Sunday, June 14, 2009

CAPEEM victory

A small victory for a cause we endorse:

Los Angeles
June 8, 2009
California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) and officials of the California Department of Education and the State Board of Education came to an agreement to settle the lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court of Eastern District of California in 2006. CAPEEM had challenged the process by which religious claims were incorporated into the textbooks used by public school students, as well as some of the religious claims, themselves, which had made their way into those texts.

Believing that its points had been clearly understood by the defendants, CAPEEM opted not to prolong the litigation. The State entered into negotiations with CAPEEM and agreed to pay CAPEEM $175,000 in exchange for a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit.

CAPEEM looks forward to participating in a review process free from biases, and to work with the State to approve textbooks that do not favor or disfavor any religious doctrines.
For more information contact:
Arvind Kumar (646) 594-4397
CAPEEM is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization with tax ID 56-2565521. If you do not wish to receive updates from CAPEEM, please reply to this email with the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

Check Nizzal Yoddha's (a.k.a. Rajeev Srinivasan's take on this (link)). An excerpt is as follows:

"It should also be replicated in india with a solid legal entity. there are many opportunities to challenge the state and other actors on unconstitutionality and legality. Some random recent examples:

1. The prime minister, sworn to uphold the constitution, violated its equal-rights clauses (this should be an impeachable offense) by saying that one group of people should have greater rights than others
2. An award-winning NGO was found to have fabricated witness statements, thus tampering with witnesses (a major offense) and thus rendering any related trial a mistrial, not to mention libelous and defamatory statements should result in large punitive damages
3. The speaker of the last parliament, sworn to neutrality, said he could not vote with a particular party. this should be an impeachable offense
4. The same speaker belittled and ignored what appeared to be a major vote-buying scam during a no-confidence motion, where it appeared people were bribed with large amounts: a felony. however, the same speaker pursued a misdemeanor with great enthusiasm, again suggesting bias."

No comments: