Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

14/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

As a former gurukula teacher and Headmaster makes clear, it was assumed that any devotee who was steady in his or her spiritual practice was qualified to work in the gurukula.  Yet as he further explains, few were able to stand up to the everyday demands of working with children. 

There were very few qualified or experienced teachers in the early Gurukula at Dallas . . . At that time in ISKCON in general there was a hubris about individual qualification.  It was thought that a devotee who was chanting his rounds was empowered to do anything and that he did not need any special training.  The task of dealing with a hundred children or so from morning to night on tough schedule through mangal arati to bedtime was too much for most of them. (Brzezinski 1997) 

As the above remarks make clear, working in the gurukula was stressful, especially for an untrained staff lacking sufficient interest in children.  This was all the more so in instances where a single ashram teacher was responsible for the care of 20 or more children. These conditions contributed directly to acts of child abuse by teachers.  As one teacher from this era observes, ‘There may have been some [teachers involved in abusing children] who were actually diabolical.  But in most cases it was a lack of expertise, lack of training, lack of assistance, lack of knowing who to go to.’  And, as the former Headmaster of one school, described. 

Therefore, we have someone like [name of ashram teacher] who is put into a situation in which he does not belong.  It is so stressful.  So therefore a kid gets out of line not to speak of his other transgressions and he pushes him hard and the kid falls on the floor and breaks his arm.  And that's what happened. (Interview 1997)  

But while finding people capable of working in the gurukula was an ongoing problem, retaining them represented another.  Many second generation youth tell of having as many as 15, 20, or more, ashram-teachers during their time in the gurukula.  Eight in ten (82%) of the second generation youth surveyed in 1991 92 agree that, ‘The major reason for the demise of the ashram-based gurukulas was the lack of qualified teachers.’  The former Headmaster quoted above suggests one reason why. 

At one point they sent all the kids from [region of the country] to our school in Lake Huntington.  So now we have this big regional school.  Then at one point [guru from that region] decides that he needs the ashram teacher [for the oldest boys] to do some other service . . . So I call him [guru] and say, ‘Listen there is no one but me.  I am the Headmaster.  I'm already doing this and that.  Now I am going to have to do the ashram.  There is nobody here that can do it.’  He just said, ‘Well you are just going to have to get somebody.  Good-bye.’  Pull the man out so now we have 16 older boys who don't have a teacher.  What to do? (Interview 1997)   

The effect of an ever-changing complement of gurukula teachers and staff meant that the children were unable to build and sustain meaningful and perhaps loving relationships with their adult caregivers. This very fact only increased the likelihood that children might be neglected and/or abused.24     

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

14/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

As a former gurukula teacher and Headmaster makes clear, it was assumed that any devotee who was steady in his or her spiritual practice was qualified to work in the gurukula.  Yet as he further explains, few were able to stand up to the everyday demands of working with children. 

There were very few qualified or experienced teachers in the early Gurukula at Dallas . . . At that time in ISKCON in general there was a hubris about individual qualification.  It was thought that a devotee who was chanting his rounds was empowered to do anything and that he did not need any special training.  The task of dealing with a hundred children or so from morning to night on tough schedule through mangal arati to bedtime was too much for most of them. (Brzezinski 1997) 

As the above remarks make clear, working in the gurukula was stressful, especially for an untrained staff lacking sufficient interest in children.  This was all the more so in instances where a single ashram teacher was responsible for the care of 20 or more children. These conditions contributed directly to acts of child abuse by teachers.  As one teacher from this era observes, ‘There may have been some [teachers involved in abusing children] who were actually diabolical.  But in most cases it was a lack of expertise, lack of training, lack of assistance, lack of knowing who to go to.’  And, as the former Headmaster of one school, described. 

Therefore, we have someone like [name of ashram teacher] who is put into a situation in which he does not belong.  It is so stressful.  So therefore a kid gets out of line not to speak of his other transgressions and he pushes him hard and the kid falls on the floor and breaks his arm.  And that's what happened. (Interview 1997)  

But while finding people capable of working in the gurukula was an ongoing problem, retaining them represented another.  Many second generation youth tell of having as many as 15, 20, or more, ashram-teachers during their time in the gurukula.  Eight in ten (82%) of the second generation youth surveyed in 1991 92 agree that, ‘The major reason for the demise of the ashram-based gurukulas was the lack of qualified teachers.’  The former Headmaster quoted above suggests one reason why. 

At one point they sent all the kids from [region of the country] to our school in Lake Huntington.  So now we have this big regional school.  Then at one point [guru from that region] decides that he needs the ashram teacher [for the oldest boys] to do some other service . . . So I call him [guru] and say, ‘Listen there is no one but me.  I am the Headmaster.  I'm already doing this and that.  Now I am going to have to do the ashram.  There is nobody here that can do it.’  He just said, ‘Well you are just going to have to get somebody.  Good-bye.’  Pull the man out so now we have 16 older boys who don't have a teacher.  What to do? (Interview 1997)   

The effect of an ever-changing complement of gurukula teachers and staff meant that the children were unable to build and sustain meaningful and perhaps loving relationships with their adult caregivers. This very fact only increased the likelihood that children might be neglected and/or abused.24     

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^
 

Cults & Society
 Department: Group Report
__________________________________________________
Featured Group Report

Hare Krishna: child abuse
  
 
   
 
     

14/22

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement:1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr. with Jennifer Heinlein

[continued]

As a former gurukula teacher and Headmaster makes clear, it was assumed that any devotee who was steady in his or her spiritual practice was qualified to work in the gurukula.  Yet as he further explains, few were able to stand up to the everyday demands of working with children. 

There were very few qualified or experienced teachers in the early Gurukula at Dallas . . . At that time in ISKCON in general there was a hubris about individual qualification.  It was thought that a devotee who was chanting his rounds was empowered to do anything and that he did not need any special training.  The task of dealing with a hundred children or so from morning to night on tough schedule through mangal arati to bedtime was too much for most of them. (Brzezinski 1997) 

As the above remarks make clear, working in the gurukula was stressful, especially for an untrained staff lacking sufficient interest in children.  This was all the more so in instances where a single ashram teacher was responsible for the care of 20 or more children. These conditions contributed directly to acts of child abuse by teachers.  As one teacher from this era observes, ‘There may have been some [teachers involved in abusing children] who were actually diabolical.  But in most cases it was a lack of expertise, lack of training, lack of assistance, lack of knowing who to go to.’  And, as the former Headmaster of one school, described. 

Therefore, we have someone like [name of ashram teacher] who is put into a situation in which he does not belong.  It is so stressful.  So therefore a kid gets out of line not to speak of his other transgressions and he pushes him hard and the kid falls on the floor and breaks his arm.  And that's what happened. (Interview 1997)  

But while finding people capable of working in the gurukula was an ongoing problem, retaining them represented another.  Many second generation youth tell of having as many as 15, 20, or more, ashram-teachers during their time in the gurukula.  Eight in ten (82%) of the second generation youth surveyed in 1991 92 agree that, ‘The major reason for the demise of the ashram-based gurukulas was the lack of qualified teachers.’  The former Headmaster quoted above suggests one reason why. 

At one point they sent all the kids from [region of the country] to our school in Lake Huntington.  So now we have this big regional school.  Then at one point [guru from that region] decides that he needs the ashram teacher [for the oldest boys] to do some other service . . . So I call him [guru] and say, ‘Listen there is no one but me.  I am the Headmaster.  I'm already doing this and that.  Now I am going to have to do the ashram.  There is nobody here that can do it.’  He just said, ‘Well you are just going to have to get somebody.  Good-bye.’  Pull the man out so now we have 16 older boys who don't have a teacher.  What to do? (Interview 1997)   

The effect of an ever-changing complement of gurukula teachers and staff meant that the children were unable to build and sustain meaningful and perhaps loving relationships with their adult caregivers. This very fact only increased the likelihood that children might be neglected and/or abused.24     

1/22 < > 22/22

______________________________________________ ^