“Us” magazine 30 July 2012 Katie/Tom coverage
This article beefs about what it perceives as Suri’s laissez-faire upbringing, attributing it in a misinformed way to Scientology. US can’t see that the Scientology practice of “treating a child as an adult” is not what Suri has been experiencing.
In Child Dianetics you can read on page 2 that The adult is the problem in child raising, not the child. An adult has certain rights around children which the children and modern adults rather tend to ignore. … You want to raise your child in such a way that you don’t have to control him, so that he will be in full possession of himself at all times. Upon that depends his good behavior, his health, his sanity. … A child is a man or a woman who has not attained full growth.
The examples given in Child Dianetics deal with doing things like giving a child things and then letting the child know they’re his…not still the adult’s.
There is no example in Child Dianetics that encourages a parent to allow a child to set his own bedtime or to eat ice cream for dinner.
There’s a lot of stuff in Child Dianetics that’s sensible. Things that Tom was apparently doing to raise Suri aren’t.
It’s a little like letting the Orangutan Clyde from the movie Any Which Way But Loose having free run of your antique glass concession.
The most ill-informed part of the article is the three-part critique of Scientology study tech. Let me address it piece by piece:
Auditing isn’t the only way Scientology differs from a regular education.
This section starts by illustrating the ignorance of the writer/reporter. The purpose of auditing is not education. Sometimes, auditing techniques are used to assist with education, but Scientologists generally consider that the training side of the Bridge isn’t the processing (auditing) side of the Bridge.
Experts share the drawbacks of its schooling.
US doesn’t tell us who these so-called experts are, although they do name one who is a “Scientology expert” without being a “Scientology expert”; they don’t claim he’s an education expert.
What I want to know is: are these the same “experts” whose work garnered the United States a solid “C” in academic rankings?
Poor reading skills. Reliance on a special dictionary is key to L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech method “because they’ve invented so many new meanings of ordinary words,” says Scientology expert Dr. Stephen Kent.
This is a bald-faced lie and represents only the ignorance of so-called Scientology expert Dr. Stephen Kent.
A first-grade level student would not use the specialized dictionaries of Dianetics and Scientology that auditors-in-training use. The nomenclature of the Scientology auditing technology or Scientology administrative tech do have specialized dictionaries. Just like ship’s rigger has a specialized vocabulary requiring its own specialized dictionary.
But first-graders are not trained in these technologies. And such dictionaries are not employed with children under 14 years old.
Another thing that’s wrong with this critique is that grammar-school children that I tried to tutor in Southern California were forbidden from using dictionaries by their schools, so I can’t see that this “expert” is expert in anything.
Lack of guidance. Students are required to independently with varying results. Ex-Scientologist Lauren Haggis has said she was illiterate “until I was 11.”
This part of the critique starts with what is basically a misleading falsehood. A “requirement to study independently” has another name that these “experts” deliberately overlooked. In 1968, schools all over the United States were engaged in what was called Programmed Learning.
The criticisms of Study Tech here echo the criticisms of Programmed Learning in that Wikipedia article. I personally didn’t engage in Programmed Learning until the 6th Grade. But it worked for me. The problem with both Programmed Learning and Study Tech is that as an educator, you can’t just “set it and forget it”.
When a student is first starting on either approach, he must be supervised closely to ensure he’s “getting it”. Both approaches are also inappropriate for 6-year olds. Lauren Haggis’ testimony indicates only one thing to me: not that the technology was wrong, but that the supervisors charged with applying it were not doing their job. So Lauren Haggis’ parents were getting ripped off.
However, one giant advantage of “independent study” or “programmed learning” is that it doesn’t hobble a fast student.
No debates. Kids are taught not to question anything they read. “l didn’t know how to think for myself”, says one former student.
This critique is laughable, as any college-level student of Global Warming, Hispanic Studies, Women’s Studies or Political Thought has the same complaint…they’re graded lower in those classes if they contest the teacher’s fixed…and very often wrong…ideas. So they’re in essence taught not to debate.
Similarly, if a textbook in your high school biology class says “evolution” and you want to “debate” using “intelligent design”, you’re going to be discouraged from debating, as well.
So this “expert” can’t tell me that discouraging debate is unique to Scientology.
The thing omitted from this critique is that Supervisors in Scientology courserooms don’t get into “debates” over technical points of Scientology.
The difference in Scientology is that there are learning drills and word clearing and demonstrations and remedies that can be applied. If the person then can’t be brought to an understanding, duplication, and application of the technical point then the Supervisor would have to recognize that more remedies would need to be applied before the person could move forward on the checksheet.
In a typical way for the American press, when real experts are available, the press is too lazy to utilize them, resorting instead on using “experts” that fit the already-written story angle.
Again, I blame Miscavige’s Monumental Mishandling of the press for their resorting to working with uninformed tyros to get data about Scientology.
— written by Plain Old ThetanNumber of views:3968