APOLOGY 9 HTML JOE FIX
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/fefferman_article.htm
Cult Group Controversies:
Maryland Cult Task Force
| Taskforce Index | Cult Controversies Index | Religious Movements
Home |
Will Maryland Lead U.S. into European-Style "Sectophobia"?*
Dan Fefferman
While the US is generally thought of as having an excellent record
with regard to religious freedom, recent developments in the state of
Maryland set an ominous precedent indicating that the US may be
following Europes lead toward repressive measures and
"Sectophobia."
The case in point is an act of the Maryland state legislature last
year to create a "Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities
on Public Senior Higher Educational Institutions." The Task Force,
which is currently in formation, is required to report its findings
and recommendations to the Governor of Maryland no later that
September 30 of this year.
The resolution creating the Task Force stated that "college students
who become involved with cults undergo personality changes, suffer
academically and financially, are alienated from their families and
friends, and are robbed of the very things universities were designed
to encourage
" It does not, however, define the term "cult" or
name any specific "cults."
Opponents fear the Task Force will be used to stifle the freedom of
speech and expression of adherents to new and small religions, the
very groups that most require protection. They point out that in
Europe, government anti-"sect" commissions have named such groups as
Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic charismatic
groups and even the YWCA as "dangerous."
U.S. anti-cultists have claimed the creation of the Maryland Task
Force as a triumph that should be duplicated in states throughout the
nation. Promotional literature for a "CULTINFO" conference in
Stamford Connecticut in January giddily declared: "This encouraging
development will energize you and show how you can use this tool in
your state legislature."
Results of anti-"sect" commissions in Europe have been criticized for
creating an atmosphere similar to the McCarthyist red scare in the
1950s. In Germany, members of the Church of Scientology have been
banned from membership in the major political parties. In France, a
Unification Church center was bombed shortly after the government
listed the church among 72 dangerous "sects." Members of minority
religions in Europe have been denied employment and housing, had
schools closed, have been passed over for employment, and even had
bank accounts closed for no other reason than their faith.
The commissions have also been criticized for being wasteful. After
months of investigation and substantial expenditures of money, a
German official panel mandated to study "sects and psychogroups"
concluded: "No generalized statements on the whole spectrum of new
religious and ideological groups and psychogroups can be made. As a
consequence of this fact, the Commission has decided to no longer use
the term 'sect.'
The Maryland Task Force demonstrates how a tiny force of misguided or
intolerant individuals fearful about "cults" can bend a state
legislature's will by presenting one sided arguments and taking
advantage of crowded legislative calendars to push through its
agenda.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/cultwars.htm#history
Cult Group Controversies:
Maryland Cult Task Force
| Task Force Index | Cult Controversies Index | Religious Movements
Home |
Cult Wars in Maryland: An Introduction to the Task Force to Study the
Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education
Institutions*
Jeffrey K. Hadden** University of Virginia
Contents
Introduction Movements and Counter Movements History of Anti-Cult
Movements Anti-Cult Activities in Maryland Why Maryland Now? Task
Force Proceedings Reflections on the Task Force
Introduction
During the 1998 legislative session, the House and Senate of the
Maryland State Legislature passed a join resolution to create a Task
Force to study the "effects of cult activities" on campuses in the
state system of four year colleges and universities. The Task Force
was not funded and hearings did not get underway until more than
thirteen months later in May 1999. From the beginning, some observers
saw the hearings as "much ado about nothing," while others viewed the
outcome of these proceedings as having serious implications for the
future of anti-cult movement activities both in the United States and
Europe.
At the time of this writing, the public hearings of the Task Force
are complete. The Task Force is now determining the nature of the
report and recommendations they will write. The purpose of this essay
is to provide an orientation and overview to the proceedings for
those who are not familiar with the Maryland Cult Task Force. It also
provides very brief background comments on the history of the
anti-cult movement in America over the past three decades, and
concludes with a brief analytical perspective.
This web site will be developing as complete an archive of the Task
Force proceedings as is possible. Many of the witnesses before the
Task Force presented written comments. Many of their presentations
are now available online. We will be adding additional written
presentations as quickly as we can get them processed. The
proceedings of the Task Force have been recorded, but there are no
plans for an official transcript. An unofficial transcript is
presently being prepared and we hope to have at least some portions
of that transcript on line within a few weeks.
Those who are familiar with the sociological literature on the
movements and counter-movements, as well as the anti-cult movement in
America, may wish to jump directly to the discussion of the Maryland
case. You can also access the index of resources available on the
Maryland Cult Task Force.
Movements and Counter-Movements in Sociological Literature
Social movements literature advises us that movements beget
counter-movements more-or-less proportionate to the perceived threat
of the movement. And, the greater the success of counter-movements in
mobilizing opposition resources, the greater the amount of time and
resources the proactive movements will need to invest to protect
their movement interests.
The anti-cult movement in the U.S. early on pursued a strategy of
litigation that compelled religious movements to invest resources to
protect themselves in court. For all but the largest New Religious
Movements, litigation was a threat both in terms of the allocation of
leadership time and organizational financial resources.
The size of the anti-cult movement in America has never been very
big, but they have skillfully employed litigation. And they have
successfully courted mass media to promote their message that "cults
in America" constitute and dangerous and pernicious force that
threatens the lives of those who come into contact with them, and
that "cults" undermine the fabric of a free society. The message of
danger resonates with much of the general public because (a) there
has long existed a latent distrust of marginal and new religious and
(b) parents can be easily swayed by messages that their children are
vulnerable to groups that have special powers to influence them.
A Brief History of the Anti-Cult Wars in the U.S.
The struggle between the new religious movements of the second half
of the twentieth century and the anti-cult movement is well
documented in several resources [insert short biblio]. We
need only recall here that the anti-cult movement began with the high
visibility of new religions during the latter phases of the youth
counter-culture.
Parents distraught by their children joining religious movements
early found a new group who called themselves deprogrammers. For a
price, these entrepreneurs were willing to assist in returning
wayward children to their parents. Together, parents and
deprogrammers created an ideology that demonized religious movements,
especially their leaders, and simultaneously legitimated forcible
removal of young people from religious groups. A few who were
successfully deprogrammed would find new careers in the expanding
occupation of deprogramming, first as aids or apprentices before
moving out on their own to become private entrepreneurs.
During much of the 1970s and 1980s the anti-cult movement pursued two
strategies against religious movements: (1) aggressive removal and
deprogramming of members from religious groups and (2) litigation
against new religions, brought by the anti-cult movement on behalf of
former members who claimed various kinds of abuse. The most important
alleged abuse was that new religions used powerful techniques called
"brainwashing" to get young recruits to act contrary to their own
will and, thus, effectively becoming prisoners to the "cult."
After a few cases charging kidnapping sent deprogrammers to jail for
their roles in forcibly removing adult members from groups,
anti-cultists sought to pass legislation that would grant parents
conservatorships over their adult children. If this could be
achieved, deprogramming could take place under the protection of the
law. Having failed to get protective legislation in a single state,
the language characterizing their activity was changed from
deprogramming to "exit counseling." And, greater caution was taken to
avoid the more vulgar tactics of forcible removal.
The strategy of suing new religious groups for exercising "mind
control" over members continued virtually unabated until the end of
the 1980s. At that point, two leading expert witnesses for the
anti-cultists sought to testify that Steven Fishman, who was on trial
for grand larceny, had acted under the influence of mind control. The
Church of Scientology was still exercising the alleged mind control
some years after he had terminated his association with the group. In
a landmark decision in 1990, Judge D. Lowell Jensen in a U.S. Federal
District Court in Northern California ruled that the two experts
could not offer testimony on brainwashing or mind control because
their views did not represent the consensual view of the scientific
community.
USA v Fishman (1990) effectively put an end to litigation against
religious movements on the grounds that they had abused former
members by the use of mind control. But this chapter of the anti-cult
movement was not finally put to rest until after the two expert
witnesses were twice unsuccessful in suits brought against the
organizations and individual scholars they claimed were responsible
for putting an end to their careers as expert witnesses on this
issue.
Another landmark decision occurred in 1995 in Seattle involving an
unsuccessful involuntary deprogramming attempt of Jason Scott, a
member of a Pentecostal group. The suit was brought against the
deprogrammers and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), the leading
anti-cult organization in the U.S. On November 29, Federal Judge
Coughernour awarded a judgment of $4.8 million to Scott for violation
of his civil rights. The judge. s decision notes that "CAN knowingly
participated in the decision to abduct Mr. Scott&
[and]& the evidence conclusively established that the
decision was motivated by discriminatory animus toward his religious
affiliation." This decision was upheld in a U.S. Court of Appeal
(04/08/99), as was an appeal for a bankruptcy court sale of the name
and of the assets of the Cult Awareness Network.
A member of the Church of Scientology purchased the name Cult
Awareness Network, and the organization. s assets. The organization
now operates under the aegis of an organization called Foundation for
Religious Freedom. The new CAN operates a hotline and information
service which now focuses on the religious and civil rights of
members of marginal religious groups.
Some scholars and media observers see these and other developments of
the 1990s as evidence that anti-cult organizations have been serious
damaged and that they probably cannot long survive. Before anyone
writes an obituary for the collective anti-cult efforts in the U.S.,
it might be well to recall that sage wisdom of Peter Berger in his
celebrated little volume, Invitation to Sociology. "It can be said
that the first wisdom of sociology is this. things are not what they
seem." With this advice, it might be wise to examine more carefully
the strategies that the anti-cult movement is now being pursued in
the U.S.
With this background as prologue, I turn to an examination of the
activities of the anti-cult movement in the state of Maryland as
exemplar of new strategies and as a test case of considerable
consequence in the United States.
Anti-cult Activities in Maryland
During the 1980s, the legislature of the State of Maryland exhibited
caution in the face of repeated efforts to use the legislature to
attack religious minorities. In 1980 the House of Delegates defeated
a resolution that would have created legislative a panel to "study,
investigate, and report to the Maryland legislature on the
recruitment and membership practices of religious cults and the
possible need for remedial legislation." The resolution was
reintroduced in 1981 with the word "religious" deleted.
In 1982 a bill was introduced that would have allowed the appointment
of a "special guardian" of a person for 45 days. This appeared to be
a "thinly disguised attempt at State-sanctioned deprogramming"
(Fefferman). Then, in 1988 another joint resolution was introduced to
create a "Cult Awareness Week" for the expressed purpose of informing
citizens of the danger of "cults."
Delegate, later Senator Ida G. Ruben, introduced all four of these
initiatives. The last of these resolutions was introduced in
conjunction with the annual meeting of the Cult Awareness Network in
Washington D.C. The Maryland legislative bodies rejected each of
these initiatives.
After a decade without any legislative initiatives, the issue
reappeared in 1998 before the House of Delegates. The focus shifted
to alleged problems on college campuses. Sponsors of the resolution
were six members of the legislative Black Caucus. The resolution
alleges that "college students are particularly vulnerable to cult
recruitment," that "students who become involved with cults undergo
personality changes, suffer academically and financially, are
alienated from their families and friends, and are robbed of the very
things universities were designed to encourage." The resolution
further states that while some college administrators have recognized
the problem of cults on campus and "taken action to address the
situation& many others have failed to recognize the threat&
[and]& deal with the problem."
House Joint Resolution 22, entitled "Task Force to Study the Effects
of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions"
(Appendix I) was introduced on first reading before the House Rule
Committee on February 19, 1998.
A single day of hearings on House Joint Resolution 22 occurred on
March 5, 1998. Delegate C. Anthony Muse, who spearheaded the
resolution, chaired the hearing. There were a total of ten witnesses;
nine spoke in favor of the resolution, one in opposition. Those
speaking in favor of the resolution included a mathematics professor
and anti-cult activist, three campus clergy who were also anti-cult
activists on Maryland campuses, three parents and two former
members.
The one person speaking against the resolution was William Taft
Stuart, a professor of anthropology at the UM, College Park. Stuart
specializes in the study of religious movements. His presence was
apparently fortuitous. Stuart received the invitation to appear
before the hearings because a former student of his, and then an
assistant to Delegate Muse, was assigned the task of rounding up
witnesses. Stuart reports that Delegate Muse appeared to be miffed by
his presence at the proceedings (interview, 08/03/99).
The final two-page resolution uses the word "cult" 16 times and is
explicitly, or contextually, pejorative in every occasion. HJR22
passed on the third reading in the House on March 28 with 93%
favoring. The resolution was introduced in a Senate committee on
March 30, and was passed barely two weeks later by a vote of 38-7.
Governor Parris Glendening signed the joint resolution on May 21.
Calling for a Task Force, the resolution made no provisions to staff
or fund activities of these proceedings. Without funding,
administrative officials of the four-year colleges and universities
in Maryland proceeded to informally explore the extent to which the
focus of the resolution was a problem on campuses. The conclusion
reached was that problems of "cults" on campus were minimal to
non-existent at the Maryland State colleges and universities.
This was not satisfactory to those who had pushed for the Task Force.
They pressed to move the Task Force into action, and on May 25,
1999--a full year after the Governor signed the joint resolution--the
Task Force held its first meeting.
Why a Maryland Cult Task Force Now?
After a decade without any anti-cult resolutions or bills before the
Maryland legislature, at a time when anti-cult activity in the U.S.
appeared to be on the decline, why should the issue reappear? Several
interrelated developments offer important clues.
First, while the Cult Awareness Network was being forced out of
business, the American Family Foundation (AFF) and local groups have
quietly pursued a strategy of taking their anti-cult message to
college campuses across America. One resource they have used with
some apparent effectiveness is a 30-minute videotape entitled Cults:
Saying . No. Under Pressure. The videotape was produced by the
International Cult Education Program and narrated by Charlton Heston.
We have not information on how aggressively AFF has marketed this
videotape, but it is present and used on Maryland campuses.
Second, according to a Washington Post article in late 1997, the
Washington D.C. metropolitan area has been a target for pressing the
need for "cult education." The article sites evidence of university
sponsored anti-cult activities on three District of Columbia campuses
(American University, George Washington University and Georgetown
University) and the University of Maryland.
The focus of the article, however, was on the apparent inadequate
efforts at the University of Maryland, College Park campus. The
article claimed there had been many complaints from parents and
students about aggressive cult activity on campus. The Post writers
report that parents are complaining that "the university has long
refused to acknowledge a cult problem on campus."
The number of complaining parents is not clear. The Post writers
state that they talked with a half-dozen parents, but the rather
lengthy article identifies only a single couple whose daughter had a
rather brief involvement with the a high demand group know as the
International Churches of Christ. The Post report, plus my own
investigation of the situation, would suggest that the number of
parents who have pressed the university to take action against
"cults" is quite small.
A third factor which likely contributed to the legislature. s
willingness to go along with a study task force was the presence of a
very vocal mathematics professor at the University of Maryland who,
according to the Post, "had been lobbying university officials for
years to heighten student awareness of cults." This professor. s
complaints are reported by several persons to be responsible for the
university producing a brochure entitled . Friends. Are Everywhere: a
Guide to Making Judgements About Groups. The message of this tract is
simple, if chilling: students beware of those who would wish to
befriend you, for they may be cult agents. This document was mailed
to on-campus residents as early as the Fall of 1993. From at least
the fall of 1997, incoming resident students have been exposed to the
anti-cult videotape entitled "Cults: Saying . No. Under
Pressure."
Having permitted a vocal anti-cultist faculty member to structure the
content of student orientation materials, and to have a role in the
training of resident counselors, the mathematics professor becomes
the inside "whistle blower." The message he helped deliver to
Annapolis as reflected in the language of the HJ22 Resolution is that
some University administrators have "failed to recognize the threat,"
or "refused to deal with the problem."
The fourth factor that almost certainly contributed to the renewed
interest of the legislature in passing an enabling resolution to
inquire about "cults" is the fact that the resolution is aimed at
alleged danger on campus. In spite of the fact that the issue of in
loco parentis was largely resolved more than a generation ago in
favor of maximum personal freedom for college students, the
allegation of threat to young people on campus is alluring.
The evidence is clear that university administrators did respond to
pressure to address the perceived threat of "cults" on campus, but
the anti-cult activists continued to plead that the university had
not be responsive. When the activists take the case of alleged danger
to the legislature, with the added caveat that university
administrators have not been sufficiently sensitive to the problem,
the stage was set for the hard sell.
State legislatures did not want to place themselves in a position of
being perceived as indifferent to the problem. By targeting youth
that are purported to be in danger, the plea is one that most
legislators would find hard to vote against. To vote against the
resolution could make a legislator vulnerable to the charge that he
or she is "soft on cults." Since the resolution carried no staff
resources, it was unlikely that much would come of the work of the
Task Force.
In this context, a vote for the resolution was likely viewed as a
win, win vote. When HJR came before the Maryland Delegates for a
third reading on March 23, 1998, they voted 117-9 for the resolution.
On April 9, they voted by a margin of 110-15 to concur with Senate
Amendments. The Maryland Senate then passed the Third Reading of the
resolution by a vole to 38-7 on April 12, 1998.
Proceedings of the Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities
on Public Senior High Education Institutions
The Task Force, members to be appointed by various means, would
consist of sixteen (16) persons selected to represent various
interested parties including the Maryland legislature, the
universities, parents and students. Of particular interest is the
fact that two of the four parents were designated to be persons who
have a child who is currently, or has been a member of a "cult."
William T. Wood, an attorney and member of the Board of Regents of
the University of Maryland System, was appointed by Governor
Glendening to chair the committee.
The first meeting of the Task Force occurred on May 25. Chairman Wood
announced that the hearings would be organized as a legal proceeding
before a court. The quasi-courtroom proceedings, with Wood sitting as
the presiding judge, have fallen short of a trial where the accused
having an opportunity to face their accusers.
All of the scheduled witnesses for the first day of hearings, except
for anthropologist Stuart, addressed the issue of dangerous cults on
campus. Thus, the hearings proceeded very much as the hearings before
the Maryland legislative body considering the resolution. The only
significant difference is that several religious movement groups in
the Maryland/District of Columbia area were not aware of the
legislative hearings were not present in the audience. Only Stuart. s
presentation, which addressed the meaning of the concept cult, and
the inherently prejudicial character of the concept as it was used in
the resolution, provided a deviation from very one-sided hearings. In
the "open forum" portion of the proceedings, members of various
groups stepped forward to protest the one-sided selection of
witnesses and to challenge the use of the word "cult."
The scheduled witness for the second meeting on June 7 were much more
sympathetic to religious movements than those appearing before the
first session. Witnesses included sociologist William Sims
Bainbridge, National Science Foundation, a leading authority or
religious movements, and Gary Pavela, a legal scholar from the
University of Maryland.
In the "open forum" at least six members of three religious movement
groups addressed the group. Their presentations explored many issues
including religious freedom, the prejudicial presuppositions of the
resolution, the influence of the anti-cult movement in structuring
the proceedings, the one-sided testimony in the previous proceedings,
and the open bias of some members sitting on the Task Force. Some of
the testimony of some of the religious movement groups. members
reflected the same kind of acrimony that characterized the
anti-cultists presentations offered at the first meeting.
If Chairman Wood felt the second session "balanced the scales," it
was not so perceived by the members of religious groups present. If
nothing else, the representatives of religious movements had reason
to feel that their presentations in "open forum" were not of equal
stature to testimonies that were brought before the Task Force by an
invited witness.
The first two meetings, thus, set the stage for continued acrimonious
hearings. They were punctuated by vitriolic comments to witness by
Task Force members, repeated lecturing of witnesses by the Chairman,
apparently arbitrary and inconsistent rulings, and objections from
both sides of the polarized gallery of witness that seemed clearly
out of order.
The members of new religious who were faithful attendees of the
proceedings felt like they were witnesses to proceedings completely
stacked against them. They saw the proceedings like unto the Salem
Witch Trials, the Inquisition, or chapters out of Franz Kafka. s
novel, The Trial. The fundamental Constitutional guarantee of
religious freedom seemed far removed.
On the other hand, the anti-cultists, who were effectively
responsible for the Task Force hearings in the first place, were
frustrated with the proceeding that allowed testimony from "cultists"
and academic scholars that they viewed as "cult apologists." The
representatives of religious movement were obviously handmaidens of
dangerous and deceptive organizations. The academic scholars, who
present themselves as "experts," are surely naive, paid off by "cult"
organizations, or perhaps both. In short, there are not many light
moments in the proceedings.
James T. Richardson (University of Nevada, Reno) appeared as a
witness on July 27. With degrees in sociology and law, almost 30
years of research on religious movements, and a long bibliography of
highly respected publications, Richardson is clearly one of the most
qualified scholars in the world to address the issues before the Task
Force. Richardson delivered the text of his prepared remarks to
Chairman Wood before meeting began. As Richardson outlined the topics
he intended to address, Wood began to raise objections as to the
relevance of some of the points in Richardson. s outline on the
grounds that they were beyond the scope of the inquiry.
Wood subsequently rejected several articles authored by Richardson,
that he wished to enter into the record of the proceedings, on the
grounds of relevance. The process of accepting or rejecting
Richardson. s articles had the appearance of being quite arbitrary,
especially in light of the fact that some of the rejected articles
presented research that contradicted presentations and papers that
had earlier been entered into the record as part of the testimony of
anti-cultists.
The seeming inconsistency of Mr. Wood. s rulings as to what would and
would not be accepted as testimony, and as part of the record, became
clearer to me as I learned more about how the proceedings had
progressed. Here, I think, is what happened.
First, the Task Force quickly learned of the contentiousness of the
concept "cult." The paper presented by William Stuart at the first
meeting reviewed the prejudicial nature of the concept. Further,
there were several members of religious movements present in the
audience. Some were there with legal counsel. When the proceedings
turned to an "open forum," the concept cult was protested vigorously
by several members of religious movements.
Subsequently, Delegate Sharon Grosfeld, a member of the Task Force,
advised the group that once a Task Force had been established, it had
the liberty to rewrite its Mission Statement. So far as I can
determine, the Task Force acted upon this advise from Grosfeld
without consulting the Maryland Attorney Generals Office for an
opinion. In a letter dated July 7, Chancellor Donald Langenberg
communicated the Mission Statement of the Task Force to the
Presidents of the colleges and universities of Maryland. The letter
states that the Task Force adopted the Mission Statement on July 2.
The statement reads as follows:
To determine the extent to which there are groups whose activities on
the campuses of USM institutions, St. Mary. s College, or Morgan
State University are intentionally or innocently,
inappropriately:
causing demonstrable physical, psychological or emotional harm to
students; interfering substantially with the educational mission of
the institution; and/or violating institutional policies and/or
federal, state or local laws
On the one hand, the Task Force. s writing its own Mission Statement
appears to be a way to get rid of the objectionable word "cult."
Chairman Wood insists that this is not what the Task Force is doing.
In fact, he claims the expanded mission of the Task Force is to
examine all groups that may "intentionally or innocently,
inappropriately" causing harm, interfering with the educational
mission, or violating any laws.
This may be the earnest intention of the Task Force, but there is no
public evidence that they have sought witnesses who could advise them
on any other kind of group other than religious groups. Without
funding, and more time, it was impossible for the Task Force to take
seriously the mission of investigating any and all groups that might
engage in questionable behavior, cause harm to individuals, or
interfere with the mission of university.
The record seems very clear that the materials the University of
Maryland, College Park has used for the past several years as part of
their training of resident assistants, and as orientation of new
students, has been very substantially influenced by anti-cult
organizations. For example, the videotape, Cults: Saying No Under
Pressure, is the product of AFF. s International Cult Education
Program. Similarly, the brochure entitled ". Friends. Are Everywhere:
a Guide to Making Judgements About Groups" has a strong anti-cult
message. Anti-cult bias is also obvious in tracks distributed by the
campus ministries that have been active in advising the University of
Maryland on the issue of "cult awareness education."
All of this literature seems consistent with an emerging strategy of
anti-cult activists. The word
"group" is substituted for "cult" while retaining the adjectives
"destructive" or "dangerous." The strategy serves the function of
denying the intent of going after new religious groups. And, the
general reference makes it possible to deny that any specific group
is being singled out for attention. It also expands the meaning of
the concept cult, even as the concept is downplayed.
The slough this gets the Task Force into is that any group
(religious, political, educational, etc.) can potentially be labeled
a cult. But insofar as care is taken to name specific groups, any
allegation can be disclaimed as inapplicable to any specific group.
Strong innuendoes can be planted with the knowledge that
misstatements, exaggerations and lies are believable and that they
will be believed. But in the presence of potential legal liability,
the innuendoes can be denied. I recently received documented evidence
that several leading anti-cultists have signed affidavits have denied
that a particularly litigious "group" is a cult). This is
disingenuous at the very least.
To put matters in a nutshell, it would appear that the Task Force has
unwittingly played into the strategy of the anti-cultists. When the
concept "cult" was revealed to have strong pejorative connotations in
popular culture, the Task Force wrote the word "cult" out of their
Mission Statement. Thus, they were investigating "groups." Then it
became apparent that they were not investigating any group in
particular, because that could open the door to some burden or proof
that alleged activities do take place as a patterned policy of some
group in question. The generalized group, with attached pejorative
adjectives, is also a safety valve against potential liability.
So, if the Task Force is not investigating "cults," as the enabling
legislation mandated they should do, nor investigating any group in
particular, what then in the mission of the Task Force? Chairman Wood
ruled that the Task Force was only interested in examining
"behavior." But presumably behavior must somehow be linked to a
specific group that encourages its members to do as a matter of
belief or strategy. Failure to do this broadens the mission of the
Task Force to investigate every activity that might cause physical,
psychological or emotional harm; that might interfere with the
educational mission of the school in question, or; violate
institution policies, or federal, state or local laws.
Clearly this is not what the Task Force has done either. What, then,
has been happening? How can we make sense of these proceedings that
must more forward to some conclusion? In the final section of this
introduction to the Maryland Task Force on Cults, I want to offer
some reflections on what I believe to be critical issues that must be
considered in bringing the work of the Task Force to conclusion.
Reflections on Concluding the Work of the Task Force and Beyond
Bringing the Task Force to a conclusion will not be an easy task.
Chairman Wood. s efforts to defuse the controversial concept "cult,"
and simultaneously focus the mission in a way that would allow the
investigation to come to a swift conclusion that would satisfy the
interested parties would seem to have backfired. Instead, the
proceedings have moved into a quagmire from which it will be
extremely difficult to exit.
On the second day of hearings, Gary Pavela, JD, Director of Judicial
Programs and Student Ethical Development at the University of
Maryland testified to the Task Force regarding legal precedents that
might impact their work. Later, University of Maryland Vice President
William L. Thomas, Jr. sent Chairman Wood a two part article by
Pavela entitled "Religiosity, Religious Diversity and . Cults. " with
a cover letter noting that this article was "very instructive and
relevant to the Task Force deliberations."
The testimony and writings of Pavela highlight many court cases that
should serve as warnings against potential minefields that the Task
Force ought to be aware of in their deliberations. There appear to be
may avenues for challenging the appropriateness of the Task Force
proceedings.
One important challenge would be Lukumi Babulu Aye v. Hialeah (1993).
This case involved an ordinance by the city of Hialeah that
prohibited animal sacrifice. It was the first test case before the
Supreme Court that called for an interpretation of Smith v Oregon. In
the Smith decision, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion that
held that there is nothing inherently wrong with restricting the
activities of religious groups so long as religion or a specific
religious group is not singled out for special action. The Supreme
Court concluded that the Hialeah ordinance prohibiting animal
sacrifice was specifically written to prohibit persons practicing
Santeria from sacrificing chickens as part of their religious
ceremony. The Babulu Aye decision makes clear that the Free Exercise
Clause, like the Establishment Clause does not tolerate even subtle
departures from neutrality.
In creating a Task Force to investigate "cults," the clear intent of
the framers of the resolution was to investigate religious "cults."
Changing the Mission Statement of the Task Force to the investigation
of "groups," and then to later declaring that the real mission is to
look at "behavior," does not alter the primary business of the Task
Force. From the beginning, the primary activity of the Task Force has
been the investigation of religious groups, or the behavior of
persons acting as agents of religious groups. There is no other
appreciable evidence before the Task Force. Changing the words does
not camouflage the fidelity of the Task Force to the joint resolution
of the legislature.
Chairman Wood seems clearly aware of the pitfalls of writing a report
that would be subject of legal challenge. At the same time, this may
not be fully within his control. Many of the members of the Task
Force have not had very good attendance records at the hearings.
Whether they will show when it comes time to reach conclusions and
make recommendations remains to be seen as doe the question of how
they will vote.
The anti-cultists are looking for something they can claim as a
victory. The recommendation for more comprehensive instruction about
the dangers of "cults on campus" would be a victory. If this were
achieved, the anti-cult organizations will both encourage and
instruct their constituencies on how to lobby legislatures to create
investigations in other states. On the other hand, if this is
achieved, State of Maryland is at risk for serious legal challenge.
Failing to achieve something they can spin as a victory, the
anti-cultists will likely blame the Task Force for whitewashing the
problem. They will likely blame the "cults" for exerting
inappropriate influence, but the real villains will likely be the
administrators on the Task Force who caved in to the "threats" of the
"cults" and to the misleading of academic "experts."
If the anti-cults are unlikely to accept a clear and unequivocal
defeat, the religious movement groups are unlikely to accept any
decision that has potentially adverse impact on religious freedom. In
fact, the event of Task Force served to raise the consciousness of
several religious movement groups about what is already happening.
The present orientation policies of the University of Maryland
regarding the dangers of "cults" constitute potential grounds for
challenging the violation of free exercise of religion. Introduction
of further university-sanctioned programs that have the appearance of
being aimed at certain kinds of religious groups would strengthen a
potential case against the State. And likely increase that
probability that legal challenge would be forthcoming.
At another level, the Task Force is potentially vulnerable to
challenges of unfairness in the manner in which the hearings were
conducted. While most would agree that Chairman Wood has tried to be
fair and evenhanded with both sides of the controversy, the record
may well show that he did not achieve this objective?
In the early part of the proceedings, Chairman Wood allowed a broad
array of testimony from anti-cultists that would be considered
unsubstantiated hearsay in a court of law. At the same time, he
appeared to have exhibited less willingness in admitting evidence
that challenged the hearsay arguments of anti-cultists. Ad hominem
arguments went unchallenged by the members of the Task Force, and
rebuttal was not allowed by other witnesses or by speakers in open
session. Later in the hearings, the Chairman ruled that a
considerable body of evidence presented by academic scholars was not
relevant to the proceedings. In some instances, the evidence offered
seriously contradicted testimony offered by anti-cultists.
The House Joint Resolution 22 calls for the Task Force to report its
findings and recommendations to the Governor by not later than
September 30, 1999. I will likely append additional thoughts to this
introduction as the final work of the Task Force moves to conclusion.
And, I will add additional concluding thoughts shortly after the Task
Force report is submitted to Governor Glendening. In the meantime,
I'll be adding addition testimony and documents submitted to the Task
Force as quickly as we can get them up.
The Task Force held its last meeting on September 18 and, according
the the Baltimore Sun submitted the Final Report was submitted to
Governor Glendening on that same date.
The Baltimore Sun published a short article based on the Executive
Summary of the report and comments by Chairman Wood. The article does
not cover the findings except to note that "cult membership on campus
is small," and that recruitment by all kinds of groups in commonplace
on college campuses. The Sun ran no further stories. The Washington
Post published a during the proceeding of the Task Force which relied
heavily on the views of anti-cultists, but did not not run a story on
the final report.
The Final Report of the Task Force is available on this site. My own
reflections on the work of the Task Force and the longer term
implications of these proceeding is also available under the title
Task Force Mischief Exposed in the Commentary section of these Task
Force archives.
| Contents | Introduction | Movements and Counter Movements | |
History of Anti-Cult Movements | Anti-Cult Activities in Maryland |
Why Maryland Now? | | Task Force Proceedings | Reflections on the
Task Force |
* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual
Meetings of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, August 5,
1999Chicago, IL.
** Jeffrey K. Hadden is Professor of Sociology at the University of
Virginia. He founded the Religious Movements Page in conjunction with
his courses in 1996. Mr. Hadden testified before the Task Force on
July 24, 1999. His comments are available on the page.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/stuart_hearings.htm
Maryland Cult Task Force
| Taskforce Index | Cult Controversies Index | Religious Movements
Home |
Anthropological Perspectives on the Nature and Problem of Cults on
Campus: With Specific Reference to HJ 22
William Taft Stuart University of Maryland-College Park
Testimony Delivered 5 March 1998 [rev 22 June 1998] Before
Appropriations Committee Maryland House of Delegates Hearing
Annapolis, MD
I have been asked to present my views on the nature of so-called
cults as well as, specifically on HJ 22. I am happy to do so. I
shall, accordingly, address two topics in the brief time I have
before you today, first, I discuss the nature and problem of
so-called cults and, second, I offer some observations on HJ22,
itself.
First, however, a word or two about myself. I am a social
anthropologist whose primary research interest these days is in the
study of religious sectarianism, especially New Religious Movements
(NRMs).
I teach courses in New Religious Movements and related topics. I am
currently studying . or have done so in the recent past . a variety
of controversial NRMs such as "Messianic Jews", "Ahmadiyya Islam",
and "Exorcism Activities of Protestant Churches".
I come to you not as an advocate or detractor of any specific
movement or kind of them. Rather, I take it as the primary
responsibility of the scholar to examine such movements carefully,
and with appropriate dispassion. Emphatically, it is not the job of
the anthropologist, as such, to evaluate as . good. or . bad. , but,
rather, to examine as openly and even-handedly as possible,
separating out rumor and vested interests from the demonstrable,
verifiable facts.
I
Let me start with some observations on the nature and problem with
so-called . cults.
New Religious Movements are as "American as Apple Pie". The very
stuff of our freedoms of association and belief have been bred in the
rich ground of religious diversity, new movement, novel customs, and
often directive, charismatic leadership. The campus, in particular,
is a common location for debate . frequently acrimonious . between
the advocates of one or another movement and its detractors.
The term . cult. , itself, is a problematic one. Although the term
can be . and usually is by social scientists . defined is a
non-prejudicial manner, it is a fact that the term, as used by most
of us, the public, is pejorative; it is a term one uses to describe
the religion of someone else; virtually no group that I am aware of
uses the term . self-referentially. , i.e., to speak of itself.
Moreover, the term, when used in the colloquial manner of everyday
speech, carries with it a condemning, negative assessment of the
movement.
Most social scientists prefer a rather more neutral term, New
Religious Movements. Frequently their strongly held beliefs and the
commitment of their members excite contrary views by those who, not
infrequently, cannot believe that . my children. could have
voluntarily joined such movements. The fact is, however, that there
is no convincing evidence . I say evidence, not unsupported rumor and
vested interest testimony . that such movements are or have been .
destructive. so as to restrict the voluntary joining and leaving of
movements by potential recruits and members. Especially on campus
there is no convincing, documentation . I say documentation . as to
destructiveness of so-called cults being commonplace.
Now it should be pointed out that so-called cults are not limited to
those that are primarily . religious. in nature, although most of
those that appear to concern the drafters of HJ22 appear to me to be
religious; there are also other . let. s call them . quasi-religious.
. groups that are business-oriented [for example, Amway] or
motivational movements [such as, EST or Forum, perhaps
Transcendental Meditation]. Some groups appear to be a
combination of two or more of the types [for instance,
Scientology].
Why do people join? Do they come voluntarily or are they manipulated
against their will or beyond their ability to resist the appeals from
proselytizers? The scholarly evidence overwhelmingly supports the
generalization that freedom in choosing to join and/or to leaving
NRMs, especially the campus-based ones, is typical. Testimony to the
contrary is typically anecdotal, second-hand, and usually otherwise
unsupported. Even studies of such cult . experts. as Dr. Margaret
Singer are not of a quality that inspire the confidence of
scholars.
What is . thought reform. and how effective is it. The charge of
(destructive) cults being involved in . thought reform. (or
brainwashing as it used to be called) is asserted, but not
documented, as psychologically a valid notion . the clinician Robert
Jay Lifton. s influential book to the contrary. Rather, there is no
evidence the any of the supposed emotional, psychological
counterparts to physical brainwashing actually works. Despite many
requests by scholars for verified studies demonstrating the implied
cause-and-effect aspects of thought reform that are supposed to
produce hapless recruits, there are to date no such scholarly
studies. The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion recently
put the matter this way: "...there is insufficient research to permit
informed, responsible scholars to reach consensus on the nature and
effects of nonphysical coercion and control...[F]urther...one
should not automatically equate the techniques involved in the
process of physical coercion and control with those of nonphysical
coercion and control [described as brainwashing, mind control,
thought reform.] In addition to critical review of existing
knowledge further appropriately designed research is necessary to
enable scholarly consensus about this issue."
But is such . thought reform. typical, especially of the behavior of
so-called . cults. on campus? The only systematically collected and
scientifically analyzed data from USA and abroad (for instance,
Britain) has failed to show this. To the contrary, overwhelmingly
most so-called cults lose most of their members, through voluntary,
unhampered exits after only short periods of time. There is no
evidence of the use of effective . coercion. as distinct from
persuasion . which some people freely reject and others accept, at
least for a time . on campuses that have been systematically and
scientifically studied.
What is the reliability of the accounts of various sorts of
anti-cultists? There are at least three sorts of very vocal critics
of so-called cults and their reputed . destructive. and . coercive.
practices:
- First, there are the former members who in a kind of
counter-conversion turnabout, now recall often horrific details of
their erstwhile membership; the reliability of such memories and
testimony, however genuinely felt, is not to be taken at face-value;
rather, the prevailing scholarly psychological assessments of such
memories suggests that they are suspect.
- Second, there are the concerned relatives and friends, and so
forth, of the members; these aggrieved persons cannot believe . my
child. would have voluntarily joined such a movement and, in effect,
turned his/her back on the family, and so forth. Again, however
sincerely felt, the reliability of such testimony is questionable.
Such anecdotes and assertions, that are heavily interpreted in
anti-cult lingo, typically color statements of such parties.
- Third, there are the . experts. , . exit counselors. , . cult
information counselors. ; these individuals, however nobly
intentioned, are . stake-holders. in the anti-cult industry. Few
social scientists are numbered among them. Rather they are typically
a group of variably and often vaguely trained individuals; they are
not usually scholars and have never, to my knowledge, submitted
reliable, confirmed data.
I should note that a disproportionate number of the . experts. are
ex-members of one or more of the movements, a number of them, for
example, Steve Hassan . a former member of the Unification Church .
having been . deprogrammed. into their new-found role as advocate and
anti-cult expert.
I have presented the above rather unordered list of bulleted points
to provide a basis for questioning the, presence, significance and
severity of the problem of . destructive cults. on campuses. This is
not to say that some coercive behavior does not occurs; but it needs
to be demonstrated; all existing evidence suggests that the problem
is overstated.
One final point, in cases where there may exist documented evidence
of such coercion, I believe there are existing state and local laws
as well as campus policies that already apply to instances, such as
harassment, kidnaping, and other anti-social behavior, often ascribed
to so-called (destructive) cults.
II
Let me briefly address a second topic, namely my reactions to some of
the specifics of HJ 22.
I certainly do not wish to be misunderstood. Importantly, I do not
question the intent of the HJ22. Certainly it is always appropriate
for the legislature to examine matters, such as campus groups and
activities.
I do question, however, the use of the term "cult" in the wording of
the resolution as it now stands. Specifically, the term prejudges the
issue and labels movements as . cults. ; rather, I would propose that
the existence and danger of such movements on Maryland campuses needs
to be investigated, not assumed.
The makeup of the proposed task force nowhere specifically
identifies, as either members or as designated resources, reputable
scholars and their scholarly studies of New Religious Movements . the
so-called cults . whether benign or destructive.
The makeup of the proposed task force is weighted strongly in favor
of the complainants and their spokespersons. There is insufficient
evidence of any desire to undertake a reasoned, even-handed
investigation.
There is no attention given to the presence of faculty on the task
force or as resources to be consulted. Faculty of this state are
concerned with academic freedom, fair and honest inquiry as well as
in the well-being of their students. Campus faculty as well as
administrators should be represented in the task force and/or in its
investigations.
The several university campuses are unevenly represented on the
proposed task force. Specifically, the College Park campus of the
University of Maryland System shares one member with all other system
schools, while the much smaller St. Mary. s College and Morgan State
each have a representative.
I do not in any way mean to be taken as discouraging the proposed
study. Certainly such an investigation is under the legitimate
purview of the Legislature. Rather, I wish to propose that the charge
and composition of the task force be more cautiously worded so as to
make clear that an honest, non-biased committee will consider an
appropriately broad selection of resource persons, including not only
aggrieved persons . ex-members, their family and friends . and their
pseudo-experts but a fair range of New Religious Movements and
so-called cults on university campuses of the State as well as social
scientists who have and are currently examining the phenomena of the
nature of, the recruitment to and practices of so-called cults.
HJ 22 proposes an ambitious, and worthy undertaking. I believe it is
essential, therefore, that the efforts of the proposed task force not
be seen as listening only to the perspective of one or a few of the
many constituencies concerned with the exercise of freedom of speech,
belief and association on the campuses of the State of Maryland.
I thank you for your invitation to speak here today and to share with
you some of my understanding of the nature of so-called cults and my
observations on HJ22.