Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

13/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure that it was protected against the presumed deleterious effects associated with the expansion of marriage and family life.  While initially established to spiritually educate ISKCON's children, the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of the movement's communal way of life. One long-time teacher from this era underscores the primary interest of ISKCON's sannyasi leadership. 

And you had to have a vision for the future to even understand why you were doing this [the gurukula].  For the teachers this might have been there but for the administration of ISKCON, what it means is that you are paying for a day-care centre.  These kids cause trouble wherever they are  . . . You are talking about sannyasis who are thinking like, ‘Get these kids out of here.  And look how much money I am having to pay to get these kids out of here.  And look at how many devotees have to be there [in the gurukula] to get these kids out of the way.’  That was the whole psyche surrounding how the school was put together. (Interview 1997) 

The importance placed on sankirtan by ISKCON's leadership meant that the significance of the gurukula rested on its childcare function, rather than as an educational institution.  Moreover, as parents faced increasing pressures to engage in sankirtan many had little ability to commit time to the needs of their children.  Children and family life threatened ISKCON's purpose as a missionary movement, but each also threatened the financial base upon which the authority of the leadership rested.      

Lack of Institutional Support for Gurukula 

Given the leadership's view of gurukula and its purposes, it failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an educational institution.  Throughout its existence the gurukula operated with insufficient staffing, funding and oversight.  I want to suggest now that in failing to provide the resources and management necessary to maintain the gurukula, it became an institution defined by neglect, isolation and marginalisation.  Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse.   

From the inception of the gurukula system in Dallas it faced a shortage of trained and qualified staff to serve as academic and ashram teachers.  In American culture we have a saying, ‘Those who can't do otherwise, teach.’  ISKCON, during the 1970s and 1980s, had its equivalent, ‘Those who can't do sankirtan, work in the gurukula.’  As a gurukula teacher of some twenty years commented, ‘The gurukula was the dumping ground as far as getting staff went.  When devotees couldn’t do other things like going on sankirtan they were sent to work in the gurukula.’  The result was that outside of a limited number of professional academic teachers, ISKCON's schools were staffed by devotees untrained and generally ill-prepared to take on the demands of working with children.  Moreover, because there was little or no status attached to working in the gurukula, many devotees had little or no desire to be there.  Success at sankirtan brought individual recognition within the devotee community, working with children, invisibility and a loss of status.23  As one ISKCON parent commented. 

I was concerned that the teachers were often selected based on their inability to do sankirtan, rather than because they loved children and education.  As far as I could see, there were no mandatory classes in childhood development for teachers or staff either.  How could anyone expect those in charge to know what was normal or abnormal behaviours and how it should be dealt with? (Anonymous a 1996)   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

13/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure that it was protected against the presumed deleterious effects associated with the expansion of marriage and family life.  While initially established to spiritually educate ISKCON's children, the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of the movement's communal way of life. One long-time teacher from this era underscores the primary interest of ISKCON's sannyasi leadership. 

And you had to have a vision for the future to even understand why you were doing this [the gurukula].  For the teachers this might have been there but for the administration of ISKCON, what it means is that you are paying for a day-care centre.  These kids cause trouble wherever they are  . . . You are talking about sannyasis who are thinking like, ‘Get these kids out of here.  And look how much money I am having to pay to get these kids out of here.  And look at how many devotees have to be there [in the gurukula] to get these kids out of the way.’  That was the whole psyche surrounding how the school was put together. (Interview 1997) 

The importance placed on sankirtan by ISKCON's leadership meant that the significance of the gurukula rested on its childcare function, rather than as an educational institution.  Moreover, as parents faced increasing pressures to engage in sankirtan many had little ability to commit time to the needs of their children.  Children and family life threatened ISKCON's purpose as a missionary movement, but each also threatened the financial base upon which the authority of the leadership rested.      

Lack of Institutional Support for Gurukula 

Given the leadership's view of gurukula and its purposes, it failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an educational institution.  Throughout its existence the gurukula operated with insufficient staffing, funding and oversight.  I want to suggest now that in failing to provide the resources and management necessary to maintain the gurukula, it became an institution defined by neglect, isolation and marginalisation.  Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse.   

From the inception of the gurukula system in Dallas it faced a shortage of trained and qualified staff to serve as academic and ashram teachers.  In American culture we have a saying, ‘Those who can't do otherwise, teach.’  ISKCON, during the 1970s and 1980s, had its equivalent, ‘Those who can't do sankirtan, work in the gurukula.’  As a gurukula teacher of some twenty years commented, ‘The gurukula was the dumping ground as far as getting staff went.  When devotees couldn’t do other things like going on sankirtan they were sent to work in the gurukula.’  The result was that outside of a limited number of professional academic teachers, ISKCON's schools were staffed by devotees untrained and generally ill-prepared to take on the demands of working with children.  Moreover, because there was little or no status attached to working in the gurukula, many devotees had little or no desire to be there.  Success at sankirtan brought individual recognition within the devotee community, working with children, invisibility and a loss of status.23  As one ISKCON parent commented. 

I was concerned that the teachers were often selected based on their inability to do sankirtan, rather than because they loved children and education.  As far as I could see, there were no mandatory classes in childhood development for teachers or staff either.  How could anyone expect those in charge to know what was normal or abnormal behaviours and how it should be dealt with? (Anonymous a 1996)   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

13/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure that it was protected against the presumed deleterious effects associated with the expansion of marriage and family life.  While initially established to spiritually educate ISKCON's children, the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of the movement's communal way of life. One long-time teacher from this era underscores the primary interest of ISKCON's sannyasi leadership. 

And you had to have a vision for the future to even understand why you were doing this [the gurukula].  For the teachers this might have been there but for the administration of ISKCON, what it means is that you are paying for a day-care centre.  These kids cause trouble wherever they are  . . . You are talking about sannyasis who are thinking like, ‘Get these kids out of here.  And look how much money I am having to pay to get these kids out of here.  And look at how many devotees have to be there [in the gurukula] to get these kids out of the way.’  That was the whole psyche surrounding how the school was put together. (Interview 1997) 

The importance placed on sankirtan by ISKCON's leadership meant that the significance of the gurukula rested on its childcare function, rather than as an educational institution.  Moreover, as parents faced increasing pressures to engage in sankirtan many had little ability to commit time to the needs of their children.  Children and family life threatened ISKCON's purpose as a missionary movement, but each also threatened the financial base upon which the authority of the leadership rested.      

Lack of Institutional Support for Gurukula 

Given the leadership's view of gurukula and its purposes, it failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an educational institution.  Throughout its existence the gurukula operated with insufficient staffing, funding and oversight.  I want to suggest now that in failing to provide the resources and management necessary to maintain the gurukula, it became an institution defined by neglect, isolation and marginalisation.  Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse.   

From the inception of the gurukula system in Dallas it faced a shortage of trained and qualified staff to serve as academic and ashram teachers.  In American culture we have a saying, ‘Those who can't do otherwise, teach.’  ISKCON, during the 1970s and 1980s, had its equivalent, ‘Those who can't do sankirtan, work in the gurukula.’  As a gurukula teacher of some twenty years commented, ‘The gurukula was the dumping ground as far as getting staff went.  When devotees couldn’t do other things like going on sankirtan they were sent to work in the gurukula.’  The result was that outside of a limited number of professional academic teachers, ISKCON's schools were staffed by devotees untrained and generally ill-prepared to take on the demands of working with children.  Moreover, because there was little or no status attached to working in the gurukula, many devotees had little or no desire to be there.  Success at sankirtan brought individual recognition within the devotee community, working with children, invisibility and a loss of status.23  As one ISKCON parent commented. 

I was concerned that the teachers were often selected based on their inability to do sankirtan, rather than because they loved children and education.  As far as I could see, there were no mandatory classes in childhood development for teachers or staff either.  How could anyone expect those in charge to know what was normal or abnormal behaviours and how it should be dealt with? (Anonymous a 1996)   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

13/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure that it was protected against the presumed deleterious effects associated with the expansion of marriage and family life.  While initially established to spiritually educate ISKCON's children, the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of the movement's communal way of life. One long-time teacher from this era underscores the primary interest of ISKCON's sannyasi leadership. 

And you had to have a vision for the future to even understand why you were doing this [the gurukula].  For the teachers this might have been there but for the administration of ISKCON, what it means is that you are paying for a day-care centre.  These kids cause trouble wherever they are  . . . You are talking about sannyasis who are thinking like, ‘Get these kids out of here.  And look how much money I am having to pay to get these kids out of here.  And look at how many devotees have to be there [in the gurukula] to get these kids out of the way.’  That was the whole psyche surrounding how the school was put together. (Interview 1997) 

The importance placed on sankirtan by ISKCON's leadership meant that the significance of the gurukula rested on its childcare function, rather than as an educational institution.  Moreover, as parents faced increasing pressures to engage in sankirtan many had little ability to commit time to the needs of their children.  Children and family life threatened ISKCON's purpose as a missionary movement, but each also threatened the financial base upon which the authority of the leadership rested.      

Lack of Institutional Support for Gurukula 

Given the leadership's view of gurukula and its purposes, it failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an educational institution.  Throughout its existence the gurukula operated with insufficient staffing, funding and oversight.  I want to suggest now that in failing to provide the resources and management necessary to maintain the gurukula, it became an institution defined by neglect, isolation and marginalisation.  Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse.   

From the inception of the gurukula system in Dallas it faced a shortage of trained and qualified staff to serve as academic and ashram teachers.  In American culture we have a saying, ‘Those who can't do otherwise, teach.’  ISKCON, during the 1970s and 1980s, had its equivalent, ‘Those who can't do sankirtan, work in the gurukula.’  As a gurukula teacher of some twenty years commented, ‘The gurukula was the dumping ground as far as getting staff went.  When devotees couldn’t do other things like going on sankirtan they were sent to work in the gurukula.’  The result was that outside of a limited number of professional academic teachers, ISKCON's schools were staffed by devotees untrained and generally ill-prepared to take on the demands of working with children.  Moreover, because there was little or no status attached to working in the gurukula, many devotees had little or no desire to be there.  Success at sankirtan brought individual recognition within the devotee community, working with children, invisibility and a loss of status.23  As one ISKCON parent commented. 

I was concerned that the teachers were often selected based on their inability to do sankirtan, rather than because they loved children and education.  As far as I could see, there were no mandatory classes in childhood development for teachers or staff either.  How could anyone expect those in charge to know what was normal or abnormal behaviours and how it should be dealt with? (Anonymous a 1996)   

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^