CAPEEM v. Tom Torlakson

Education in the United States, particularly K-12 curriculum, is heavily regulated by state law and it begins with the state board of education determining the parameters as to what students learn, including the course standards and framework. This discretion is delegated through levels of government from the department of education down to the rights of districts to interpret these standards and decide what materials are being taught. However, a recent California decision poses questions about the rights and influence that individuals, particularly religious minorities, may have in what is taught. 

In 2017 the California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) filed a lawsuit against state officials based upon the claim that educational materials in the history and social science curriculum were inaccurately portraying and disparaging Hinduism. CAPEEM challenged the standards and framework of the curriculum under the First Amendment establishment and free exercise clause, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clause. The district courts dismissed most of these claims in 2017, and the main focus of the case was drawn to the suit’s establishment clause claims. The plaintiffs argued that the particular teachings in question were constitutionally problematic and expressed the motivation of convincing the state board of education to recraft the depiction of Hinduism, allowing it to be consistent with depictions of other faiths. The recent teachings of Hinduism in the course framework do not acknowledge the divine origins of Hinduism and inaccurately portrays the faith by depicting things like cast as Hindu religious beliefs. In the plaintiff’s argument, they state this is comparable to depicting slavery as a Jewish or Christian value due to its prevalence in the New Testament. Overall the standards set by the state depict Hinduism as a secular and hostile value system and impermissibly endorses other faiths such as Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. 

In September 2020 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the state of California, ruling that the discretion and authority of the curriculum must remain under state jurisdiction. 

In response to violations of equal protection, the court held that it was not the place of the court to censor class material, rather the discretion of the state and province of school authorities. The plaintiffs argued that the state had treated Hinduism less favorably through the school’s curriculum. In response, the court adopted the argument presented in a 1998 case, Monterio v Teme Union School District, where the works of Mark Twain were challenged for the use of racially derogatory language. They conclude that it is not the jurisdiction of the courts to weigh the impact of the material on students. 

Secondly, in response to the claims in violation of the establishment clause, the court ruled that there is no evidence of disparaging and denigrating content. An important aspect of their decision is that the courts negate expert evidence due to a 1994 case, Brown v. Woodland Joint School District, affirming that expert testimony is "irrelevant to the primary effect inquiry". Thus consulting a 'reasonable' and 'objective' observer, they found that there is no disparaging effect that endorses other religions over Hinduism. Most cases regarding the material of public education are likely not taken up by courts unless it is overt hostility or bias. 

Though I understand the protection that needs to be in place in order to prevent parental influence over public school education, this is about misrepresentation. Particularly in their argument made regarding equal protection, they express the need for the neutrality of the court. However, there is a secular purpose of the court to prevent the negative or incorrect depiction of religion, this is not controversial literature being discussed, rather faith paramount to an individual’s life. Moreover, in response to establishment claims, the inaccurate portrayal of Hinduism should take into account expert testimony if the state is neglecting the truths set forward and demanded be taught by the affected community. This 'reasonable' and 'objective' observer doesn’t account for the fact that this person is likely significantly ignorant in respect to Hinduism. It is a cycle of ignorant individuals ruling for and perpetuating more ignorance.  The CAPEEM decision reflects the difficulty that discreet minorities face to alter public perception and portrayal of their truths.

For this to go a different course CAPEEM would have to appeal to the state itself and address the Fair Education Act, which is a long winding road for minorities. This is a demonstration of the failure of courts to protect the rights of religious minorities in a large way. The court does not consider the effects that this type of educational standard has on society. Americans growing up and learning state-sponsored curriculum that misrepresents a faith is a significant burden to the existence of that faith in this country. The public school curriculum is widely perceived to be synonymous with government speech and in this approach, it is appropriate to recognize the presence of unconstitutional establishment through the sheer carelessness of how Hinduism is portrayed, which likely wouldn’t be the case with largely recognized religions in America.