appellant's i'd like to thank the court st continuing this hearing on my request i know it was an inconvenience an hour and i appreciate that i'd like to reserve five time sorry five minutes for my rebuttal and i will keep track of grade children go to school they learn about history and social science including the history of world religions everything that they learn is grounded in the standards and fr om both of which we challenge and both of which are developed by the california state board of education and are approved by the s b a now in the depiction of religion in the standards and framework only hindu children learn from a curriculum that disparages their faith i would like to invite the this the s p e's motion to dismiss and this is of course at the pleading stage and the court took to dish will notice of the entirety of the standards in the framework and in these tables that are in the excerpts of record i just identified we excerpt directly from the standards and directly from the framework to show that when the standards explains the origin of  religion of different religions including judaism christianity islam and buddhism there are they are very generous in their in their descriptions and in a nutshell they describe the testament and describe the con the contribution of st paul the apostle all basically the virtues of the faith and the origins and some of the narratives standards don't do any o true or hinduism the standard sport they describe hinduism in surely secular terms there is no acknowledgment of the divinity that hindus believe is the basis of their faith and what's worse is that the standards actually use derisive terms to describe hinduism  so you have the state board of education telling hindu students that their faith evolved from the caste system and the bullet in the standards that immediately pre mention of hinduism refers to the area in the so called area an invasion theory which is a completely debunked theory that ariens invaded south asia and brought challenging the content of the i am wondering what what is our best authority for saying that we can oversee this federal court be the content of the curriculum when  seems to indicate otherwise so montero is limited to our equal protection claim and is not doesn't affect our our equal our i'm sorry  establishment clause claim which prohibits the derogatory treatment of religion the same way it prohibits endorsement of religion it also does not affect our free exercise claim which prohibits hostility or discrimination against a religion but to answer your honor's question directly on montero montero had to do with school districts selection of literature and the montero decision itself explained that the holding does not apply to policies when when when the state board of education develops and approved standards and framework i mean there's no disputing that mean that that that the school district is embracing everything that's in the literature particularly the racial slurs that were at issue that were appeared in those books policies are completely different and at page one th terro decision the court says nor do we preclude the prosecution of actions alleging that schools have pursued policies that serve to promote racist attitudes among their students we conclude elipse we conclude only that allegation only that allegations that the school required that a book be read and then refuse to remove it from the curriculum fails to provide a basis for an equal protection so we think that montero simply doesn't apply when we're when we're talking about policy which is what the th circuit said in that case well but you're arguing that relies on isolated portions of of the state board of education approved know that the framework of the that the that the the the isolated portions of it you claim are a b is i to disparage your religion  i guess if we start with the premise that your honor seems to be accepting that the standards and the framework are policies of the of the state board of education we are just identifying a part of those policies that disparage hinduism just like if there were something in the criminal code that was unconstitutional criminal code is clearly a policy and if there were parts of it that were unconstitutional for whatever reason you know you might identify sections of the criminal code that are unconstitutional and we are identifying portions of the standards and framework that disparage hinduism and and by definition those portions are  policies of the standards and framework we believe what is your basis for saying that the standards into it and it seems like there may be some disagreements about how to frame some of the history but that's different from disparagement well i think well st of all i  theory and that cast is a central feature of the of the hindu faith then that is as your honor termed it framing is disparaging i'd also  in the divinity of that work and to say that religion's holy book is a human creation where the standard certainly don't do also in our opening brief at pages twenty eight through thirty we i mean and the complaint is just filled with the details of the derogatory treatment of hinduism in violation of the s b s own policies i should add when the s p s b e does not violate its policies about not disparaging religion for any other faith i mean the plane is very detailed in the ways in which the standards and the framework and the adoption of the framework were derogatory towards towards and certainly for the equal protection clause claim and the free exercise claim which the court dismissed saying that it's implausible that there are viable claims there that that that the district court was wrong as a matter of law and that we adequately led that that disparagement in the standards in the framework support an equal protection violation and a free exercise violation and we should have been permitted to develop those cla each and every allegation of a complaint other than those that provide the context for what the standards and framework are the injuries that were sustained by the pla s all of the derogatory treatment that described that are in the table and in the complaint support three of our claims the equal protection claim and the free standards or that framework so that your honor you've identified a major discrepancy between our reading of the recent jurisprudence on the free exercise clause  into as much detail on that as your honor would find helpful but the long and the short of it is that after employment division overturned the sure protest the supreme court has never held or found that there has to be interference with an actual religious practice you know the traditional kind of you know you can't jews can't wear a yarmulke muslim woman can't wear her job you can't pray like those are obviously the very classic interferences that we think of when we think of the when we think of the free exercise clause but but and trinity lutheran well let me just ask you one more question because your time is running down what is the relief that you are asking well we're in the simplest terms we're asking for the court to reverse the dismissal of our claims and reverse a written opinion the court the court will explain what aspects of the standards and framework are unconstitutional which we submit we mapped out in our briefs and then the the board of education can and correct unconstitutional portions of those documents and i don't i don't think a district court would ordinarily prast an injunction that's that's the district court's province of the to this court i would submit to find that  the documents approach everything from a secular historical perspective it is problematic back to about religions other than there is nothing overtly hostile or clearly all about  court's blind acceptance that a group of people or certain public comments were finding and that the complaint referred to the south asian faculty group as a collection of anti thinking professors there weren't facts to support that each time was in reference generalizations or characterizations of documents that the court is going to look at if your point it is a mistake to assume that there was one monolithic hindu point of disputed st the framework does not say that the ancient indian social hierarchy was that or strange or unfair or any other negative value judgement the closest thing that the framework does to making a value judgment is to say that it quote provided social stability and even identity each community number two the framework says that over the centuries the caste system grew more rigid it also says in the record  hurt the framework talks about caste it starts off the whole conversation as in all really civilization and it stresses the point that this was not strange and it was the norm in the ancient civilization to have a social higher finally the framework does as i understand it there was a good deal of input there was notice and comment there was consultation during the development of the standards in the background why is that was there where there are comments and you basically found that there may be groups that have a social political agenda that would be furthered by establishing that people speaking a certain language in india from the north explain how in the framework discusses competing theories so there's nothing there that is denigrating to it you have to kind of buy into the concept that it would be better for some the development phase that anyone criticised the reference to that i believe that there was ten thousand but public comments and there was a lot of viewpoints and i believe that a get to learn about that the framework is not a pretty one and it does it is not the end all be all it is the beginning and it repeatedly stresses the local educators work with students with a guiding principle a student there is one quick procedural point here and if in their brief whether you look at the table of contents issues or any word of the debris they never challenge the issue that when the claims were dismissed they should have had a chance to read the judges agreed had a very narrow rule but in that case they recognize not just what it would be an exercise of religion or a pastor to say i don't want to participate in your marriage briefs and counsel continued today which is to conflate the standards and the framework in order to try and and basically ignore the  brazenly unconstitutional the standards are and i want to be clear that in the standards themselves there is you know aspect of the description of hinduism that acknowledge the belief in the divine it is purely secular and purely hostile full stop now it's true that the framework says that the standards should be viewed in connection with the with the framework and that's fair enough but you can't i would submit that the s b cannot just say well even though the standards treat hindu is a dramatically different from other faiths let's look at the framework and i'm going to ignore the parts of the framework that refer to secular origins of the faith such as  families assume the authority over complex devotional rituals and expounded their ideas as the origins of hinduism there is nothing like that in convoluted and secular terms to expects plain the origins of any other faith in the framework we will readily acknowledge that there are there are many there is mention of deities and a belief in one ness and some of the important tenets of hinduism in the framework but that does not erase the hostile and secular content in both the standards and the framework here is limited to the framework as a no no your honor it's the standards and the framework and we think that the constitutional right that's not somehow the just record your i think the district court understood that we were challenging both your honor but but but did know fact that they should be read together but it is a chat where it's clear from the complaint that we are challenging the standards the framework and the framework adoption process let me and joining defendants from all curriculum in instructional materials and of course the that's vested in the local school district what do you see what if you were to craft or if you were to prevail in the just parts of the standards and the framework that we quote at length in our complaint and in our briefs and say that these are constitutionally problematic because they disparag people who spoke out that caste should not be a race the appellants are not at all claiming that caste should not be mentioned or race it's just that caste should not be described as a hindu religious belief just like you know slavery should not be described as a jewish or a christian religious belief even though there is mention of it in the old and the new testaments state law requires that not be depictions of religions that single criticism we have as disparaging that we think the overall just is and whatever portions of the court identifies as disparaging of hinduism then s b e should be instructed to revise those portions of the standards and the framework to be consistent with the depiction of other faiths and you're over your time counselor and any further questions but i thank you both for your arguments today and