Our request for a temporary restraining order blocking the report was denied on grounds that our plaintiffs did not have adequate standing; that is, they did not prove to the judge that they would be "irreparably harmed" by the release of the report. Our original complaint challenging the constitutionality of the task force is still pending.

The task force report says it did not focus on "cults" per se, but on activities of "groups causing problems" on campus. It also says that statistically, there are "very few" incidents of harm caused by such groups on campuses in Maryland, but that when harm occurs it is serious. The report calls for campuses to take steps to be more aware of dangerous activities, form oversight committees, create repositories where complaints can be filed for public viewing, and provide students with information to help them make "informed choices." The question is, how are these recommendations to be interpreted and implemented? As a member of one of the groups targeted (Unification Church) I can tell you that I take little comfort from the task force's toned down language.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the study showed that "cults cause serious harm." Of course, the writer could just as well have said, that the task force decided not to study "cults" and that "dangerous groups pose no great problem" on campus. But that would be like the Salem Times reporting that the Task Force on Witch Activities had decided that it wouldn't study "witches" and that spiritual healers and seers are no great threat.

By the way, a very informal survey of about 10 students by ICRF at the University of Maryland at College Park found that the two types of groups named by students as "causing problems" were "gangs" and "fraternities." None of the students mentioned "cults."

Which brings me to Joel's question about how the Task Force hearings got started in the first place. It was started at the initiative of two sets of parents of members of the International Churches of Christ who objected to their adult children's lifestyle choices and were frustrated by the University's failure to act in the parents' interests. They coalesced with long-time anti-cult activists to lobby the Maryland legislature. Hearings were held at which no opposing voices were heard. But the time religious freedom proponents learned of the initiative, it had already passed the lower house and was on a fast track to pass the senate. In short, we found out too late to stop it.

Hopefully there will be a more balanced debate on whatever legislative initiatives result from the task force's recommendations.

-- Dan Fefferman, Executive Director, International Coalition for Religious Freedom (posted 9/22, 11:43 a.m., E.D.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.