From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:54:49 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

[quoting from Scientology materials supporting freedom of speech, choice
and association]

>>However, there are many passages which seem to me to contradict this
>>directly:

>>0-8, The Auditor's Code:
>>I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism (p.
>>39).

>The pc's betterment is at stake so naturally the auditor
>must not allow him to run away before something has been gotten through.

Perhaps a warning to the student would be appropriate?  "Once you begin
individual sessions of this course, you will not be allowed to leave
until the instructor is satisfied with your progress.  Once you begin
the course as a whole, you will be strongly discouraged from withdrawing
until the end."  This might help people who disapprove of such coercion
avoid putting themselves in this situation.

I'm bothered by the idea that "naturally" the auditor, not the student,
makes the decisions about what is good for the student.  As a free
adult, I feel that should be my own decision, even if someone else feels
that it's harming me.

What kinds of actions fall under "must not allow him to run away"?
Verbal argument?  Physical force?  Locked doors?  The latter two are
illegal, and if I were to consider becoming a student I would certainly
want an assurance that they would *never* be used.

As a University student, I knew that the penalties for dropping a course
were (a) failing grade, (b) possible removal from the University, (c)
non-refunding of my course fees (all assuming I did it too late in the
quarter).  But the University wouldn't try to force me to stay if I
chose not to stay.  I feel this is an appropriate way to treat adults--
that you should assume they are competant to make their own decisions.
And this is what the Code of Honor seems to be saying.  I'm puzzled by 
the contradiction.

>>ISE, list of High Crimes:

>>Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists [...].  Writing
>>anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or
>>anti-Scientologist evidence to the press.  Publicly resigning staff or
>>executive position in protest [..].  Announcing departure from
>>Scientology [...].  Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and
>>refusing to return despite normal efforts. (pp. 50-52)

>Supressive speech and association is discouraged.  However, the person
>can still do want they want to do.  Being a Supressive Person is your
>right.  However, don't be upset when you're penalized for it.

I don't quite see how this goes along with "Freedom of speech will be
encouraged" in the Scientologist's Code.  Penalizing people when they
speak freely is hardly encouraging free speech.  I have also seen
records of court cases in which Scientology organizations tried to
prevent dissemination of writings critical of Scientology--about as
direct an attempt to prevent free speech as is possible.

I'm also puzzled by the intense dislike of criticism.  Let me tell a
small story.  I'm Wiccan by faith, and last summer I was preparing for a
spiritual retreat.  Two Christian friends of mine expressed concern
about this, and spent about a month grilling me by email over my
motives, plans, safety precautions, and general reasons for doing what I
was doing.  They were intensely critical of many of my ideas.  It was
rather exasperating at the time, but the criticism helped me a great
deal when I came to actually doing the retreat, because it had given me
opportunity to think hard about what I was doing and satisfy myself it
was correct.  If I had refused to hear them because they were somewhat
hostile to Wicca (as indeed one of them was), I would have been the
poorer for it.

>Someone *can* leave a course without being assigned an Enemy Condition.
>The circumstances are important for the distinction (re-read your
>statement from ISE on this).

I re-read it.  Here is the full quotation:  entry #3 in the High Crimes:

3.  Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to
return despite normal efforts.

It does not say anything about circumstances under which one can leave a
course without becoming an Enemy.  From surrounding text, however
(particularly entry #2) one might conclude that "leaving an
organization, a location or situation, or death" would be acceptable
circumstances.  It's clear, however, that "Because I choose to" is not
an acceptable circumstance.

>A course supervisor must control the courseroom.  That's his job.
>Allowing people to do whatever they wanted would reduce their progress
>on courses and possibly reduce the progress of others.

I understand that freedom is inefficient, awkward, and sometimes
actively harmful.  Personally, I don't think that's a sufficient reason
to sacrifice it.  If a person is disrupting the progress of others, it
would be reasonable to ask him to stop, and to ask him to leave if he
doesn't stop--I have no problem with that.  But requiring him to stay
*and* to behave as you want seems very coercive.

I subscribed to this newsgroup with a fairly high opinion of the one
Scientologist whom I'd met, and because of her, of her practices.  But
the reading I've been doing (in Scientology books only) has been very 
distressing.

Do Scientologists ever tell their students that asking for the promised
refund for courses that don't work is a High Crime and will assign them 
the Condition of Enemy? (ISE p. 52)  Jonathon, were you told that before
you agreed to the terms of the courses?  Do you think you should have
been?

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology