From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Freedom of speech and association
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:06:38 GMT

One indent > and three indents >>> are Jonathon Barbera.
Two indents >> and new text are Mary Kuhner.  "ISE" is Introduction to
Scientology Ethics.  "0-8" is Scientology 0-8:  The Book of Basics.
(Can't tell the players without a scorecard....)

I'm sorry this message is somewhat late, but I didn't have posting access
for a while.

[criticism of Scientology leading to the Condition of Enemy]

>I don't recall exactly the reference, but doesn't it [ISE] say something
>about providing the criticism to the press or public in general?  I don't
>think it says that writing a criticism letter to an organization is
>wrong.  (In fact, it's been done.)

Why is it necessary to stop public criticism of Scientology?

A researcher wrote a paper that was highly critical of techniques 
developed by my lab (Felsenstein lab, doing theoretical genetics). 
The journal editor to whom he submitted the paper sent it to
us for commentary, and Dr. Felsenstein wrote a response analyzing the
criticisms.  He agreed with some of them and disagreed with others; his
response presents the reasons and calculations behind this.  The
original paper and our response will both be published in an
international journal, so that other researchers will have a chance to
make up their minds based on as much information about the problem as
possible.

This is public criticism on a grand scale.  It's also an important part
of progress in our field.  If the criticisms were suppressed, we would
never have learned that our methods might be flawed.  If they were kept
completely internal (say, the original paper was sent to us but not
published, and we sent a private response back) we'd miss the possible
contributions of outside parties, and the public would miss finding out
about possible flaws in our theories (which are the basis of fairly
widely used methods of analysis, so this is not a trivial issue).

It was good criticism, in my opinion, because it was directed to finding
problems with our theories.  It would clearly have been prohibited by
ISE ("writing anti-Felsenstein Lab articles in the public press"?), 
wouldn't it?

>>It's my understanding that people who have presented evidence against
>>Scientology have been taken to court in an attempt to stop them.  Do you
>>feel this would have been acceptable behavior if the positions were
>>reversed--should psychiatrists sue Scientology or Scientologists to
>>stop them from criticizing psychiatry?

>I'm not positive, but I think there are law suits going on between
>Scientologists and psychiatry.

That's not quite what I was asking...  Do you think the lawsuits
were justified?  Is it *ethical* for psychiatry to sue Scientology to 
stop criticism?--In your opinion.  I realize you don't speak for CoS.

>There is a lot of data available on handling PTS'ness.  Silencing them
>is not the proper handling.  Doing things like you did (discussing it, etc.)
>is described in detail.

[A PTS is a 'Potential Trouble Source', defined as a person who
associates with Suppressive Persons and therefore does not consistently
improve with auditing--paraphrase from memory from ISE.]

Hm.  ISE didn't say anything about that--it said, basically, that it was
a crime (I forget of what degree) to become or be a PTS without
informing your Org, to refuse auditing designed to "cure" you of being a
PTS, or to conceal someone else's PTSness from the Org.  In 0-8, it says
that only disconnecting from the Suppressive Person will help a PTS; so
I conclude that one is expected to cut off communication with those who
criticize.

>>[Leaving a course due to personal problems]

>>>In which case the person would leave the course or service.  No one
>>>will force them to remain.

>>But ISE says that the only acceptable reasons for leaving a course or
>>service are moving, changing orgs, or death.  If the person is a
>>Scientology employee, s/he will presumably be subject to penalties.

>If a staff member dropped a course just because, then, yes, they would
>be penalized.

It seems to me that you're saying that since there is no way for an org
to physically force someone to stay, there is no coercion.  I don't
agree.  Loss of pay, possible lawsuits, refusal of future services,
possibly demands for payment for previous "free" services--all of these
can be very coercive even though they don't physically force the person
to stay.

>In any case, the penalty for
>threatening Scientology (regarding an ex-Scientologist) wouldn't be
>assigning a condition.  However, when they returned, they would probably
>work up from Enemy.

Why does publicly criticizing some aspect of Scientology make you an 
ex-Scientologist? I criticize techniques in Genetics very frequently, 
and sometimes in public (I've been co-signer on critical letters to the 
editors of various journals, though none have yet been published).  I'm 
not an ex-geneticist.  I'm also on record as criticizing various aspects 
of Wiccan practice (e.g. my editorial in last month's _Seattle Pagan NUUS_) 
but that doesn't make me an ex-Wiccan.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu