1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 1

Glenn Katon SBN 281841

KATON.LAW

385 Grand Avenue, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94705

gkaton@katon.law

(510) 463-3350

(510) 463-3349 (fax)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE 

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL 

MATERIALS; ARVIND RAGHAVAN, 

individually and as parent and next friend 

of M.R. and N.R.; VISHNUKUMAR 

THUMATI, individually and as parent and 

next friend of P.T. and N.T.; SHAILESH 

SHILWANT, individually and as parent 

and next friend of P.S. and P.S.S.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOM TORLAKSON, in his official 

capacity as State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction and Director of Education for 

the California Department of Education;

TOM ADAMS, in his official capacity as 

Deputy Superintendent of the Instruction 

and Learning Support Branch of the 

California Department of Education;

STEPHANIE GREGSON, in her official 

capacity as Director of the Curriculum 

Frameworks and Instructional Resources 

Division of the California Department of 

Education; MICHAEL KIRST, ILENE 

STRAUS, SUE BURR, BRUCE 

Case No. 

COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 2

HOLADAY, FELIZA I. ORTIZ-LICON, 

PATRICIA ANN RUCKER, NICOLASA 

SANDOVAL, TING L. SUN, and TRISH 

BOYD WILLIAMS, each in their official 

capacity as a member of the California 

State Board of Education; MYONG 

LEIGH, in his official capacity as Interim 

Superintendent of the San Francisco 

Unified School District; SHAMANN 

WALTON, HYDRA MENDOZAMCDONNELL, STEVON COOK, MATT 

HANEY, EMILY M. MURASE, RACHEL 

NORTON, and MARK SANCHEZ, each 

in their official capacity as a member of the 

San Francisco Unified School District 

Board of Education; RICK SCHMITT, in 

his official capacity as Superintendent of 

the San Ramon Valley Unified School 

District; MARK JEWETT, KEN MINTZ, 

RACHEL HURD, DENISE JENNISON, 

and GREG MARVEL, each in their official 

capacity as a member of the San Ramon 

Valley Unified School District Board of 

Education; WENDY GUDALEWICZ, in 

her official capacity as Superintendent of 

the Cupertino Union School District; 

ANJALI KAUSAR, LIANG CHAO, 

KRISTEN LYN, SOMA McCANDLESS, 

and PHYLLIS VOGEL, each in their 

official capacity as a member of the 

Cupertino Union School District Board of 

Education; CHERYL JORDAN, in her 

official capacity as Superintendent of the 

Milpitas Unified School District; DANIEL 

BOBAY, DANNY LAU, CHRIS 

NORWOOD, HON LIEN, and ROBERT 

JUNG, each in their official capacity as a 

member of the Milpitas Unified School 

District Board of Education,

Defendants.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs challenge the unfair and unconstitutional treatment of Hinduism and the 

endorsement of the Abrahamic faiths in California’s public school curriculum.

2. Defendants have adopted and are implementing content standards and a 

curriculum framework that are the foundation of the history-social science education provided to

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 3

all California public school students. The content standards, adopted by the State Board of 

Education (SBE) in 1998, explain the teachings of major world religions, their virtues and central 

figures, and the belief of adherents in the divine origins of their faiths. This is true for all religions 

covered except Hinduism, which is not portrayed as virtuous, does not include mention of 

religious figures, and is described as an “intellectual tradition” without reference to a belief in 

divine origins. The content standards also depict biblical events as history without any 

meaningful historical basis for those events.

3. The SBE adopted the curriculum framework for history-social science in July 2016 

after a drafting and review process that treated Hinduism differently from all other faiths, 

following recommendations by scholars openly hostile to Hinduism, and rejecting proposed edits 

that would have aligned the portrayal of Hinduism with that of other religions. The result of a

deeply flawed process, the framework adopted by the SBE denigrates Hinduism and endorses the 

Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

4. Many parts of the content standards and curriculum framework blatantly disparage 

Hinduism while others are less emphatic. Like a death by a thousand cuts, the cumulative effect 

of the curriculum’s affronts to Hinduism is severe and affects not just Hindu-American 

schoolchildren who are treated as outsiders in their own communities, but all California 

schoolchildren exposed to the disparagement of one of the world’s major religions.

5. One of our nation’s fundamental principles is that all people – regardless of where 

they worship or what they believe – are entitled to equal protection and fair treatment under the 

law. This longstanding embrace of religious pluralism and respect for diversity has made our 

country a beacon of hope and a place of refuge for people from all across the globe.

6. Sadly, we have not always lived up to these lofty ideals. And even today, far too 

many people in this country face discrimination, harassment, and violence simply because of their 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 4

religious beliefs.1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because 

it alleges violations of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore raises 

questions of federal law. Jurisdiction is also based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because relief is sought 

for the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under color of state law.

8. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b)(1), because most defendants reside here and all defendants are residents of California. 

Venue is also proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein have occurred and are continuing to occur in 

this District.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

9. California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) is a 

California nonprofit corporation based in Fremont, California. It is a membership organization 

that exists to advance the legal, civil, and religious rights of Hindu-Americans and people of 

Indian descent in the United States, and promote the fair and accurate portrayal of Hinduism and 

Indian culture in public educational systems.

10. Arvind Raghavan is proceeding individually and as parent and next friend of his 

two children attending school in the Burlingame School District: M.R. in sixth grade and N.R. in 

fourth grade.

 1 This and the preceding paragraph are excerpted from Combating Religious Discrimination 

Today: Final Report, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2016 at 2 (Preface by Vanita Gupta, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice) 

(https://www.justice.gov/Combating_Religious_Discrimination).

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 5

11. Vishnukumar Thumati is proceeding individually and as parent and next friend of 

his two children attending school in the Cupertino Union School District: P.T. in seventh grade 

and N.T. in second grade.

12. Shailesh Shilwant is proceeding individually and as parent and next friend of his 

two children attending school in the Milpitas Unified School District: P.S. in fifth grade and 

P.S.S. in second grade.

B. Defendants

13. Tom Torlakson, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction and Director of Education for the California Department of Education.

14. Tom Adams, in his official capacity as Deputy Superintendent of the Instruction 

and Learning Support Branch of the California Department of Education.

15. Stephanie Gregson, in her official capacity as Director of the Curriculum 

Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division of the California Department of Education.

16. Each in their official capacity as a member of the California State Board of 

Education: Michael Kirst, Ilene Straus, Sue Burr, Bruce Holaday, Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon, Patricia 

Ann Rucker, Nicolasa Sandoval, Ting L. Sun, and Trish Boyd Williams.

17. Myong Leigh, in his official capacity as Interim Superintendent of the San 

Francisco Unified School District.

18. Each in their official capacity as a member of the San Francisco Unified School 

District Board of Education: Shamann Walton, Hydra Mendoza-McDonnell, Stevon Cook, Matt 

Haney, Emily M. Murase, Rachel Norton, and Mark Sanchez.

19. Rick Schmitt, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the San Ramon Valley 

Unified School District.

20. Each in their official capacity as a member of the San Ramon Valley Unified 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 6

School District Board of Education: Mark Jewett, Ken Mintz, Rachel Hurd, Denise Jennison, and 

Greg Marvel.

21. Wendy Gudalewicz, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Cupertino 

Union School District.

22. Each in their official capacity as a member of the Cupertino Union School District

Board of Education: Anjali Kausar, Liang Chao, Kristen Lyn, Soma McCandless, and Phyllis 

Vogel.

23. Cheryl Jordan, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Milpitas Unified 

School District.

24. Each in their official capacity as a member of the Milpitas Unified School District

Board of Education: Daniel Bobay, Danny Lau, Chris Norwood, Hon Lien, and Robert Jung.

IV. FACTS

25. The California Constitution directs the legislature to establish public education. 

The state’s Constitution assures that politics is an integral part of policy making in education

through the structure of the bureaucracy it created. Article IX, Section 7, requires the legislature 

to provide for the appointment or election of the State Board of Education. The legislature has 

established a ten-member board appointed by the governor for four-year terms subject to senate 

approval. The SBE drafts and oversees the policies implemented by the California Department of 

Education (CDE). Among the many responsibilities of the SBE are approving and overseeing 

statewide curriculum content, creating the curriculum framework for kindergarten through twelfth 

grade, and adopting instructional materials for kindergarten through eighth grade. 

26. Article IX, Section 2, of the California Constitution provides for the selection of a 

state superintendent of public instruction in a nonpartisan election. The legislature has designated 

the superintendent to be the secretary and executive officer of the SBE with responsibility for 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 7

executing its policies. The legislature has given the superintendent numerous responsibilities, 

including working with the SBE to develop and administer state curriculum standards and 

instructional materials adoption.

A. Standards

27. By statutory mandate, the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content 

and Performance Standards developed and recommended the History–Social Science Content 

Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (Standards), 

which the SBE adopted in October 1998. The Standards provide the content that California public 

school students need to acquire at each grade level.

28. The Standards serve as the basis for statewide assessments, curriculum 

frameworks, instructional materials, professional development, preservice education, and 

compliance review. In particular, publishers of California public school textbooks must attend to 

the content and pedagogical requirements specified in the Standards, and textbooks are required 

to incorporate coverage of all the Standards at the intended grade level.

29. The Standards cover Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity in the sixth 

grade and Islam in seventh grade.

30. State funding for school districts throughout the State of California is contingent 

upon their determination that each pupil in each school in the school district has sufficient 

textbooks or instructional materials, or both, that are aligned to the Standards and curriculum 

frameworks.

31. Textbooks adopted by school districts throughout the State of California are 

required to be aligned with the Standards and curriculum frameworks.

32. Throughout the Standards, the perspective of religions other than Hinduism is 

provided through each religion’s “teachings,” which include many virtues and characters central 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 8

to those faiths. This is true for Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. Hinduism is not 

described as virtuous and the Standards do not mention any traditional Hindu characters or 

narrative.

33. Judaism, the Standards explain, is “the first monotheistic religion based on the 

concept of one God who sets down moral laws for humanity,” with “ethical teachings” that 

include “belief in God, observance of law, practice of the concepts of righteousness and justice, 

and importance of study.” They also include the “significance of Abraham, Moses, Naomi, Ruth, 

David, and Yohanan ben Zaccai in the development of the Jewish religion.”

34. For Buddhism, the Standards require students to “[k]now the life and moral 

teachings of Buddha,” through which they learn about the figure central to the faith and its 

grounding in morality. Students must also learn about the political and moral achievements of 

Asoka, a Buddhist emperor.

35. The Standards require the teaching of Christians’ belief in the divine origins of 

their faith and the narratives of Christianity’s central figures: “Note the origins of Christianity in 

the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the 

New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of 

Christian beliefs (e.g., belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).”

36. For Islam, the Standards portray a faith that originates in scripture: “Explain the 

significance of the Qur'an and the Sunnah as the primary sources of Islamic beliefs, practice, and 

law.” This is the opposite of how Hinduism is described as derived from people’s beliefs and 

practices.

37. The Standards describe Hinduism as having “beliefs and practices” with no 

acknowledgment that Hindus believe their faith is rooted in the divine. The only reference in the 

Standards to Hindu scripture (the Bhagavad Gita) characterizes it simply as “literature” that is 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 9

part of “important aesthetic and intellectual traditions” of India. Such language ascribes worldly 

origins to Hinduism, whereas the Standards teach the belief in the divine origins of other 

religions.

38. The Standards further provide that “the major beliefs and practices of Brahmanism 

in India . . . evolved into Hinduism.” The term “Brahmanism” is offensive to Hindus and has 

been used historically to insult them, as the term signifies Hinduism as the religion of Aryan 

priests who were from the brahmin caste. 

39. Concerning Islam, the Standards require students to “[t]race the origins of Islam 

and the life and teachings of Muhammad, including Islamic teachings on the connection with 

Judaism and Christianity” and understand “the contributions Muslim scholars made to later 

civilizations in the areas of science, geography, mathematics, philosophy, medicine, art, and 

literature.” No such understanding is required for Hindu scholars, who have made numerous 

contributions to mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, medicine, and other fields. 

40. The Standards also disfavor Hinduism and endorse the Abrahamic faiths by 

depicting parts of the Old Testament of the Bible as history rather than as religious beliefs.

41. The Standards require students to “[e]xplain the significance of Abraham, Moses, 

Naomi, Ruth, David, and Yohanan ben Zaccai in the development of the Jewish religion.” If such 

people existed at all, there is no meaningful historical basis upon which to instruct students that 

they contributed to the development of Judaism. Such instruction teaches religious mythology as 

history and thereby endorses religions that follow the Old Testament.

42. The Standards also require students to “[d]iscuss the locations of the settlements 

and movements of Hebrew peoples, including the Exodus and their movement to and from Egypt, 

and outline the significance of the Exodus to the Jewish and other people.” This requirement 

teaches religious stories as history without any meaningful historical basis and thereby endorses 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 10

religions that follow the Old Testament. 

B. The Framework

43. Pursuant to its statutory authority, the California State Board of Education adopted 

the 2016 History-Social Science Framework (the Framework) on July 14, 2016. The adoption 

process included several public hearings, part of which were devoted to receiving public 

comments, and consideration of proposed edits in writing submitted by organizations, academics, 

and members of the public.

44. The Framework is required to be aligned with the Standards and follow the 

guidelines listed in the Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee Guidelines 

for the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through 

Grade Twelve (the Framework Guidelines).

45. The Framework provides guidance to teachers, administrators, and publishers for 

the teaching of history and social science. It has two primary audiences: (1) educators, and (2) 

developers and publishers of curriculum programs and materials. Educators use the Framework as 

a road map for curriculum and instruction. Publishers of textbooks and other instructional 

materials must attend to the content and pedagogical requirements specified in the Standards and 

the Framework. Additional audiences for the Framework include parents, caregivers, families, 

members of the community, and policymakers, as well as institutions, organizations, and 

individuals involved in the preparation and ongoing professional learning of educators.

46. The Instructional Quality Commission (the Commission) is responsible for 

overseeing the development of the curriculum frameworks. It assigns members to serve on 

Subject Matter Committees to assist in making recommendations on particular subject matter 

areas, including history-social science. The Commission also recommends frameworks to the 

SBE, which is the entity empowered to adopt them. 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 11

1) Framework Adoption Process

47. In numerous ways, the process leading up to the adoption of the History-Social 

Science Framework discriminated against Hindus and favored followers of other faiths.

48. One significant manner in which the Framework adoption process discriminated 

against Hindus was through the Commission’s reliance upon anti-Hindu reports and 

recommendations submitted by several professors under the name “South Asia Faculty Group.” 

The group submitted to the Commission a review of the proposed Framework dated November 

18, 2015, and made further submissions dated February 24, and May 17, 2016.

49. California law provides a regulatory scheme for the use of Content Review 

Experts to make recommendations to the Commission and the SBE.2 This can be done through a 

Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee to assist in the process of developing 

a curriculum framework in a particular area and to make a recommendation to the Subject Matter 

Committee, Commission, and SBE on a curriculum framework.3

50. Content Review Experts must have certain qualifications, receive training and 

information during publicly noticed meetings, and meet other requirements.4

51. By obtaining and incorporating substantial input on Hinduism from the South Asia 

Faculty Group, the SBE and the Commission chose to ignore completely the process for 

consulting content experts contemplated by the Department of Education’s regulations. Upon 

information and belief, the Commission did not rely comparably on the report of an outside 

faculty group for any content area other than Hinduism and Ancient India.

52. Perhaps more importantly, as set forth below, the South Asia Faculty Group report 

is patently anti-Hindu and should have been rejected by the Commission on that basis alone. The 

 2 5 C.C.R. § 9511.

3 Id. § 9511(b).

4 Id. § 9511(h),(k); § 9512(e),(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 12

anti-Hindu bias of Professor Jonathan Kenoyer, who, upon information and belief, wrote or was 

the principal author of the report, was well known to Defendant Tom Adams, then Executive 

Director of the Commission, and likely other members of the Commission. 

53. In 2005, the Commission, then known as the Curriculum Commission, rejected a 

textbook Kenoyer co-authored by a 14-0 vote because it “include[d] language and examples that 

[were] derogatory, accusatory, or instill[ed] prejudice against” Hinduism. That textbook mocked 

Hinduism, asking students (when discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana): “[t]he monkey king 

Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. 

So look around—see any monkeys?” Kenoyer and several other people whose names appear on 

the SAFG Report also signed onto an anti-Hindu letter from Professor Michael Witzel to the SBE 

in 2005.5

54. The SAFG Report made several dozen comments on and recommended edits to 

the draft of Framework under consideration at that time. Not one reflected positively on Hindus. 

Many were disparaging to Hindus and Hinduism. Some, though far from all, of the efforts to 

diminish Hinduism in the report that was exalted by the Commission are enumerated below.

55. A section of the Framework on “The Early Civilizations of India,” posed the 

question “How did the religion of Hinduism support individuals, rulers, and societies?” The 

SAFG Report recommended removing the reference to Hinduism and substituting “the religion of 

Ancient India.” 

56. A draft of the Framework stated about Hindu women: “They participated equally 

with their husbands in religious ceremonies and festival celebrations.” The SAFG Report 

recommended changing this to the opposite claim: “They participated in religious ceremonies and 

 5 See California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) v. Noonan, 

600 F. Supp.2d 1088, 1099, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (describing Witzel letter among other evidence 

adduced by plaintiff that required denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment).

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 13

festival celebrations, though not as equals.”

57. A draft of the Framework provided: “Many of the central practices of Hinduism 

today, including home and temple worship, yoga and meditation, rites of passage (samskaras), 

festivals, pilgrimage, respect for saints and gurus, and, above all, a profound acceptance of 

religious diversity, developed over this period.” The SAFG Report recommended deleting 

“profound acceptance for religious diversity” from the sentence.

58. To the sentence of the Framework noting that: “Today many Hindus, in India and 

in the United States, do not identify themselves explicitly as belonging to a caste,” the SAFG 

Report recommended adding at the end “but may do so implicitly.”

59. In discussing the question “How did the religion of Buddhism support individuals, 

rulers, and societies?” the Framework provided: “Through the story of [the Buddha’s] life, his 

Hindu background, and his search for enlightenment, students may learn about his fundamental 

ideas: suffering, compassion, and mindfulness.” The SAFG Report recommended deleting 

“Hindu background” from the sentence. The rationale for its suggestion – that “nothing called 

Hinduism existed at this moment in time” – is flatly inconsistent with other SAFG Report 

suggestions that references to “India” and “ancient India” be replaced with “South Asia” and 

“Pakistan,” since no places existed with those names during the entire period addressed by the 

sixth and seventh grade Framework, which is supposed to be “Ancient Civilizations” and 

“Medieval and Early Modern Times.”

60. In a discussion on immigration to the United States in the late nineteenth and early 

twentieth centuries, the Framework noted: “California also came to play an increasingly 

significant role in the national economy. The Gold Rush in California, the building of the 

transcontinental railroad, and agricultural labor in Hawaii and the mainland spurred Chinese, 

Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Hindu, and Sikh immigration to the United States.” The SAFG Report 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 14

recommended replacing “Hindu, and Sikh” with “South Asian (mostly Sikh).” 

61. The Commission’s use of the bigoted SAFG Report coincided with its shell game 

of not identifying experts it would consult on the Framework’s depiction of Hinduism during the 

drafting and editing process. California law provides for a fundamentally open and deliberative 

process leading up to the adoption of the curriculum Framework. The Commission subverted that 

process, as described below, by consulting undisclosed content experts in secret, and evading 

questions from the public about how expert consultation was being conducted. Upon information 

and belief, the Commission went to elaborate lengths to hide its consultations with secret experts 

only with respect to Hinduism and did not do so for its depiction of other religions.

62. During the September 17, 2014 Commission meeting, then-Commissioner Nancy 

McTygue announced that the California History-Social Science Project (CHSSP) had an 

extensive team of scholars and writers prepare drafts of the Framework. At the time, McTygue 

was, in addition to being a member of the Instructional Quality Commission, Executive Director 

of CHSSP, so she obviously had access to the scholars and writers to whom she referred. 

However, neither McTygue nor the other members of the Commission revealed to the public who 

the scholars and writers were.

63. On September 22, 2014, Defendant Tom Adams explained by email message that 

the Commission’s use of experts would depend on who was available and willing to participate 

but that CDE would not be contracting with any experts. He also claimed all comments from 

experts would be treated as public comments.

64. During the Commission’s December 18, 2014 meeting of the History–Social 

Science Subject Matter Committee, McTygue again referred several times to unnamed scholars 

the Commission consulted, some from what she called “my network.” Upon information and 

belief, McTygue and other Commissioners conducted their secret consultations with scholars to 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 14 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 15

avoid public scrutiny and advance their personal anti-Hindu views.

65. During the Commission’s February 6, 2015 meeting, Defendant Adams repeatedly 

evaded questions raised by a Hindu parent about whether the process of hiring experts would be 

an open one. Upon information and belief, Adams deliberately avoided addressing the openness 

of the process to avoid public scrutiny and advance his personal anti-Hindu views.

66. During the Commission’s May 8, 2015 meeting of the History-Social Science 

Subject Matter Committee, Adams announced that experts would be hired to review the public 

comments received in the process to review the History-Social Science Framework.

67. On August 27, 2015, when asked twice by email for information about the experts 

the Commission was consulting, Adams ignored the questions and responded that “The experts 

will be used by the IQC and SBE will have to apply via an application and appointed by the SBE. 

The decision of whether experts are needed will be decided after the October 8-9 meeting.” No 

expert applications were accepted by the SBE and no experts were appointed.

68. Upon information and belief, Adams sent the incoherent message quoted in the 

preceding paragraph without answering the questions about the identity of the experts the 

Commission was already consulting on Hinduism to keep the Commission’s deliberations behind 

closed doors and advance his personal anti-Hindu views.

69. Members of the Commission knew or should have known that Adams was 

involved heavily in the SBE’s violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act in its 

consideration of content relating to Hinduism during the SBE’s last textbook adoption process. 

See Hindu American Foundation v. California State Board of Education, (Super. Ct. Sacramento 

County, Sept. 1, 2006, No. 06 CS 00386).

70. Defendant Adams collaborated previously with the virulently anti-Hindu professor 

Michael Witzel to demean Hindus in California textbooks. During the last textbook approval 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 15 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 16

process, Adams orchestrated Witzel’s submission of a letter to the State Board of Education 

objecting to the Curriculum Commission's revisions to textbooks favorable to Hindus even 

though Witzel had no knowledge of what those revisions were. Adams used this letter to persuade 

the SBE to reverse the Curriculum Commission's recommendations and only then shared the 

revisions with Witzel.

71. Adams also called a woman’s comments on the depiction of Hindus in textbooks a 

“nationalist interpretation of Indian history,” even though the woman was from the United States, 

and Adams did not think she was of Indian descent.6

72. The Commission announced at its October 9, 2015 History–Social Science Subject 

Matter Committee meeting that it would not seek applications for an expert panel to review the 

draft Framework. Thus, the Commission continued to take input from scholars privately and 

through the public comments it received in writing and at hearings, without using the formal 

process for expert retention.

73. The March 24, 2016 History–Social Science Subject Matter Committee Meeting 

revealed the exalted treatment the Commission gave the South Asia Faculty Group 

recommendations and the lack of effort made to consult with historians who did not hold the antiHindu bias of that group’s submissions. Nancy McTygue extolled the credentials of the South 

Asia Faculty Group and claimed “we did not have access to this level of scholarship previously,” 

a statement belied by her earlier claims of having access to “wonderful scholars.” She neither 

articulated any effort to obtain input that was not outwardly anti-Hindu nor did she explain why 

the Commission had refused offers of assistance to recruit eminent historians who would not have 

an anti-Hindu agenda.

 6 CAPEEM, 600 F. Supp.2d at 1113.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 16 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 17

74. Further, on numerous occasions during the March 24 meeting described in the 

preceding paragraph, McTygue indicated that she did not know the basis for the South Asia 

Faculty Group recommendations; yet she recommended that the Commission follow them 

blindly. Her responses to questions from the Commission included:

“I don't pretend to have the capacity to answer that – in the level of detail, but I do 

defer to their expertise on this,”

“I would argue that, um, we would defer to scholars on this topic – we don't have 

the capacity to answer that level of specificity on this question,”

“I can't answer that specific question for you – I wish that I could tell you that I 

have that level of knowledge but I don't personally have that.”

75. The disfavored treatment Hinduism received in the Framework adoption process 

can also be seen in the disparate treatment the Commission gave to changes sought by other 

religious groups. While the insider’s perspective (the believer’s perspective) was reflected in the 

Framework for other religious groups, Hinduism was the sole religion that was described through 

the outsider’s perspective.

76. When a Christian group, Gateways to Better Education, requested the change from 

Jesus promising “eternal salvation to believers,” to Jesus adding “the promise of eternal salvation 

to those who believe in him as their Savior,” the request was granted without any scrutiny from 

experts.7 This change emphasized the insider perspective given to Christianity, while the 

Commission rejected numerous comparable edits with respect to Hinduism.

77. The Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS), part of the Jewish Community 

Relations Council, objected to the following reference to the good Samaritan parable included in 

a draft of the Framework:

Through selections from Biblical literature, such as the Sermon on the Mount and 

the parables of the Good Samaritan, the lost sheep, and the Prodigal Son, the 

students will learn about those teachings of Jesus that advocate compassion, 

 7 The adopted version removed the capitalization of “Savior.”

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 17 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 18

justice, and love for others.

78. The ICS explained the rationale for its objection:

The parable of the Good Samaritan, which describes Jews as biased and heartless, 

should not be used. The Institute for Curriculum Services raised this concern 

during the 2009 revision of the Framework, and the Curriculum Framework and 

the Criteria Committee accepted ICS’s recommendation to remove this in June 

2009. It is worth noting that the text approved at that time was very similar to 

ICS’s current recommendation in that it includes reference to Biblical literature 

and what students can learn about the teachings of Jesus from them, without 

getting into specifics. Parables that demean one religion are not appropriate for a 

History Framework for California public school students. Category 1.10 of the 

History–Social Science SMC’s Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Material 

disallows their use.8

79. At the SBE’s July 14, 2016 meeting, it adopted the exact edit proposed by ICS:

Through selections from Biblical literature, such as the Sermon on the Mount and 

the parables of the Good Samaritan, the lost sheep, and the Prodigal Son, the

students will learn about those teachings of Jesus that advocate compassion, 

justice, and love for others. 

80. By stark contrast, the Commission added language derisive of Hinduism then 

refused requests to remove it. An interim draft of the Framework provided: 

 8 Category 1.10 of the Criteria for Evaluating Instructional Materials: Kindergarten Through 

Grade Eight provides:

Materials on religious subject matter remain neutral; do not advocate one religion 

over another; do not include simulation or role playing of religious ceremonies or 

beliefs; do not include derogatory language about a religion or use examples from 

sacred texts or other religious literature that are derogatory, accusatory, or instill 

prejudice against other religions or those who believe in other religions. Religious 

matters, both belief and nonbelief, must be treated respectfully and be explained as 

protected by the U.S. Constitution. Instructional materials, where appropriate and 

called for in the standards, include examples of religious and secular thinkers in 

history. When the standards call for explanation of belief systems, they are 

presented in historical context. Events and figures detailed in religious texts are 

presented as beliefs held by members of that religion, are clearly identified as 

such, and should not be presented as fact unless there is independent historical 

evidence justifying that presentation. All materials must be in accordance with the 

guidance provided in the updated History–Social Science Framework, Appendix 

C, “Religion and the Teaching of History–Social Science,” and Education Code 

sections 51500, 51501, 51511, and 51513.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 18 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 19

Today many Hindus, in India and in the United States, do not identify themselves 

as belonging to a caste. Teachers should make clear to students that this was a 

social and cultural structure rather than a religious belief.

81. The Commission later changed that language to reach the opposite conclusion 

about the connection of caste to Hinduism (based upon the recommendation of the SAFG 

Report):

Today many Hindus, in India and in the United States, do not identify themselves 

as belonging to a caste. Teachers should make clear to students that this was a 

social and cultural structure as well as a religious belief.

82. Many would argue that caste was not and is not a Hindu belief.9 But irrespective of 

the accuracy of the language, it is certainly derogatory and inconsistent with the SBE’s Criteria 

for Evaluating Instructional Materials, the Framework Guidelines, and the treatment of other 

religions in the Framework.

83. The Commission’s treatment of the ICS edit seeking removal of the good 

Samaritan parable from the section on Christianity on the grounds that it demeaned Judaism also 

contrasts with the treatment of edits sought by Hindu groups that wanted to remove implied 

negative statements on Hinduism in the section on Sikhism. After equating brahmins and caste 

with Hinduism in an earlier chapter, the Framework describes the origin of Sikhism as: “Sikhism 

was founded by Guru Nanak, a social reformer who challenged the authority of the Brahmins and 

the caste order.” The Commission rejected many proposed edits from Hindu groups that would 

have changed the problematic characterization of Sikhism as a “challenge” to Hinduism.

84. By letter submitted in May 2016, scholars calling themselves the Social Sciences 

and Religion Faculty Group provided the Commission with an incisive analysis of the 

discriminatory treatment Hinduism was receiving, by reference to a suggested edit regarding caste 

as a Hindu religious belief. The Commission rejected the group’s recommendations:

 9 See infra ¶¶ 99-101.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 19 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 20

The [edit] is a matter of equity in the discussion of religions in 6th and 7th grade 

textbooks. The Content Standards for each civilization covered in the 6th and 7th 

grade specifically state that, "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, 

religious and social structures of the early civilizations of _____." But this is done 

quite selectively, with no mention of social structure in the discussion of other 

religions in the same way as for Hinduism and India. The result has been that the 

actual textbook chapters that cover Hinduism are almost entirely focused on caste, 

as if that were the essence of the Hindu religion. It is our intention here to create a 

more balanced narrative, as compared with other religions.

In that regard, matters of social equity must be considered, especially if Hinduism 

is not being viewed from the same lens as other world religions covered in the 

framework narrative. For example, well-worn scholarship has revealed that 

hierarchical views in Christianity supported the subjugation of native peoples and 

the practice of slavery, and we still live with the inequality that sprang from that 

today, even if, later, Christians began to oppose such practices. Certainly, 

scriptures and saints of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam have addressed negative 

social issues. But it is quite another matter to say any of them created a religious 

mandate.

Consequently, we suggest that if the revised Framework narrative is silent on 

negative social structures involving other religions, it ought to similarly represent 

Hinduism without such tendencies. Conversely, if the IQC and Board deem it 

necessary to highlight negative interpretations of social issues and attribute them to 

Hinduism, then it should do so across all of the sociohistorical accounts of the 

other world religions, as well.

85. The Commission was made acutely aware of the pain and humiliation the 

curriculum’s portrayal of Hinduism inflicts on Hindu students. A Hindu student provided the 

Commission with an account of how her class was taught about the caste system two years prior:

Sixth grade was the first time I was to learn about my culture in school, so at first I 

was excited. However, I was surprised to see that the lesson was so short and had 

nothing I knew to be my religion or heritage.

Because the caste system was mentioned so many times, our teacher created a 

simulation in our class, in which we were put into four major caste groups. Each 

student was given a worksheet to complete by the end of the period. However, a 

higher caste could take advantage of a lower caste by asking them for the answers, 

and the lower caste was forced to give it to them. By the end of the period, a 

majority of the class was complaining of how unfair this is, and how cruel this 

Hindu system was.

In fact, I had never even known what my caste was, until the textbook brought it 

up, as my parents and relatives didn’t render it important for my cultural learning. 

I have many Hindu friends and I do not know any of their caste. However, my 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 20 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 21

classmates and teacher think we, Hindus, still believe in primitive and unjust 

practices.

Standards for evaluating History Social Science clearly states its purpose as to 

“enable all students to become aware and accepting of religious diversity while 

being allowed to remain secure in any religious beliefs they may already have.”

But the experience that I had clearly shows that my class was not helped to 

become aware and accepting of my heritage nor was I allowed to remain secure in 

my belief. I do not want my friends to look down upon me and my culture and 

religion because of my textbook. This is unfair.

We know that social hierarchies have existed in all societies, so why is Hinduism 

singled out with such negative portrayal?

What I request is fairness and dignity. Is that too much to ask for? I’m asking for 

the textbooks to focus on the positive aspects of Hinduism, and not focus on only 

negative. Thank you.

86. Another change to the Framework made out of sensitivity shown to a religious 

faith that was not extended to Hindus came through the deletion of the following sentence that 

Commissioner Bill Honig explained at the July 2016 SBE meeting would make the language 

acceptable with respect to Islam:

After 1000 CE, Turks from Central Asia, who were recent converts to Islam, 

began to conquer new territory and expand their boundaries across the Indus 

Valley to parts of the northern Indian plains. Sometimes Turkish Muslim leaders 

forced Hindus to convert, but at other times rulers practiced religious toleration.

The most powerful of these states was the Delhi Sultanate.

87. The SBE also rejected suggested changes to the Framework that would have made 

the treatment of Hinduism more comparable to that received by other religions.

88. Although virtually none of the Framework explains Hindus’ belief in the divine 

origins of their faith, the SBE rejected a change proposed by CAPEEM to the sentence “Ancient 

India experienced a Vedic period (ca. 1500-500 BCE), named for the Vedas which were 

composed in Sanskrit” so it would read: “According to Hindu tradition, rishis or sages received 

revelations, which were composed and known as the Vedas.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 21 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 22

89. The change sought in the preceding paragraph would have made the Framework’s 

depiction of Hinduism more consistent with that of Christianity, which begins its description of 

Jesus as: “According to the New Testament of the Christian Bible, Jesus, a Jewish carpenter from 

the small Judean city of Nazareth, began to preach a message of peace and divine salvation 

through love.” Similarly, the Framework’s depiction of Islam provides: “According to Muslim 

tradition, Muhammad, an Arabic-speaking merchant, received revelations from God, which were 

written down in the Qur’an.” 

90. The SBE also rejected a change suggested by CAPEEM of the sentence “By 

examining selections from the Analects, or “sayings” of Confucius, students learn that, as with 

Socrates and Jesus, his ideas were written down by others at a later time” to “By examining 

selections from the Analects, or “sayings” of Confucius, students learn that, as with Hindu sages, 

Buddha, Socrates and Jesus, his ideas were written down by others at a later time.”

91. The Framework Guidelines require keeping the basic goals of the 2005 edition of 

the History-Social Science Framework, one of which provides: “[Students] should take pride in 

their own cultural heritages, and should develop a multicultural perspective that respects the 

human dignity of all people and an understanding of different cultures and ways of life.” This 

goal was met for every religious culture except Hinduism.

92. The inferior treatment given to Hindus and Hinduism during the Framework 

adoption process stigmatized and humiliated Plaintiffs. This second-class treatment prevented 

them from participating as full members of the community.

2) Framework Substance

93. The substance of the Framework denigrates Hinduism in many ways and endorses 

the religious doctrine of other faiths regardless of the discriminatory process through which it was 

developed and adopted.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 22 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 23

94. The Framework covers Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism in sixth grade; 

Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and modern movements in Hinduism in seventh grade; contributions 

of Sikhs in fourth grade; and, in tenth grade, the purported benefit to Hindus of Christian 

colonization in India.

95. The Framework denigrates Hinduism by asserting that: “In [the Vedic period], 

Vedic culture emerged as a belief system that combined the beliefs of Indic speakers with those 

of older populations.” The “Vedic period” and “Vedic culture” are tantamount to references to 

Hinduism, since they represent the creation of the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scripture. To suggest 

that a “culture emerged as a belief system” strips the Hindu belief system of any divine origins - it 

depicts the religion simply a social construct. The Framework does not explain other religions in 

sociological and anthropological terms; rather, it explains them as they are understood by 

followers of those faiths.

96. In addition, the Framework reference to “Indic speakers” quoted in the preceding 

paragraph is to the language spoken by an Indo-Aryan people who are part of the highly 

controversial Aryan Invasion Theory. That theory of Aryans invading or migrating to South Asia 

to “civilize” it is expressly embraced in the Standards and is referenced throughout the 

Framework. The origins of all other religions included in the Framework are explained from the 

perspective of the believer and not the skeptic. Only for the origin of Hinduism does the 

Framework use a discredited theory that is, at best, highly controversial and offensive to most 

Hindus.

97. Instead of simply explaining Hindu beliefs as to the origins of the religion prefaced 

by “according to Hindu tradition” as is done for other explanations throughout the Framework, 

Hinduism is explained in convoluted terms that focus on people who delivered religious messages 

rather than the messages themselves, which Hindus believe to be divine: “Brahmins, that is, 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 23 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 24

priestly families, assumed authority over complex devotional rituals, but many important sages, 

such as Valmiki and Vyasa, were not brahmins. Ancient Hindu sages (brahmins and others) 

expounded the idea of the oneness of all living things and of Brahman as the divine principle of 

being.” 

98. By contrast, for example, the Framework explains the origins of Islam as: 

“According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad, an Arabic-speaking merchant, received revelations 

from God, which were written down in the Qur’an. This message declared that human beings 

must worship and live by the teachings of the one God and treat one another with equality and 

justice.”

99. The Framework also unfairly attributes the caste system to Hinduism: “Today 

many Hindus, in India and in the United States, do not identify themselves as belonging to a 

caste. Teachers should make clear to students that this was a social and cultural structure as well 

as a religious belief (emphasis added).” It also blames Hindu “priests, rulers, and other elites” 

who “used religion to justify the social hierarchy.”

100. Of the 75 lines in the Framework that constitute the central discussion of 

Hinduism, 32 lines are devoted to discussing caste. Thus, 43 percent of what students learn about 

Hinduism relates to an unfair societal structure that the Framework has told them is part of that 

religion.

101. For no other religion besides Hinduism does the Framework describe supposed 

negative beliefs of followers based upon the Commission’s interpretation of religious text.10 The 

Framework also fails to note that the caste system has existed in India among Sikhs, Christians, 

Muslims and Buddhists, but has not existed among Hindus of Indonesia and Fiji.

 10 For example, interpretations of the Bible and the Quran that deem same-sex relationships a sin 

are, understandably, omitted from the Framework.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 24 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 25

102. The Framework further describes Hinduism as a negative influence on thenexisting societal norms while describing other religions as a positive influence on negative 

aspects of society. For example, Hinduism is described as contributing to the unequal status of 

women while discussing the topic of patriarchy, while other religions are described as 

ameliorating the problem of the unequal status of women that existed in society. The Framework 

does not address interpretations of the Bible that would give women a status inferior to men.

103. Similarly, the Framework blames Hindu priests for problems in society while 

exonerating the Christian priestly class of blame for causing conflicts. Specifically, the 

Framework claims that Hindu priests, rulers, and other elites justified the caste system by 

asserting that they “used religion to justify the social hierarchy.” In the case of Christianity, 

according to an earlier draft of the Framework: “Students may investigate the significance of 

conflict between popes who claimed political supremacy in Europe and secular monarchs who 

successfully resisted it.” This language was changed to remove the description of popes seeking 

political supremacy. The sentence now reads: “Around 900, popes began to assert their control 

over the church hierarchy, which brought them into conflict with secular monarchs.”

104. The Framework further disfavors Hinduism, other faiths, and nonbelievers by 

endorsing Old and New Testament religious doctrine and depicting biblical stories as history.

105. The Framework teaches that the early traditions of Jews originated the observance 

of law, the practice of righteousness and compassion, and the belief in one God, as if it were a 

fact of history that those practices and beliefs had never existed before. 

106. Jewish religious doctrine is endorsed by the Framework by portraying the Exodus 

from Egypt has an historical event – one that was “of great significance to Jewish law and belief, 

especially the concept of a special relationship or covenant between the Israelites and God.” In 

fact, historians do not consider the Exodus an historical event.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 25 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 26

107. The Framework further provides: “After the Exodus, Saul, David, and Solomon–

three successive kings who probably lived in the eleventh and tenth centuries BCE–united the 

land of Israel into a state. King David enlarged the Kingdom of Israel, established the capital in 

Jerusalem, was a poet and musician, and is believed to have written many of the Psalms in the 

Hebrew Bible. King Solomon extended the Kingdom of Israel through many alliances. He is best 

known for his wisdom, building the First Temple, and writing parts of the Hebrew Bible. After 

Solomon’s reign, the unified kingdom split into two: Israel in the north and Judah (from which we 

get the words Judaism and Jews) in the south.” Again, the Framework depicts ahistorical religious 

stories as actual history.

108. The Framework promotes Christian religious doctrine as though it were history by 

teaching that: “Through selections from Biblical literature, students will learn about those 

teachings of Jesus that advocate compassion, justice, and love for others. He taught that God 

loved all his creation, regardless of status or circumstance, and that humans should reflect that 

love in relations with one another. Jesus shared the Jewish belief in one God, but he added the 

promise of eternal salvation to those who believe in him as their savior. The Roman authorities in 

Judea executed Jesus. But under the leadership of his early followers, notably Paul, a Jewish 

scholar from Anatolia, Christians took advantage of Roman roads and sea lanes to travel widely, 

preaching to both Jews and others.” For no other religion besides Christianity does the 

Framework provide for students reading scripture.

109. In addition, by teaching that Mary was the mother of Jesus as though it were 

historical fact, the Framework endorses Christian religious doctrine.

110. The Framework describes Christian missionaries who colonized India as 

benefactors of Hindus: 

Colonizers introduced new infrastructures, medicines, educational systems, and 

cultural norms. Print technology and more rapid transportation aided the growth of 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 26 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 27

organized religion. These technological developments also facilitated integration 

of regional Indian religious traditions into the larger religious tradition of the 

subcontinent while still retaining their regional identity. Christian missionaries 

made use of colonial institutions and infrastructure to educate and evangelize 

native peoples, helping to broaden Christian presence around the world. Some 

European thinkers joined religious beliefs to Social Darwinian ideas about the 

evolution of races, leading to European efforts to “civilize” native peoples they 

perceived as “backward.” They also attempted to reform practices involving 

marriage and women’s social roles.

111. The phrase “larger religious traditions of the subcontinent” in the excerpt in the 

preceding paragraph is a euphemism for Hinduism. No other religion besides Hinduism is 

described in the Framework as benefiting from colonialism and no other religious group besides 

Christians is described in positive terms for its negative actions such as colonizing people. 

Indeed, this part of the Framework is inconsistent with the requirement of the Standard 10.4.3 that 

the perspective of the colonized be provided along with that of the colonizers.

C. School Districts

112. Plaintiffs do not challenge the right of school districts to decide their curricula as 

provided by California law. Rather, Plaintiffs challenge the school district Defendants’ 

incorporation into their curricula the unconstitutional portions of the Standards and Framework

set forth in this Complaint.

113. San Francisco Unified School District (SF USD) uses textbooks or instructional 

materials, or both, that are aligned to the Standards and that are consistent with the Framework. 

Its history-social science curriculum that is rooted in the Standards and Framework denigrates 

Hindus and endorses the Abrahamic faiths.

114. San Ramon Valley Unified School District (San Ramon Valley USD) has adopted 

the Standards and its curriculum is aligned with the Standards and Framework. San Ramon 

Valley USD’s history-social science curriculum that is rooted in the Standards and Framework 

denigrates Hindus and endorses the Abrahamic faiths.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 27 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 28

115. Cupertino Union School District (Cupertino Union SD) uses textbooks or 

instructional materials, or both, that are aligned to the Standards and that are consistent with 

the Framework. Cupertino Union SD’s history-social science curriculum that is rooted in the 

Standards and Framework denigrates Hindus and endorses the Abrahamic faiths.

116. Milpitas Unified School District’s (Milpitas USD) curriculum is aligned with the 

Standards and Framework and it implements the Standards and Framework in its instructional 

materials. Also, “demonstrated knowledge of the curriculum framework for the subject and the 

specific content of the district's course of study for the subject at the grade level to be taught” is a 

criterion for teacher assessment in certain circumstances. Milpitas USD’s history-social science 

curriculum that is rooted in the Standards and Framework denigrates Hindus and endorses the 

Abrahamic faiths.

D. Injuries to Plaintiffs

117. CAPEEM as an organization has been injured by Defendants’ constitutional 

violations. It has diverted resources from other activities to organize California parents of public 

school students to advocate for a fair and accurate depiction of Hinduism in the state curriculum. 

CAPEEM continues this organizing and advocacy and must contend now with the textbook 

adoption process, which requires adherence to the unconstitutional Standards and Framework. 

CAPEEM is also developing and will distribute supplemental materials for California school 

districts that provide a fair and accurate depiction of Hinduism, to try to reduce the impact of the 

disfavored treatment the religion receives in the current curriculum. As a direct result of the effort 

necessary to address the discriminatory Standards and Framework, CAPEEM has been unable to 

engage in many other types of advocacy in and outside of California, such as public education 

and organizing through speaking engagements and meetings with parents, and policy advocacy 

through analyses and distribution of those analyses in Hindu communities.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 28 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 29

118. Numerous CAPEEM members have children in public schools throughout 

Northern California who are taught and otherwise exposed to Defendants’ unconstitutional 

curriculum. They attend every grade, kindergarten through eleven.

119. At least two children of CAPEEM members attend schools in the SF USD, one in 

sixth grade and one in third grade.

120. Four children of CAPEEM members attend schools in the San Ramon Valley USD

in the following grades: eleventh, eighth, sixth, and third.

121. Another CAPEEM member lives in the Cupertino Union SD and has a child in 

sixth grade and another in kindergarten. He chose to enroll his children in private school in part 

so they do not have to experience Defendants’ discriminatory curriculum.

122. Plaintiff Raghavan practices Hinduism with his family, including his two children. 

He is deeply concerned that his children are taught about Hinduism in a negative light, especially 

when other religions are portrayed only positively, and that some Christian and Jewish traditional 

beliefs are taught as history without any significant historical basis.

123. Raghavan has engaged his children in many activities for the purpose, in part, of 

counterbalancing the biased, negative impression of Hindus and Hinduism his children receive at 

school. These activities include but are not limited to: buying books on Hinduism and reading 

them with his children; talking to his children about what they are learning about religion in 

school and dispelling the misinformation they receive, particularly the privileged position other 

faiths are given; and taking his children to Bala Vihar, a religious school. If Raghavan were 

confident that his children were receiving a balanced perspective on religion in their public 

schools, he would not engage in these activities to the same extent he does now.

124. Plaintiff Thumati practices Hinduism with his family, including his two children. 

He is hurt and troubled that the history and social science education his children receive in school 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 29 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 30

causes his older child to feel Hinduism is inferior, and that the child’s interest in and respect for 

Hinduism are greatly reduced. He fears the same for his younger child.

125. Thumati tries to undo the harmful impression of Hinduism his children receive in 

school by explaining to them the rich history of the religion and the positive values it embraces. 

He teaches them about Hinduism’s contributions to medicine, architecture, mathematics, music, 

yoga, meditation, and ahimsa (non-violence), and its great saints, many of whom were social 

reformers. He also shows his children videos about the history of Hinduism and takes them to a 

religious school so they can learn more about their faith than the negative depiction they receive 

in public school.

126. Plaintiff Shilwant practices Hinduism with his family, including his two children. 

He is worried that the schools his children attend teach them that caste and the unfair treatment of 

women are part of Hinduism. Shilwant’s concern is compounded by the fact that women are 

considered a divine power in Hinduism while other religions have been used to justify slavery and 

the inferior treatment of women, which the curriculum does not mention. Buddhism, Judaism, 

Christianity, and Islam are all portrayed positively. The only religion that the Standards and 

Framework treat negatively is Hinduism.

127. Both Shilwant’s children have started to build an image of Hinduism in their mind 

that is incorrect and is damaging to their self-esteem. His children trust what they are taught in 

school. So when he tells his children about the beauty of Hinduism and the contributions it has 

made to society, it is difficult for them to believe those things since that impression is not 

reinforced in school.

128. To compensate for what his children are taught about Hinduism and religion in 

school, Shilwant buys books for his family to read and discuss about Hinduism, Hindu 

personalities, and their contributions to society.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 30 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 31

129. Plaintiff Parents and Schoolchildren11 object to and are injured by Defendants’ 

derision of Hinduism and the curriculum that exposes all California public school students to a 

discriminatory depiction of their faith. Parents and Schoolchildren further object to and are 

injured by Defendants’ curriculum biased against Hindus that requires students to express a 

distorted depiction of Hinduism in graded assignments.

130. Schoolchildren suffer psychological harm, including humiliation and alienation,

and receive an inferior education as a direct result Defendants’ denigration of Hinduism and 

exaltation of other faiths. 

131. Defendants’ discriminatory and derogatory treatment of Hindus and Hinduism 

unfairly stigmatizes Parents and Schoolchildren and personally denies them equal treatment under 

the law.

132. Defendants’ endorsement of Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths sends a 

message to Parents and Schoolchildren that they are outsiders, not full members of the political 

community, and an accompanying message to adherents of the faiths Defendants endorse that 

they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

133. Plaintiff Parents believe it is their responsibility—not the state’s—to provide for 

their children’s religious education. By teaching certain religious doctrines as historical truth and 

denigrating Hinduism, Defendants’ usurp and violate Parents’ constitutional rights as parents.

134. All Plaintiffs also object to, and are injured by, Defendants’ use of their tax dollars 

to provide religious instruction to public-school students that discriminates against Hinduism and 

endorses the religious teachings of other faiths.

135. Parents have had to provide tutelage to Schoolchildren to try to ameliorate the anti-

 11 “Parents” as used in the complaint means individual Plaintiff parents and members of 

CAPEEM who are parents of California public schoolchildren. “Schoolchildren” means 

individual Plaintiff children and the California public schoolchildren of CAPEEM members.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 31 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 32

Hindu bias and endorsement of other religions in the curriculum Defendants provide.

V. CLAIMS

136. Defendants’ four constitutional violations enumerated below were and continue to 

be committed under color of state law and are, therefore, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

137. Plaintiffs assert against Defendants the four constitutional claims set forth below 

based upon the facts alleged in this Complaint, as follows:

CAPEEM, Raghavan, Thumati, and Shilwant v. State Defendants12

CAPEEM v. SF USD Defendants

CAPEEM v. San Ramon Valley USD Defendants

CAPEEM and Thumati v. Cupertino Union SD Defendants

Shilwant v. Milpitas USD Defendants

COUNT ONE

VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO 

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

138. CAPEEM’s members and the three individual Plaintiffs are Hindu, a protected 

class under the Equal Protection Clause.

139. Defendants’ Standards discriminate against Hindus by describing Hinduism in 

derogatory terms and from the perspective of a skeptic, whereas other religions are treated 

respectfully and described from the perspective of believers who follow those faiths.

140. Defendants’ Framework also discriminates against Hindus by describing Hinduism 

in derogatory terms and from the perspective of a skeptic, whereas other religions are treated 

respectfully and described from the perspective of believers who follow those faiths.

141. The State Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in the process leading up to 

 12 “State Defendants” are Torlakson, Adams, Gregson, Kirst, Straus, Burr, Holaday, Ortiz-Licon, 

Rucker, Sandoval, Sun, and Williams.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 32 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 33

the adoption of the Framework by manipulating the use of experts on Hinduism and South Asia to 

the disadvantage of all Plaintiffs and considering proposed edits relating to Hinduism on terms 

different than those given to other religions.

142. Proposed edits from CAPEEM and other Hindu advocacy organizations and 

individuals were treated with disfavor compared to proposed edits received from other religious 

advocacy organizations during the Framework adoption process.

143. The State Defendants’ adoption and all Defendants’ implementation of the 

Standards and Framework was and continues to be intentional.

COUNT TWO

VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

144. Defendants’ Standards denigrate Hinduism and endorse the Abrahamic faiths.

145. The State Defendants’ process leading up to the adoption of the Framework 

disfavored Hinduism and endorsed the Abrahamic faiths.

146. Defendants’ Framework itself denigrates Hinduism and endorses the Abrahamic 

faiths.

COUNT THREE

VIOLATION OF FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

147. Defendants’ Standards denigrate Hinduism and are, therefore, neither neutral with 

respect to religion nor generally applicable.

148. The State Defendants’ process leading up to the adoption of the Framework 

disfavored Hinduism and was, therefore, neither neutral with respect to religion nor generally 

applicable.

149. Defendants’ Framework itself denigrates Hinduism is, therefore, neither neutral 

with respect to religion nor generally applicable.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 33 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 34

COUNT FOUR

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

150. Defendants’ Standards and Framework do not simply provide for an understanding 

of major world religions in the context of world history. They indoctrinate children with beliefs 

biased deeply against Hinduism and in favor of the Abrahamic religions.

151. Defendants’ biased curriculum interferes with the rights of Parents to direct the 

religious education of their children.

152. By interfering unreasonably with the liberty interests of parents to direct the

upbringing and education of their children, the Standards and Framework violate substantive due 

process.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

(a) Declare that Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

(b) Enjoin further violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights including, but not 

limited to, an injunction that prohibits Defendants’ discrimination against Hindus and their 

endorsement of the Abrahamic faiths as described in this Complaint;

(c) Enjoin Defendants from using in all curriculum and instructional materials the 

portions of the Standards and Framework identified in the Complaint that discriminate against 

Hindus and endorse the Abrahamic faiths;

(d) Award attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action; and 

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 34 of 35
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT – Page 35

(e) Award any further relief in favor of Plaintiffs as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

KATON.LAW

/s/ Glenn Katon

Glenn Katon

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CALIFORNIA 

PARENTS FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF 

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS; ARVIND 

RAGHAVAN, individually and as parent and next 

friend of M.R. and N.R.; VISHNUKUMAR THUMATI, 

individually and as parent and next friend of P.T. and 

N.T.; SHAILESH SHILWANT, individually and as 

parent and next friend of P.S. and P.S.S.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/08/17 Page 35 of 35