MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409821438 · doi:10.26443/jcreor.v6i1.130

Examining Anti-Hindu Bias in American Public Education

2025· article· en· W4409821438 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Indu Viswanathan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Council for Research on Religion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHinduismReligious studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces the “Endogenous Cycle of Hinduphobia,” a theoretical construct explaining the perpetuation of stereotypical depictions and systematic omissions of Hinduism and Hindus in scholarship and media, which seed a biased master narrative about Hinduism in the public imagination. It highlights the role played by epistemic injustice in undermining Hindu testimony and scholarly contributions, sustaining a cycle of prejudice that entrenches this master narrative. Historical ties of American public education to colonial and missionary objectives are explored, illustrating how curricula have historically undermined Hindu religious and cultural identity by favouring narratives marked by violence, superstition, and moral degradation. The paper scrutinizes incidences where scholars and journalists trigger the endogenous cycle of Hinduphobia, arguing for an interrogation of the foundational premises upon which current representations are built. It also recounts the experiences of Hindu Americans who, as students, addressed the California Department of Education in 2016, highlighting the detrimental effects of such educational biases on their individual and collective identities. Ultimately, the paper aims to initiate steps toward dismantling the endogenous cycle of Hinduphobia, advocating for an educational paradigm that truly aligns with the tenets of democracy and pluralism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.519
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.013 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Council for Research on ReligionSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207