|
SACRAMENTO, Ca (Mar. 9,
2006) – The Hindu American Foundation (HAF), through
its law firm, has been in continual correspondence with the
California State Board of Education (SBE) and California Department
of Education (CDE) for the past several months demanding a
fair and open process in the textbook adoption process. HAF
became involved after two Hindu groups, the Hindu Education
Foundation (HEF) and Vedic Foundation (VF) attempted to work
with the SBE to ensure an accurate and balanced portrayal
of Hinduism in sixth grade textbooks. This process was sidetracked
according to Hindu parents in California by the involvement
of a minority of politically motivated academics and radical
anti-Hindu groups.
On March 8, 2006, despite numerous communications
by HAF highlighting procedural irregularities and resulting
substantive inaccuracies, the California State Board of Education
(SBE) voted to approve recommendations by the SBE/CDE Staff
on February 27, 2006, to retain several statements and themes
in the textbooks that had insulted Hindus.
"Thousands of Hindu parents and several
Hindu academics that engaged the SBE to ensure a fair representation
of Hinduism in textbooks are disenfranchised by this hollow
decision,” said Suhag Shukla, Esq., legal counsel of
HAF. “Of all religious groups that followed a set process
to submit edits and corrections to textbooks, only the Hindus
were treated to an uneven and constantly changing playing
field, and only their submissions were politicized in this
unseemly political charade. This is not simply an injustice
to Hindu Americans, but all Americans who believe in the democratic
process."
In a final letter to the SBE on March 3,
2006, HAF held that private determinations have been made
and implemented to subvert the public process, including the
formation of a subcommittee to handle the matter and creation
of the now approved February 27th SBE/CDE staff recommendations.
Critically, the HAF wrote, the January 6th closed door meeting,
from which deliberations formed the basis of the now-approved
edits, was held in direct violation of California Open Meeting
Act by the presence of several members of the SBE. Further
evidence of the SBE’s apparent lack of concern for the
public process is the February 27, 2006 public hearing, where
after five hours of public comment, the subcommittee moved
to recommend approval of the SBE/CDE staff recommendations
with absolutely no deliberation.
Preparation for litigation is currently underway. HAF will
file suit against the SBE early next week.
Related Documents:
 March
3, 2006 letter to the SBE
Analysis
and Recommendations Regarding Feb. 27, 2006 Edits and Corrections
List
Feb
21, 2006 letter to the SBE
|
