|
Washington, D.C. (April
26, 2006) – The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) reacted
quickly today to errors in media coverage of a hearing for
a preliminary injunction filed by the Hindu American Foundation
(HAF) against the California State Board of Education (SBE)
in Superior Court on April 21. The injunction sought to stop
the printing of textbooks containing inaccuracies and an unbalanced
presentation of Hinduism. In denying the injunction, presiding
Judge Patrick Marlette did not pre-judge the merits of the
case, indicated that he was “troubled” by the
SBE process in approving the contentious textbooks, and encouraged
the parties to discuss resolution of the case before the start
of the school year.
No journalists were present at the hearing,
and according to HAF, several media reports relied on the
motivated and biased interpretations of an amateur writer
who gained recent notoriety for his anti-Hindu blog. This
individual, with no previous experience reporting on legal
proceedings, detailed that he attended the hearing and did
not rely on official transcripts in his widely circulated
report.
“While HAF’s legal team would
have preferred that the preliminary injunction had been granted,
they were pleased that the judge suggested the process followed
by the SBE to be problematic,” said Ishani Chowdhury,
Executive Director of HAF. “It is sad that one individual’s
musings that were patently false at best, and blatantly racist
at worst, were accepted as truth by too many.”
Based on the writer’s account, that
variously intimated gratuitous comments as to the race and
ethnicity of HAF’s legal team and of those present in
the courtroom, some media reports erroneously stated that
a preliminary injunction hearing requires a "lower showing"
on the merits. In fact, such a hearing requires the court
to balance a number of factors, including any harm that could
be caused by granting or denying an injunction. Here, presiding
Judge Marlette twice indicated that he was "troubled"
by the process used to approve these texts, but in denying
the injunction request seemed concerned that even if the books
were poorly written, "harm" wouldn't occur until
the children actually had the books in hand -- something that
is currently several months off.
Judge Marlette also appeared to be concerned
that he could not evaluate how "bad" these texts
were in the contexts of a preliminary hearing, as that decision
would require a lengthy analysis of the texts, comparison
with the treatment of other religions and possibly expert
testimony. Preliminary hearings are, by contrast, limited.
The court rules impose limitations on both the length of the
papers that can be submitted and the amount of time available
for the hearing.
“Some accounts report that the judge
rejected HAF's claims ‘on the merits,’ when the
judge never decided such a thing,” said Suhag Shukla,
Esq., legal counsel of HAF. “Clearly there is a fundamental
lack of understanding as to the standard of proof required
for preliminary injunctive relief. It’s difficult to
obtain -- particularly against the government. More importantly,
this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome
of the case.”
HAF leaders reaffirmed their commitment to
their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks
accurately and equitably depict Hinduism.
“It is bewildering that these activists
will oppose equal treatment of all religions in school textbooks,
the lack of which is what led to the lawsuit,” said
Chowdhury. “Hindus are merely seeking parity with other
religions in sixth-grade textbooks, where social problems
of other religions are not given the same prominence, even
as the redeeming features of Hinduism are ignored.”
The Hindu American Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3), non-partisan organization, promoting the Hindu
and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism.
|
