rAmdAs lamb

VII SUPPORTING LETTERS BY ACADEMICS AND SCHOLARS » Dr. Ramdas Lamb

To: Curriculum Commission Members

From:
Ramdas Lamb,
Associate Professor
Department of Religion
University of Hawai’i
2530 Dole St.
Honolulu, HI 96822

I have been asked to review some of the contested statements in the texts on religion your Board is considering for acceptance in California public schools. My comments herein are my own, and I am not connected in anyway with either of the Hindu groups who have formally weighed in on the situation. As an introduction, I was a resident of India for more that ten years and have been involved with the study of Hinduism for more than thirty-five years. As a faculty member at the University of Hawai’i, I been teaching religion courses here for the last seventeen years. One of the primary courses I teach every semester is one entitled’An Introduction to World Religions.‘

As a consequence, I have dealt extensively with college level textbooks addressing the subject. Invariably, such texts tend to more inaccurately depict Eastern religious traditions than they do Western traditions. They also tend to present a more critical, and even negative, view of the former than the latter. Part of the reason for this is that many of the textbook writers come from a Christian background and thus tend to overlook the more negative and problematic aspects of their own religious tradition while emphasizing the more positive ones. For young readers, I understand the value of this approach, and it appears to be consistent with the CDE’s Education Code Sections dealing with religion. However, the Code states that “No religious belief should be held up to ridicule” or “portrayed as inferior.” Further, it states that “a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief.”

Considering these requirements, there are some definite problems with the way Hinduism is presented in the proposed texts that are under consideration by your commission. Unlike the approach used for Christianity, the Hindu tradition is put in a much less favorable light. I have read the letter authored by Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer and co-signed by a long list of Indologists. While I agree with their reservations about many of the suggested changes, I have to strongly disagree that all the suggestions should be ignored. It appears that the Board has chosen to follow Witzel’s approach and has rejected nearly all suggested changes. In essence, you run the risk of totally ignoring many valid critiques of the proposed texts. To do so would be to present an inaccurate view of Hinduism and to treat it differently than the way other traditions, especially Christianity, are treated. That would not only be unfair to California students, especially Hindu students who have to read and accept such inaccuracies, but to the tradition as a whole.

I will confine my comments herein to the statements in question that I believe need addressing. I implore you to consider the ramifications of simply ignoring all critique when making your decision regarding their inclusion or rejection. My comments are based on the information found at:

*http://www.hindueducation.org/newchanges.pdf*

*Hindu Education Foundation Recommended Edits***

*Glencoe/McGraw-Hill*

  • #s 15, 17, 21, 95, and 96 - The changes in the column entitled ACFIR/CRP Final Recommendation tend to be more accurate than the original statements and thus should be accepted. Regarding #15 and the issues of Aryans in general, since their actual origin is hotly debated and there is no definitive proof that they came from outside the region in and around pre-Independence India, the texts should try to avoid taking a one-sided stand on the issue.

*Harcourt** School** Publishers*

  • #s 22, 23, 25, and 26 - The changes in the column entitled ACFIR/CRP Final Recommendation tend to be more accurate than the original statements and thus should be accepted.

  • #24 - The dates in the original are problematic. Those suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee are likely more accurate.

*Holt, Rinehart and Winston*

  • #s 27, 29, and 37 - The changes in the column entitled ACFIR/CRP Final Recommendation tend to be more accurate than the original statements and thus should be accepted.

  • #30 - The change suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee is more accurate than the original. There are many schools in contemporary India that teach spoken Sanskrit. Thus, while the students represent a very small minority of Hindus, to state that Sanskrit is no longer spoken is a false statement.

  • #s 32, 33, and 34 - The change suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee is more accurate than the original.

*Macmillan/McGraw-Hill*

  • #s 39, 40, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 84, 91

  • #s 41, 50, 66, 85, 89, and 92 - The changes suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee are more accurate than the original statements.

  • #s 48, 76, and 90 - Again, since there is no certainty as to where and when the Aryans originated and evolved their religious beliefs, the CDE should avoid statements that claim a definitive understanding.

  • #s 70 and 71 - statements such as found in the original show not only a lack of understanding of the tradition but a clear attempt to depict it in a negative light.

  • #86 - The ‘Dalit’ is a political label used by Untouchable converts to Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. It is also used by Indian Marxists and many academics. However, it is NOT used by Hindu Untouchables (‘Harijans’).

To suggest otherwise is quite inaccurate. Thus, the change suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee is preferred. I have worked with Harijans for more than 30 years and have researched and written extensively on the subject. If interested, I can send you a copy of the entry on ‘Untouchables’ I wrote for the *Encyclopedia of Anthropology* (Sage Publications, 2005).

*Vedic Foundation: Recommended Edits***

*Glencoe/McGraw-Hill*

  • #14 - Hopefully, you see the unequal treatment of the traditions suggested by the wording. This unfair approach should be unacceptable to you.

  • #s 16, 22, and 53 through 58 – ‘Gods’ and ‘goddesses’ may work for Western polytheistic traditions but are inaccurate when addressing Hindu concepts of the multiplicities of form in which the Divine is believed to manifest. To suggest such false similarities is to wrongly depict the tradition.

  • #s 19 and 30, 36, 41, 42, 59, 64, 65, 66, and 77 - The changes suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee are more accurate than the original statements.

  • #20 - The suggested changes are good and should be considered.

  • #38 – See my comments above regarding ‘Aryans’.