Cult Group Controversies:


Maryland Cult Task Force

| Taskforce Index | Cult Controversies Index | Religious Movements Home |

Comments on Final Report

from
C.D. Mote, Jr., President
University of Maryland, College Park

to
Task Force Chairman William T. Wood

    University of Maryland
    Office of the President

    Main Administration Building
    College Park, Maryland 20742
    301-405-5803TEL 301-314-9560 FAX

    September 8, 1999

    William T. Wood, Esquire
    Chairman, Governor's Task Force to Study Effects of Cult Activity on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions
    Adams Law Center
    31 Wood Lane
    Rockville 20850-2228

    Dear Regent Wood:

    Thank you for giving University System of Maryland presidents the opportunity to comment on the draft Report of the Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions. Recognizing the constraints of the Task Force's schedule, College Park's observations shall be focused on some of the administrative implications of the proposed recommendations, rather than on more general aspects of the Report.

    Recommendation 2:

    "Require USM institutions, Morgan State University and St. Mary's College to assess the training needed for heightened institutional awareness of potential problems of destructive groups. This should involve a regular forum for interested members of each campus community (advisors, counselors, residential staff and chaplains, etc.) to exchange information relating to student complaints about outside groups." (Emphasis added).

    Comment: Universities exist to foster exploration and personal discovery, to offer and permit the new. We seek to encourage a free and open access to a diversity of philosophies and beliefs. Our policies, need, therefore, to favor the liberties of individual choice, rather than control. There are some ambiguities in the Recommendation, however, which in their operation may promote the opposite effect.

    (a) The Report describes the threshold difficulty faced by the Task Force in agreeing what type of group was to be the object of its inquiry. Most basically, what is a "cult" or group against which Campus officials should be on guard? We understand there was no consensus among the Task Force members, and the Report purposely offers no definition. Implicitly, it instructs each campus to interpret these terms for itself. Unfortunately, this promises to transfer to the institutions a dispute the Task Force itself could not to its own satisfaction and legal security resolve. With the likelihood of different definitions at different institutions, the same group will receive different scrutiny and treatment on different USM campuses.

    (b) It would be helpful if the Report were to offer guidance on the "potential problems" that the recommended training is meant to make university staff address. Whether training is directed towards "problems" or "physical, psychological or emotional harm", significant value judgments are involved. It must be recognized that just as among Task Force members, within the professions, clergy, social sciences and society generally, there remains substantial debate about these matters. If a student only in retrospect believes himself to have jeopardized other relationships or resources by participating in a group which at the time gave personal fulfillment, has there been injury? And to whom? The answers prove difficult and controversial.

    (c) The Recommendation speaks to the exchange of information about "outside groups". This encompasses a broad range of persons, clubs, landlords, vendors, political parties, charitable and community organizations, teams, etc. Again, the phrase is subject to such a range of different local interpretations that effective administration requires further clarification. For example, should not the connection between the outside group and the student need to have occurred on campus?

    Recommendation 5:

    "Provide a central resource on each USM campus, Morgan State University and St. Mary. s College to accumulate complaints concerning group activities or actions and make the information known to students, parents, faculty and administration. Groups who are identified in such complaints should be named and clearly identified so concerned persons may evaluate the complaints themselves following their own individual standards. The entire program should be conducted in conformity with all applicable laws." (Emphasis added)

    Comment: The institutional costs and legal risks of operating a central tracking resource do not appear to be justified by the incidence and character of harm reported by the Task Force. Taking into consideration responsible resource management, the maintenance of an organizational apparatus necessary for the task is out of proportion to the liklihood of injury identified in the Report.

    (a) The administration of a central resource presents complicated problems of organization, data collection, and staffing. It will, of necessity, require the diversion of institutional resource from other student assistance programs.

    (b) The accumulation and redistribution by the University of unsubstantiated complaints against persons and groups exposes the institution and its staff to justifiable criticism and legal exposure. The campus is without the means to investigate the broad range of complaints encompassed by the Recommendation, and it would be contrary to the principles of the University to perpetuate potentially harmful and unjustifiable statements about others. Regrettably, experience has made us aware that occasionally accusations are racially motivated or maliciously defamatory.

    Recommendation 6:

    "On each campus, the Office of Student Affairs, or its equivalent, should issue an annual report documenting complaints received and actions taken, taking into consideration the information received from these central resources." (Emphasis added).

    Comment: This will be a very difficult report to prepare. It is also unlikely that a campus will be able, either administratively or legally, to satisfy the expectation that "action" be taken in the preponderance of complaints.

    (a) Absent consensus or established definitions of "cult" or "destructive group", "problem" and "harm" the parameters of "complaints" remain illusive. Recognizing this and understanding that the campus is not equipped to investigate the complaints and form a reasoned judgment as to their merits, the report will not be helpful to the campus or the public. It will prove misleading.

    (b) The history of the Task Force, its origins and the preponderance of testimony and debate suggest, we may anticipate that a significant number of the complaints to be received shall be directed against organizations that are arguably religious in nature. Although the campus is prepared to respond to allegations of illegal conduct, or violation of institutional rules, it is ill-equipped to intervene in disputes of choice and association. Violations of civil and criminal law are appropriately referred to the police and Attorney General. State institutions may not, of course, entangle themselves in issues of religion or doctrine.

    Recommendation 12:

    "Request that the Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland and the boards of Morgan State University and St. Mary. s College each establish a policy to follow up to ensure that these recommendations are implemented and periodically monitored for compliance. This policy should include the establishment of one oversight advisory committee for these institutions to ensure compliance with these recommendations. The Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland and the governing boards of Morgan State University and St. Mary. s College should appoint this advisory committee and every effort should be made to appoint persons who have knowledge of the subject matter." (Emphasis added).

    Comment: Issues surrounding "cults" have proven contentious. In large measure this is because of the lack of agreement on definitions, the existence of a "true problem", and the unreliable and unverifiable quality of the "data". The disputes, resting as they do on a larger social and ethical debate, are unlikely to be resolved through consensus. The establishment of a permanent oversight committee is likely only to perpetuate discord and invite further, recurrent legal challenge. Inherent in the proposed structure are tensions and ambiguities in the location and scope of ultimate decision-making authority over campus matters. On balance, micro management by a committee is unlikely to benefit the State or its educational institutions.

    I would be pleased to discuss the above matters with you and the Task Force as time and circumstances permit.

    Yours sincerely,
    C.D. Mote, Jr.
    President