"Yoga is a

type of ... slow breathing" explaining its derivation

from the

Sanskrit "yog," meaning "joining together.

 

Janeshwari Devi considers the proceedings a partial

victory. Her

main concern was that 355 edits submitted by the Vedic

Foundation

dealing with eight of the ten books were shelved

during earlier

proceedings and not even considered at this meeting.

She felt this

was a breach of CDE procedure and plans to appeal. She

said, "The

most significant event of yesterday was that

scholarship prevailed

instead of scholars who hold anti-Hindu views and have

an agenda to

keep Aryan Invasion in the books."

 

Immediately following the Hindu edits, some 600 plus

edits from the

Jewish community were accepted in their entirety. This

is an

interesting list to Hindus, and shows the

possibilities for

adjustment to the texts. The entire list of edits is

available here.

This is a 117 page document, beginning with the Jewish

and Muslim

issues and ending with the Hindu (from pages 77 to

105). This

document also contains the Hindu corrections as

reviewed and

recommended by Dr. Bajpai.

 

Many of the complaints from the Jewish groups were on

the subject of

Jesus. One, for example, said "The text often

implicated Jews in the

death of Jesus, and suggests conflict between Jesus

and the Jewish

authorities. This is in violation of the California

standards." On

page 27 of the edit document is a list of general

complaints by

Jews. "The Institute for Curriculum Services (who

reviewed the

texts) reviewers object to the use of the word 'story'

in reference

to the Hebrew Bible, as they allege it conveys the

idea that the

events described are fictitious." Hindus made a

similar complaint

about their scriptures being referred to as "stories."

 

The Jews objected to this sentence, "King Herod was

known for his

cruelty and the additions he made to the Jewish temple

in

Jerusalem." They said, "The statement of Herod's

cruelty is another

instance of unnecessary negative information about

Jewish kings."

Their objection was accepted and the statement

rewritten. In another

edit, they objected to the comparison of California

state hiring

builders to build something (the text is not fully

quoted) and

the "Kingdom of Solomon built with forced labor." They

state, "This

is an inappropriate comparison that places modern

standards on the

ancient kingdom of Israel."

 

In one edit they complained about the term "Wailing

Wall" for the

Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem, as being

"undignified" and

not used by Jews. They complained repeatedly that

certain comments

and student exercises would promote anti-Semitism.

 

An important edit which relates to the Hindu issues is

over the

Exodus, the escape of the Jews from Egypt in ancient

times. The text

of one book read, "Unfortunately, Egyptian records

from the time

don't mention the Exodus of the Israelite slaves. And

archeology

hasn't uncovered any evidence of their years in Egypt,

nor of their

dramatic departure. We have only the biblical account

for evidence."

They objected to this and had it replaced with, "For

Jews, the

Exodus is a central event in their hi story..." No

mentioned was

allowed for the doubt of historians.

 

A common theme in the Jewish edits was taking out

references to

Christianity as somehow an "improvement" upon Judaism,

or

a "replacement" for Judaism. This same kind of

thinking comes in the

text descriptions of both Buddhism and Jainism, which

are presented

as "improvements" over Hindus. Khandarao of the Hindu

Education

Foundation, said, "Just as the books can't criticize

Judaism in

explaining Christianity, they shouldn't be able to

criticize

Hinduism in presenting Buddhism."

 

It is important to understand these issues in the

light of the

California laws governing school textbooks. There are

two documents

which contain these laws that are relevant here. One

is

the "Standards for Evaluating Instruction Materials

for Social

Content," here, and the other is the History-Social

Science

Framework," here.

 

The first is the guiding principles, and with regard

to religion it

reads in full:

 

"Education Code Section 60044(a) and Subsection (b):

 

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 concerning the portrayal

of cultural

diversity. Compliance is required.

 

These standards should not be construed to mean that

the mere

depiction of religious pr actices constitutes

indoctrination.

Religious music and art, for example, may be included

in

instructional materials when appropriate.

 

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 is the "Framework," which lists in

detail what

is to be taught. Hinduism appears in the section on

ancient history.

The section reads:

 

6.5 Students analyze the geographic, poli tical,

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).

 

For comparison, here is the section on Judaism:

 

6.3 Students analyze the geographic, po litical,

economic,

religious, and social structures of the Ancient

Hebrews.

1. Describe the origins and significance 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 and their movement to

and from Egypt,

and outline the significance of the Exodus to the

Jewish and other

people.

5. Discuss how Judaism surv ived and developed despite

the

continuing dispersion of much of the Jewish population

from

Jerusalem and the rest of Israel after the destruction

of the second

Temple in A.D. 70.

 

The Judaism section is much 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. "Religion isn't even mentioned under

Hinduism, while it is

listed twice under Judaism. This framework comes up

for review in

2008, we understand, and Hindus can request

improvements.

 

Hindu parents in California and other states who are

so concerned

about what is in their children's textbooks should all

continue to

take an interest in this issue. The Vedic Foundation

and Hindu

Education Foundation are to be commended for their

months of

diligent work.