How About This Theory

[CEDU IS A CULT]

Your mother acted in a way that we felt was downplaying and ignorant.  She seemed to ignore our claims of abuse and downplay them so we were (I think) rightfully offended.

She took a very clinical unemotional approach (which is very good sometimes) to what we consider an emotional issue.

However in this case, we simply want it to be understood and accepted at face value that these abuses really did occur and that no amount of positive expectation on other's parts can excuse or minimize the abuse that we ourselves experienced.

So we're not really angry at Ottawa5, I don't think.

I personally am angry at your mother's ideas.

The main thing is the idea that because there were ( I'm sure of it) some positive experiences at CEDU, it could somehow excuse the abuses at CEDU.

There were major abuses at CEDU which you'll see in my posts.

I just want them to answer for those abuses.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I personally am angry at O5.  Her cold clinical attitude about the abuses and total denial they went on piss me off. I, at least, did not trample on her perspective of HER experience; just hers' of ours'.  

--Shan

[ottawa5]

Here is how I see it.

I never meant to show disrespect for your experience, and I didn't think that I did. If i did, I am very sorry, I shouldn't have.

It sounds like you may think I'm not emotional enough in writing and this seems disrespectful to you. Please keep in mind that this could be more of an individual style and, perhaps, an age difference.  Also, as I am a person who isn't really at home in computer communication, this may be part of the problem also.

You are correct, as I recall, you personally have never slammed my "perpective" on CEDU.

And, also, I do believe that there have been abuses, although you and I may not define "abuse" identically and may disagree in individual cases.

The question I am interested in is whether, as you believe, abuses are inevitable in this kind of program or whether, as I hope, there are ways (better staff, some modification of the curriculuum) to guard against them and still retain what I see as the positive parts of the programs (positive on the basis of what others have told me helped them in CEDU programs).

The opinions of you and other posters here have definitely influenced me, especially the idea that this site is special to you and that you are concerned and don't want it used by possible spies from schools and things like that.

I have been trying to sit back and listen, rather than argue, and to respond only when addressed or when I have questions for new posters (I guess I could post Anon to keep my username out of the discussion entirely  but I don't like to do that on principle).  

So just wanted to clear that up, you have every right to dislike me personally, I find it hard to have "personal" opinions about someone on the basis of a personna presented on an internet site, but that may be an age and computer-experience related thing also.

[CEDU IS A CULT]

No, abuse is not inevitable at all treatment centers or specialized schools or prisons or retreats or rehabs or whatever.

However, I believe that abuse IS inevitable at any CEDU or CEDU-affliated school.

You wouldn't try to reform Abu-Graib.  Not even Bush would try.

They just bulldozed it down.

[Antigen]

Ottowa, here's the thing. Going all the way back to the first Synanon based experimental programs (one notable failure among them being Jim Jones' People's Temple) there has emerged a pattern of remarkably similar abuse reported by different people, from different backgrounds, of different ages, from different places and times and having landed in the synanon for a broad variety of reasons.

It's no coincidence. The very elements of the Program that proponants say (and often believe) make it effective also set up an environment ripe for all kinds of abuse.

Lord Acton is most frequently credited w/ first putting this aphorism to words; at least first in Anglican words. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now, can you concieve of a CEDU w/o the absolute power? What would be left? How would it work? Who would be the target market? Forget the Toughlove hategroups. The primary draw for them seems to be that they can pay someone to do to their children what would be felony child abuse if they did it on their own. So, how, exactly, do you envision the kinder, gentler Chuck E. Diederich Unividrsity?

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

[ottawa5]

I've heard comments here referring to a link between Synanon and CEDU anad I have no other info either to confirm or dispute such a connection.

I imagine you're aware that a lot of substance treatment programs still use aspects of the old Synanon methodology without adopting the whole program.

That's a pretty common thing, actually for parts of a program to get incorporated into someone else's new idea about how to do things, even when the whole program is seen as objectionable or overboard for some reason. So it's possible that Mel Wasserman, among a whole bunch of other people, looked at parts of Synanon and decided to use what he liked.  But I don't know that, it just seems plausible.

On the other hand, other people, for example those who support motivational interviewing, would oppose any part of Synanon, in part for philosophical reasons. When I have a chance, I'll look for any real empirical studies that address effectiveness.  

I like Lord Acton, by the way, and power dynamics are always an issue, in any school, relationship or family.

But in my own case, I never experienced CEDU as having "absolute power".  On different occasions, I would discuss issues with various decision-makers there and sometimes, I would have to make a decision that was at odds with their advice.  One that comes to mind was my decision not to seek extended custody of my child in the Idaho courts.  The school accepted my decision, over their recommendations and we went from there.

And tell me more about the "felony child abuse" that I was paying them to inflict on my son in my absence?  

My sense, after reading a number of your posts, is that you are a person who is a little further over on the anarchist side of the anarchist-totalitarian dimension than I am.

I value liberty a great deal, I also think that parents have a responsibility to sometimes limit the liberty of their minor children. Do you?

Or are you one of those  people who thinks that if a kid is allowed to seek his or her own way, with no holds barred, it'll all end up fine?

I'm wondering if we just disagree on the form of the restraint that is being used here or are you saying that you don't think there should be any coercive restraint at all, regardless of what the minor child is doing to self or others?

[Anonymous]

i can tell you about the connection between synanon and cedu  is that mel came out of synanon and wanted money and power and cedu is what he used to get it. when i was there they said that cedu was jonestown without the kool aid and they did not care that kids would die after they left they would blame the kid saying he was troubled before he got there  investigate cascade school in whitmore,ca   it was run by michael allgood and others who were followers of mel. he would cut and run whenever there was a student revolt and there was one  and they shut down for good. when he does not get his way he blames the students and takes the money and runs or buries it in the ground in the woods and changes his hiding place if he thinks someone is watching
 
 mel wasserman who scammed the brown schools out of 60 million by selling them cedu and remaining as consultants when they knew the place could not legally turn a profit but legal was only something mel cared about when he sue his victims and there parents
thats right if you said anything you were sued and that includes staff. it was to scare you he never went to court because he hated the negative publicity.

[Anonymous]

snitches dont get stitches at CEDU

[Antigen]

On 2004-08-17 15:24:00, ottawa5 wrote:

"I've heard comments here referring to a link between Synanon and CEDU anad I have no other info either to confirm or dispute such a connection.



I imagine you're aware that a lot of substance treatment programs still use aspects of the old Synanon methodology without adopting the whole program.

Yes, and I'm aware that around 1970 or so Bobby DuPont, then head of NIDA, actually advocated replicating Synanon all over the country at public expense. And that Scientology's Narconon was taught in Los Angeles area schools up until recently. Doesn't make it valid.

Maybe that's why government studies into the efficacy of various substance abuse treatment models fail to show any significant benefit to treated populations over that to untreated populations.

That's a pretty common thing, actually for parts of a program to get incorporated into someone else's new idea about how to do things, even when the whole program is seen as objectionable or overboard for some reason. So it's possible that Mel Wasserman, among a whole bunch of other people, looked at parts of Synanon and decided to use what he liked.  But I don't know that, it just seems plausible.

Actually, it seems probable. Still, doesn't mean it's a valid or sensible way to go about things.

On the other hand, other people, for example those who support motivational interviewing, would oppose any part of Synanon, in part for philosophical reasons. When I have a chance, I'll look for any real empirical studies that address effectiveness.  

Please. And, try and find any that include a control group.

I like Lord Acton, by the way, and power dynamics are always an issue, in any school, relationship or family.



But in my own case, I never experienced CEDU as having "absolute power".  

Of course you didn't! You were the one signing the checks! Try being a "student".

And tell me more about the "felony child abuse" that I was paying them to inflict on my son in my absence?  

Just look around at what some of these former students have to tell you. No wonder they get pissed off at you. You seem to just unsee whatever doesn't fit your thesis.

My sense, after reading a number of your posts, is that you are a person who is a little further over on the anarchist side of the anarchist-totalitarian dimension than I am.
. . .

Try Occam's razor here. Your very interesting analysis of my thinking could, possibly, maybe explain my positions. Or you could take my word for it and accept my reasons for believing as I do.

I'm wondering if we just disagree on the form of the restraint that is being used here or are you saying that you don't think there should be any coercive restraint at all, regardless of what the minor child is doing to self or others?

Maybe, I don't know. How do you feel about allegedly troubled teens restraining and surveiling other allegedly troubled teens? If you're alright w/ that, then I guess you don't have a problem w/ Charles E. Dederich University.

Locate the blind spot in the culture--the place where the culture isn't looking, because it dare not--because if it were to look there, its previous values would dissolve.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561769118/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>Terence McKenna

[shanlea]

O5:

The problem with restraints is that they are often used for control when the kid isn't violent but justified anyway.  Certainly, if a kid physically charged me, I would want him to be safely apprehended.  

None of us can talk about your experience, but many of us talk about ours', which was chock full of verbal abuse and emotional abuse as well as unethical practices, such as lying or scamming.

Also, you sometimes view coersion as necessary in these environments, explaining why children are forced to attend.  

The coersion I am talking about (I couldn't imagine hiring a bounty hunter against my sons)is that I was (I'll just speak for me but I saw it profusely)coerced into rewriting my history to their benefit, my parents were coerced into keeping me there with dishonesty, and to break me down they coerced cop outs and confessions to beat me down.  All cop outs were reformatted to fit their needs and none involved any behavior where I was a lying jerk off, so basically they voyeuristically used my experiences against me. I also feel it was unfair coersion to be in the wrong placement with them BSing both my parents and me.  Another coercive eleemnt is just twisting the story and using that to manipulate you and your peers against you and barraging you in raps.

When it comes to trauma such as rape etc., you should trust the people you are confessing to rather than have them call you names or goad you relentlessly about it.

In addition, in raps and propheets, you were coerced into having--often faking--emotional breakthroughs of epic proportions and you were goaded mercilessly until you did. That is why a lot of kids made false confessions, even to your parents.  

Finally, the last coercive element is that the perspective endorsed by CEDU is binary. Everything is black/white according to CEDU and you need to live, think, talk, act, in very narrow constraints. when many of us got out into the real world, we were totally unequipped.

[ottawa5]

That is, do you or don't you believe that sometimes parents have to use coercive measures in terms of their minor children?  

Because some people, mostly aging hippies, but others too, do believe that is this case, that you have to always let a kid make his/her own mistakes, however dangerous.  Where do you stand on this, I didn't understand from your response.

And don't worry if former students get "pissed off" at me, I'm a big girl and can handle it. The opacity makes me "pissed off" too, sometimes but I get over it.

I think that the people here who I respect understand that I do believe that abuses have occurred, my question, previously stated, but obviously not universally communicated, is how to guard against possible abuse and still keep the parts of the programs that many, many graduates have told me were helpful and even crucial to them when they were students at different CEDU schools.

[shanlea]

I'm talking about the emotional coersion etc. that I mentioned specifically.

Parenthood is more difficult than I ever imagined, so I try not to pass judgment.  I guess on some level I understand how a parent would fear for their out of control child, especially if he is particularly aggressive or self destructive. In that situation, the parent may opt to have the child forcefully escorted. However, the use of escort have been totally abused in many cases where it was not necessary at all. I couldn't imagine having a young teenager escorted either.

I know one TV personality's daughter ran away and lived on the streets for months in a faraway state. When the mother found out where she was, she was too afraid to give her a chance to run away before she flew in, so she hired a bounty hunter to pick up the daughter.  The parent was sincerely afraid she'd lose her again before she got to her and her daughter would persih on the streets.  

I don't have all the answers; I don't know how you should deal with a child who violently resists help.  Sometimes natural consequences help. If you bail out a kid every time they lie/steal/crash the car/ etc. you will have big problems later.

My older brother actually did get addicted to heroin and lived on the streets for many, many years. He was unsafe to have around. (He would threaten us with knives etc when I was a young girl.) He did everything under the sun to support his habit. My Dad tried to get him help and treatment many times to no avail.  So finally he just let him stay on the streets (he was legal age).  After many years, he and his girlfriend (now wife) got clean on their own and now are gainfully employed with a nice home and life.  They've been sober 17 years; they re-arranged their entire life to avoid things that might trigger a relapse and keep it pretty simple. I don't know how they did it, but they did. And they aren't in N.A.  

I could not honestly say that any type of coersion is absolutely wrong, but I've always been uncomfortable with this method.

[Antigen]

On 2004-08-18 20:26:00, ottawa5 wrote:

"That is, do you or don't you believe that sometimes parents have to use coercive measures in terms of their minor children?  

It depends on what you mean by coercion. Do you mean "Get home by curfew or you'll be grounded"? Sure, that's acceptable. But also contingent on the kid submiting to being grounded. Or do you mean "Admit to being a worthless piece of shit or face isolation, no sleep and a limited diet for an indefinite period of time", which is not contingent on anything, because the people imposing the coercion can and will employ violence, drugs or whatever means necessary to make good on the threat.

Because some people, mostly aging hippies, but others too, do believe that is this case, that you have to always let a kid make his/her own mistakes, however dangerous.  Where do you stand on this, I didn't understand from your response.

Out for a bit of good, clean dead agenting again, I see.

I think that the people here who I respect understand that I do believe that abuses have occurred, my question, previously stated, but obviously not universally communicated, is how to guard against possible abuse and still keep the parts of the programs that many, many graduates have told me were helpful and even crucial to them when they were students at different CEDU schools. "

Once again, what parts of the Program do you want to keep? In my opinion, the basic Program sets up an environment ripe for abuse.

To put it another way, what do you think Chuck E. Dedrich University can do that a parent w/ support from family, friends and community can't do at home?

Can you answer a question other than with a question?

who needs regular piss tests more than a former blowski who has his finger on the button?
--Chuck Beyer

[ottawa5]

That's sort of interesting, my last post and your previous (second last) post were both at 20:26. Hope it's a sign that we have common ground and we are just expressing it in different ways.

The whole coercion issue is really difficult for me because I am a libertarian by nature. If, God forbide, my son was using drugs now or otherwise acting against himself, I think that I would not call in the law on him, because, painful as it might be to watch him destroy himself (and I'd try my best to influence him) he is now an adult, he has his own destiny.

I just think it's different with a minor. And sometimes terrible things do happen if you do not intervene.

When we sent my son away to RMA, the parents of one of his druggie best-friends really looked down on us for doing it, we heard about their comments on our decision. They said things like that boys will be boys, they would outgrow it, we were controlling, we were overreacting.

Then, some time later, after things were improving for my son, that druggie friend was out cruising around at 3 in the morning, still into the same crowd and behaviors, and he went across a highway median.  His car was destroyed and he was dead at the scene.

I'm not blaming these parents--they had what was statistically a reasonable hope that things would work out without what they saw as our kind of extreme intervention. And there is everyday the chance, no matter how lucky or how good you are as a parent, that tragedy will strike: a random shooting, an accident, an illness.

So I pass no judgment, but how could I live with myself as a parent, if I didn't do everything I was capable of, to keep my underage child from risking his life? If we had not intervened and that had happened to us?

What I do know is that there is a good chance that if my son had been here, and I hadn't sent him to boarding school, he would have been in the car that was destroyed that night, since these guys used to hang out together all the time.

As parents, we have to do what we feel is best, after reflection, in the least extreme way possible. And with the full knowledge that there are no certainties and sometimes not even much support for our difficult decisions.  I guess that's why parenting takes courage, which love can summon up in any of us.

I agree with you that no one should be forced to deny his/her own truths. It sounds as if the group/team leaders that you had were pretty insensitive and clumsy.  We were fortunate, I guess, it goes back to my idea that you have to hire the best, in terms of insight and kindness, and for that you have to pay a decent wage. I don't know but maybe that wasn't being uniformly done throughout the CEDU system.

[ottawa5]

So good, you ground the kid and he respects your authority, and sees your point and learns from it, and stays grounded. Incident ended.

But what about when the kid say "No, you can't make me" or a string of four letter words and out the door with his druggie, delinquent friends?  

Do you say "Oh well, it is out of my hands".

The issues that surround parenting are complex and not always amenable to sound-bite answers or obscure philosophical debates: but I do know this: some kids are going to be defiant and go out the door, and my response is not going to be to say "oh well...".

We could agree, I think, that you should try everything else, therapy, living with other relatives, in-depth attempts at reconciliation, before sending a child, even a defiant, self and other-endangering child away.

Now to your questions about what parts of the RMA program I see as crucial: this will have to weight for another day, it's too late and my morning is going to be brutally early, but if you are interested, I will reply in the next few day---much of my opinion is influenced, of course, by my son and some of his friends who would not change much of anything about their RMA experiences,  But then they do not report the abusive behaviors that some others have reported here.