University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

California public universities and religious cults: The law, liability assessment, and risk reduction

(USC Thesis Other)

California public universities and religious cults: The law, liability assessment, and risk reduction

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AND RELIGIOUS CULTS; THE LAW, LIABILITY ASSESSMENT, AND RISK REDUCTION by Shannon E. Ellis A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) May 1988 UMI Number: DP25214 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. OJssüftaîion RybîlisMng UMI DP25214 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90089 EfS UL P b . D , Ed k This dissertation, written by .........SHANNON. . E. . . . ELL IS......... under the direction of . . Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Dean of Graduate Studies D a te F e b r u a r ^ ^ . . 1988 _ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE lairp er^n TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM.............. 1 Background of the Problem * . 1 Statement of the Problem........................14 Importance of the Problem . . . ..............18 Purpose of the Study .......... 20 Questions to be Answered........................21 A Perspective: The Setting ........ 22 Findings: Legal Rights Of Religious Cults c on California Public University Campuses : I Definitions and Limitations ....... 23 i Findings: Cult-related Liability Potential of California Public Universities, Their Officials, and Appropriate Liability Reduction Practices............. 23 Assumptions of the Study .............. 24 Limitations of the Study ...... .......... 26 Delimitations of the Study......................29 Definition of Terms ....................29 Higher Education Terms . .................... 30 Legal T e r m s .............. 35 Religious T e r m s .............................. 45 ii chapter Page Research Procedures .......................... 51 Legal Research 51 ; Interviews ....................... ..... 54 1 j Organization of Remainder of Study 50 j ! I II, A PERSPECTIVE: THE SETTING 62 , The Campuses Surveyed ..... 65 j I California State University ' and Colleges System 55 j California State College/San Bernardino , . 66 California State University/Dominguez Hills. 67 I California State University/Fullerton . . . 68 ! j California State University/Long Beach . . . 69 i California State University/Los Angeles . . 70 I I California State University/Northridge . . . 72 | University of California . 73 ; University of California/Irvine . 74 ! University of California/Los Angeles .... 76 University of California/Riverside 77 j University of California/San Diego 79 | i University of California/Santa Barbara . . . 80 I Religious Cults ........ .......... 82 The Origin of the Modern Cult Movement . . . 86 i U Chapter Page Who Joins Cults? The Conversion Process . Cult Activities . . . . 88 ! 90 93 ; Student Legal Rights............ 94 Dixon V . Alabama State Board of Education: The Turning Point ..................95 Freedom of Expression on Campus ...... 97 Freedom of Association on Campus........103 Institutional Control and Responsibility . . 106 Summary......................... 112 III. FINDINGS; LEGAL RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS CULTS ON CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES: DEFINITIONS AND LIMITATIONS 114 I Overview .... ........ 116 | Cults and the Courts 118 j I I Cults as Religions ........ ........ 120 ; Cults and the Establishment of Religion . . 123 ! Cult Activities on Public Universities : Overview . . . . .. . . . . .... ....... 124 Legal Issues ................. 126 Official Recognition .......... 127 Use of Campus Facilities.......... 130 IV Chapter Page Right to Proselytize and Solicit 133 Right to Outside Speakers............ 136 I Right to Funding..................... 137 : Illegal Activities and Practices ...... 139 , I Recruitment and Conversion Techniques . . . 143 j Secular Activities . 146 j Conservatorship/Deprogramming 148 i ! Implications for Public Universities ..... 150 j IV. FINDINGS: CULT-RELATED LIABILITY POTENTIAL OF ' CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, THEIR ; OFFICIALS AND APPROPRIATE LIABILITY REDUCTION PRACTICES 156 I Constitutional Torts ............ 157 Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983: University Liability and Sovereign Immunity.............................. 158 Civil Torts .......... 166 Negligence ..................... 167 Defamation . ......................... 176 Colleges and Universities Surveyed . . . . . . 177 ' Assessment of Cult Activity on Campus Level of Cult Activity ............. Perception of Cults by Others . . . I 179 I 180 I 186 : V ' Chapter Recognition . • Use of Facilities Funding Proselytizing Solicitation Secular Activities Treatment of Cults Compared to Other Student Organizations Conservatorships/Deprogramming Illegal Activities ........... Defamation........... . . . . Administrator Knowledge Regarding Cults Liability Assessment............. . . . . California State College, San Bernardino California State University, Dominguez Hills . . .. . . . . . California State University, Fullerton . California State University, Long Beach California State University, Los Angeles California State University, Northridge University of California, Irvine .... University of California, Los Angeles Page 187 190 191 192 193 194 ; 195 , 195 I 196 I I 199 I 200 j 200 I 200 i 201 201 I 1 203 204 I I 205 I 206 208 Chapter Page University of California, Riverside . . . 210 University of California, Santa Barbara . 211 : University of California, San Diego . . . 212 I Summary......................... 213 j I V. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 215 j I Summary of the Study......................... 218 I Societal Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 I Legal Precedent 224 ' The Interviews ............ 230 Findings of the Study ........... 234 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 j Recommendations ................... 243 ; I I REFERENCES . .......... . 254 TABLE OF CASES................................. 266 j I APPENDICES...................................... 281 | APPENDIX A: TOPIC OUTLINE FOR INTERVIEWS ..... 281 Administrative Interviews ........... 282 Attorney Interviews . . ........... 286 Definition of C u l t ............... . 288 I I Examples of Cults................ 289 i Vll Chapter Page APPENDIX B: STATE OF CALIFORNIA: TRIPARTITE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION— ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL . 291 Vlll CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem As Veysey (1965) observed, "the American university of 1900 was all but unrecognizable in comparison with the college of 1860" (p. 2), and so too is today's multiversity all but unrecognizable in comparison with "the American university of 1900." Like any other human institution, in other words, today's university is not only the here-and- I now, given, and self-evident, but also arose and changed ' within particular historic environments in response to : certain felt interests and needs (see, e.g., Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Rudolph, 1962). Judged by any index, of course, the very nature of the higher learning in the United States has been significantly transformed in those eight-plus decades, slowly at first but then with accelerating speed in the last 25 years or so. In respect to the last quarter century, for example, Millington (1986) pointed out that "complexity qua growth and change has become the order of our present era and the dominant motif in our culture to which our colleges and universities must respond," for complexity, he explained, is compounded by growth and change because [complexity] is directly affected by the number of interrelationships that exist and the frequency of interactions that take place. . . . And so complexity is essentially a product of more of every thing— viz., people, government, institutions, knowledge, law— as well as the rate at which these elements interact and change. (pp. 3-4) By way of metaphor Millington then set forth "growth, change, and complexity" as the "'three galloping horsemen'" of modern American society as well as one of its increasingly important subcomponents, "'the university'" in the latter sense not only because "our increasingly complex world" has become the university's major source of subject matter in the performance of its teaching/learning function, but also— and in this respect even more significant-— "while turning out new ideas and knowledge our universities have also been turning out people who will turn out new ideas and knowledge. . . . In short," he con cluded, "our universities are intimately involved in the process of developing the means by which our lives and even the great globe itself are being constantly transformed at a tempo never before known" (pp. 5-6). For the purpose of grasping the mixed blessings of such phenomena, however, at this point, one might profitably pause a moment and apply Millington's theory of complexity to the American higher education enterprise itself— that is, "complexity is essentially more of every- I thing--viz., people, government, institutions, knowledge, law— as well as the rate at which these elements interact and change"— not extensively but just enough to see where forward motion has taken that enterprise and especially so in respect to setting the stage for the influence of such current social phenomena as increasing litigiousness and the popularity of religious cults on campus. In 1900, for example, only 4.01% of college-age youth were enrolled as undergraduates in a college or university, the percentage of which stood at 8.14% in 1920 and then leaped to 33.2% in 1960 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976, p. 478) and to over 50% by the mid-1980's (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1986, p. 137). In 1900, moreover, the graduate schools of arts and science were still in their early stage of development, having only been recently established as the heart and fount of America's first true university, namely Johns Hopkins University founded at Baltimore, Maryland, in 1876. Meanwhile, by the turn of the century 5,668 students were enrolled in this segment of graduate education, but by 3 1930 that number had blossomed to 47,255, and by 1950 it had leaped forward in numbers to 223,786 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976, p. 193), and by the mid-1980's to over 1,114,000 (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1986, p. 138). Furthermore, in 1900 there was very little involvement of the federal government in higher education, especially until World War II, but thereafter such involvement eventually took on the characteristics of an avalanche. | Consider as well the current knowledge explosion, for , example, "[b]etween 6,000 and 7,000 scientific articles | are written each day, and information doubles every 5h \ I years," as Cross (1984) pointed out, adding: "By the time ; the average physician completes his or her training, half ! i of all the information acquired is obsolete" (p. 172). I In this respect consider also the mind-boggling complexity of the academic profession itself— "a profession so diverse," as one professor recently observed, that "we sometimes wonder if it is one profession at all," and shortly thereafter underscored such wonderment with the following portrayal: Every so often on a search committee or task force, we find ourselves seated around a table with a cross- section of our peers. An entymologist, a tax lawyer, a solid-state physicist, a ceramicist, a teacher of marketing, a teacher of Italian. . . . No wonder we marvel at finding ourselves members of a single "faculty," at learning that actions are to be taken in our name. (Strohm, 1985, p. 23) Similarly, according to Burton Clark's (1985) preliminary in-progress findings from his study of the American academic profession: Today the academic profession stands as a plethora of disciplines, a widening array of subject affiliations, a host of subcultures that speak in strange tongues. Who can fathom an econometrician in full stride, let alone a biochemist or an ethnomethodologist newly tutored in linguistics and semiotics? (p. 36) And both within and outside the higher education enterprise has been the widespread mood of questioning that which heretofore had been stable aspects of conventional wisdom. To some observers, for example, the Russians have become pacifists while the Americans appear to be warmongers. Indeed, in 1984 President Reagan and his supporters gave "Biblical apocalypticism a contemporary political twist" when they campaigned for an aggressive nuclear stance in the face of a potential "nuclear Armaggedon" (Woodward, 1984a, p. 91). In response to the Feminist Movement, moreover, "the latest translation of Biblical text— sponsored by the National Council of Churches of Christ— suppresses gender references to God" (Bloom, 1987, p. 65), apparently meaning that God as "He" must have been a sexist. To many other Christians, however, such doings were nothing short of blasphemous, but then these seem to be days when blasphemy slipped its leash— and in many ways. As Hayek (I960) put it: While the growth of our knowledge of nature constantly discloses new realms of ignorance, the increasing complexity of the civilization which this knowledge enables us to build presents new obstacles to the intellectual comprehension of the world around us. The more men know, the smaller the share of all that knowledge becomes that any one mind can absorb. The more civilized we become, the more relatively ignorant must each individual be of the facts on which the working of his civilization depends, (p. 26) The world today is an extremely complex web of move ments, possessions, thoughts, and emotions. Industrializa tion has permeated every society and brought pollution, scarcer resources, and extinct professions along with its benefits to society. Urbanization is close behind with inflationary costs, warring gangs, heightened crime, and either ghettozied decay or displacement of the poor through gentrification. Materialism, single-interest sub groups, and career specialization have been outgrowths of such complexity. Human behavior has perversely altered itself in forms of child abuse, spouse beating, murder, suicide, metaphysical fads and soaring divorce rates. Meanwhile, a Cassandra-like Alvin Toff1er (1970) pinpointed the overall result as "future shock"— "the dizzying disorientation brought on by the premature arrival of the future" (p. 11). And these problems represent only a small number of what Ritner (1961) termed "weave problems" wherein he warned that we will increasingly face crises that are not susceptible to "cause and effect analysis" but [instead] require "mutual dependence analysis"? not composed of easily detachable elements but of hundreds of cooperating influences from dozens of independent, overlapping sources. (p. 113) The same interdependence exists with regard to movements and trends in the United States and the World. So leap with joy, be blithe and gay Or weep my friends with sorrow What California is today. The rest will be tomorrow. — Richard Armour On January 24, 1848, at Coloma, California, James W. Marshall discovered gold, and by year's end more than 100,000 persons would strike out toward El Dorado to seek their fortunes— a good share of whom were a venturesome, risk-taking lot indeed (Caughey, 1975). What is more, the i I 7 gold rush of 1848 has persisted as the myth and essence of California— the fabled land of El Dorado "to which millions have flocked to make their fortunes, chase their dreams, and pursue the good life." Among other things the Golden State is currently known as "the land of venture capitalists, gene-splicing, [Silicon Valley] and micro-chippers" (Naisbett, 1982, p. 1), the nation's number one agricultural state, the nation's largest state in population (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1986, p. 22), and according to Naisbett (1982) "California is the key indicator state; . . . characteri zed by a rich mix of people . . . result [ing] in creativity, experimentation, and change . . . [and] is a famous trendsetter" (p. 6). How Californians are dealing with the complexities and challenges of living in the 1980's is clearly displayed for the world in newspapers, television, radio, and movies as well as in business, leisure time, religious, and educational settings. For some the world's chaotic nature means opportunities by entrepreneurial leadership. Others cope with lack of control over the world through strict control over their personal compulsive exercise routine and diet. Still others seek the safety of a highly structured and all-knowing cult. 8 As Konvitz (1958) pointed out in Religious Liberty and Conscience, "The changes are the result of new material forces in our society, of discontent and dis illusionment, of eagerness for new institutions and new conceptions and ideals that would more closely reflect the material, intellectual, and spiritual conditions of men in the world" (p. 6). What are the ideals that reflect the conditions of society? Closely related to Konvitz' observation. Harvard theologian Harvey Cox (1977) noted in Turning East; The East Turners are also looking for a way to experience life directly without the intervention of ideas and concepts. Many told us they were looking for a kind of immediacy they had not been able to find elsewhere. I do not refer here to those who were looking for experience merely for its own sake, for another kick or another "trip" to add to their collection. . . . Here I refer to those persons who seemed to want a real personal encounter with God or the Holy, or simply with life, nature, and other people. It also includes those who needed to find a kind of inner peace and had not found it elsewhere. (p. 96) At no time in one's life are a person's beliefs more shaken than between the college-attending ages of 18 and 21. Combined with the additional spiritual bewilderment of the human race in the 1980's, it is no wonder that the youth of America have experienced the confusion which results in a challenge to and shaking of cultural foundations. These individuals have protested the draft as tied to college financial aid, spoken against involve ment in Nicaragua, and rallied against apartheid. College-age students are traditionally rebellious, in search of a new identity, addicted to causes, and intoxicated with ideas that often clash with the conventional society-at-large. The college setting at its best provides thé environment for challenging the status quo, exploring alternatives, questioning values, and exposing one's self to views other than those traditionally held. The institution allows for developmental changes to occur while often influencing that direction through policy, programs, and faculty-staff interaction with students. Other entities, however, vie for that ability,to impact the-growth of open-minded — college students. Cults recruit youth who are questioning. There is no better place to do this than on a college campus. Since the 1960's many young Americans have been leading lives of uneasiness, disenchantment, and disillusionment. The time continues to be right for new religious movements. In the midst of a student's uncertainty and alienation new religions have offered security and acceptance. The 10 1960's and 1970's were a period of massive upheaval and social change that set the scene for the meteorical rise of cults on college campuses, particularly in California. What is a cult? In general terms Pavlos (1981) noted that a cult "usually involves a relatively small religious group whose beliefs, values, and practices are at variance with those of dominant or traditional forms of religion" (p. 3); and Quarantelle and Wenger (1973) described a cult as "a diffuse group exhibiting inward innovative behavior that both differentiates and makes for conformity among group members and which is supported by religious beliefs and an ideology" (p. 384). Webster defines a cult as a system of belief characterized by "great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing." For many people that could be the local NFL team or the more traditional religions of today. The concern in this study, however, is limited to those groups who are considered religious cults and a subgroup of that category labeled destructive cults. The destructive cult utilizes physical and/or psychological methods to control behavior. Stoner and Parke (1978) give a popular definition of a destructive cult: 11 1. Cults have living leaders and the cult's religious doctrine is based on the leader's revelations and ideology. 2. A cult's religious leader has absolute authority over members. 3. Cults promise converts that through hard work and ! loyalty they can save humanity from sin and i eventual destruction. 4. Cults require that members do "demeaning work" for the cause. 5. Cults promise everlasting salvation for faithful followers. 6. Converts must remove themselves from greater society— jobs, schools, families, and friends— - and devote full-time effort to the cult and its leader. 7. Cults indoctrinate members through elaborate and extreme personality, attitude, belief, and behavioral change techniques. 8. Cults discourage critical thinking and suppress alternative views of social reality. 9. Cults create strong feelings of dependency on the group and demand absolute obedience to cult norms or standards for behavior. 10. Cults practice religious rituals or meditative techniques that are psychologically unwholesome to their members. (p. 32) The 1960's possessed not only new spiritual movements aimed against the religious establishment but also the emergence of political protest which dramatically influenced students' rights to greater freedom for their own choices in personal development. College campuses became breeding grounds for these movements as well as sanctuaries for such protest. This development, however, was not without controversy. The freedom of students to explore themselves through nontraditional as well as 12 traditional ways was on what Millington (1979) called "a collision course" with the historical stance of higher education. Millington further stated : As soon as one raises the issue of purposes and values within higher education, the importance of the student as a person becomes central. There is general agreement, for example, that an important mission of colleges and universities is to produce good citizens capable of functioning in the democratic process. Yet simultaneously, the advancement of such an aim requires the translation of democratic concepts into realities reflected in the behavior of the institutions toward their students. (p. 5) Prior to 1961 courts were reluctant to interfere in the campus disciplinary process or any other aspect of the university-student relationship. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) involved dismissal of a group of students who participated in an off-campus lunch counter "sit-in" and other civil rights activities allegedly dis- j ruptive to campus life. It was the first successful due process claim by students which opened public college campuses to a flood of litigation involving all aspects of the law. But the precedent-setting significance of Dixon was not merely the requirement of notice and hearing; rather, it was the express notion that student discipline was controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment. The changing legal relationship between public higher education and its 13 students removed the philosophy of in loco parentis and replaced it with an increase in rights recognizing students as citizens and as consumers. Statement of the Problem Student rights were an outgrowth of movements in the 1960's encouraged by court rulings into the 1970's. ; I Despite the shift away from such politically-oriented protest towards the careerism of today's college student, one should not be deceived into thinking the protests are over. They have moved, rather, into the court room in full force. Ours is a litigious society and the attempts to secure the rights of students and student groups are still filling the court rooms. While the questions no longer dwell on procedural due process they do continue to focus on two areas. The first is constitutional rights regarding exercise and establishment of religion as well as freedom of association and expression. The second area, in view of the student as consumer, is that of institutional tort liability. An increasing number of college students feel isolated from today's complex society and are lonely. Many of them have few close ties or satisfying relationships. They see that no matter how hard they work they will most likely 14 never achieve the level of affluence held by their parents- There is resistance to venturing out of their own, tending instead to cling to safer and more certain environments. Students will pursue studies beyond graduation to stay on campus or they will live at home long after graduation being cared for by parents as if the child is fulfilling a need for the safety and security of a structured environment. This may account for an even greater proportion of young people who are being attracted to the new religions than was the case in the I960's. Accordingly, nearly every university campus has its share of cults and, of course, the problems attached thereto. To be sure, the existence of cults has broadened and intensified over the last decade, and thus the courts have been called upon to adjudicate a whole range of issues including whether or not a cult is a religion; health practices and treatment; use of illegal drugs in worship; mental and physical coercion; fraud and deceit; the right to public solicitation and proselytizing; and conservator ships. These issues serve not only to illustrate the legal conflicts in which religious cults have been involved but also set forth the constitutional issues raised by such groups in the courts. Perhaps an even more significant 15 issue is the relationship between religion and public education. This presents one of the greatest potentials for judicial intervention into higher education since procedural due process rulings in the I960's. Religious cults continue to be attracted to public universities. Their existence presents a public institution with several legal issues surrounding group recognition and the benefits of such status; suspicion of illegal or overriding secular activities; and conservator ships and deprogramming. An additional concern is the institutional risk of liability for suspected and/or known activities of cults on campus that have the potential to or in fact do cause harm to students at the university. This raises legitimate concerns on the part of public university administrators. Where constitutional rights are denied to cults the courts have been definitive in their judgments against universities. There is a less distinctive trend with regard to actual institutional liability regarding cults. The results of lawsuits regarding university liability for campus groups have been mixed. In some instances, institutions have been responsible. 16 There are two primary problems in the study. The first is regarding the understanding of legal issues surrounding students and religious cults on southern California public universities. This primarily deals with the constitutional rights of individual students, student groups, and religious cults that are active on campus. Additionally, the problem focuses on an understanding of liability for issues related to religious cults on campus. The second problem pertains to the implementation of institutional policy at those institutions with regard for student and cult legal rights as well as concerns for institutional liability. While it may appear to some that the second should follow logically from the first, that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, a concluding assess ment of an institution's liability will be based upon knowledge and the correct use of that knowledge in dealing with students and religious cults on campus. A mixed legal trail of institutional accountability combined with increasing litigiousness and encouragement by the courts to challenge university activity in violation of student rights, is further intensified by the constitutional rights of freedom of religion, speech, and association. The problem then is best summarized as that 17 of striking a legal balance between three distinct aspects related to cults on public university campuses: (1) honoring students' constitutional rights but in such a way that they may develop without serious mental or physical consequences, (2) avoiding violation of a cult's right to exist and function on campus while monitoring the organization's activities to ensure compliance with university regulations, and (3) protecting the university against liability for activities of the organizations it recognizes. Importance of the Problem University responsibility in this area is six-fold. First, as Chickering (1981) states in The Modern American College, universities have a commitment to the personal growth and development of students, not as parents to protect students from the evils of the world, but as educators to ensure that these young people are making informed choices. Second, there is a basic issue of educational philosophy. In The Cult Experience (1982) Pavlos explains that through conversion, cults often close off and break down the logical facilities of the mind by narrowing the attention span of their members, robbing them of freedom 18 of thought, intellectual growth, and personal commitment. This is the antithesis of the principle for which universities exist. Third, according to the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American Family Foundation in Cultism on Campus (1987), institutions need to anticipate and protect themselves from lawsuits in this area. There have been a flurry of lawsuits involving cults and deprogrammers and parents/spouses of members. Currently, colleges are under seige from lawsuits pertaining to students and psychological and physical injuries suffered during vaguely related activities of j student groups registered with the institution or ^ involving students from the university. Recognizing cults i as student organizations allows them on campus and creates access to students. This gives the impression of university approval. Fourth, despite the fact that state and federal appellate court decisions support the religious freedoms of cults and their converts, society is discussing formulating and passing laws prohibiting cults from proselytizing on public school grounds and college campuses. Cities such as Evanston, Illinois, have passed 19 zoning laws to keep the Krishnas out of the immediate community. Fifth, in order to deal with cults, the university must understand cults in terms of what the student is seeking and not finding in the university experience- Sixth, according to Conway and SiegeIman (1978), authors of Snapping, three million past and present cult members are in the United States today. This number is expected to grow and the number of cults to flourish as a result of America's poor economic situation. Cults and the issues they present to universities will not be disappearing- It is apparent that additional litigation in this area will be forthcoming. Purpose of the Study As a consequence of the current and emerging conditions discussed thus far, the purpose of the study was first to identify and analyze the current legal status of religious cults on public university campuses in southern California^, including the cult-related legal rights of ^The specific public university campuses studied were five institutions from the University of California— i.e.. University of California, Irvine; University of California, Los Angeles ; University of California, Riverside; University of California, Santa Barbara ; University of 20 students therein, and second to assess the cult-related liability potential of these universities and their officials and, concomitantly, to identify appropriate liability-reduction practices. Questions to be Answered In accordance with the aforementioned purposes, the study was designed to answer relevant questions within the context of the following three categories: (1) A Perspective: The Setting, which was a description of the campuses surveyed; a discussion on the nature of collegiate religious cults ; and analysis of the current status of student legal rights at public universities, (2) Findings: Legal Rights of Religious Cults on California Public University Campuses : Definitions and Limitations, and (3) Findings: Cult-Related Liability Potential of California Public Universities, Their Officials, and Appropriate Liability Reduction Practices. California, San Diego; and six institutions from the California State University system— i.e., California State College, San Bernardino; California State University, Dominguez Hills; California State University, Fullerton; California State University, Long Beach; California State University, Los Angeles ; and California State University, Northridge. 21 A Perspective; The Setting 1. What is the nature of the California State University and the University of California Systems and each of the eleven southern California institutions surveyed? 2. What is the origin and nature of modern cults? 3. Who joins a religious cult, for what reasons, and how are new members recruited and converted? 4. What types of activities are cults involved in? 5. What is the current status of student legal rights at a public university? 5. What influence does freedom of expression, association, religion, and equal protection have on a student's individual rights to join a student organization? 7. What influence does freedom of expression, association, religion and equal protection have on a student organization's right to operate at a public university? 8. What degree of control may an institution have over a student organization? 9. What constitutes negligence on the part of a university regarding student group activities? 22 10. What is the status of case law in those areas applicable to assessing institutional liability? Findings; Legal Rights of Religious Cults on California Public University Campuses; Definitions and Limitations 1. How does the nature of the constitution's free exercise and establishment of religion clause influence legal decisions regarding religious cults at public university campuses? 2. Is a cult a religion? 3. What were the significant issues before the courts in recent cases involving the practices of cults that would have relevance for a public university? 4. What were the judicial decisions regarding those issues? 5. What are the implications of these decisions for public universities? Findings: Cult-related Liability Potential of California Public Universities, Their Officials, and Appropriate Liability Reduction Practices 1. What is the nature of constitutional and civil torts and how are they applicable to the I 23 ! liability assessment of California public universities ? 2. What is the current level of cult activity on campuses? 3. In what areas are public universities most liable regarding cults ? 4. What is the institutional policy in each of these areas toward cults? 5. How do the policies/relationships compare with other student organizations on campus? 6. In what specific areas are California public universities most liable with regard to cults ? ! 7. How can a university demonstrate actions that are "reasonable and prudent" in avoiding problems surrounding the activities of cults on campus? 8. What legal strategies are viable for universities in balancing the rights of students and student groups with a duty toward state intervention ? 9. What are the implications of current university liability for the future role of cults on campus? Assumptions of the Study The following conceptual assumptions were implicit in this study: 24 1. The purposes, goals, and functions of American higher education are influenced by the greater society, particularly in terms of trends, values, needs, and conflicts. 2. The law is continuously evolving in its interpre tation, scope, and ramifications. This flexibility is a result of the influence of American culture as well as the visionary insights of judicial leaders. 3. Precedent law (i.e., stare decisis) is subject to the influence of change in the American culture. 4. There is justification in relating cases outside education to cases within education. 5. Each case must stand on its own merits; a decision in one may not control the decision in a similar case. 6. Despite the body of law governing the rights of students and public universities, the legal relationship between a student and public college is still in a state of evolution. 7. Courts have a propensity for reversing on procedural rather than substantive grounds. 25 8. Students are encouraged to sue their colleges and universities by the success of plaintiffs in recent court decisions over the past two decades. 9. The legal approach combined with interviews was a valid method for identifying and investigating this problem area. Limitations of the Study The following limitations may have affected the validity and/or generalizations of the study: 1. Researchers are immersed in society; therefore, it is difficult to have a value-free perspective in presenting variables, measurement, and outcome materials as fact without distortion. Research involving ideology is extremely controversial. In practice, it is difficult to separate the general interpretive and explanatory statements from the mixture of arguments, values, and assumptions called ideology. This research may have been influenced by the volatile nature of the topic as it relates to devoutly held beliefs and the physical and mental well-being of human subjects. 2. This researcher also possesses an unconscious bias based on background (e.g., degrees from 26 public institutions, career as a university student affairs administrator, non-religious up bringing) and experience (e.g., cults actively operating on campus with university permission and religious center affiliation, knowing students in cults as well as those who left cults) which may have affected the results of the study accordingly. 3. Due to the nature of legal research and inter views, the data acquired did not lend themselves to quantitative analysis. This increased the opportunity for the researcher's personal perspective to impact the outcome of the study. 4. Many cults are elusive and mysterious by nature. Their true activities are often unknown. Speculation is risky, and at best, is based on hearsay— former cult members, current cult members, parents, and friends of cult members, clergy, university administrators, and other interested parties. Therefore, sources involving research on cults are largely secondary. 27 5. The significance of court decisions is dependent upon differing interpretations by several sources. As a result, diverse explanations exist along with singular interpretations selected by the researcher. 6. Several key legal decisions that led to the current concern in this problem area are recent, such as Widmar v. Vincent (1981). Even more recent lower court decisions such as Whitlock v. University of Denver (1987) at the time of this writing were on appeal. In some cases, it may be too early to have an accurate perspective as to their impact on public higher education and cults. 7. The most precise interpretation of the law is only as accurate as the latest case dealing with that subject area and particular issues. One Supreme Court decision can alter the precedent of all prior determinations. Even judicial actions in the lower courts can signal possible forth coming change for the most thorough legal conclusions. 28 Delimitations of the Study In developing the boundaries of the study the following delimitations were imposed: 1. The study was delimited to 11 public institutions of higher education in southern California (i.e., California State College, San Bernardino; California State University, Dominguez Hills; California State University, Fullerton; California State University, Long Beach; California State University, Los Angeles; j California State University, Northridge; i ! University of California, Irvine; University of ! California, Los Angeles ; University of California,| Riverside; University of California, Santa Barbara ; and University of California, San Diego. 2. Court cases, statutes, and other relevant law not in effect before January 1, 1988, were not included in the study. Definition of Terms Pertinent terms were defined by the law, and reference to reliable sources within the realm of higher education, the law, and religion. The main references used to define higher education terms were Higher Education 29 in Transition; A History of American Colleges and Universities, 1636-1976 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976), Higher Education in American Society (Eds. Altbach & Berdahl, 1981), and College Student Personnel (Eds. Fitzgerald, Johnson & Norris, 1970); those terms listed as legal were defined by Black's Law Dictionary (Black, 1979), Law Dictionary (Gifis, 1975), The Law of Torts (Prosser & Keeton, 1984), and the glossary of legal terms in The Law and the College Student (Millington, 1979), and relevant case law; terms within the area of religion were defined by the sources of Encyclopedia Dictionary of Religion (Eds. Meagher, O'Brien & Aherne, 1979), The Facts on File Dictionary of Religions (Ed. Hinnells, 1984), and A Dictionary of Non-Christian Religions (Parrinder, 1973). Higher Education Terms California Community Colleges The community college is a two-year institution which in its original design was to train students in the first two years of the under graduate program in the liberal arts. The modern community college no longer is that limited. The California Education Code points out the distinctive educational mission of the community college: "Public community colleges shall offer instruction through but not 30 beyond the second year of college. . . . Their program may include . - . standard collegiate courses for transfer to other institutions; vocational and technical fields leading to employment; general or liberal arts course; and community services*' (Section 66701) . California state university. California's state university system is comprised of 19 campuses which accept students who graduate in the top third of their high school class. The state colleges vary rather widely in the programs they offer, the nature of campus life, and the number of out-of-state students they enroll. Most of these colleges were established as teacher education institutions and this remains their primary function, but they now also offer liberal arts programs, in which progressively larger numbers of students enroll. California's tripartite system of public higher education. The largest system of public higher education in the nation, currently consisting of 134 campuses serving nearly two million students. The system is separated into three distinct segments : the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC). (A fourth area of "other public" higher education institutions includes the 31 Hastings College of Law, the California Maritime Academy, and the Navel Postgraduate School.) College. As differentiated from other types of higher education institutions, the principal emphasis of the college is on undergraduate education which may be the central unit around which a university's undergraduate program is organized (e.g., UCLA's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences), or a college may be a separate corporate entity, completely independent of direct connection with a university (e.g., Occidental College). Hidden curriculum. Consists of learning that is informally and sometimes inadvertently acquired by students in interactions with fellow students and faculty/staff and/ or inferred from the rules and traditions of the institution. Multiversitv. It is an inconsistent institution. "It is not one community but several— the community of the undergraduate and the community of the graduate; the community of the humanist, and the community of the scientist; the community of the professional schools; the community of the non-academic personnel; the community of the administration. Its edges are fuzzy— it reaches out to alumni, legislators, farmers, businessmen, who are all related" (Kerr, 1963, p. 19). 3 2 Public institution. Legally, the difference between public and private institutions is that public educational institutions are viewed as any other part of the state government in that they must comply with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, A particular emphasis is placed on the equal protection of the laws and the due process of the law clause. Private institution. Private educational institutions, . . I typically are not limited by constitutional restrictions. The courts, however, have blurred this distinction in specific cases where certain important rights have been adversely affected by actions of the institution (Millington, 1979, p. 45). Historically, colleges and public authorities have struggled between compliance with public statutes and preservation of academic freedom. The struggle did not terminate until the Dartmouth College Case in 1819. This case led to the legal distinction j I between public and private higher education. In Dartmouth I College v. Woodward the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Dartmouth was a state institution because it was incorporated by the state and involved the vital state interest of education. Recent decisions, however, have raised the issue of "state action" since many of the 33 private institutions of higher education received a significant portion of their support from federal and state funds (Millington, 1979, pp. 45-46). Student services. Programs which serve the students and often involve students in the planning and execution. Student Affairs professionals as "educator" expands the function to providing programs which contribute significantly to the students* educational experience. Student services ideally is to actively intervene and coordinate efforts to solve campus problems, develop meaningful growth experiences, and make all aspects of campus life more relevant. University. This institution is a more elaborate educational structure than a college. The growth of universities in America was brought about by many factors— rationalism and empiricism of the Enlightenment, the impact of the American and French revolutions, the influence of the resurgent German universities of the nineteenth century, and the utilitarian need for incorpora ting new fields of knowledge such as science and modern languages. In America, the name university has sometimes been claimed by institutions whose advance program of instruction and research has remained little more than a 3 4 I noble aspiration. The precise meaning of "university" has changed over time but it has generally come to connote an educational institution of large size which affords instruction of an advanced nature in all the main branches of learning (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976, p. 61). Legal Terms Accommodating neutrality. A position which permits religion to exist without sponsorship and without interference. Appellant. Also referred to as the petitioner, the party who appeals a decision; the party who brings the proceeding to a reviewing court; at common law the "plaintiff in error." Appellee. Also referred to as the respondent, the party who argues on appeal against the setting aside of the judgment; the party prevailing in the court below; the party at whom the attack on appeal is aimed; at common law the "defendant in error." Bala nc ing doc trine. Theory that no rights or freedoms are absolute, but must be weighed against competing interests. Case law. A body of law developed by case decisions, as opposed to statutory or administrative law. 35 Certiorari wirit of. A means of gaining appellate review; a common law writ, issued from a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case. Clear and present danger. The modern criterion for determining the validity of laws or acts restricting freedom of expression (i.e., whether the danger of a particular expression to public interest outweighs the interest in free expression). Comparative negligence. In Liv. Yellow Cab Company (1975) the California Supreme Court abolished the "all-or- nothing" approach of "contributory negligence" in tort litigation, replacing it with comparative negligence— that is, the reduction of damages to be recovered by the plaintiff for injuries suffered is now established in proportion to his/her fault. Accordingly, unlike "contributory negligence"— where if negligence by both parties was concurrent and contributed to the injury at issue recovery for damages was generally barred— under comparative negligence plaintiff's recovery is established proportionally, provided that by exercise of reasonable care the plaintiff could not have avoided the consequences 36 of defendant's negligence after it was or should have been apparent. Concurring opinion. An opinion separate from that which embodies the views and decision of the majority of the court, prepared and filed by a judge who agrees in the general result of the decision, and which either reinforces the majority opinion by the expression of the particular judge's own views or reasoning, or (more commonly) voices his/her disapproval of the grounds of the decision or the arguments on which it was based, though approving the final result. Constitutional tort. An individual's constitutional rights may be protected through application of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C., 1983). Denial of an individual's constitutional rights may result in damages assessed by the court against a public college or university governing board, or against an individual board member, administrator or professor, or individual responsible for the denial of constitutional guarantees. The law states: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of 37 any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. Damages; compensatory. When a wrong has been done, and the law provides a remedy, the general rule is to "compensate the injured party for the injury sustained, and nothing more"— that is, the injured party is placed in much the same situation he/she would have occupied if the wrong had not been committed" (Black, 1979, p. 352). Damages? nominal. According to Black (1979), "nominal damages are awarded for the vindiction of a right where no real loss or injury can be proved" (p. 352). Damages? punitive. By definition, punitive (a.k.a. exemplary) damages are not intended to compensate the injured party, but rather to punish the tortfeasor whose wrongful action was intentional or malicious, and to deter him/her and others from similar extreme conduct. Defendant. In civil proceedings, the party responding to the complaint; "one who is sued and called upon to make satisfaction for a wrong complained of by another" (Gifis, 1975, p. 56). De Minimus. An abbreviated form of the Latin legal maxim, lex non curat de minimus, meaning that the courts 38 do not adjudicate minor matters (viz., there must be sufficient injury to support a cause of action). Dissenting opinion. One which disagrees with the disposition made by the case by the courts the facts, and/ or law on the basis of which the court arrived at its decision, and/or principles of law announced by the court in deciding the case. Due process. A phrase which was first expressly introduced into American constitutional jurisprudence in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which provides that "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This provision, however, is applicable only to the actions of the federal government. The phrase was made applicable to the states with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, which states that "Nor shall any State deprive any person life> liberty, or property, without due process of law." Although the phrase does not have a fixed meaning, due (appropriate) process (protection) expands with jurispru dential attitudes of fundamental fairness (see procedural and substantive due process). Duty of care. In a negligence case, if the plaintiff can show that some definite relationship existed between 39 him/her and the defendant, and that the defendant could/ should have forseen the risk of danger and the resultant injury at issue, then a duty of care on the part of the defendant has most likely been established— the threshold step in the four-step process of determining a successful negligence action, the subsequent three being standard of , care, proximate or legal cause, and actual injury or loss. (Whereas the last step— injury or loss— is self- explanatory, the other two— standard of care and promimate or legal cause— are not and thus are defined below.) Equal protection of the laws. In addition to the guarantee of "due process of law," the Fourteenth Amendment commands that "no state shall deny any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the United States Supreme Court has shed some light on the meaning of due process and equal protection by dis tinguishing one from the other: "Due process emphasizes fairness between the state and the individual ..." whereas "[e]qual protection . . . emphasizes disparity in treatment by a State between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable" (Ross v. Moffitt, 1974, p. 609). 40 Equal protection-standards of review. Traditionally the United States Supreme Court has analyzed equal protection claims against the backdrop of two standards: (1) minimum scrutiny or rational basis test and (2) strict scrutiny. Whereas the minimum scrutiny test merely requires that the challenged legislation rationally promote a legitimate governmental objective (Exon Corporation v. Eagerton, 1983, Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 1984), to withstand strict scrutiny a legislative classification must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means available. As the Court observed in Bernal v. Fainter (1984) "only rarely are statutes sustained in the face of strict scrutiny" (p. 2316)--that is, the strict scrutiny review is generally not only "strict" in theory but usually "fatal" in fact. In respect to equal protection claims the Supreme Court has not only reserved strict scrutiny for "suspect classifications" based upon race (see e.g.# McLaughlin v. Florida, 1964), alienage (see e.g., Bernal v. Fainter, 1984), and ancestry (see e.g., Ovama v. California, 1948), but has steadfastly refused to expand that classification; nonetheless, a number of Supreme Court decisions commencing in the 1970's have signaled the 41 development of an intermediate level of review in cases involving gender-based classifications (see e.g., Craig v. Boran, 1976; Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 1982; Reed v. Reed, 1971) and categorizations premised on legitimacy (see e.g., Trimble v. Gordon, 1977)— the so- called substantiaj___re]^ab^ — requiring a more rigorous standard of judicial scrutiny than under the traditional rational relationship test. Fundamental rights. Defined by the U. S. Supreme Court as those rights "explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the [Federal] Constitution" (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973, pp. 33- 34), categorizations involving such fundamental rights as marriage (see e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978), privacy (see e.g.. Roe v. Wade, 1973), voting (see e.g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 1972), and freedom of association (see e.g., NAACP V . Alabama, 1958) trigger the strict scrutiny review noted above. In loco parentis. School authorities charged with the rights, duties, and responsibilities of parents. For example, in Gott v. Berea College (1913) a Kentucky court held that "college authorities stand loco parentis concerning the physical and moral welfare and mental 42 training of the pupils" (p. 379); and citing this decision, Florida's high court upheld the expulsion of a university student, asserting that "so long as [the] regulations do not violate devine or human law, courts have no more authority to interfere than they have to con trol the domestic discipline of a father in his family" (John B. Stetson Universitv v. Hunt, 1924, p. 640). The courts, however, have long since made it clear that the doctrine of loco parentis is no longer operant in higher education (see, e.g., Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 1979; Eiseman v. State, 1985; Goldberg v. Regents of Universitv of California, 1967). See also the related but different ! doctrine of parens patriae (below). Injunction. An equity writ from a court ordering a person or group to refrain from performing some specific act (s). Malfeasance. The doing of an act which is wrongful and unlawful. Mandamus. A court order commanding a designated public official, lower court, corporation, or individual to perform a specific act. Misfeasance. The doing of an act in a wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance of an act which might have been lawfully done. ^ 3 Nonfeasance. In the law of agency, "the total omission or failure of an agent to enter upon the per formance of some distinct duty or undertaking which he has agreed with his principal to do" (Gifis, 1975, p. 138). Parens patriae. Related to but different from the doctrine of iii loco parentis (see above) , parens patriae literally means "parent of the country," referring to the traditional role of the government as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability, such as minors or insane persons, so as to protect their heàlth and welfare. The use of this power to deprive a person of freedom, however, has been limited by recent laws and court decisions (see, e.g., Kent v. United States, 1964; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). Plaintiff. The party (a.k.a., the complainant) who brings suit against another party (defendant); the individual who seeks a remedy in a court for an injury or a withholding of rights. Procedural due process. Guarantees procedural fair ness where the government would deprive one of his or her property or liberty. This requires that notice and the right to a fair hearing be accorded prior to deprivation. 44 Proximate or legal cause. As a criterion of liability, "proximate or legal cause" refers to the required connection between the defendant's act or failure to act and the plaintiff's resultant injury. In other words, the cause must be substantial enough to lead reason able people to conclude that it was indeed the cause of plaintiff's injury. Sovereign immunity. A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] with the sovereign's consent when the sovereign is engaged in a governmental function. Substantive due process. Requires that all legislation, state or federal, must be reasonably related for the furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective. Religious Terms Anticult movement. This terms covers numerous groups and individuals constituting a backlash to the new religious movements which swept North America and Europe in the 1970's. Membership of the movement consists | I largely of relatives of converts to the new religions, but j there are also strong components of ex-cultists, concerned persons, and adherents to more established religious 45 movements (particularly Evangelical Christians) who are anxious to expose theological error as well as allegedly harmful aspects of cults. Groups in the movement disseminate anti-cult propaganda through newsletters and the media. They can also employ various degrees of persuasion to remove persons from cults. Cult. A term denoting either worship or a certain type of religious body. In the first sense cult is the act of worship, a specific set of worship forms, or the veneration of God or the saints under some particular title. cults are distinguished by their small size, localization, dependence upon a leader with a magnetic ! personality, and beliefs and rites that deviate widely with the norms of society. Hare Krishna movement. Also known as the Inter national Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) the movement was founded in 1965 upon the arrival in America of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Bands of devotees have become a familiar sight on the streets as they sing and dance their way through many of the larger cities, selling records and books, in their saffron robes, their heads shaved apart from a topknot. Many of the members in the early days came from the hippy 46 counterculture. Serious devotees, however, on moving into a Temple, have to give up drugs and alcohol, eat only specially purified foods, and must lead celibate lives. Jews for Jesus. Also known as Messianic, Jews for Jesus is a movement which, through the Christianization of Jewish youth, publicly displays their "discovery" of Jesus through activities. Conversion and proselytization techniques resemble cult-like characteristics. Maranatha. Espousing fundamentalist Christian beliefs, the group functions as a denomination on college campuses with chapters called churches and leaders called pastors despite little or no theological training. Extreme authority is exercised over the members (i.e., no dating, selection of marriage partners, and inability to leave the group without serious threats). Nichiren Shoshu of America. Also known as NSA, the Nichiren Shoshu of America is a non-communa1, proselytizing Buddhist movement that seeks to change the world by changing individuals in accordance with its own version of Buddhism, regarded by core members as "orthodox" or "true Buddhism." The origins of NSA's doctrines and rituals date back to thirteenth-century Japan and the person of Nichiren Daishonin. Fueled with the belief that 47 he had found the key to happiness and enlightenment, Nichiren embarked on a mission to save the world. The modern resurrection of Nichiren's revelations began shortly after World War II in Japan. With a militaristi- cally organized and highly spirited corps of youthful devotees spear-heading its propagation efforts, the move ment was formally introduced in this country in 1960. At that time it claimed no more than 500 adherents, but by the mid-1970's the movement claimed more than 200,000 variously committed followers, most of whom were Occidental. In contrast to other cults, NSA appears to be remarkably materialistic and worldly. Rather than promising transcendence of the material world, it promises the attainment of personal regeneration and happiness in the present through realization of "benefits." Religion. Whatever it is that embraces this term, no single definition will suffice- It is generally defined as a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate concerns of human life. Scientologv. It was in 1950 that Dianetics, a form of psychotherapy, first appeared in the United States. As its founder, L. Ron Hubbard found his research leading him 48 from the mind to the spirit and the movement developed into the Church of Scientology. This incorporated a more religious lifestyle and philosophy, especially for the more advanced and committed members. The belief has a vocabulary all its own and offers courses to help the individuals free themselves from their present and past lives. Transcendental Méditation. Although Maharishi Mahesh Yogi first arrived in Britain in 1958, it was not until the Beatles converted at the end of the 1960's that Transcendental Meditation (TM) became widely practiced in the West. The movement aims to improve not only the individual practitioner but also the state of society and the world in general. Meditators are initiated by being given a secret mantra. They may then proceed through a series of courses which cost a considerable amount of money. Although TM has been popularized as a stress reduction technique, it has been criticized by the anti- cult movement for making false claims and for causing harm under the auspices of a religion. Unification Church. The movement has over 2 00 names around the world and was founded in 1954 in Korea by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. It became a success in the West 49 in the late 1960's and by 1980 the full-time membership in the United States numbered about 3,000. The world-wide membership is approximated as 200,000. Moon has lived in the United States since the 1970's. Main recruitment has been in California. The group's theology is founded in Divine Principle which offers a special interpretation of the Bible with additional revelations received by Moon, History is interpreted as the struggle to restore the world to the way God originally intended it to be. The Second Advent is currently upon the earth and members believe this to be Moon. Long hours are spent proselytizing and soliciting funds as well as recruiting members. Behavior of members is strictly controlled by the group. Wav International. A Bible research and teaching organization which was founded by a former minister of the Evangelical and Reformed Church of America, Doctor Victor Paul Wierwille. The Way International offers a course called Power for Abundant Living (PFAL), which teaches speaking in tongues and Wierwille's special interpretation of the New Testament, including the belief that Jesus was specially created by God in Mary's womb as a perfect man, but not as God. The Hebrew scriptures are not seén as having any validity for Christians. 50 Research Procedures The investigation of the relationship between California public universities and the establishment of cults on campus in terms of the current legal considera tions was a descriptive study. The implication of this research for future considerations was predictive. In order to accomplish the purposes of a descriptive study with a predictive conclusion, two research methods were incorporated into the investigation, which in the present study included legal research combined with interviews. Thus, a study of eleven four-year southern California public universities regarding institutional responsi bility and liability in dealing with religious cults was made possible with the interaction of sociological and legal research. Legal Research The appropriate framework for assessing institutional liability regarding religious cult activities on campus was through legal research. The law was an integral part of the research methodology employed. This method provided resources, critiques, criticism, and interpreta tion. An excellent starting point was with the Index to Legal Periodicals which provided legal discussion and 51 cited pertinent court decisions as well as secondary sources such as books and articles. The recent revival of religious enthusiasm in the United States has spawned public and legal controversy about the practice of religious sects. Whether the controversial practices of new religions present substan tive issues of criminal or civil liability depends upon the scope of legal protection afforded religious activity by the United States Constitution. Millington, however , cautioned : You cannot effectively study the American system of law if at this stage of the investigation you permit your spectacles to be fogged by the notion that the law can be understood by specific reference to constitutional provisions, legislation, or adminis trative regulations alone- Both the federal and state constitutions are notoriously ambiguous documents and statutes and regulations, though generally more explicit, are typically far from being models of clarity. Hence most laws breed lawsuits. . . - (p. xxvii) The primary data sources of constitutional and statutory law, case precedent, draft cases, appellate decisions, and ordinances were used in much of the research. These primary sources were located by consulting West's United States Code Annotated, Constitu tion of the United States Annotated, West's United States Supreme Court Digest, West's American Digest, American 52 Jurisprudence, and West's California Digest. Cases were located in one of the various federal court reports (e.g.. United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, Federal Supplement) or in one of the state reporter units in West's National Reporter Svstem. Cases used were "Shepardized" to determine the most current status of the law with an emphasis on particular aspects of the issue being scrutinized. This process determined the current influence and authority of cases and citations for related cases. This provided additional resources. Shepard's United States Citations, Federal Citations, and California Citations were used to determine whether a court affirmed, overturned, explained, or harmonized a particular decision or aspect of the decision. Secondary data sources included law journals and reviews, reference articles, studies, and reports by student personnel associations- The Index to Legal Periodicals, College Law Digest, and West's Education Law Reporter were particularly useful in relating constitu tional law and individual rights Interviews One widely used research tool for gathering educational data is the individual interview. This approach was the principal method for collecting data on the relationship between religious cults and southern California public universities. The personal interview method was especially useful to explore this area because of the topic's controversial nature and the fact that insufficient information existed on the subject. The interview method allowed for personalized research which permitted indepth and free responses. Personal interviews allowed this investigator to dig deeply enough to obtain a true picture of opinions and feelings. In several instances those being interviewed revealed information concerning negative aspects of actual university policy enforcement regarding cults and personal opinions toward working with religious cults. Personal interviews also allowed for flexibility and adaptability during the questioning process. This enabled the interview to be altered in order to pursue a particular response which led to more data of greater value. In addition, personal interviews allowed for the research to include impressions of the campus as well as of the respondent's gestures, 54 tone of voice, body language, professional setting, and so forth. The flexibility, adaptability, and human interaction that are inherent strengths of the personal interview also allow for some of the weaknesses in this method. Isaac and Michael (1981) cite the following disadvantages: a) expensive and time-consuming, b) may intimidate or annoy respondents with a racial, ethnic, or socio economic background different from the interviewer, c) is open to overt manipulation or the subtle biases of the interviewer, d) is vulnerable to personality conflicts, ë) requires skilled and trained interviewers, and f) may be difficult to summarize findings. (p. 132) Of particular note was the disadvantage of the response effect which Borg and Gall (1983) define as "the tendency of the respondent to give inaccurate or incorrect responses or more precisely is the difference between the answer given by the respondent and the true answer" (p. 438). Identification of such predispositions as defensiveness, eagerness to please or errors due to procedures used in conducting the study were avoided through the anticipation of such response effects and design of a study to eliminate or minimize their impact on results. This included assurances of confidentiality, stressing the value of the interview regardless of the 55 level of cult activity or legal soundness of institutional policy, and preparation by the interviewer to be comfort able and skilled in conducting the interviews. Careful planning and try-out interviews assisted in | establishing a reliable study. Semi-structured interviews are generally most appropriate for interview studies in education. They provide a desired combination of objectivity and depth and permit gathering valuable data that could not have been secured by any other approach. Semi-structured interviews were developed around a core of structured questions from which the interviewer branch off to explore in depth- Accurate and complete information was secured with the additional opportunity to probe for underlying factors and relationships. The purpose of the study and its general goals were to obtain information regarding cult activity on campus, campus administrative policies with regard to cults, campus interaction with cults, and the administrative knowledge regarding legal issues pertaining to religious cults. This information would lead to an assessment of each university's liability with regard to cults on campus and would provide guidance in the formulation of recommendations for reducing liability and for further 56 research on the topic area. These goals were translated ^ into detailed and specific questions of the study. The questions were then categorized to allow for a satisfactory method of coding and recording responses. Responses falling outside the general categories were generally written out. Because the investigator and those interviewed were in the same field of working with college students outside the classroom there was a shared vocabulary in the inter views. Each question was constructed with attention to the additional criteria set by Isaac and Michael (1981) and Borg and Gall (1983) which included: make the purpose i of each clear to avoid suspicion or resistance; determine j if the respondents selected have the necessary information sought; avoid leading questions; and interact with the respondent as an equal. The interview guide was pretested on five campus activities advisors from a very similar population to that of the main study sample. The research design did not permit drawing from the main study population. This pre test eliminated weaknesses and allowed experimentation with alternative items and techniques. Revisions were made to eliminate ambiguities and inadequate wording which 57 insured reliability. To insure validity, every attempt was made to eliminate interviewer bias from the questions. The pretest also allowed assessment of the method planned for quantifying and analyzing interview data. The use of interviews was limited in this study to the eleven public universities in southern California (between Santa Barbara and San Diego) due to the diversity of institutions within the area and geographical limitations. The sample focused on an initial list of eleven student affairs professionals who dealt directly with religious cults and/or oversaw those who worked with such organizations on campus. As the study progressed, however, interviewees proposed names of other individuals whose insights were valuable to the study. In the end, religious leaders, union directors, housing officers, and university attorneys were interviewed to ensure that the findings represented the diverse views of those who come in contact and deal with religious cults on campus. This also allowed for a certain degree of verifying reliability of interview data. In every instance there was complete cooperation with the interviewer and an openness toward supplying information for the study. This sample met with Moser's (1972) three broad concepts of interviewing which 58 included: (1) "accessibility of the required information," (2) "cognition, or understanding by the respondent of what is required of him," and (3) "motivation on the part of the respondent to answer the questions accurately" (p. 271)i The actual interview process typically lasted two hours each. The interview began by obtaining background information about the interviewee such as how long they had been working at the university, any other positions they had held at the institution and elsewhere, and a description of their current job responsibilities. This allowed for some assessment of experience in dealing with | student organizations at a public university and served to "break the ice." Prior to questioning about cults a half-page definition of a religious cult with destructive tendencies was handed to the interviewee. Examples of possible destructive cults were also named on the paper. Discussion of the definition of a cult allowed for the interviewer and interviewee to strike agreement on the working definition of cult for purposes of the interview and study. This also allowed for the generation of dis cussion and questioning. 59 As the interview progressed, interviewees were asked more specific questions and were asked to give specific examples to illustrate their answers. Most of the inter views were tape recorded to allow for special consideration to retaining the context and language used by the inter viewee. The length and underlying structure of the interviews contributed to a realistic view of the issues that arise when dealing with religious cults at a public university. In the process of content analysis, eight main areas of legal concern evolved from the interview data. In combination with the findings of legal research, the eleven campuses were assessed for liability with these eight issues in mind. To a lesser degree, issues of | I administrator-legal counsel relations, administrator knowledge of related legal issues, and administrator knowledge of cults were also areas taken into account during the evaluation for liability. Organization of Remainder of Studv Chapter 11^ A Perspective; The Setting. Discussion of background information in three areas: (1) a description of each of the eleven public universities surveyed; (2) the nature of religious cults; and (3) an 60 analysis of the current status of student legal rights on public university campuses. Chapter III; Findings; Legal Rights of Religious Cults on California Public Universitv Campuses: Definitions and Limitations. Discussion of the development of case law regarding religions, public education, and religious cults in areas of most concern to assessing the liability of California public universities. Chapter IV. Findings : Cult-related Liabilitv Potential of California Public Universities, Their Officials, and Appropriate Liabilitv Reduction Practices. I Discussion of the results of interviews at eleven southern ' California public universities regarding the institution- | cult relationship and an assessment of public university liability. Chapter V. Summarv, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Based on the analysis of issues in Chapters II, III, and IV, Chapter V will briefly summarize the implications of each category and conclude with predictions regarding areas of liability surrounding the university-cult rela tionship. Based upon this prediction, recommendations will be made to California public universities on how to deal with cults on campus while balancing student and cult rights. 6 1 CHAPTER II A PERSPECTIVE: THE SETTING As noted in Chapter I, the purpose of this study was twofold: first, to identify and analyze the current legal status of religious cults on public university campuses in southern California, including the cult-related legal rights of students therein, and second, to assess the cult- related liability potential of these universities (and their officials) and, concomitantly, to identify appropriate liability-reduction practices. The purpose of this chapter, however, was to place these purposes in their broader context, for the best way to understand such matters is to have somewhere to put them; and having somewhere to put the two purposes of the study meant that the framework of experience and knowledge into which these purposes fit was adequate as a foundation for interpreting and apprehending them. Accordingly, the discussion that follows first focused on an overview of the 11 institutions involved in the study (e.g., brief history, organization and control, locations, current enrollments, achievements, problems, 62 and student life); second on an overview of religious cults (e.g., definitions other than legal, reasons for their popularity, who joins, the conversion process, and current activities); and third on a brief review of the development and current status of students* legal rights in public higher education (e.g., procedural due process, freedom of expression and association on campus, the right to equal protection, and the parameters of institutional control and responsibility), These student rights evolved from numerous lawsuits in the educational setting. The evolution of cases involving education since the early I960's illustrates the increasingly litigious society we work and live in. "Law I was once a forbidding doctrinal realm guarded by robed j sentinals but it has been demystified as the law and society interact on a more frequent basis than ever before" (Tyack, James & Benavot, 1987, p. 4). So widespread is the impulse to sue that Business Week (1977) stated that "litigation has become the nation's secular religion" (p. 58). Legal issues involving race, religion, language, gender, and cultural expression have agitated the courts. The range of controversies brought to the courts is 63 astonishing. In 1976 the Italian Historical Society sued the Postal Service for issuing a stamp commemorating Alexander Graham Bell on the ground that Antonio Meucci invented the telephone; in 1978 a twenty-four-year-old Colorado man sued his parents for "malpractice of parenting" when he was thrown out of the house; enraged at a decision by referees in a pro football game, a group of Redskin fans went to court to have the call overturned; in the 1970's General Motors was hit with a class action on behalf of "all persons everywhere now alive and all future unborn generations" seeking $6 trillion in damages for alleged pollution; Senator Barry Goldwater sued President Carter in 1979 over his handling of American policy toward Taiwan. The fact that the plaintiffs lost these cases is not important. All of these cases would have been impossible to conceive only a quarter of a century ago. These law suits and millions of others have caused a legal explosion, Increasingly, our society uses legal challenges to settle differences and colleges and universities are not immune from this trend (Van Alystene, 1968). This reality, coupled with the fundamental change in interpretation of the arenas in which constitutionally protected rights must 64 be enforced has required university administrators to become aware of the law and to use that awareness as they deal with students. The Campuses Surveved California State Universitv and Colleges Svstem According to Cass and Birnbaum (1985) California has the most completely developed state system of higher education in the nation. It consists of an extensive network of 2-year colleges, which any high school graduate in the state may enter; the State University and Colleges system of 19 campuses, which accepts students who graduate in the top third of their high school class; and the University of California, which, at the undergraduate level, accepts high school graduates with a B average and combined score of 2,500 on the SAT and 3 ACH. The state colleges and universities (14 were designated as universities in 1972) vary rather widely in the programs they offer and the nature of campus life. All colleges offer extensive liberal arts programs in which a progressively larger number of students enroll, but business administration and teacher education are also popular programs. Many campuses offer experimental 65 programs such as off-campus degrees, weekend colleges, and self-paced learning programs. Background information regarding the nature of the eleven surveyed campuses that are a part of the, California State University and Colleges System was compiled from information secured in campus interviews, institution publications, Cass and Birnbaum's Comparative Guide to American Col le ere s (1985) and The College Blue Book (1987). Descriptions follow in alphabetical order. California State College/ San Bernardino Founded in 1965, CSC/San Bernardino is a commuter campus with very limited residential facilities. It is located in a city of 104,300, 70 miles east of Los Angeles. The campus has a total student population of 7,423 students largely from California. There are 295 faculty with a faculty-student ratio of 1-25. Approximately 62% of applicants are accepted and freshmen graduate in the top third of their high school class. Degrees are offered in a variety of liberal arts, business, and health professions. The largest percentage of degrees conferred last year were in business. Classes are small and the academic atmosphere is informal. Special programs include study abroad, independent study, 66 and undergraduate research. The institution has a high retention rate (80% of the freshmen graduate, 10% do not return for their sophomore year). Tuition and fees are $657 in-state and $4,713 out-of-state. Approximately 20% of the students receive financial aid. California State Universitv/Pomincruez Hills California State University/Dominguez Hills was I i founded in 1960 and is primarily a commuter campus located j in the southwest portion of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. The school’s total student population of 7,927 includes a significant portion of part-time students. The average age of a student is 35 and most have jobs and are | i married. There are 489 faculty with a faculty-student I ration of 1-18. Approximately 47% of the applicants are accepted and 77% actually enroll. A majority of the | students are from the west and northwest. Approximately | 10% of the campuses students are foreign. Degrees are | offered in the humanities, fine arts, sciences, mathematics, technology, business, education, and social | and behavioral science. The largest percentage of j degrees conferred last year were from business management. ! I Special programs include independent study, study abroad, | and undergraduate research. The institution has a 67 retention problem with only 50% of students entering as freshmen eventually graduating. Approximately 15% of freshmen do not return for their sophomore year. Tuition and fees are $668 in-state and $4,142 non-resident. Approximately 26% of students receive financial aid. California State University/Fullerton California State University/Fullerton was founded in 1957 as a commuter institution 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles in Orange County, one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The campus now reports more than half of its 2 3,247 student population living in off-campus housing rather than at home. The university provides no residential facilities. Approximately 85 of the students travel five miles or more to campus. Approximately 62% of applicants are accepted and the institution takes a significant transfer population. Ninety-two percent of the students are from California and seven percent are foreign. Pressures for academic achievement are moderately strong. Degrees are offered in the traditional liberal arts and 21 other areas. The largest percentage of degrees conferred last year was from business and management. Special programs include independent study, study abroad, and honors. The institution has a retention 6 8 problem with 56% of students entering as freshmen graduating in four years. Approximately 25% of freshmen do not return for their sophomore year. The university is very strong in a number of varsity sports and student government is very service-oriented. There is a viable greek system; however, it is located in a residential area which causes neighborhood relations to be strained and often hostile. Tuition and fees are $662 in-state and $3,470 out-of-state. Seventy-two percent of students receive financial aid. California State University/Loncr Beach California State University/Long Beach is one of the largest universities in the system with 33,700 students. Founded in 1949 the campus is located 25 miles southwest of Los Angeles. Approximately 85% of the students are from California. About 54% of applicants are accepted, 63% actually enroll. All freshmen graduate in the top third of their high school class. There is a significant transfer population (approximately 13,000). There are 950 full-time faculty. Pressures for academic achievement appear moderate and experimental courses, suggested by students and faculty, are designed to encourage educational innovation. The university grants Bachelor 69 and Masters degrees in over 50 major areas. The largest percentage of undergraduate degrees conferred last year was in business and management. Special programs include study abroad, Asian and Latin American Studies, and the Ocean , I Studies Consortium. Retention is a problem. Approximately ' I ^ ' 50% of students entering as freshmen graduate. Thirty ! percent of freshmen do not return for their sophomore year.j The university supports a variety of varsity sports. ' I j It is largely a nonresidential campus with only three percent of the students in residence halls and one percent active in the fraternity/sorority system. Tuition and ! fees are $654 for in-state and $4,164 for out-of-state. Approximately 15% of students are on financial aid. California State Universitv/Los Angeles | California State University/Los Angeles is one of the j west's major urban centers of higher education and has ; existed since 1947. A commuter institution, the campus is ; located just a few miles from downtown Los Angeles. Approximately 21,900 students make up the total student j population. About half of those are part-time students. ! I Ninety-nine percent are from California. The average age ' I is over 26 years old; nearly all students have jobs ; and | about half are married. Students were in the upper third i 70 of their high school graduating class. About 50% of all applicants are accepted and 66% enroll. A faculty of 1322 provides a faculty-student ratio of 1-17. Degrees granted include Bachelors and Masters in six major divisions. The institution also offers a Ph.D. in Special Education. Special programs include a cooperative learning education program providing alternating quarters of work and school, study abroad, and internship in public service. Pressures for academic credit appear moderate. The largest percentage of degrees conferred recently was in business and management (24%) . This reflects a student change from humanities and social sciences toward vocationally-oriented fields. Concerns of students still focus on global and national issues as well as academic affairs such as curriculum development and faculty evaluation. The university sponsors a small group of diverse varsity sports. Almost completely a commuter institution, student life centers around fraternity houses and other campus organizations and activities. Participation in the community is very important. The university has campuses in Europe and the Far East. Tuition and fees are $651 in state and $4,161 out-of-state. Approximately 35% of stu dents receive financial aid. California State University/Northridcre California State University/Northridge located in the Los Angeles suburban area of the San Fernando Valley, CSU/ Northridge was founded in 1956. Enrollment is approximately 29,785 with 25% of the student population being part-time. About 67% of applicants are accepted and i 66% actually enroll. Ninety-seven percent of the students | are from the west. A significant number of transfer i I i students enroll each year. A faculty of 1,749 gives a j student-faculty ratio of 1-19. The university confers j I degrees in the liberal arts and 14 other varied disciplines. The largest percentage of degrees conferred last year was in business and management (25%) . Special programs include interdisciplinary study, study abroad, and undergraduate research. Retention is a problem with 49% of students entering as freshmen graduating. Thirty- five percent of freshmen do not return for their sophomore year. The university sponsors a large number of diverse varsity sports. Though largely commuter, the institution has housing facilities for 1,616. California State University/Northridge recently embarked on a large building project to more than double that capacity in new 72 residential living areas. There is a very active greek system on campus. The student population is liberal in its attitudes regarding ethnic, sexual, and cultural minorities. Students are socially aware and politically active. Tuition and fees are $635 in-state and $4,145 out- of-state. Approximately 21% of students receive financial aid. University of California The University of California, an enormous institution with nine campuses offering undergraduate, graduate, and professional studies, forms the apex of the nation's largest and most elaborate higher education structure. All of the university's campuses have uniform admission requirements, highly gifted faculty, and high academic I i standards. The oldest campus is Berkeley, followed by Los Angeles. Other campuses include Davis, Irvine, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. An additional campus in San Francisco is devoted exclusively to the health sciences. Admission is very selective. There is also a tradition of excellence in teaching and research. On most campuses a majority of faculty hold a doctorate and equivalent training% Each campus, however, is dis tinctive and each has its own character and style. 73 University of California/lrvine The University of California's youngest campus is one of the smaller (12,684) but fastest growing, campuses. Undergraduate enrollment grew 37% between 1980 and 1987. The campus is located amidst a rapidly growing residential community and dynamic multinational business and industrial complex. Irvine is about five miles from the ocean and is located 40 miles south of Los Angeles. Approximately 97% of the students are from within the state with a significant Asian population of 24% and Hispanic population of 17%. Admission is selective with 70% of students applying for admission accepted. Approximately 76% of these actually enroll. Founded in 1965 the Irvine campus is an integral part of the master plan for a new community and was planned with the intention that five fundamental schools would represent five fundamental areas of knowledge. Provisions were also made for an academic structure for related studies. The organization of major academic units into schools rather than into colleges is one of the features that distinguishes Irvine from other campuses. The five schools are biological science, fine arts, humanities, physical science, and social science. Degrees on all 74 levels are offered. The campus also includes a graduate school of management and college of medicine. A faculty of 1,128 gives a faculty-student ratio of 1-13. Student academic interests are reported to be almost equally divided between scholarly/intellectual pursuits and the desire to prepare for an occupation or career. Inter disciplinary work is stressed by the schools of arts and sciences. Students have some influence over academic affairs through participation in committees. The largest percentage of degrees conferred last year was in biological sciences (18%) . Special programs include independent study, study abroad, and undergraduate research. The university supports several varsity sports teams. Approximately 30% of students live in residence halls on campus. There is an active greek system despite no residential facilities. A recent student leader reported the need for more programs aimed at commuters. The campus plans on growing by another 41% between 1987 and 2000. This represents the campuses judgment concerning the availability of facilities, probable number of high school graduates, and an increase in retention rates. The cap on enrollment at UCLA and the dynamic economy of Orange County will provide additional support 75 for the campus's planned growth. Tuition and fees are currently $1,335 in-state and $4,900 out-of-state. Approximately 42% of students receive financial aid. University of California/Los Ancre les The largest campus of the University of California, UCLA ranks as one of the major graduate and undergraduate institutions in the United States. The university has attracted many distinguished scholars from around the world. It is located in Westwood, a suburb of Los Angeles, five miles from the Pacific Ocean. The university has a total student enrollment of 34,503. The campus is now at the limits of its capacity and intends to maintain its present level of enrollment for the rest of the century. Approximately 95% of the students are from California with a significant (16%) Asian population. The university is lacking in black and Hispanic students who will be sought through recruitment efforts. A faculty of 2,100 gives an overall faculty-student ratio of 17-1. Admission is selective. About 71% of applicants are accepted. Sixty-nine percent of these actually enroll. Pressure for academic achievement is intense. The university has 69 departments, 13 schools and colleges. The institution is well-known for its vast network of 76 organized research units. Majors include the usual arts and sciences as well as ancient near eastern civilization, Arabic, bacteriology, Indo-European studies, and meteorology. The largest percentage of degrees conferred last year was in social science (34%) . The university supports a large number of champion ship teams in a variety of varsity sports. Almost 4,000 students live in university-owned housing and 2,400 in an active fraternity/sorority system. A high proportion of students live off campus. Students enjoy the rich cultural and social resources of Los Angeles which are easily accessible as well as a wide range of campus activities. Tuition and fees are $1,290 in-state and $4,854 out-of-state. Approximately 62% of students receive financial aid. University of California/Riverside The Riverside campus, originally founded as a citrus expecSment station, was converted in 1954 to a college of letters and science to provide a small, high-quality, liberal arts college for the university system. Reorgani zation in 1974-1975 combined the colleges various sciences to form the College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences. Further reorganization at that time combined humanities, 77 social and behavioral sciences, and the Division of Under graduate Studies into the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. The campus is located in a city of 107,100, 50 miles east of Los Angeles. It is an important commercial and residential area. The university has a total student population of 4,855. Approximately 97% are from California with a significant Asian population (12%). About 67% of applicants are accepted and 64% actually enroll. Approxi mately 95% of freshmen graduate in the top fifth of their high school class, 100% in the top two-fifths. A faculty of 440 full-time and 120 part-time gives a faculty- student ratio of 1-15. Students are primarily concerned with scholarly/intellectual interests. Current under graduate degrees conferred appear to confirm this assess ment. Some student concern does exist regarding gaining marketable skills. Pressures for academic achievement can be quite intense. The largest academic programs are pre- med and other "hard sciences." Administrative studies and political science are also strong programs. Majors offered include the usual arts and sciences as well as 10 other majors including paleobiology, entomology, black studies, and Chicano studies. | _________ 78 I Approximately 55% of students entering as freshmen graduate. Eighteen percent of freshmen do not return for their sophomore year. The university supports a diverse number of teams in varsity sports. A wide range of social and cultural activities exist on campus. Approximately 16% of students live on campus with a majority of students commuting from home or off-campus housing. The campus plans a substantial increase in students by 124% over the next 15 years to almost 9,000 by the year 2000. The campus is also planning a compatible increase in new academic programs particularly in the area of engineering. Tuition and fees are $1,308 in-state and $4,782 out-of- state. Sixty-five percent of students receive financial assistance. Universitv of Califorhia/San Diego Founded as a marine station that later became the world-famous Scripps institution of Oceanography, UC/San Diego offered graduate studies only until 1964 when under graduate Revelle College was opened. John Muir College opened in 1967, the Third College in 1970, and the Earl Warren College enrolled its first students in the fall of 1974. The 1,253-acre campus is located near the northern limits of San Diego. The school has a total student 79 enrollment of 11,880 and admission is very selective. Ninety percent of the students are from the west. There is a very small minority population. Approximately 76% of all applicants are accepted, 64% of these actually enroll. All freshmen graduate in the top fifth of their high school class. A faculty of 1,542 gives a faculty-student ratio of 1-20. The four undergraduate colleges offer four distinct philosophies which prepare students for any major offered. The usual arts and sciences are majors as well as an emphasis on engineering. Housing is provided for 4,42 9 students (30%). The extensive recreational and cultural opportunities of San Diego are accessible to students. There is moderate student interest in athletics. There has been a gradual increase in student enrollment and in retention. The campus plans considerable growth up to the year 2000. Tuition and fees are $1,400 in-state and $4,760 out-of-state. Approximately 38% of students receive financial aid. Universitv of California/Santa Barbara The fourth largest campus, this university attracts students from all parts of the United States and many foreign countries. Located on the Pacific ©cean the 80 prime components are the arts and sciences, creative studies, engineering, and the graduate division. The campus is ten miles from Santa Barbara (population 74,000). The total student population is 16,419. A faculty of 900 gives a faculty-student ratio of 1-20. Admission is selective. About 67% of applicants are accepted and 68% actually enroll. Approximately 80% of the student body graduated in the top quarter of their high school class. About 51% of the students entering as freshmen graduate. Only eight percent of freshmen do not return for their sophomore.year. Pressures for academic achievement are fairly intense. Burgeoning graduate departments on campus are stimulating ! I higher standards for undergraduate divisions. The College j of Creative Studies is a small, separate academic unit withi j a special curriculum and specially selected students who give evidence "of a capacity for independent, concentrated, and sustained work in one or more major fields of study." There is a major interest in marine studies as well as the African studies, aquatic biology, genetic engineering, and Russian Studies along with the usual liberal arts. The largest number of degrees conferred last year were in Interdisciplinary Studies (20%) . 81 The university houses over 3,000 students; however, more than 70% of the student body lives within a mile of the campus center. The surrounding communities offer a variety of lifestyles and wide range of social and cultural activities. The campus has its own athletic, Greek, and student activity base as well. Plans to increase under graduate enrollment by 22% are set for the next 15 years. Growth at the campus faces local constraints; however, including those of limited availability of water. Tuitiop and fees are $1,299 in-state and $4,863 out-of-state. Approximately 55% of the students receive financial | assistance. Relicfious Cults j I You always see them at the airports with their flowersj I clutched in one hand and their literature in the other hand I stretched out to those walking by. They chant songs, bang their drums, and dance down campus-town streets in their colorful costumes on weekend evenings. They are the fresh men who attend a weekend retreat with their new group of friends but have not returned by Tuesday. Clean shaven and conservative in dress they strike up conversations with students eating alone in the dining hall or waiting to see a counselor in the university center. They are members of cults. 82 In the most general sense, a religious cult usually involves a relatively small and close-knit group whose religious beliefs, values, and practices are not of the mainstream forms of religion in a given society. Psychologist Margaret Singer (1978) points out that the word "cult" is necessarily subject to individual judgment, "It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader" (p. 72). Scholars disagree on the precise definition of what Professor Roy Wallis calls "this elusive and slippery concept" (p. 2), Most sociologists of religion note that cults represent a break with the mainstream of the religious tradition of the society in which they exist. H. P. Dohrman (1975) uses the concept to refer to "that group, secular, religious, or both that has deviated from what our American society considers normative forms of religion, economics, or politics, and has substituted a new and often unique view of the individual, his world, and how the world may be attained" (p. 36). 83 A religious cult has a normative structure and a well- established social organization. Members identify with their cult and depend on it for support. The group provides a social and physical reality for each member (Pavlos, 1982). None of these effects on a person appear unwholesome. All of these characteristics are neither negative or alarming and could, in fact, pertain to any traditional religion, fraternity, charity league, or school. How, then, has the term cult come to evoke such strong negative reactions from a majority of the American population? The differences between several religious cults and traditional religious groups, fraternities, charity leagues, and schools are more pronounced, however, than the similarities. The presence of negative influences characterizes destructive cults. Distinguishing features of a cult include a close allegiance to a (usually living) charismatic leader and a highly syncretic combination of beliefs and practices (Whittier, 1979); an inordinate preoccupation with the attainment of money and the employ ment of deceptive practices in recruiting new members (Lynn, 1979); the use of behavior modification practices and brainwashing techniques to convert members, usually 84 coupled with some form of separation from the rest of society (Shapiro, 1977); total obedience, abdication of the right to leave the group or to say no, and widespread suspicion and hatred of those outside the group (Davis, 1979); and a comprehensive environment or lifestyle that occupies all of the person's attention and defines all activities by a few absolute principles (Pritchett, 1976). The difference between these organizations and traditional religious groups that have been a part of college life for many years are differences primarily of conduct and not of belief (Blimling, 1987). According to the Citizens Freedom Foundation Cult Awareness Network (1986), a destructive cult uses systematic, manipulative techniques of thought reform or mind control to obtain followers and constrict their thoughts and actions. These techniques are imposed without a person's fore-knowledge or volition and produce observ able changes in the individual's autonomy, thoughts, and actions. A destructive cult may promise enlightenment and positive growth and hide its true intent to exploit and enslave its members through an all powerful leadership and totalistic ideology. A destructive cult has no real concern for the welfare, freedom, or individuality of its 85 members and sets itself above society by creating its own values with no regard for society's laws, ethics, or morals. The Origin of the Modern Cult Movement The movement of people, especially questioning youth, away from established religions was a part of the protest movement of the I960's. Young people also moved away from the expected responsibilities of adulthood toward an active pursuit of self-fulfillment in search of a more positive identity. These motivations of the late 1960's and early 1970's gave way to student career preparation for an advanced industrial society. Despite the fact that this was the world young people of the 1960's had criticized, it was still a self-centered concern initiated by the entrance of the baby-boomers into a tight economy. In addition, the world was becoming an even more complex place with a growing number of young people feeling isolated and lonely. Due to this an even greater number of young people were attracted to the religious cult movements (Needleman & Baker, 1978). In 1987 these same factors have increased in complexity adding to the pressures on today's youth. It is no wonder that according to the Cult Aware ness Network at least a quarter of a million young people 86 join one of approximately 3,000 cults that are active in the United States today (Korns, 1979). For this reason cult groups exist and flourish in and around university communities where there exists a youth-oriented culture from which to recruit. University administrators, campus- based chaplains, and other experts on cults interviewed by The Chronicle of Higher Education (1983) disagreed about which groups should be considered dangerous and which harmless. This varies from campus to campus and group to group. Many are wary of the Unification Church and its student affiliate, the Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (C.A.R. P.); Scientology; Maranatha; The Way International; Hare Krishnas; Nichiren Shoshu; and Eckankar. While the dogma of religious cults is more irrational and absolutionist than that of more established religion, "paradoxically, it is often to the cult religion that dis illusioned and estranged young people can turn in time of trouble and despair, reaching out for a new and more positive identity and for meaning in their lives" (Pavlos, 1982, p. 16). What societal, psychological, intellectual, and spiritual factors can motivate such a profound and pervasive need? 87 Who Joins Cults? Cults concentrate on white, upper-middle-class youths in their late teens and early twenties (Delgado, 1977), with college students as one of their main targets for recruiting. Deception and the vulnerable state of some young people who join cults are not the only motivations for membership. There are other factors that may increase the susceptibility of college students to the influence of cults. A primary reason is the student's stage of psycho social development during the late teens and early twenties. Chickering (1972), Coons (1974), and Sheehy (1977) all acknowledge conversion to a religious cult as a choice made by some students to resolve the tasks of development towards adulthood. Psychologists have studied and concluded that those who join cults fall into various categories. George Swope (1980) interviewed over 125 former cult members. He concluded that the following types of people join cults : 1. Idealists who want to know God better. 2. The innocent who naively believe that a cult messiah is God's divine representative. 3. Inquisitive young college or high school dropouts who suffer from severe and demoralizing family and personal problems. 4. Independent young people who run away from home seeking freedom from parental restrictions and authority. 88 5. Identity seekers having trouble believing in themselves. 5. Insecure youth looking for new experiences and a clarification of their own identity. (p. 18) Pavlos (1982) suggests that people choose to join cults because there is a failure to perceive other alter natives to solve personal or social problems. Also, additional conditions may be involved such as disillusion ment with traditional religion. Enroth (1980) believes that younger members of cults are seeking refuge from the inherent vulnerabilities of the ambiguity of adolescence. For this reason, cults tend to attract a disproportionate number of young adults who lack direction and purpose and find it in a reference group such as a cult. It should not- be assumed that all cult members are weak-willed and insecure. Even conventional religions attract their share of "lost souls." "People join cults because they hope such groups will fulfill very real, perceived needs" (Enroth, 1980, p. 44) and anyone of us at a given time could be convinced to join a cult. Educator Robert Fellows makes this point in his workshops on cult manipulation presentations. "First of all, they don't come up, tap you on the shoulder, and say, 'want to join a cult'? It's a subtle process into which any of us could be manipulated." 3 9 The Conversion Process Judicial and legislative records, as well as first- person accounts of cult experiences, draw a composite picture of the process by which a young person typically becomes a cult member. The approach is made by an experienced cult recruiter of the opposite sex. The location of recruitment varies from a residence hall to a social function, the library, a bus stop, or waiting room. The recruiter strikes up a conversation based on the locale, a book the individual may be carrying, or the woes of college life in general. Recruiters are trained to look for people who are alone or who may look troubled. Counseling centers, residence halls on Saturday nights, and religious sections in the library are often good recruitment grounds (Blimling, 1987). The recruiter manages to move the conversation in a direction of subject matter such as war, race, homeless ness or the impersonality of the university. The recruiter states surprise at the fact that the group he or she belongs to feels the same way. In fact, that evening the group is gathering for dinner and discussion. There will be a guest speaker and a free meal. The recruit is urged to attend. 90 At the dinner the recruit is bombarded with positive signals. People compliment the recruit on their physical, intellectual, and spiritual aspects. A rousing speech is given on a vague but motivating topic and a simple meal is eaten. The group never identifies itself but at the end of the meeting, the group pressures the new person to attend a weekend workshop at the group's country retreat. The workshop is presented as a chance for the recruit to get to know his or her new friends better and for him or her to learn more about the group. The retreat is held in an isolated setting- The recruit is never left alone and is constantly bombarded with a nonstop sensory barrage of friendship, caring, speakers, classes, songs, and games. Diet and hours of sleep are severely restricted. Topics such as salvation, guilt, world starvation, and the identity of the group and its leader are carefully introduced at stages in the weekend. The recruit is unable to act because of impaired judgment as a result of sleep deprivation, peer pressure, guilt, and excitement. Deprived of the opportunity to validate beliefs outside the cult, and maintained in a state of mental and physical exhaustion, the recruit becomes absorbed in their new world. 91 If this state of narrowed attention is maintained, the recruit will undergo a dramatic and sudden change. Conway and SiegeIman (1978) describe it as "snapping." They define this moment as "an over-powering holographic crisis of the brain" (p. 135). For a period of time immediately following this snapping, the person is highly susceptible to absorbing new information (Clark, 1979). The final step is to pressure the recruit into a commit ment to the group (Delgado, 1977). At this point additional indoctrination takes place which involves psychological and physical depletion, lectures, isolation, and pressure to reorganize his or her life. The pers>on's past recedes in memory and is replaced with an intense preoccupation for the group. Delgado (1982) states that "the converts estrangement from the past is accelerated by shifts in language and thought patterns. Words acquire new meaning. Critical thinking is discouraged along with humor and metaphor. Converts are taught to feel, not to think; to obey, not to reason" (p. 549). After a few weeks the convert takes on duties such as fund raising in the streets, working in a cult business, or scavenging for edible garbage. "The new member appears 92 simplistic in his or her thinking patterns, stereotyped in his or her responses, unresponsive to relatives and former friends, and indifferent to events in the outside world. He or she has become a cultist" (Delgado, 1982, p. 550). Cult Activities Once in a cult, a member can be involved in a variety of experiences- Typically, security is very tight both in terms of physical barriers and pledges of secrecy. Cult members often live in isolated compounds with locked gates and electronic surveillance. Privacy is non-existent but is presented as caring by other members as opposed to its watchdog purpose. One of the first lessons learned by a novice is to carefully observe the conduct of others. "In this way, if your roommate slipped and sinned, she could be corrected and wouldn't go to hell" says a former member (Enroth, 1980, p. 66). Control of group members is accomplished through the use of a complex system of psychological and peer pressure. Heavy disciplinary action is employed within the organization. A former member stated, "One night I stood for two hours while group members recounted all the things that were wrong with me. . . . At another meeting a girl got spit on" (Enroth, 1980, p. 68). Carefully 93 timed workshops bring members in deeper and deeper until they too become recruiters and trainers. The only contact allowed with the outside world is to proselytize and recruit- "One time I was planning on taking a couple of girls with me (to the museum) and I was told 'You can't witness there so you can't go'" (Enroth, 1980, p. 69). This assists in the cult leaders desire to form a "they and us" mentality regarding the outside world. Adverse psychological effects on members of destructive cults is one concern. In addition, some destructive cults engage in illegal and unethical practices as part of their belief system such as child abuse; illegal and fraudulent immigration; drug dealing; fraud and deceit in recruiting, business, and fundraising; harassment of former members ; sexual abuse and prostitu tion; beatings and even murder. A destructive group’s goals always get the highest priority and the ends justify the means (Cult Awareness Network, 1986)- Student Legal Rights Prior to the Fifth Circuit Court's opinion in Dixon V - Alabama State Board of Education (1961), the legal status of college students whether attending public or private institutions had been one of contract- Courts had 94 said attendance at a university was one of privilege and loss of this privilege did not trigger a property or liberty interest. The New York Supreme Court, in reviewing the authority of college officials in Anthony v. Syracuse (1928), said almost sixty years ago, "the University officials have had wide discretion . . . and the courts would be slow indeed in disturbing any decision by the University" (p. 438). In the case the court upheld the dismissal of a girl from Syracuse University because she was not "a typical Syracuse girl" (see also Hill v. McCauley, 1987; and Ingersoll v. Clapp, 1928). Dixon V . Alabama State Board of Education; The Turning Point In Dixon the Fifth Circuit ignored a vast history by stating that the fourteenth amendment is applicable to the educational setting. This ruling set off decades of litigation that is still filling the court rooms. As Millington (1979) stated, "the rapid development of what today is commonly termed higher education law represents perhaps the fastest, most profound legal development since Moses took his first steps on Mt. Sinai" (p. 22). In 1960 a group of minority students attending Alabama State College sued the institution after they were 95 summarily dismissed as a result of their off-campus participation in a civil rights sit-in. Dixon established due process guidelines used by public and private universities today. The precedent setting significance of Dixon, however, was not the requirement of notice and hearing, but the express notion that student expulsion from a public university was controlled by the fourteenth amendment, in particular the equal protection and due process of the law clauses. The Fifth Circuit Court held that "... the state cannot condition the granting of even a privilege upon renunciation of the constitutional rights to procedural due process" (p. 155) and noted that education was both "essential and vital" to productive citizenship in a modern society. In addition, this was the beginning of a change in the judiciary's long-term policy of non-intervention in the student-institution relationship. Years of almost total autonomy were washed away. Progeny of Dixon addressed substantive and procedural due process questions with regard to students at public universities. Those which dealt with procedural issues which were heard by the Supreme Court include Goss v. Lopez (1975). This case recognized that there may be situations 96 in which prior notice and hearing need not be given; and Horowitz V . Board of Curators (1978) in which the Court determined that academic discipline did not require due process since scholastic review did not fit well with the legal process. While students were concerned with "fair play," a greater number of individual students and student groups went to court seeking expansion and definition of constitutional protections. Cases involved in substantive due process before the Supreme Court addressed such concerns and included Healy v. James (1972); Papish v Board of Curators (1973); Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969); and Widmar v. Vincent (1981). Freedom of Expression on Campus In Tinker v. Des Moines School Independent Community District (1969), the Supreme Court held that the school, to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, must be able to show that the regulation is caused by something more than "a mere desire to avoid dis comfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" (p. 509). On a broader note. Tinker established the fact that there is no reason to believe that the student has two sets of constitutional rights, one for on-campus and another for off-campus. The Court 97 had finally recognized the existence of the amendment rights in educational settings and the development of substantive due process in public education involving freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion had begun. Freedom of expression in the higher educational setting received additional support when the United Stated Supreme Court ruled in Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973) that ". . . the mere dissemi nation of ideas— no matter how offensive to good taste— on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of convention and decency" (pp. 670—671). According to Papish regulations that go to the content of speech are suspect and as a general rule will not be upheld in court except in the event of disruption and imminent danger. Institutions, however, have an inherent authority to maintain order and freedom on campus. Where the public university is concerned, clear and present dangers have manifested themselves in riots and demonstrations which disrupt or even completely close the doors of an institution. Not surprisingly, the first significant court decision arose from demonstrations at Berkeley where the 1964 Free Speech Movement is often cited as the 98 initial dramatic campus protest. The decision in Goldberg V . Regents of the University of California (1967) ruled that constitutional freedoms do not mean rioting, destruction, or disturbing the public order. These acts are not constitutionally protected. The courts have persistently held that the first amendment does not pre clude a college from establishing proper procedural safe guard that regulate time, place, and manner in which the right to free speech may be exercised on campus (see, e.g., Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 1970; Siegel v. Regents of the University of California, 1970; and Widmar V . Vincent, 1981. The courts walked a fine line between reasonable restrictions and inhibition of rights (e.g., Grossner V . Trustees of Columbia University, 1969; and Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 1967). Ideally, according to Healy v. James (1972), colleges and universities are the "marketplace of ideas" where free expression should be protected (p. 180). In Healy the Supreme Court asserted that a student group's ability to publicize its activities or views to others by posting materials and distributing literature on campus is vital to student associational rights. Any limits to these rights are subject to strict first amendment standards. 99 Court decisions upholding the rights of student groups in this area so recognize the right of the university officials to establish prior review procedure that must be explicit and in compliance with the constitution. Such ■ I regulations typically serve to promote order bÿ regulating traffic flow, noise level, and protecting I property. j The legal parameters surrounding commercial speech on \ campus became more definitive in a number of cases involving American Future Systems (AFS) and the ; I I Pennsylvania State University. The court upheld Penn State's regulation banning group commercial solicitation in its students' dorm rooms, concluding that the regulation directly advanced the university's substantial ' interests, as property owner and educator, in maintaining its dormitories as a residential and study area for its students and in preventing their use as a rent-free store. Penn State's policy allowed that if invited by a student, a commercial vendor may conduct a one-on-one demonstration and sale in a student's room. In addition, the telephone, mails, college radio station, and student newspaper were available for advertisements. The | university also designated an area available for vendor 100 ; sales and demonstrations. The court in Spartacus Youth League V . Board of Trustees of Illinois Industrial University (1980) did find that the student union was a public forum open for commercial expression. Public universities may enforce reasonable regulations on such groups using campus space. In addition to the first amendment rights of students and off-campus groups, a public college must stay within constitutional boundaries on the rights of outside speakers. As with its students, the university may specifically limit only those speeches which pose a "clear and present danger" resulting in a substantive evil to the university (see, e.g., Stacy v. Williams, 1969). Courts have also made it clear that no one has an absolute right to speak on a college campus. The university facilities are dedicated to the specialized function of education, and there is no constitutional requirement that the facilities be used to satisfy the every desire of the students. If, however, public university facilities are open to off-campus groups or registered student organizations then all such entities must have equal opportunity for access. Widmar v. Vincent (1981) clearly specifies that when a 101 state university adopts a policy making meeting facilities generally available to recognized student groups it cannot exclude from that accommodation religious student groups. This has been broadly interpreted to include off-campus groups as well. Widmar is best known for the Supreme Court's decision regarding the use of public university facilities by student groups for religious purposes. In 1977 the University of Missouri denied a registered student religious group named Cornerstone permission to use its facilities for meetings on the grounds that this would violate the separation of church and state. Previous lower court decisions had been mixed (see, e.g., Pittman v. Western Washington University, 1980; and Keegan v. University of Delaware, 1975). A number of crucial issues involving religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association were raised by both sides. The primary issue involving religious organizations at public colleges was whether a state college or university which makes its facilities available for activities of recognized student organizations may close its facilities to a group desiring to use "public" facilities for religious discus sion and/or worship. The Supreme Court relied on Tinker and Healy in directing college administrators to treat 102 religious speech as secular speech in their recognition of student organizations and their policies regarding the use of institutional facilities. Freedom of Association on Campus The courts have consistently viewed college campuses as places for free thinking and a forum for the free exchange of ideas. This is promoted through the existence of student organizations on campus which bring those of similar interests together to share opinions and beliefs. The state may not discriminate against student organiza tions on the basis of content of belief, no matter how radical or offensive. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Healy v. James (1972) that the first amendment right of freedom of association applied to students, and, as a corollary, that official recognition from the public institution was necessary to implement that right. The case considered the denial of Central Connecticut State College’s official recognition for Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) because of concern over the relationship between the local group and the national SDS organization. Despite the promise by members of the campus group that they would not affiliate with the national group, the president refused recognition based on 103 the institution's commitment to academic freedom and that the organization would be a disruptive force on campus. The Supreme Court rejected the president's argument and found that: While the freedom of association is not explicitly set out in the [First] Amendment, it has long been held to be implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition. There can be no doubt that denial of official recognition, without justifica tion, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right. (p. 181) If evidence had been presented to show advocacy directed to inciting lawless action or that the organiza tion would not comply with reasonable college regulations, there would have been a basis for nonrecognition. On that point the Court declared: A college administration may impose a requirement that a group seeking official recognition affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law. Such a requirement does not impose an impermissible condition on the students' associational rights. Their freedom to speak out, to assemble, or to petition for changes in school rules is in no sense infringed. It merely constitutes an agreement to conform with reasonable standards respecting con duct. This is a minimal requirement, in the interest of the entire academic community, of any group seeking the privilege of official recognition. (p. 193) This legal position was further defined in the 1974 case of Gay Students Organization of the University of New The university may deny or withdraw all recognition of rights and privileges flowing there, from a student organization where there is a failure or refusal to abide by reasonable housekeeping rules or there is a demonstrated danger of violence or dis ruption of the university's educational mission or there has been a violation of criminal law by the organization or by its members at a function sponsored by the organization. (p. 1088) The principles first established in Healy were elaborated upon in a number of cases involving organiza tions advocating homosexual rights (see, e.g.. Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents, 1981; Gay Alliance of Students v. Matthews, 1976; Gay Liberation v. University of Missouri, 1977; and Gay Students Organiza tion of the University of New Hampshire v. Bonner, 1974). These rights have also been applied to the followers of Sun Myung Moon and members of his Unification Church. In Aman v. Handler (1981) the University of New Hampshire unsuccessfully attempted to deny recognition to the collegiate chapter of the Church. The progeny of Healy have served to reinforce the general principle that failure to recognize such organizations violated a stu dent's right of association and that recognition could not be withheld based on the group's lawful advocacies. The right to be officially recognized by college officials is not an absolute inherent right for a student 105 organization. In fact, it is not necessary for an institution to officially recognize any student group. However, once a college allows student groups to organize and grants these groups official recognition with the attendant advantages, constitutional safeguards must operate in favor of the groups that apply. This requires standards of recognition and the fair application of those standards. Courts have generally accepted official recognition of groups to mean that the institution acknowledges and sanctions the existence of the group, not that it necessarily "approves" any religious, political, economic, or philosophical position of the organization. Official recognition usually grants various privileges by the college to the recognized student group. These benefits may include but are not limited to scheduling campus facilities, a campus mail box, ability to post information on campus, the right to request funds from the activities budget, and privilege of using the school's name. Institutional Control and Responsibility The degree of control a university may have over a student organization and what constitutes negligence if a university fails in its responsibility to monitor an 106 organization's activities are two primary issues that determine liability. The courts have consistently upheld the university's right to provide advisement to its student organizations through fair and educationally purposeful guidelines and procedures. This responsibility includes the right to moderate or forbid certain activities which endanger public welfare, are unethical, or illegal. The courts have also upheld the ultimate responsi bility of administrators for activities and thus the right of the administrators to say no in certain specific cases. In Florida the courts declared that ". . . while student government is granted certain freedoms, the final authority for its activities necessarily rests with the president of the university" (Universitv of Southern Florida Student Government v. Trundle, 1968). Likewise, in California the court held that ". . . a state university college president may reject a student body organization's budget or financial program when he reasonably concludes that it is not in conformity with the policy of 'the campus'" (Good V . Association of Students of Universitv of Washing ton, 1975). The legal status of student activities is still emerging and cases vary as states interpret law dif ferently. Situations where a university administrator should have regulated student behavior and an injury or death occurs presents a less uniform response from the courts with regard to liability (see, e.g., Campbell v. Board of Trustees of Wabash Co lie ere, 1986 ; as opposed to Zavala v. Regents of the Universitv of California, 1981). In some instances courts have found the university-- and therefore, state— liable under the respondent superior theory. These are instances in which the university, or administrator, might be liable for the actions of its agents, the student group, and its leaders. In addition, the State, through the university, may have been negligent in failing to provide rules, guidelines, and advisement to the student or group regarding liability generally, and specifically, regarding a particular event (see, e.g., Bearman v. Universitv of Notre Dame, 1983 ; Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 1983 ; Peterson v. San Francisco Communitv College District, 1984; Tarasoff v. Regents of the Universitv of California, 1974; and Zavala v. Regents of Universitv of California, 1981). Cases involving personal injury demonstrate not only the standard of care applied but also the relationship between the negligence and the injury or proximate cause. 108 In cases where the university is held liable the reasoning is often that reasonable care was not taken to eliminate the hazard or to warn people of the hazard (see, e.g.. Van Stry V . State, 1984). Another example of institutional negligence is shown in the number of rape cases where a "forseeable risk" existed to protect students because of a history of criminal activities (see, e.g.. Miller v. State, 1984; and Peterson v. San Francisco Communitv College District, 1984). Courts have held that the university— and therefore the state— are not liable under the respondent superior theory, when neither the university nor the state had control over the conduct of the student organization (i.e., through the furnishing of behavioral guidelines or review and authorization of actions) (see, e.g., Mozart v. State, 1981). Negligence may also be dismissed when the university's exercise of prior restraint would have been unconstitutional (see, e.g., Mozart v. State, 1981). Mozart involved a college student newspaper which is not entirely typical of the relationship between a student organization and an institution. Thus, Mozart does not indicate how future courts may view the issue of institutional negligence in cases where the institution 109 lacks policy guidelines for student organizations and their conduct. In Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979) an Appeals Court reversed a jury ruling that held Delaware Valley College liable for an intoxicated student's accident after leaving a class picnic where he had become drunk. The court pointed out: that the modern American college is not an insurer of the safety of its students. Whatever may have been its responsibility in an earlier era, the authoritarian role of today's college administrator has been notably diluted in recent decades. Trustees, administrators, and faculties have been required to yield to the expanding rights and privileges of their students. . . . Today students vigorously claim the right to define and regulate their own lives. (p. 139) Because the institution had no specific duty to control and direct such events as a class party, it had no liability. In an earlier court decision, however, the court held that an educational institution may be held liable for negligence in the supervision of extracurricu lar activities (see, e.g., Chappel v. Franklin Pierce School District No. 402, 1967). Baldwin v. Zoradi (1981) did not deal with a student group but it provides guidance on the issue of what duty is owed by the educational institution. The trustees and 110 resident advisors were not held liable for a student's serious injuries due to an alcohol-related incident. The plaintiff stated that the resident advisors knowingly allowed alcoholic consumption on the premises which was against university rules. In California, for such an action to be upheld, a special relationship must exist between the student and the university. The court found that the residence hall lease did not constitute the required special relationship. The court further concluded that even the residence hall lease did not constitute the required special relationship- The court further concludedj that even with a special relationship the harm must have been forseeable. Further, the risk of harm must be "sufficiently high and the amount of activity needed to protect against harm sufficiently low to bring the duty into existence" (Baldwin, p. 816). The precise limits and definition of an institution's liability for actions of student organizations have not been defined clearly by the courts. Under some circumstances, it seems as the guidance and contact extended by the institution over student organizations diminishes, so also does its liability for their acts. If, however, there is a special relationship between the 111 student and institution or if there is active negligence, liability will attach. Summary The three diverse components of the setting for this study were all characterized by the inability to make generalizations. Each of the eleven public universities surveyed varied in numerable ways. Each institution's size, academic emphasis, growth rate, and student body demographics were unique to that campus. Membership in California's higher educational system was their common bond. In much the same way, cults were discussed in terms of various activities and characteristics that vary from group to group, campus to campus. A variety of scholarly opinions were offered regarding reasons students joined religious cults and generally how the conversion process functioned. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has given much guidance regarding campus related legal issues in such areas as expression and association there was less definitive case law in areas of institutional control and responsibility for student group activities. As is often stated regarding the law, "it depends,"— on a variety of circumstances before any final legal determination can be made with respect to a student's lawful rights or 112 to an institution's liability in any given situation. A description of the nature of those public universities surveyed; an understanding of religious cults ; and an analysis of the legal rights held by public university students regarding issues which apply to institutional liability for cults blend to provide the setting for this study. Each university surveyed was assessed in terms of its specific institutional characteristics and the nature of those cults, if any, on campus. This, combined with the application of the law regarding student rights provided one-half of the legal issues involved in the liability assessment. The other one-half, however, was analyzed in Chapter III. This involved the development of case law with regard to religious freedom in American society and specifically in the public educational setting. 113 CHAPTER III FINDINGS: LEGAL RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS CULTS ON CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES: ! DEFINITIONS AND LIMITATIONS Assessment of public university liability for cults I on campus depends not only on the legal rights of students but on the rights of religious groups and cults in particular. While Chapter II provided the setting for the liability assessment of eleven Southern California universities regarding cults, the purpose of Chapter III was to analyze the legal rights of religious cults on public university campuses. This was accomplished through a legal perspective of America's tradition of religious freedom for a number of reasons. First, any discussion of the present reach of the first amendment religious clauses to cults must necessarily be done in the greater context of religious issues before the court. Court decisions in religious cult cases have drawn upon precedent established in the more mainstream religions as well as once less accepted groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. 114 Apparently unnoticed by many university administrators is a growing body of decisions made by the Supreme Court since World War II, which clarified to a large extent what public universities may or may not do in dealing with religious matters. In addition, cult cases have forced the courts to examine guarantees of freedom of speech and association. Understanding those decisions sets the stage for an accurate assessment of the rights and limitations both a public university and religious cult must observe. Furthermore, because the controversy over the interpreta tion of the religious clause of the first amendment remains far from settled, an understanding of applicable judicial reasoning provided insight into future court decisions. Lastly, the analysis of religious-legal issues provided a broader understanding into which the diverse components of the setting defined in Chapter II may be placed. Accordingly, Chapter III was divided into an overview on the establishment and free exercise clauses with regard to public entities; the legal definition of religion and its application to religious cults ; a discussion of the Supreme Court's Lemon v. Kutzman (1971) test which 115 determines establishment of religion; an analysis of religious case law regarding issues involving cults on public college campuses; and the implications this has for public universities in dealing with religious cults. Overview Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . (Excerpt of the First Amendment, United States Constitution, 1791) Over the years the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, have unfolded the implications of the first 16 words of the First Amendment. Historically there has been a tension within the Constitution's religion clause that speaks of both the "establishment" and the "free exercise" of religion. The two clauses are interrelated but they are also separable and often seem to be in direct contra diction with one another. As Warshaw (1979) succinctly put it: "One clause is freedom OP religion and the other is freedom FROM religion" (p. 6). There is also a tension between society and religions that continually perceive themselves to be the persecuted underdogs in a world of prejudices particularly against less mainstream religions. This should seem odd to 1 I Americans whose country was founded by people seeking i j I 116 refuge from religious persecution. For this reason it is generally agreed upon that the framers of the Constitution sought to clearly separate church and state. This broad interpretation was held by the Supreme Court for 150 years As real-life situations forced the courts to consider practical matters involving religious freedom the judici ary developed and refined criteria for deciding cases whose circumstance the framers of the Constitution may not have forseen. Thus, the meaning of the religious clause has evolved and continues to evolve over the years. During that time the United States Supreme Court rendered four major decisions involving religious exercises in the public schools. In three of these decisions the Court struck down the challenged practice as violative of the establishment clause (see, e.g., Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963; Engle v. Vitale, 1962; and McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948). In the fourth, however, the Court ruled that the practice constituted a permissible accommodation of religion in the public schools^ and did not violate neutrality (Zorach v. Clausen, 1952). But the late 1960's brought a wave of Court decisions that have for the most part, characterized an accommodationist trend weighted in favor of protecting 117 religious freedom (see, e.g.. Board of Education v. Allen, 1968; Mueller v. Allen, 1982; Tilton v. Richardson, 1971; and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). The coinciding rise of cults in American society added a new dimension to the courts religious determinations. Along the century long path to dealing with this very sensitive issue, religious cults have provided courts with some of the more challenging and as a result, more definitive decisions regarding the relationship between religion and the government. And nowhere has this relationship been more tenuous and in search of judicial answers than the existence of religious groups in the public educational setting. Cults and the Courts Most new religions have generated litigation because of the remarkable and swift personality alterations of the new members, the intensity of proselytization and indoctrination, the totality of commitment to the groups, and the sometimes aggressive solicitation of funds and public distribution of literature. In his renowned dissent in United States v. Ballard (1944), Justice Jackson concluded with an intellectual's perhaps obligatory state ment of aversion to the "mental and spiritual poison" 118 purveyed by the Ballards and their ilk. "But that is precisely the thing the Constitution puts beyond the reach of the prosecution, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish" (pp. 94-95). On the other side, holding that the jury could only inquire into the sincerity, but not the truth or falsity, of the defendant's religious beliefs. Justice Douglas wrote : Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. . . . The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact under take that task, they enter a forbidden domain. (pp. 86-17) These two opinions lie at the very base of litigation involving religious cults in the United States. The "good deal of rubbish" that Justice Jackson so angrily puts up with is just what allows individual beliefs, minority religions, cults, and mainstream religious movements to co-exist in this nation. 119 Cults as Religions Religious values are implicated in any challenge to a cult; values that are ordinarily afforded substantial protection under the first amendment. Thus, it is important to establish that in a majority of cases the courts have directly or indirectly recognized these groups are religions. In the late 1950's both a federal and state court abandoned theism as a definition prerequisite to religious exemption. In separate cases courts held that Ethical Culture and Secular Humanism by virtue of their doctrine which was similar to conventional faiths, were entitled to property tax exemption (see, e.g., Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 1957; and Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 1957). In so doing the courts relied on the doctrines of these organizations and nothing else. The definition of religion was dealt with by the Court in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). The Court made it clear that one does not have to believe in a Supreme Being to be religious. In a footnote the Court said, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others" (p. 495, n. 11). ^20 This broadening of the religious definition was assisted by conscientious objector cases. United States v Seeqer (1965) and Welsh v. United States (1970). These decisions liberalized the judicial definition of religion through the establishment of the "parallel position" rule. So long as the possessor maintains a sincere and meaning ful belief parallel to that held by a commonly accepted belief in God, then the belief is constitutionally religious. Under this definition most new "cultic" move ments qualify, including non-theistic Eastern ones (see, e.g., Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 1979; Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. United States, 1969; Malnak v. Yogi, 1979; Morey v. Riddell, 1962; Remmers v. Brewer, 1974; Universal Life Church, Inc. v. United States, 1974; and Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, 1969). Excluded from constitutional protection are groups whose assertion of religious status is a "mockery" or "sham." For these reasons the court needs the ability to determine whether the religion is a sham without investigating sincerity (see, e.g., Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 1981; and United States v. Kuch, 1968). Unfortunately, most cases 121 are not blatant. For the majority of cases it is extremely difficult to judge sincerity without dis criminating against a group under the religion clause. Courts may not inquire into the content of particular I belief systems but rather into the role the belief system plays in the life of the believer (see, e.g., Sheldon v. Fannin, 1963; and United States v. Ballard, 1944). Context inquiry is less problematic and less intrusive on the first amendment than a sincerity analysis. It allows the distinction to be made between those practices and beliefs which are in a protected religious rather than a secular context. On this basis a group must also hold itself out explicitly as a religion to avoid a finding that, with respect to particular practices they are involved in criminal behavior, commercial motivation, actions not conforming to church structure, coercive techniques leading to mind control, and false imprisonment, and misrepresentation to members. The gradual move from a theistic definition to a broader, functional view of religion creates a situation in which the courts must assess each group carefully to ensure that their beliefs are religious. Once this deter mination is made it guides the permissibility of further 122 exploration into the truth or falsity of beliefs. If a group qualifies as a religion first amendment status is attached and further inquiry regarding the sincerity or verity of beliefs is prohibited. Cults and the Establishment of Religion The recognition of a cult as a religion introduces the concern over what constitutes an establishment of religion on the part of a public university. As the influence of government has increased in all spheres of society and especially in the area of education, neutrality has become increasingly difficult to achieve. The Supreme Court developed a three-pronged test to deter mine this issue beginning with Sch#hpp in 1953 in which the Court recognized (1) secular purpose and (2) primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion as tests for nonestablishment. A third test for what constitutes an establishment of religion arose in Walz v. Tax Commission (1970). The Court rules that exemption from state taxes on church property used for religious purposes is within constitu tional allowances. The Court applied the Schempp test of a secular purpose and primary effect and added a third criteria— the degree of state involvement in religion : 123 was it so great as to constitute "excessive entanglement"? Chief Justice Burger rephrased what the Court considered to be the framers' criteria for establishment: they were "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity" (p. 668), Burger acknowledged that some involvement could not be avoided if the government was to guarantee both nonestablishment and freedom of exercise. The three-pronged test was applied for the first time in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This three-pronged test states : First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose ; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." (pp. 612-13) Thus, the three criteria for establishment are now known as the Lemon test. Cult Activities on Public Universities; Overview The direction of court decisions for public institutions on religious organizations has largely been inferred from cases in the elementary and secondary levels of public education or in other community settings (e.g., prisons, public forums, and governmental institutions). 124 This is also the situation regarding more recent non- traditional religious cults. Apparently largely unnoticed by many universities is the growing body of decisions made by the courts specifically involving cults. Though most of these cases have not involved public education the decisions have clarified to some extent what public colleges and universities, may or may not do in dealing with matters pertaining to those organizations. The increasing amount of cult litigation combined with the legal history of religious practice in the United States should constructively educate those concerned over issues of institutional liability for the behavior of cults on campus. With increasing frequency, nontraditiona1 religious groups are becoming more involved with higher educational institutions through recognition as a student organization and its accompanying privileges and liabilities; use of the campus as a public forum for proselytizing and recruit ment; activities and practices of the cult which involve student members; and the cult's establishment of secular endeavors in addition to or under the guise of the group's religious activity. As if it is not enough that faculty and staff at public institutions should be concerned, the 125 reaction of parents and other family members to the cult's involvement with their relative heightens the pressure on campus administrators to deal with these groups. It is not impossible to imagine the public college caught in the midst of legal threats from a religious cult and/or its student member seeking to maintain their constitutional freedoms on one side and a lawsuit-prone parent blaming the institution for allowing the cults to function on campus with deceitful recruitment practices, coercive conversion techniques, and harmful physical and mental treatment of its student members on the other. Legal Issues The major areas of constitutional development set forth in Chapters II and III— increasing recognition of student constitutional rights; longstanding protection of religious expression; the search for permissible accommodation of religion in the context of student religious activities in public schools; and the development^ of the tripartite establishment test— have recently converged in a number of cases that have directly and indirectly confronted the activities of religious cults on public university campuses. 126 The legal issues involving cults that are of most concern to public universities in California are regarding recognition as a university organization; use of facilities; proselytizing and solicitation; off-campus speakers; funding; illegal practices ; recruitment and conversion techniques; secular activities ; and conservator ships and deprogramming. With the exception of the first two areas there is no litigation directly involving public higher education and religious cults. Guidance was gained, however, from Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court rulings on these matters outside of the public university setting. Inferences were also made, to a lesser degree, by examining court decisions in other parts of the country and levels of the judicial system. This legal analysis combined with Chapter II's discussion of the setting assisted in assessing the liability of California public universities for cults on campus. Official Recognition It would seem that every system of public colleges and universities provides for official recognition of student organizations. The general rationale is to encourage students to join together for the purpose of pursuing common interests beyond the classroom. In 127 addition to fostering a beneficial atmosphere for students, however, the standard procedures involved with official recognition also give the institution control over what activities will be permitted on campus. This control , arises both from the requirements that are imposed by the university on students seeking recognition and from the grant of benefits to groups who meet the requirements and attain recognized status. Healv V . James (1972) left a critically important legacy to less-than-mainstream organizations on public university campuses. Because the Supreme Court held that first amendment rights of students such as freedom of association, are protected by the United States Constitu tion, a public college must grant the same privileges to all student organizations on the same basis. In supporting court decisions (see, e.g., Healv v. James, 1972; Shelton v. Tucker, 1960; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 ; and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969) the courts have ruled that a university may deny recognition to an organization when it can demonstrate that the organization will materially and substantially disrupt the academic process, or that the group's activities will incite lawlessness among students. 128 In denying recognition, however, the university has a substantial burden to show that such prior restraint is necessary. Public universities have attempted to justify refusal of recognition to student religious groups based on the implication of approval by the university of activities or beliefs with which the university did not agree; state sponsorship of religion which is impermissible and recognition violates the establishment clause; and sus picions of harmful or unlawful activities. The courts have not upheld these reasons of denial when the opportunity for university recognition is available to all social, political, and religious groups. The courts have stated that college students should be able to appreciate the university's policy of neutrality toward all groups including those religious in nature (see, e.g.. Student Coalition for Gay Rights v. Austin Peay University, 1979; and Widmar v. Vincent, 1981). Thus, where the university maintains a policy of officially recognizing student groups of all social, political, and other interests and viewpoints, and allows a religious group the same opportunity as other groups to gain recognized status, "there is no 'establishment of a 129 religion,' and there cannot be a meaningful perception of one" (O'Hair v. Andrus, 1979, p. 934; see also Jaffe v. Alexis, 1981). In addition, mere suspicion of illegality when the group promises to comply with university regulations and all laws does not justify denials of recognition (see, e.g.. Aman v. Handler, 1981; and Healv v. James, 1972). The courts have further stated, however, that should any recognized student religious organization violate the institution's rules of conduct or any state or federal laws that the university could remove recognition from the organization (see, e.g.. Aman v. Handler, 1981; and Healy V . James, 1972). The universities still carry the burden of substantial proof in such situations. Use of Campus Facilities Beyond the issue of recognition, the most critical issue has been whether a group will be permitted to meet on campus to further its religious purposes. The right to use campus facilities is only an incidental benefit of recognition; however, it has been the source of many religious student group conflicts. Moreover, according to Healv, this right is the most fundamental of the associational rights that a university must provide. 130 In Tinker the Supreme Court clearly sanctioned some restrictions on the use of public campus facilities by students, in view of the "special characteristics of the school environment." The extent of those restrictions, however, is strictly limited to time, place, and manner considerations to ensure that the use will not materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the school or with the rights of others. Courts clearly prohibit content-based restrictions, however, several universities and some courts have asserted that such restrictions are justified where the content of speech is religious (see, e.g.. Campus Christian Fellowship v. Santa Monica College, 1980; and Pittman v. Western Washington University, 1980). The compelling state interest asserted was not the avoidance of disruption, however, but the alleged need to avoid an impermissible establishment of religion by the university. According to this argument, establishment resulted largely from the indirect financial aid that the religious group received in the form of rent-free space, heating and lighting. Providing this aid, it was contended, had the primary effect of advancing religion. 131 In 1975 the Supreme Court left intact a Delaware court ruling which permitted Roman Catholic students to organize and conduct religious services on the state university premises even though the University of Delaware had a rule prohibiting the use of school facilities for worship services. In the Keegan v. University of Delaware (1975), the no-services rule would have "both the purpose and effect of impeding the observance of religion and thus constitute a legal burden on the students' Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion" (p. 19). The court held that the university could be just as neutral without the ban. The Delaware ruling was not, however, the law of the land. In 1981, the most definitive decision on the use of public university facilities by religious groups was made by the United States Supreme Court in Widmar v. Vincent. The Court rejected the university's ban on college students* rights to meet for religious purposes on public college campuses. Prior to 1977 the religious group had been allowed to use campus facilities and other student organizations were permitted to conduct meetings on campus Therefore, the Court held that once a public forum is established, the university cannot restrict access on the 132 basis of the content of the group's speech. Equal access for religious groups did not constitute establishment of religion. The Court based its decision on the university's violation of the students' freedom of speech and not on a violation of either of the religious clauses. Having established a public forum for the exchange of ideas, the university could not restrict that forum on the basis of the content of speech. The Court did hold that the university could establish reasonable time, place, and manner regulations for use of the forum. The Court specifically stated that for a university to permit an activity did not constitute university sponsorship or advocacy which would be establishment. Right to Proselytize and Solicit Another vital aspect of student associational rights as held by the Supreme Court in Healy was the ability of student groups to publicize their activities and distribute literature on campus. Courts have repeatedly held that religious expression is entitled to full protection in public forums (see, e.g., Fowler v. Rhode Island, 1953; Kovacs V . Cooper, 1949; and Niemotko v. Maryland, 1951). The judicial system has consistently respected and 133 safeguarded evangelical activities of nontraditional religions such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and modern cults whose members devote substantial time to proselytizing (see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940; Heffron v. ISKCON, 1981; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938; and Martin V . City of Struthers, 1943). In addition the state cannot regulate the religious content of speech (see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940; and Fowler v. Rhode Island, 1953). The state's legitimate interest in controlling the time, place, and manner, however, must also be asserted when university facilities and public areas are used. For example, the state can prevent the broadcasting of religious speech by loudspeakers to unwilling listeners or when it disrupts the environment (see, Kovacs,v. Cooper, 1949). Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations not directed at suppressing a particular message are permitted where the state has taken the path least restrictive to first amendment rights (see, e.g., Cox v. New Hampshire, 1941; Schneider v. State, 1939; and United States V . O'Brien, 1968). Most recently a considerable body of case law dealing with religious expression and conduct in a wide variety of 134 public places has developed as a result of the litigative efforts of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). In a majority of the cases involving a diversity of public forums, the courts upheld the right of ISKCON members to proselytize and distribute literature in public facilities (see, e.g.. Hall v. McNamara, 1978; ISKCON v. Bowen, 1978; ISKCON v. Enqlehardt, 1977; ISKCON v. Rochford, 1978; ISKCON v. WaIke, 1978; Jaffe v. Alexis, 1981; and Swearson v. Meyers, 1978). Heffron v. ISKCON, Inc. (1981) limited the affirmative duty to make public facilities available for particular forms of first amendment activity. Designated booths for all organizations to distribute literature at a state fair was deemed appropriate by the court. This included the practice of Sankirtan, a religious ritual in which Krishna members go into public places to distribute and sell literature and solicit donations. While these decisions recognized the right of state officials to establish reasonable regulations it is clear that this must only be done to prohibit material disruption or infringement on the rights of others. In the same manner, universities may establish prior review procedures so long as these procedures are specifically stated and do 135 not act to suppress speech but rather to prohibit distribution of materials in "situations where school functioning is materially disrupted or the rights of students substantially infringed" (see, e.g., Cintron v. State Board of Education, 1974; and Jones v. Board of Regents of University of Arizona, 1970). Right to Outside Speakers Another aspect of freedom of expression with regard to student groups is the presence of outside speakers. Due to the academic environment of a university, campuses attract a disproportionate share of outside speakers to their grounds, particularly those deemed to be controversial. Courts struck down bans on speakers during the 1960's due to the constitutional aversion to prior restraints and protection of first amendment rights in public forums. In Stacy v. Williams (1969) the court declared as unconstitutional a regulation governing state universities in Mississippi that stated that university facilities "shall not be made available for public religious meetings or gatherings to off-campus persons or groups of persons" (p. 975, n. 28). The court implicitly recognized the right of religious student groups to meet on state 136 university campuses and explicitly held that the differ ential treatment of such groups with respect to the presentation of outside speakers on campus constituted a violation of the equal protection clause. Most cults will seek recognition from a university through student menibers. In some instances, however, a cult will establish itself on campus without student affiliates. In this case, public entities must allow the group to function within its constitutional rights of free expression, association, and exercise of beliefs in balance with a respect by the cult for the mission of the environment (see, e.g., Jaffe v. Alexis, 1981). Right to Funding University recognition often provides the incidental benefit to apply for university funding for group activities. At the present there is no case law to support the view that there is a constitutional right to such funding. Despite the fact that religious student groups must be treated in the same manner as all other student organizations on campus, the history of religion and public education leads to the conclusion that direct financial aid to student religious groups could violate the establishment clause. Such aid was clearly prohibited 137 by the district court in Pittman v. Western Washington University (1980). The court ruled that the state constitution and establishment clause forbid the university to provide funds for any purpose to a religious group. In Healy, the Supreme Court left this question open and as a result, direct funding has not been established as an associational right the university must grant. Pittman did limit the involvement by the university in those funds raised by the religious groups. The students challenged a university policy that any funds collected on campus by religious organizations were deemed to be state funds and as such had to be given to the university and could not be used for religious activities. The university believed that these policies accommodated the rights of the religious groups within the parameters of the establishment clause. The court granted the groups the right to collect and retain all funds raised on and off campus. The Unification Church challenged state intervention with fundraising in Larson v. Valente (1982). The Supreme Court invalidated a Minnesota statute imposing registration and reporting requirements on only those 138 religious groups that gain more than fifty percent of their income from non-members. In declaring the law in violation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses the court reminded the government that solicitation is legal even though the more established religions need not rely on it so heavily as a new religious group. In applying the Lemon test the court found that the state regulation was excessive government entanglement. In addition, the rule was not guided by a compelling govern mental interest. Illegal Activities and Practices Destructive religious cults often conjure up negative images primarily focusing on such unlawfulness as use of illegal substances, fraud and deceit, mental and physical coercion, and false imprisonment. Public universities have attempted to deny recognition based on such grounds (see, e.g.. Aman v. Handler, 1981; S. Farber, California State University, Long Beach [personal communication, June 24, 1987]; T. Laffey and R. Henderson, California State University, Los Angeles [personal communication, June 30, 1987]). Due to the difficulty in proving such unlawful claims none has withstood the scrutiny of judicial review. This does not, however, foreclose the consideration of 139 proven illegal activity when dealing with cults on campus. While the freedom to believe is absolutely protected by the first amendment, freedom to act is subject to state regulation in the public interest and does not preclude criminal liability (see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940; Holdridge v. United States, 1960; and People v. Vaughn, 1944). Historically the courts have scrutinized the use of drugs in religious practices and may well have opened the door to such contentions with a California Supreme Court decision in People v. Woody (1964). The context of faith was critical to a court finding that the use of peyote played a central theological role for members of the Native American Church and to ban peyote would have been a violation of religious liberty. People v. Woody has been cited in several cases involving religious groups which alleged the use of such illegal substances as central to their beliefs and practices. No court upheld the use of illegal drugs in religion (see, e.g., Kennedy v. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, 1972; United States v. Kuch, 1968; and United States v. Leary, 1969). This same reason was used as grounds for nonrecognition of a group at California State University, Los Angeles (see, e.g., T. 140 Laffey and R. Henderson, personal communication, June 30, 1987). Religions are not immune from liability for all "fraudulent" statements or promises, but only those made in a religious context (see, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940; and United States v. Ballard, 1944). The Founding Church of ScientolocfV of Washington, D.C. v. United States (1969) represents the majority view in separating religious from secular beliefs or promises in the cult setting. The case concerned the F.D.A.'s seizure of allegedly mislabeled E-meters (claimed to cure physical illness) used by the organization for "auditing" members. Auditing is performed both as a church service and as therapy in a secular manner to ascertain a subject's emotional state. The court found that: [In] order to raise a religious defense to a charge of false statement (here misbranding) the person charged with the alleged misrepresentation must have explicitly held himself out as making religious as opposed to medical, scientific, or otherwise secular claims. (p. 1164) Thus, Scientology was permitted to market E-meters and to make exaggerated claims for their therapeutic efficacy, so long as it did so in religious terms and was prohibited from marketing them in secular terms. 141 Judge Wright drew a parallel to Ballard in this case and said: [u]nder Ballard it seems unlikely that a disgruntled former adherent could sue a church for fraud and deceit because it had collected money from him on the basis of allegedly "false" doctrines, such as those of the Christian Scientists, concerning the cause and cure of disease. (p. 1156, n. 32) Lawsuits have been brought in which former cult members sought multi-million dollar damages for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation of the benefits derived from auditing (see, e.g., Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 1979; Church of Scientology of Boston V . Garritano, 1979; Hansen v. Church of Scientology of Boston, 1980; Troy v. Church of Scientology of Boston, 1980; and Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, 1979). Plaintiffs alleged they were told auditing would cure all mental and physical illnesses, enhance career and domestic life. While juries tended to sympathize with the ex-members and award substantial monetary settlements all were overturned by judges upon appeal. This reasoning is derived from the fact that courts cannot assume that a group's powers of medicine are not religious when treatment and cures are presented in a religious context. People must realize that these 142 assertions are made in the context of faith (see, e.g., People V . Cole, 1916; People v. Handzik, 1952; People v. Vogelgesang, 1917; and State v. Verbon, 1932). A workable principal thus emerges where the person receiving treat- ) ment is aware that the practice addresses the spiritual t [ aspect of a physical ailment, failure to cure should not be actionable by a breach of contract, fraud, or practicing medicine without a license. Recruitment and Conversion Techniques New concerns regarding illegal activity of religious cults are a result of the recruitment and conversion process for its new members. During the two-hundred-year history of American law there has never been a successful suit against a religious society for merely influencing a member to join. Religious cults, however, have presented a new focus for the legal debate on whether protection of mind control techniques in connection with religious recruitment promotes or frustrates the fundamental values sought to be protected by the first amendment (see, Delgado, 1977; Shepherd, 1985). Are methods of coercive persuasion utilized by religious groups consistent with the constitu tional guarantee of religious freedom? Inquiries into 143 consensuality are permissible only if the nature and content of religious beliefs are left alone (see, e.g., Katz V . Superior Court, 1972; Sherbert v. Verner, 1953; and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). Barring sufficient proof of illegality and/or involuntary submission to mind control the courts have not found a religious cult guilty of such manipulation. Ex-cult members have sued on grounds of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and actions under various federal civil rights statutes. Again, juries have tended to side with the plaintiffs in awarding judgments but on appeal the decisions have been reversed since allegations such as outrageous conduct, involuntary involvement, and force to remain in the cult could not be proven (see, e.g., Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 1979; Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1986; People v. Martinez, 1985; Schuppin v. Unification Church, 1976; Turner v. Unification Church, 1978; and Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, 1982). The courts consistently hold that mere moral coercion was not enough to hold a religious cult liable. Physical 144 restraint must also be proven. In the same manner, claims of emotional distress require accompanying physical aggravation such as ulcers, weight loss, or neurosis in j order to substantiate mental harm. The plaintiff, I according to the court's traditional view, must be aware of his or her confinement. The most difficult issue in justifying state intervention is determining when the consent of a cult member ends and mind control by the leaders begins. A sudden personality change is not, in it self, an adequate basis for liability- The court cannot determine if that change is induced by faith or coercive persuasion. The result of these rulings was that adults may endanger themselves if they so choose and if nothing injurious happens to anyone else. It should also be noted that voluntary consent does not demonstrate incompetence. Cult membership is often stigmatized as a sickness but legally it is not viewed as a medical issue but rather as an issue of civil liberty. According to Shepherd (1985): If state interest is not sufficiently compelling to override religiously motivated failure to receive medical treatment, then neither can state interest extend to interference with persons voluntarily choosing to engage in activities harmful to themselves by vittue of membership in a religious group, (p. 23) 145 Thus, if an adult member chooses to fast, work the streets for 14 hours a day, or go days without sleep, they may do so. Further, proselytizing, living under strict regimes of belief, and heavy indoctrination are not crimes (see, e.g., People v. Murphy, 1977). "All these may involve mental and spiritual poison, and they may impede reasonable and logical thinking, but they are beyond legal recourse on the part of those who find them abhorrent" (Shepherd, 1985, p. 37). The state's interest must out weigh the religious interest and in cases where a sincere religious belief is pitted against a compelling state interest, the state will not prevail when no harm to third parties can be shown. Secular Activities Unfortunately, sincere religious belief can sometimes act as a cover for the true political or commercial motivations of some religious groups. This influences the university's récognition and enforcement of certain policies regarding the group's activities. Although some cults are completely apolitical and show little interest in civic matters, others are very active in attempting to influence the political process. 146 Horowitz (1978) described the Unification Church as "a movement without boundaries, expressing belief systems at once political and theological, outlining premises for political action and religious realignment" (p. xiii). The followers of Moon have repeatedly denied charges that they have participated in political activity, claiming that alleged political activities were in fact "religious." A 1978 House of Representatives subcommittee reported that it had found "substantial evidence" that members of the Unification Church had engaged in political activity. This official government investigation concluded: Among the goals of the Moon organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and would be governed by Moon and his followers. The Moon organization used church and tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated the U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration relating to charity fraud, and that these violations were related to the organiza tions overall goals of gaining temporal power. (pp. 387-388) Horowitz (1978) said to society, the cults inter locking ideology and theology is not something Americans can dismiss lightly: 147 We have yet to cope with a religion that turns political although we have had less trouble with political movements that turn religious. We under stand fanaticism when it progresses from politics to theology. We have less familiarity with ideologies that drift into politics. (p. xvii) Universities with policies regarding commercial operations on campus should not ignore the activities of campus cults in this area. Religious beliefs do not necessarily supercede government statutes and/or policy in areas of commerce (see, e.g., Braunfeld v. Brown, 1961; and Mitchell v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp., 1976). While commercial motivation is irrelevant to the definitional determination of a religion (see, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943) when religious operations assume a commercial rather than religious character, courts have denied the practitioners an exemption from any statutory prohibition (see, e.cr., Muhammed Temple of Is 1am- Shreveport v. City of Shreveport, 1974; and United States V . Rasheed, 1981). Conservatorship/Deprogramming In addition, any motivations by an entity outside the cult to "rescue" a member from a religious cult are illegal. Numerous cases involving the issuance of con servatorship and acts of deprogramming all indicate the 148 unconstitutionality of such direct and overt influence (see, e.g.. Helander v. Solonen, 1975 ; People v. Murphy, 1977; and In re Shapiro, 1977). Katz V . Superior Court (1977) is the primary new religious movement conservatorship decision in California. The case involved five adult members of Reverend Moon's Unification Church whose parents were granted temporary conservatorship for thirty days. Several of the children petitioned for relief and the appellate court granted their request finding that the California conservatorship statute was unconstitutionally vague. The court also emphasized a basic difficulty in all cases contending harm to an individual. That is, proof that a cult member is physically or psychologically harmed. Only upon a finding of physical or mental coercion does the state have a sufficiently compelling interest to justify placing these persons in their parents custody. As previously discussed, proof and such coercion is extremely difficult. Kidnapping, petitions for conservatorships, and attempts at deprogramming have often turned on those parties seeking to "help" a cult member when the individual successfully sues parents, deprogrammers, and 149 public officials who assist with the process. It was not long before cult members sought relief under Section 1985 (3) of Title 42 of the United States Code which provides a civil remedy for damages against any person who conspires to deprive another of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws. While the Supreme Court has declined to pass on whether 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 (3) reaches conspiracies other than those motivated by racial bias, the Ninth, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits did extend the coverage of the statute to religious groups (see, e.g., Rankin v. Howard, 1982; Taylor v. Gilmartin, 1983; and Ward v. Connor, 1981). Implications for Public Universities The direction of court decisions for public institu tions on higher education are clear enough to provide guidance for administrators to determine what is most likely to be legally acceptable on their campuses. Policies and procedures established in the area of student life cannot abridge freedom of religious expression by cults. The only exceptions are when "compelling state interest" or criminal activity is involved. In order not to constitute an establishment of 1 religion, an activity sponsored directly by a public I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ university should have a clear secular purpose, such as education about religions. Such an activity should not advance or inhibit a single religion or even all religions, which may be defined very broadly. Excessive entanglement with religious agencies must also be avoided by the public institution. Any situation in which a university administrator supervises or censors religious activities in order to ensure compliance with the establishment clause is suspect. Therefore, in public universities, provision for religious practices and justification of relationships with religious agencies would seem to be most safely made under the first amendment's provision for the free exercise of religion. It is clear that some accommodation must be made for free exercise of religion. In summary, what a public university may do in "maneuvering the narrow straits between the rocks of inhibiting the free exercise of religion on one side and the sands of an establishment of religion on the other" (Jones, 1987, p. 77) may be stated in terms of guiding axioms. 1. A part of the constitutional rights of all students is access to the resources necessary to practice their particular faiths. 2. Public universities must work impartially with all religious groups in providing those resources. 3. Students have as much right to organize for religious purposes as for any other purpose. 4. Student religious groups are accorded the same rights and privileges and are held accountable in the same way as student groups organized for other purposes. 5. Courts have not upheld the following reasons as justification for denial of university recognition of a religious group: (a) the implication of approval; (b) a violation of the establishment clause ; and (c) suspicions of harmful or unlawful activities. 6. Recognition of a religious group may be removed for violation of an institution's rules or of state or federal laws. 7. The activities of a registered cult, as with any registered student organization, must be consist ent with the group's stated purpose. Universi ties may take appropriate action in accordance with campus policy. 152 8. Refusal to allow religious worship in university facilities by recognized groups violated freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, 9. Student religious groups have no constitutional right to university funding. 10. If all student groups are allowed to raise funds, student recognized religious groups may also engage in fundraising. 11. The public university may not impose any special provisions on the fundraising activities of religious student group different from those imposed on nonreligious recognized organizations. 12. Public universities have a compelling state interest in preventing fraud under the guise of religious belief. 13. The public university may require lawful compli ance in secular activities of the cult but must not regulate religious activities of cults unless it endangers the public welfare. 14. While cult conversion processes may be highly suspect, accusations of mental coercion have not been successfully challenged in court. 153 15. Accusations of mind control, false imprisonment, emotional distress, assault and battery by religious groups have not withstood judicial scrutiny due to insufficient proof and the pre sumption of voluntary submission by members. 15. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 the courts have up held as unconstitutional conservatorships, kidnapping, and deprogramming activities by any one including parents, deprogrammers, and public officials. 17. Religious expression is entitled to full protection in public forums. In addition, the public university cannot regulate the religious content of speech. 18. The public university does have a legitimate interest in controlling the time, place, and manner of speech in public areas so long as the regulations are not directed at suppressing a particular message. 19. If public university facilities are open to off- campus groups, they must be available for public religious meetings to off-campus groups. Religious groups must, however, conform with 154 facility use policies applicable to other off- campus organizations. 155 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS: CULT-RELATED LIABILITY POTENTIAL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, THEIR OFFICIALS AND APPROPRIATE LIABILITY REDUCTION PRACTICES The nature of those California public universities surveyed, an understanding of religious cults, and over view of student legal rights at public higher educational institutions was discussed in Chapter II- Chapter III analyzed the current legal status of religion and cults specifically with regard to the state and public education. This chapter examined the rights of students and cults applied to the public university setting- Legal precedent on the rights of college students and religious cults was applied to eleven southern California public universities in order to assess institutional liability with regard to the activities of cults on campus. Most college and university liability cases are in the area of tort liability. A tort is a civil wrong, except for a breach of contract, for which a court will provide a remedy for damages. The wrongful act may be either intentional or as a result of negligence, and it 156 may be based on, one's actions or failure to act. The fault in a tort situation lies in being the person who causes the act or fails to prevent an act which results in harm or damage. Intentional torts may involve an assault, false restraint, mental suffering, defamation, or certain violations of constitutional rights may also be intentional torts. Although there is some case law at the postsecondary level in the area of intentional torts, this is not the major area of concern. Most tort liability case law on college campuses is in the area of constitutional and statutory torts or civil torts which involves negligdnce and defamation. Constitutional Torts The Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, is found at Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, and in pertinent part reads as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other persons within the jurisdication thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable in an action of law, suit in equity, or other proper pro ceedings for redress- 157 Section 1983's coverage, however, is limited in two important ways; first, it imposes liability only on a "person," and second, public officials possess "qualified immunity." Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983; University Liability and Sovereign Immunity The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution states that : "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one State by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." This doctrine of sovereign immunity protects a state entity from tort when acting in a governmental capacity unless specific legislation allows legal suit. Thus, if a suit is brought against a public university, the courts will dismiss legal action on the basis of the Eleventh Amendment unless the state expressly waived its immunity from the particular type of suit brought. Despite the fact that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits in federal courts against states, it has been interpreted to that extent. As a result, no state may be sued in a federal court without the state's consent. 158 The Eleventh Amendment affords protection to the state university as a public entity but other legal considerations have dramatically qualified the immunity stated in the Constitution. At the basis of such altera- ! tion are the Civil Rights Acts. These acts have taken on a broad application as the basis for action by any person who is deprived of a constitutional or legal right by state officials. Section 1983 was quickly swept up in the litigation boom which began in the early I960's. This afforded courts the opportunity to define Section 1983's general parameters even further. In Monroe v. Pape (1961) the Supreme Court decision reflected upon the purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which were to override certain kinds of state laws and provide a remedy where state law was inadequate. Justice Douglas stated that its purposes were much broader and included "to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice" (p. 174). The Civil Rights Act did provide that the word "person" may be applied to political and corporate bodies. This application is not mandatory. In considering that whether or not to make municipalities liable the Court determined that state officials may only be sued in their 159 individual capacities since government entities are not "persons" for the purpose of Section 1983. The Eleventh Amendment affords protection to the state university as a public entity and in connection with 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 offers qualified immunity; however, the Supreme Court continued to consider whether "any person" mentioned in the Civil Rights Act covers more than natural persons and could include a municipality. The Court was not comfortable with the ruling in Monroe which "immunized" municipalities from suit under Section 1983 and was a departure from prior practice. Thus it was overruled in Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978). In Monell the Court concluded that based on an analysis of the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 that "Congress did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom Section 1983 applies" (p. 690). There fore , local government bodies including school boards, can be sued directly under Section 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers" 160 (p. 690). The Court included "governmental custom" which has not received formal approval in this cause for relief. The Court also concluded that a local government may not be sued under Section 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Following the Monell decision, speculation immediately arose as to whether the long-held immunity of states under the Eleventh Amendment would be altered or eliminated for Section 1983 cases. Only nine months later in Quern v. Jordan (1979) some of the doubts concerning state immunity were cleared. In Quern the Supreme Court was dealing with the ramifications of its earlier decision in Edelman v. Jordan (1974). In Edelman the Court held that the state of Illinois could not be forced to pay past due welfare benefits from the State Treasury for wrongfully witheId monies. In Quern the issue focused on the type of notice Illinois must send to welfare beneficiaries informing them of the deficiencies in the earlier payments. After deciding that the notice being sent to the beneficiaries as approved by the court of appeals would not create a liability on behalf of the state, as per Justice Rehnquist, went on to discuss the unlitigated issue of whether or not a state was a person under Section 1983 for purposes of 161 avoiding Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. The Court definitively held that a state is not suable under Section 1983 except to the limited extent allowed by Ex parte Young. Ex parte Young limits Section 1983 actions against state officers acting in an individual capacity seeking prospective injunctive relief. The Eleventh Amendment otherwise acts as an absolute bar to any action against a state or its political subdivisions for damages. The issue then becomes one of deciding which govern mental bodies are covered by the blanket of Eleventh Amendment absolute immunity from the damages provisions of Section 1983. Maine v. Thiboutot (1980) supports Quern since plaintiffs in that case were allowed to sue the state itself under Section 1983 in state court. Further more, Maine held that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is not limited to allegations of deprivations of constitutional or statutory civil rights and equal protection claims, but encompasses claims based on purely statutory violations of federal law. The Court also concluded that attorney's fees may be awarded under the Attorney's Fees Act (42 U.S.C. Section 1988) (Suppl. Ill 1979) to the prevailing party in any Section 1983 action including purely statu tory actions, whether the action is brought in federal or state court. 162 In Vaughn v. Regents of the University of California (1981), a case regarding employment discrimination on the basis of sex or race, the United States District Court reaffirmed its ruling that the defendant Regents of the University of California and nineteen employees of the University had not waived the Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the Regents-— as alter egos of the state— were not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The court found the Regents to be "the state" based on the state government's appointment and approval of the board members; that the Regents perform the essential government functions of providing the citizens of the state with a higher education; and that any judgment against the Regents will have to be paid out of state funds. Further, the court acknowledged that no California court has precisely defined the extent of immunity which the Regents enjoy. This would be determined on a case by case basis. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act provides for liability cases involving constitutional rights. Two cases have provided a foundation for determination of the extent of personal liability of school officials under Section 1983. Scheur v. Rhodes (1974); and Wood v. Strickland (1975) both place limitations on immunity from 163 suit for persons acting in a governmental capacity. In Scheuer the Court rejected the idea of absolute immunity for high-ranking executives and officials and applied a conditional immunity that varied in scope depending upon the responsibility of the offices and circumstances of the situation. In Wood the Court rejected the school board members' claim for absolute immunity, stating that the benefit of the additional protection of absolute immunity in increasing the ability of school officials to exercise their discretion were outweighed by the resulting loss of a remedy for the violations of students' rights. The Court held that the school officials were protected by the good faith or qualified immunity recognized in Scheuer but that an individual is not immune from liability under Section 1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the Constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of Constitutional rights or other injury to the student. (p. 992) Wood and Scheur together clarify the immunity extended to state officials in terms of possible defense regarding state of mind and reasonableness of conduct. 164 The holding of the Supreme Court in Wood regarding compensatory damage also limits personal liability. Compensatory damages would be awarded only if the school official acted with impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the rights of students "that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith" (p. 994). In Carey v. Piphus (1978) the Supreme Court further limited the awarding of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act. The Court held that high school students who alleged that they had been suspended from school without due process could recover only nominal damages and only those damages actually caused by constitu tional deprivation. Thus, Section 1983 created strict liability only in the sense that the right to procedural due process is absolute. Further, the Court recognized that Section 1983 operates on at least two levels: first, on a level of statutory liability which is "absolute and unqualified" with "no mention . . .of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that maybe asserted" (p. 1407) and second, on the level of an action at law for tort liability for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. 165 within the last decade, a considerable body of case law at the higher educational level has developed surrounding liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Although these actions are not traditional tort actions, they are often referred to as "constitutional or statutory" torts. This section of the law emerged as a means of seeking monetary damages through personal liability situations where action might otherwise have been prevented at public universities because of sovereign immunity. The courts, however, have not held public universities or their representatives monetarily accountable for the denial of constitutional rights involved in granting recognition to a student group, restricting the use of university facilities, and improper prior restraint of expression. A correction of the situation to its lawful status is the outcome. Civil Torts In addition to constitutional matters addressed under tort liability the broad and varied category of civil law, exclusive of contracts, presents public universities and their personnel with a vast set of concerns. 155 Neqlicfence Negligence liability "stems from a social relation ship wherein a person establishing a relationship with another must assume the risk of that association, and it implies unintentional conduct which causes an injury or damages to another person" (Millington, 1979, p. 411). In discussing negligence terms arise such as "reasonable person" and "anticipation of harmful results." Negligent behavior may be the result of carelessness or the failure to act or refrain from acting as a reasonably prudent person. For example, universities risk liability for the actions of their sporting teams and the actions of the institution's recognized student organizations. Kionka (1977) states that negligent behavior can be found when four elements are present. First, there must be a duty to the injured party. Second, there must be a breach of the duty, or failure to act with reasonable care under the circumstances. Third, the act or failure to act must be the proximate or legal cause of the sustained injury. Fourth, there must be an actual injury for negligence to be found. If all four of these elements exist, negligence will likely be found and damages will normally be assessed. If a duty exists and a dangerous 167 situation exists but injury has not been sustained, an order to remove the danger may be secured, but no damages would be awarded. In determining whether a public university has a duty to an injured party, the courts have distinguished between the legal relationships an institution has with its invitees, licensees, and trespassers. An invitee is a person who is on the property because he or she has been expressly invited or by implication by the possessor of property such as a student, staff, or faculty members. A number of courts have held that the institution owes a duty of ordinary and reasonable care with respect to the condition of the premises for invitees (see. Brown v. Oakland, 1942 ; Leahv v. State, 1944; and Sandoval v. Board of Regents, 1965). A licensee on the property for his or her own convenience but at the "sufferance" of the property owner is owed property that is maintained in a reasonably safe condition. If ordinary hazards exist and the licensee is injured, however, the institution may not be held liable if the institution did not know of the dangerous condition (see, e.g., Mortibovs v. St. Michael College, 1973; and Scully v. State, 1953), These decisions are important to institutions which lease 168 facilities to off-campus groups for public events or that allow off-campus spectators to attend events on institutional property. Once duty to an injured party is established failure to act with reasonable cause must exist. In Pape v. State (1983) a student participant in a floor hockey game, while attempting to tackle an opponent, suffered a fractured cervical spine. The student sued, alleging that the injury was a direct result of the referee's poor super vision and training. The court found that the referee, in explaining the rules and in refereeing the game, was performing his tasks in a reasonable manner. The plaintiff's own action attempting an illegal tackle was the proximate cause of his injury. If the institution has knowledge of a risky situation and allows the condition to exist without remedy the institution can be held liable (see, e.g., Dudley v. William Penn College, 1974; and Rubtchinskv v. State University of New York, 1965). Reasonable care must be taken to eliminate the hazard. In Van Stry v. State (1984) the student was able to show that a pool of water on the locker room floor which caused him to fall and injure himself had been reported to the university on a 169 number of occasions but that the university was negligent in remedying the situation. In Van Stry the proximate cause of the student's injury was the university's failure to take reasonable care. Another example is shown in a number of rape cases where a "forseeable risk" existed to protect students because of a history of criminal activity. Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District (1984) used this standard in finding the institution negligent. A student was raped on a campus stairway where other assaults had occurred yet the institution made no attempt to trim the bushes near the stairway, increase security in that location, or warn students about the potential danger in that area. The court upheld Peterson's charge that by virtue of a special relationship between the college and herself, the college had a duty to warn her of danger. Further, the court held the college liable for maintaining a dangerous condition of property which together with the criminal act of the third party caused her injuries. The district was found to be immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection. 170 A finding of actual injury ranges from the more obvious physical damage to the less tangible mental harm a negligent situation can impose. According to Greene (1977), "Although a religious group, leader, or member could possibly incur tort liability on several theories, the exercise of mental or moral coercion alone is an insuffi cient basis for civil liability" (p. 1037). Cases brought by former members against a cult alleging inten tional infliction of emotional distress have not been successful for the plaintiff (see, e.g., Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 1985; Church of Scientology v. Garritano, 1980; and Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 1979). Greene asserts that courts have recognized actions for intentional torts, however, where the religious activity of an individual or group infringes upon the civil rights of another member or ex-member. Greene states, "Equitable relief may be available to an ex-member in certain situations" (p. 1037). Intentional torts for which a religious cult could be held liable include false imprisonment (see, e.g.. O'Moore v. Driscoll, 1933 ; and Whittaker v. Sanford, 1912); or fraud (see, e.g.. Hanse11 V . Purnell, 1924; and United States v. Carruthers, 1985). 171 As a general rule there is no duty to control the conduct of another and no duty to warn those who may be endangered by such conduct (see, e.g., Davidson v. City of Westminster, 1982 ; and Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976). A duty may arise how ever, where "(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives the other a right to protection" (see, e.g., Davidson v. City of Westminster, 1982, p. 203; and Tarasoff V . Regents of the Uniyersity of California, 1976, p. 435). Among the commonly recognized special relationships are that between an innkeeper and his or her guests, and that between a possessor of land and members of the public who enter in response to the landowner's invitation (Rest. 2d Torts, Section 314 A.), (p. 806). In addition the court in Ducey v. Argo Sales Company (1979) concluded that a public entity may be held liable for a dangerous condition of which it had actual or constructiye notice and for which it had failed to provide adequate safeguards stating that "section 835 specifically provides that when a public entity has actual or 172 constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the entity's liability may be predicated on its failure to take protective measures to safeguard the public from dangers that may not necessarily be the entity's own creation. . . ." (pp. 716-717). No where is this point made more clearly than in Tarasoff which centered around a murder committed by a person who had informed a University of California psychologist that he was going to kill a specific person. The employee did not warn the victim or her family. The victim's parents filed a negligence suit on the grounds that the university failed to detain a dangerous person and failed to warn anyone of the intention. The court ruled in favor of the parents. The court concluded "the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins" (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1976, p. 561). Is a trend beginning that will hold colleges and universities increasingly accountable for the mental and physical well being of its students? While the term i^n loco parentis is not used in these decisions, the warning is clear enough to cause any prudent university adminis trator to re-examine the university's degree of control 173 over the extra-curricular environment. For example, in one case currently moving through the courts in Colorado, Whitlock V . University of Denver (1987), an earlier ruling by a court suggested that a college or university might be obligated to warn and protect students from all identifi able risks associated with college life (Pass, 1986). Adjudication of this case, which involves a student who was seriously injured in a fraternity house trampoline accident, was recently reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court. The university was found to owe no duty of care to the student. While the decision tends to indicate judicial recognition of a student's responsibility for his or her self any definitive conclusions about the implications of this case, however, would be premature. Reduction or elimination of liability in cases typically occurs using three basic defenses. These are "contributory negligence," "assumption of risk," and "immunity." Contributory negligence is negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant (Gifis, 1975, p. 137). To illustrate, contributory negligence by the plaintiff 174 student in an earlier decision in Whitlock v. University of I Denver (1987), it was obvious to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding the university to be 12% at fault and the student to be 2 0% at fault for injuries. The student sued the university and others for injuries sustained in a trampoline accident, which rendered him a quadrapelegic- In arriving at this decision the court found that there was a legal duty to use reasonable care arising in response to a forseeable risk of injury to others. Assumption of risk is a commonly used defense in the area of college sports. A college student who partici pates in a sport is aware that occasional injuries do occur. The student participates in the activity with this knowledge of inherent and obvious risks (see, e.g., Dudley y. William Penn College, 1974). The courts have also held a similar line of thought with regard to a cult member's recruitment and participation in the organization which is viewed as voluntary (see, e.g., Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 1985). A third defense against liability is immunity, a legal doctrine that has been discussed earlier in this chapter as having been modified and in some cases 175 abolished with regard to the officers and employees of public entities. Defamation Defamation is another area of tort liability. Defamatory communication is injury to a person's character, fame, or reputation by the sharing of false or injurious information. Examples include written (libel) or spoken (slander) words by universities against cults or leaders. Anti-cult statements and programming by public universities is a potential liability if not handled properly. The manner and interest of the communication as well as the content, becomes very important, with only good faith statements prompted by proper motives being considered appropriate. There is a big difference on a campus between the desire of others to know and the need for them to know. Close scrutiny may reveal that much of the sharing of information on campuses about others could probably be classified as educational gossip at best and unprofessional or illegal behavior at worst. Cults have also generated a substantial amount of litigation involving defamation actions. Most defendants have been the media (see, e.g.. Church of Scientology of California v. Dell Publishing Co., 1973; Unification 176 Church V . New York Times, 1979; and Velle Transcendental Research Association v. Sanders, 1981), but others have included government officials (see, e.g.. Church of Scientology v. Cazares, 1978), medical professionals (see, j Church of Scientology v. Minnesota Medical Foundation, I I 1978), and educational associations (see. Holy Spirit I ! Association v. New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers, 1978). The results have been mixed and typically focused on the malicious intention of the defendant as well as the role the defendant was playing at the time of his or her actions (e.g., journalist, government official, educator, or private citizen). Colleges and Universities Surveyed The purpose for the survey of southern California public universities was to gather primary data regarding cult activity and public university policy towards cults on each campus. Eleven campuses of the southern California ' public university system were surveyed by interviewing ! j student affairs administrators and, in some cases, j university legal counsel and religious leaders on campus. j Of the university administrators interviewed, some were directly responsible for advising religious organizations on campus. Others interviewed were deans, directors, and | » 177 1 associate vice presidents responsible for overseeing staff who dealt with student organizations. 1 Southern California universities were selected due to j their geographic proximity which ranged from Santa Barbara | I to San Diego. This sample also provided an accurate | I I representation of diverse public institutions in higher I education within a concentrated area. The campuses were j I similar in that they were public and they were affiliated | with either the California State or University of j California system and any uniform policies pertaining to ‘ I them. The results of the interviews were summarized under each liability category (i.e., constitutional tort, ^ negligence, or defamation) and identified topic area (i.e.,i recognition, facility use, funding, proselytizing, solicitation, secular activities, treatment comparison, | I conservatorships/deprogramming, illegal activities, and anti-cult statements/programs). The public universities surveyed were : California ! i State College, San Bernardino; California State University,! Dominguez Hills; California State University, Fullerton; . California State University, Long Beach; California State University, Los Angeles ; California State University, f I Northridge; University of California, Irvine; University 178 ! of California, Los Angeles? University of California, Riverside; University of California, Santa Barbara; and ! University of California, San Diego. : In addition, attorneys in the California State I University General Counsel’s office and University Counsel ' ; i for California State University, Northridge were ; J I I ; interviewed, I I A list of standardized questions were used in the j interview process (see Appendix A), This gave consistency and structure to the interviews but also allowed for the | flexibility of additional questions in areas of particular I I note. In addition, the interviews began with a written 1 and verbal definition of the term cult. This enabled those interviewed to operate from the same basic definition as that which the investigator chose to use in the study. j Assessment of Cult Activitv on Campus | The level of cult activity on these public California | I university campuses ranged from high to nonexistent. ! j High I California State University, Los Angeles; and j University of California, Los Angeles. I 179 Medium University of California, Irvine; University of California, Santa Barbara; and University of California, San Diego. Low California State University, Long Beach; California State University, Northridge; and University of California, Riverside. I Nonexistent I I California State University, Dominguez Hills; California State University, Fullerton; and California : State College San Bernardino. I I Level of Cult Activitv ! The level of cult activity at an institution was | determined by the visibility of the groups on campus | through recruitment, proselytizing, and programs. The j number of university-recognized cults as well as those from outside the university which operate on campus also , contributed to the assessment of activity. While the j amount of activity by cults on campus is not in itself an ! I 1 indicator of institutional liability it is logical that j I the more cult activity the greater the number of opportun- ! I ities for litigious situations to arise. ! 180 ; California State, Los Angeles (Cal State L.A.) has had a consistently active chapter of the Collegiate Association I for the Research of Principles (C.A.R.P.). This collegiate| I I branch of the Unification Church has been on campus for the, i past seven years. The mainstay of C.A.R.P. has been one i student. The size and activity of the cult on campus varies with his presence and the ability of the cult to I find political issues which gain them recognition and j I members. When Central America was a volatile issue on I I campus, C.A.R.P. drew large audiences through his public I forums. Subsequent "political" meetings sponsored by i j C.A.R.P. were recruitment tools. Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles owns a house just up the hill from Cal State L.A. I University administrators speculate that only three or four! residents are students and the rest recruit and proselytize| i on campus. Students attend C.A.R.P.'s programs in large ! numbers often drawing 200 to 300 at their pizza or sushi ' parties in the university center. Administrators explained that C.A.R.P.'s recruitment pattern is to "come on strong" i > in the fall with recruitment tables and "a lot of j j promises." During the winter quarter C.A.R.P. sponsors ; i several social events on campus and at their house. The j 181 next step is to hold a retreat off campus. While this presented to students as a social outing or leadership j I weekend it is known to be a membership conversion time. < They have recently begun bringing Korean cult members to I campus to recruit Korean students, and the Korean popula- I tion has doubled in recent years. The Hare Krishnas have also been active at Cal State | L.A. despite the fact that they are not a recognized | i group. The Krishna's sponsor the annual Festival of India I on campus to recruit new members. They are able to sponsor the program through a faculty contact. I Î There are 550 registered student organizations at the : University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Sixty-four | are religious organizations and five are identifiable ! cults. The university believes that there is cult activity but that a lot of it is underground. The most active cult on campus is The Way International. This cult | I is new to the west coast and in one administrators opinion, "they are more devious than the Moonies." j Maranatha has also been very active on campus and able to ! gain much support due to their clean-cut image. Jews for i Jesus was a popular group at UCLA a few years ago but they were suspended for misrepresenting an event that was | 182 actually for recruitment and proselytizing. The group has recently returned to campus under the name Messianic. ' Campus administrators attribute cult-like behavior of I deception and coercion to some of the more fundamentalist ! Christian groups such as Grace College Life, Campus Crusade and the Fundamentalist Army. Also, C.A.R.P. and Transcendental Meditation (TM) are functioning but at a ! i low level compared to previous years. i The University of California, Irvine (UCI) has 29 ‘ religious organizations out of approximately 2 0 0 student organizations. University administrators and religious i leaders found it hard to assess the level of cult activity' on campus since they did not know what these groups "were really doing out there." The Maranatha's are very active in terms of recruitment and sponsoring events. Transcendental Meditation recently reestablished as a non- | religious group on campus under the name Student's Inter- ! national Meditation Society. Messianic is also active. It is the university's opinion that some of the Christian j I groups demonstrate destructive cult characteristics as well. The Hare Krishnas are not a recognized group but have been on campus• 183 The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) has 26 registered religious organizations. These include several born-again Christian groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, I the Student's International Meditation Society, The Way, ; and worshippers of Sri Chinmoy, a guru with ties to the i Krishnas and Unification Church. According to the administration, none of these groups is obtrusive and they operate at a normal level of activity on campus. "For UCSB that means laid back," an administrator summarized. The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) has 15 registered religious groups out of 160 student organizations. The most visible cult on campus is the Zedic Cultural Society (Krishnas). This group sponsors weekly vegetarian dinners where philosophical discussions and recruitment takes place. The Zedics also sponsor the annual Festival of India on campus. Activities advisors suspect that the obsessive devotion and other cult-like characteristics exist with the Navigators, Triton College Christian Fellowship, and Nichiren Shoshu of America (Buddhists). The C.A.R.P. went inactive in 1986. California State University, Long Beach (CSLB) has witnessed a decline in cult activity on campus. This is based on lack of visible programs and recruitment 184 activity. As an administrator stated, "that's a dangerous sign. The cults could just be less obvious." Currently 1 Maranatha and the Navigators are the most active religious ! groups on campus; and C.A.R.P. and the Krishnas were the | most active cults in the past. I I Administrators at California State University, j Northridge (CSUN) suspect that there are some "cult-like" j groups on campus such as the Korean Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade, and a non-religious group called the Loyal Order. The level of visible cult activity has declined in ■ I the last few years. For example, C.A.R.P. was active on i campus a few years ago but is not currently registered. The Krishnas recently sponsored the Festival of India on campus under the sponsorship of the Loyal Order. ' I Of the 110 registered organizations at the University i of California, Riverside (UCR), 15 are religious groups. The Hare Krishna are one of these groups though they operate through the Bhakti Yoga Club. Administrators I suspect that this group has two or three students and the [ remaining members are from off campus. The Black Muslims | I are not a recognized student group but they come to campus I I each year to proselytize and solicit. They are typically I removed from campus for intimidating students, taking stu dent's money, and proselytizing in the library. ^ 3 5 It is the best assessment of administrators at California State University, Dominguez Hills, California State University, Fullerton,, and California State College, j San Bernardino that there is no known cult activity on I campus. An administrator at Cal State, Dominguez Hills stated that "they probably don't even know that we're here since we're such a small campus." Of the 170 registered groups at Cal State Fullerton, 20 are religious but none i have the name of a cult or seem to be involved in cult-like^ I activity. Cal State, San Bernardino has few registered religious groups and none of those are very active. ‘ I Perception of Cults by Others ! The perception of cults by others on campus can influence the setting for libelous situations to occur. Most campus administrators assessed the attitude by | faculty, staff, and students to be indifferent. On I campuses such as Cal State L.A. and CSUN, students and ] faculty were amused and sometimes offended by the slogan | "live and let live." Cults at UCSD have a negative image j due to the activities of the Krishnas. On many campuses j I the more organized religions tend to get angry about 1 I cults. Cults were said to make some administrators > I ! nervous. i 186 Recognition One of the most volatile legal areas and typically the initial issue between a public university and a religious cult is that of university recognition. Each campus surveyed has some form of written process which ranges from highly detailed at UCSB; Cal State Fullerton; CSUN; and UCLA to the very basic at Cal State L.A.; and i UCI. All policies place the university in a position to I grant or deny recognition and its accompanying privileges. | I Each campus administrator stated that if the religious cult complied with the universities criteria for recogni tion and agreed to abide by the rules then the group would receive recognition and its benefits. ! Cal State Long Beach learned a lesson about the recognition process and cults when C.A.R.P. applied for ; I recognition in the early 1980's. There was a lot of j opposition to the group's establishment though no one could^ produce proof that this particular group would be a detriment to the campus. University admimistrators and the Associated Students dragged the recognition process out over two years and eventually C.A.R.P. initiated court action against the university. The case was settled prior to going to trial and C.A.R.P. received its recognition 187 and the university paid attorney's fees as stipulated i under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As a result the university's: recognition process specifically detailed the purposes of i I approval by each body. The Associated Student Senate recognized groups for funding purposes, use of the j Associated Students name and resources, and use of their | corporate relationship. The university recognizes only ' for use of campus facilities and the right to exist on campus. j I Successful denial of a cult-like group involved in illegal activity was evident only at Cal State L.A. In March, 1983 a student submitted a proposed constitution in the process of requesting recognition for a student club known as D.R.U.G.S., an acronym for "Drugs and Revolution will establish a Utopian Government for our Society." The purpose of the group was to enlighten people to the need to use consciousness-raising drugs. The university denied recognition due to the advocacy of illegal activity and that this group would not be in the best interest of the students. j Universities such as UCI, CSUN, and UCSD expressed ! concern over the "deceptive" use of names by these groups that are not easily recognized as cults. While some i I 188 I campuses ask for extra-mural affiliation on the registration form, most do not. These three campus, how ever, admitted that a cult's application would draw strict scrutiny from the university through a non-written but "informal understanding" between activities advisors and senior student services administrators; but UCI was unclear whether a group could be denied recognition based on I popular perception. I ! The University of California, Los Angeles does not deal with this additional scrutiny issue because all student groups are eligible for registration as an "independent organization." University scrutiny occurs when authorizing cult activities. If the speaker, pep rally, judo demonstration, or contest are merely recruit ment tactics and have nothing to do with the group's j purpose the activity is not authorized. ! The University of California, Santa Barbara's written | recognition policy goes so far as to define a religious group in five different ways. This classification treats the groups as equals in the process of recognition. All groups must complete an initial probationary registration | period demonstrating how their activities achieve their purpose. : 189 I Use of Facilities All of the institutions surveyed allowed recognized religious cults to use campus facilities for meetings, programs, and worship. Some administrators interviewed could recall a time when worship on university property was not permitted. All campuses adjusted to Widmar just prior to or shortly after the Supreme Court ruling in 1981. The University of California, Santa Barbara even refunded the money they traditionally charged for facility use. ' I Student Activities advisors at UCSD, however, were not | I aware of or complying with the Widmar ruling until the fall ! of 1986. This came about as the result of an advisor attending a workshop at a professional conference. Up to that time only Hillel had been allowed to use campus facilities for the Seder. I Off-campus groups desiring to use campus facilities j may do so at each of the campuses under a variety of j policies. Most campuses had allowed the Krisha's Festival i of India on campus. California State University, | Northridge, however, did so with much resistance despite the fact that the group complied with every regulation and \ I step in the process. Several offices on campus became involved in "tossing the hot potato" until an activities i 190 ! advisor signed the authorization. He says he is still taking a lot of criticism for this act today. Administra tors at UCI state that they will not allow the festival ^ back on campus because they were not aware it was a recruitment event. Funding Neutrality was an issue with regard to the funding of , student groups. As previously stated, the university does not recognize for purposes of funding student organiza- i tions. That is the role of the Associated Student Senate. | I Therefore, no campus surveyed allowed university funds to be given to a student organization. University of California, Irvine and UCLA interpreted this to include ' student funds and fees. Therefore, student religious groups may not apply for funds from Associated Students. 1 At Cal State Fullerton religious groups would be eligible | for such funds were the religious groups to form a recognized religious council to handle money distribution and programming. They have not formed such a council to date due to differences in religious belief. The Associated Students typically place restrictions on the funding of events which include such stipulations as: the event must be on campus, open to all students, 191 and, in some cases not religious in nature. Although it appears that religious student groups rarely apply for funds due to these stipulations, some campus groups had received money. California State, Los Angeles's student board funded a C.A.R.P. event and when they later learned it was an arm of the Unification Church they unsuccess fully sought to retract the funding. Associated Students at UCSD "accidentally" funded an evangelical magician. The performer had to abide by the stipulation that no | proselytizing would take place during the performance. ' i i Proselytizing i The public universities surveyed all acknowledged the existence of public forums on campus where few regulations . applied. Specific policies existed prohibiting such | activity in classrooms, office buildings, or residence halls. University of California, Irvine had one | evangelical speaker disrupt the university with harassing I ! comments to passers-by and he was removed from campus for "abuse of his free speech privilege." | ! All campuses surveyed allowed for recognized student | groups and those from off-campus to distribute literature I that was noncommercial in nature. Religious groups and j other student organizations did submit their literature to ! 192 prior approval by campus officials. Religious groups were allowed to post in designated areas on campus. University of California, Riverside, Cal State Long Beach, and UCSD required that identification of the sponsoring organiza tion be clearly indicated on all materials. Solicitation Many of the public forum guidelines for off-campus groups and recognized student organizations carry over to university policies regarding fundraising. On university grounds open to the public the campuses surveyed allow individuals to solicit funds and sell noncommercial activity so long as the activity is in compliance with applicable legal requirements, does not disrupt the free flow of traffic, and does not disrupt the orderly operation of campus. Most campuses require that the activity be registered with the student activities office to ensure that the funds will be used in keeping with the approved purpose of the organization. California State University, Northridge further requires this permit identifying the organization to be displayed during solicitation. Accountability for funds raised is an integral part of the policies at UCR, CSUN, UCLA, and Cal State 193 Fullerton. The organization must present evidence to the university regarding financial statements on the solicita- | I tion activity. University of California, Riverside and UCSB reserve the right to audit financial records of i university recognized groups. ; Secular Activities | To varying degrees each campus surveyed stipulated | I that a recognized student group may only participate in j activities related to the group's stated purpose. | Recognized religious cults that stray into commercial or political areas of activity become subject to any discipline linked to such activity. California State University, Los Angeles and UCLA have both experienced a "perverted" link between the activity and purpose of C.A.R.P. Therefore, C.A.R.P. at UCLA sought approval for j karate demonstrations and a prize drawing for free lessons.j I Despite the activity's clear intent to recruit members the I i university did not approve the event because it was not related to the group's purpose, and C.A.R.P. at Cal State i L.A. frequently uses political issues as the focus of ! rallies, speakers, and meetings that enhance recruitment. | I The university has allowed such activity. ; 194 Treatment of Cults Compared to Other Student Organizations The universities surveyed appeared to treat cults | equally when compared with other recognized student groups. Written policy with certain neutrality stipulations regarding religious and political groups, was evenly I stated. University of California, Irvine, UCSD, and CSUN j all admitted to scrutinizing cult activity more than other campus groups. This was based upon the knowledge that these groups were labelled cults. California State j University, Fullerton resolved a discrepancy when a ; religious group requested and eventually received a copy of the student mailing list used by fraternities and sororities to recruit members. The university seemed to | allow cults the greatest freedom to exist along with other , organizations. Because some administrators are intimidated by the cults, in order to avoid legal hassles, cults are j allowed to stretch the rules to the limits and perhaps beyond whereas other groups would not be able to do so. j Conservatorships/Deprogramming j I The most litigated area of constitutional and I statutory law with regard to religious cults is clearly in the area of deprogramming and conservatorships. None of j 195 the campus administrators surveyed had been a part of or had been approached to be a part of such activity with regard to a student. The University of California, i I Riverside's student services office had been approached by the mother of a son who was a cult member and she was : concerned about the cults presence on campus. Her efforts,| I however, were more to enlighten the campus as opposed to | : I ' seeking assistance. A female student disappeared from her Cal State L.A. dorm during the fall of 1986. She had decided to live with C.A.R.P. and drop out of school. The university ! treated it as a missing person situation and involved the ! I police, counselors, and parents. The child returned home for a short period of time but has rejoined the cult. This "imagined" scenario was presented to the other campuses | surveyed. All determined that they would follow any administrative guidelines in place, seek legal advice, and 1 work with the parents in an effort to be supportive. None ! would assist in retrieving the student from the cult. j Illegal Activities Negligent behavior on public university campuses with i regard to cults focuses on the cult's possible involvement in illegal activities including the use of drugs, fraud 196 and deceit, and mental and physical coercion. University suspicions of such activity much less knowledge of illegal acts run the risk of a duty to care and forseeable risk. The Cal State L.A. situation with the D.R.U.G.S. group overtly illustrates this point. This high visibility, however, is not typical of a cult's engagement in illegal behavior. Several administrators expressed frustration over their unconfirmed suspicions regarding cult illegal acts. Deception is the most common tool used by campus cults and as several stated, it is the most difficult to prove with facts and figures. The most common form of deception is to not identify the cult by its more public and recognizable name. For example, C.A.R.P. is part of the Unification Church; the Zedic Cultural Society is the Hare Krishnas; Student's International Meditation Society is Transcendental Meditation; and Messianic is Jews for Jesus. These names are as misleading to students as they are to administra tive review. This tendency toward misleading the public carries over to recruitment activities. At UCI the ads for the Festival of india did not include the Krishna's name. In addition, the Krishna's vegetarian cooking classes were in 197 reality recruitment sessions. One cultic group involved in animal sacrifice illegally posted flyers around UCI's campus announcing a meeting and proclaiming an affiliation to the University's Interfaith program. This was not true, i At UCLA and Cal State L.A., The Way International and ■ I I C.A.R.P. take students on a weekend campout that is - presented as purely social but is in fact the time the group "reveals itself" and attempts to convert students. No responsibility is claimed by UCLA for this activity I because it is held off campus, and Cal State L.A. believes ! I that the national organization sponsors the retreat and ■ that the local group is not accountable. On UCLA's campus | i The Way International misrepresents itself as being the | same as The Way Four Square Denomination Church in the ■ \ valley which is popular with young people. Jews for Jesus > at UCLA was suspended from campus for deceptive programming. The group publicized a speaker on the holo caust which drew a large Jewish crowd. In reality the speaker was an individual proselytizing. Administrators of Cal State L.A. did receive a complaint from a woman in 1986 regarding C.A.R.P.'s tactics. She had been a part of the group for two weeks and stated that they were very deceptive in their 198 practices. The administrators confronted C.A.R.P. with the accusation but the group denied everything and denied knowledge of the woman. Administrators at UCLA and UCI have observed the peer I I pressure during cult recruitment. They have also worked • with cult leaders who demonstrate the classic glazed eyes and strict adherence to group doctrine when engaged in I conversations. One staff member said they seemed "zombied out." California State University, Northridge, received a complaint from an ex-member of C.A.R.P. who was being ■ harassed by the cult. She eventually transferred to | another school. ; I Defamation | I Public institutions and individual administrators run ! the risk of defamation claims through anti-cult statements | I I and university sponsored anti-cult programs. None of the campuses surveyed were involved in either area. There was no cult awareness programming on all but two of the campuses. University of California, Los Angeles, and Cal State L.A. stated that the university religious center which is not a part of the institution sponsored cult awareness efforts on campus. Both campuses had sponsored programs in the early seventies when cults were very I active. 199 Administrator Knowledge Regarding Cults An administrators knowledge of cult groups can enhance the institution's ability to deal with them or it can | detract from fair treatment. Most campus administrators had a basic working knowledge while UCLA and Cal State I I L.A. administrators were above average in their level 'of j expertise. An accurate legal knowledge of how to deal with cults or access to legal counsel also influenced the | [ libelous atmosphere of an institution. California State ' University, Los Angeles; UCI; Cal State Long Beach; and CSUN have particularly open access to legal assistance. I University of California, San Diego; Cal State Fullerton; and UCSB expressed frustration over total isolation from legal advice. ! Liability Assessment California State College, San Bernardino Given the administration's assessment that there is no religious cult activity on campus through recognized or off-campus groups a liability assessment is not possible. An analysis of the institution's policies regarding student organizations would allow for a rule-abiding cult to exist on campus with fair treatment. 200 California State University, Dominguez Hills Given the administration's assessment that there is no religious cult activity on campus through recognized or off-campus groups a liability assessment is not possible. An analysis of the institution's policies regarding student organizations would allow for a rule-abiding cult to exist on campus with fair treatment. A conversation with one campus administrator not in charge of recognition, however, revealed an open anti-cult attitude. She stated that she would fight to deny a cult access to any university services. This attitude has great potential | I for violations of constitutional and civil torts if acted upon. California State University, Fullerton Despite the nonexistence of religious cults on campus | I I the treatment of recognized religious groups allows for some assessment of liability. California State University,* Fullerton possesses one of the more detailed sets of university policies regarding student organizations. The | recognition process and written policies governing denial j ! or withdrawal of recognition are legally sound in the ; treatment of groups, such as a cult. The legal downfall J I of such thorough rules is that in a lawsuit courts will 2 0 1 ! scrutinize whether the university followed its established policies in dealing with a situation. Mere existence of policy that is legally fair does not reduce liability. i California State University, Fullerton's absence of a , religious coordinating council is a barrier to these groups! ! enjoying benefits of recognition. This is a unique stipulation compared to the other ten campuses. Such a ! I requirement places a religious group at an unfair dis- | I ! advantage simply because the bureaucracy finds this arrangement easiest to disburse services. It is not a system established to discriminate against religious i I I groups but it does so in a subtle and possibly litigious way. The fact that Greek organizations receive such ; I things as mailing labels and that a religious group must ' get special permission to have the same also indicates unequal treatment. I A final indication of an existing level of liability ; concerns the religious group advisor who stated that she feels isolated from a liability problem being the low person in the hierarchy. Her nervousness and inexperience in dealing with cults could lead to libelous situations. 2 0 2 j California State University, Loner Beach In discussing the campus's lawsuit with C.A.R.P. over recognition with California State University's legal i 1 counsel it was described as "a situation where nobody knew _ what they were doing." It appears, however, that Student I . i Services and the Associated Students have learned a valuable lesson from that experience. The university's written policies regarding student groups are thorough and in reality are consistently applied to all types of | I organizations. In addition, while many administrators , interviewed were lulled into a false sense of security due i I to a decline in cult activity, this campus was concerned ' I that the movements were merely less obvious. The student funding board at Cal State, Long Beach has a record of denying cults money but the board was ! within its rights to do so as it was following written guidelines. Despite the student government's fair record < I it is a concern that any student funding body may act in ' an arbitrary or capricious manner with regard to cult j requests for funding. This creates an additional area of liability. 203 California State University, Los Angeles California State University, Los Angeles's activities j i advisors were among among the most knowledgeable regarding cult activity on campus. They were also the most tolerant ^ of advisors who deal with cults. This tolerance has ' I become a legal vulnerability. The fear of dealing harshly with cults who violate policy in the areas of proselyti zing, distribution of literature, political activity, and recruitment may avoid "legal hassles" at one end but could open up legal questions by other student groups demanding equal treatment. The university's treatment of cults may also be allowing cults to operate in illegal ways while adminis trators knowingly stand by. The student complaint about C.A.R.P.'s deceptive tactics should have been pursued through the disciplinary process. The university's decision not to follow its own guidelines leaves the institution open to negligence regarding failure to address the problem and allowing it to continue to exist. This i possibility also exists with regard to C.A.R.P.'s weekend retreats and deception. The incident regarding an attempt by the student to withdraw funding from C.A.R.P. because it was part of the I 204 > Unification Church indicates a concern for the group's bias and potential to act in an unlawful manner regarding ! I funding and other decisions. f I The university is to be commended for its handling of I the situation involving the freshman who joined C.A.R.P. | and dropped out of school. University procedures were followed and the right degree of support was offered to the parents. | California State University, Northridge j A great concern lies with this institution's high ’ degree of liability based on a pervasive dislike for cults ; I and cult-like organizations on campus. While defamation | I is the least of this institution's liability concerns, it ! is a possibility. The intense resistance by all levels of the administration toward the Krishna's Festival of India j sets the tone for other problem areas. This demonstrates i a lack of legal knowledge regarding Healy's "market place | of ideas." The "understanding" at the university that a cult would receive a "special review" must have a sound | basis to justify such irregular action outside the written j f recognition guidelines. | The university demonstrated great care in dealing with the student who was harassed by C.A.R.P. It is | 205 • unclear, however, as to why the student disciplinary process was not utilized with the leaders of C.A.R.P. This campus appears to have a permit to register for . every type of activity. This presents several opportuni- j ties for the university to wrongfully deny a permit. It \ also puts the institution in a position of having | knowledge regarding several aspects of a group's activity, j This could increase CSUN's liability for duty to care. New staff are in key student activities and student j I discipline positions which may significantly alter the | university's dealings with cults in a far more legal and less litigious manner. University of California, Irvine Liability concerns for this campus are based upon four areas. These are: perceptions of what constitutes a | cult; administrator suspicions of cult activity that have ( not been acted upon; lack of knowledge regarding legal j reasons for denying recognition ; and restriction of stu dent funds for religious groups. There is the potential j I for libelous situations to evolve in each of these areas. Anyone's personal experience can bias them with : regard to students and student groups. An administrator j at UCI had been personally involved with TM as a stress 206 . reduction technique and did not view it as a religion much j less a cult. This is a common misperception of the TM ! ! I groups that exist on campuses today and can increase a i group's ability to be deceptive in its activity. University of California, Irvine's student activities : office had observed suspicious behavior on the part of | Maranatha members including stereotypically cult-like ! glazed eyes and lack of critical thinking skills. While I it is appropriate that the university not pursue action j against the group through the disciplinary process it ! could be viewed as negligence if someone at the institu tion failed to address the issue with the group's leaders. i In discussing denial of university recognition of a > cult the administration was unclear as to whether popular ■ perceptions of a cult could be used as reasons to deny j recognition. Because the institution had not denied recognition to cults in the past it is less of a concern ' ! in the assessment of liability. The activities office had,! however, placed a ban on the Festival of India. This was ; due to the fact that the Krishnas had not indicated the | ! event would be for recruitment purposes. Potential ! liability lingers when administrators do not understand i when it is legally permissable to deny services. > I 207 ; Healy v. James (1972) did not address the issue of a student organization's right to funding and thus, left it to the discretion of the university. The University of California, Irvine, is, however, one of two campuses to I deny students government money to religious groups. This is based on a fear of violating the establishment clause. At the current time case law supports this stance. This, however, could change and UCI itself could become the test case. University of California, Los Angeles The most knowledgeable administrator surveyed regarding cults exists on the UCLA campus. He also demonstrates a commitment to their rights as well as those students who choose not to be a part of such groups. This, combined with a very thorough written set of university guidelines regarding student organizations makes the campus's liability assessment initially low. It is important, however, to take into account the high degree of cult activity on campus. This raises concern for liability. The university's two-tiered organization status— I I affiliated and independent— deals with several potentially! I libelous situations such as recognition, incidental j i 208 ' benefits, the role of external affiliations, and neutrality- As with UCI, student religious groups at UCLA , I may not apply for funds from the Associated Students. This j has the potential to be tested by a litigiously-oriented j group such as a cult. I I : ! I The university's authorization of the activities a j Î cult or any registered student organization gives the institution knowledge of the event- While it is doubtful, j I this could raise liability for any injury at the event. At present, case law is very mixed on such matters. The ! university, however, believes that authorization of the I activities allows the institution to have more knowledge 1 about activities and more control over them. = ! University administrators do have suspicions about the activity campus cults are engaged in but believe they : have no proof to pursue allegations. There is a potential ' for negligence if the institution does not take steps to I address the suspicions with cult leaders. I The last item regarding liability is a double-edged | sword. The institution no longer engages in cult aware ness programs in order to avoid accusations of defamation. I Such programs, however, could demonstrate the university's | 1 j duty to care in the event of a lawsuit involving a cult. 209 University of California, Riverside University of California, Riverside's well-written and specific university guidelines regarding student organizations has yet to be put to the same test as UCLA, , I Cal State L.A., or UCSB. The university's student affairs I I area is led by a broad-minded professional with an over- ' riding respect for diversity in the college setting. This , ! . i j combination of policy and professionalism leads me to j believe that the liability assessment of this campus with j regard to cult activities is low. The University of California, Riverside has had the i I luxury of being an academically-oriented campus of | manageable size. A small school atmosphere pervades the campus that adds to an administrator's sense of knowing and control. With the projections of an increase in , enrollment by 124% by the year 2000 it will be worth noting that changes will have to occur with regard to the treat ment of student groups. As the institution grows more cults may be attracted to the campus and their membership may expand. The university's ability to know what is happening with these groups will be far more difficult. 2 1 0 University of California, Santa Barbara The recognition guidelines at UCSB go to the greatest extent of any campus surveyed to delineate what ; I constitutes a religious organization and what are its | i privileges. The university's eight point "Provisions of } I Neutrality" further eliminate liability in terms of i violations of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I The probationary quarter each group must participate in ! * I affords the institution time to ensure that a group is not ' detrimental to the campus or its students. Inquiry into I external affiliations and the role they play also I anticipates problems. All of these policies are applied to all student groups. The university's laid-back atmosphere carries over to the university's concern regarding cults. There are no ! complaints or perceived problems so the university does not treat the groups with any special scrutiny. It is impressive that in accommodating to the Widmar ruling this ' I campus refunded its previous room charges to all recogni zed religious groups. The survey information obtained on UCSB indicates a knowledgeable staff who would deal with a ' I cult in a fair and legally expedient manner thus limiting j liability. | I _________________ 211 I University of California, San Diego The most startling concern revealed during a survey of| . I this campus was that the campus was in violation of Widmar j until the fall of 1985. This deprivation of religious groups' constitutional right to free expression through the use of campus facilities was realized when an activities j administrator attended a conference. The fact that this [ condition was allowed to exist on campus is one illustra tion of poor communication between UCSD and legal counsel. ! This leads to a serious concern for liability in any j number of other areas regarding cults and other student ' organizations. The university's other general liability exists with the Associated Students who "accidentally" funded an evan- ; I gelical magician to perform on campus. The university hand-I led the situation well but the reaction of the students to the religious nature of the group raises concern. The j campus could be liable for the unfair decision-making ■ ability of the student funding group regarding religious | groups and cults in particular. As on other campuses the | university is concerned with cults' suspected deceptive practices regarding recruitment. If this concern is not acted upon, the risk of liability in terms of negligence increases overtime. 212 Summary Despite their lack of publicity and visibility, cults are thriving on southern California's public university campuses. Their presence in combination with the litiga tion boom of recent years raises concern for the liability of public universities. Cults and student cult members may sue the university under constitutional torts for denial of rights to free ! expression, association, exercise of beliefs, and equal protection. This is typically due to improper denial of recognition, lack of due process, deprivation of benefits afforded other student organizations, and university involvement in conservatorship/deprogramming. Civil tort action is also a possibility in the area of defamation which could surface from administrative statements regarding cults or university-sponsored anti-cult ’ programming. Students and their parents may sue public I universities under civil torts for negligence when the ’ institution knowingly allows the risk of a destructive culti ! to exist without taking reasonable care to reduce or j eliminate that risk. Suit could also be brought on the ! grounds that in some instances the university should have | known of the risk involved and acted upon that knowledge. 213 , Often, the two sides of liability are in direct conflict. Allowing cults their constitutional rights can also perpetuate a risk which the university is also obligated to handle. Most liability issues identified in ' this survey of eleven southern California public I j universities are not of this "double-edged" nature, i Issues can be addressed in an effort to reduce and, in some cases, eliminate liability. L 214; CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study began, as stated in Chapter I, with an emphasis on the chaotic, uncertain, and troublesome times we live in. Characteristics of this not only surround educators and students but have permeated the universities ivory tower. Some college students react by postponing the responsibilities of adulthood; some continue to focus on themselves, the one thing they believe they can control; others find solace in escaping to a religious cult. Many join a significant portion of Americans in attempting to deal with the chaos. That is, through the creation of a litigious society obsessed with legal action at the mere whisper of an insult. While the focus of this study was on legal issues involving student rights and religious cults, the subject matter of litigation is clearly not restricted to these areas. As discussed in Chapter II, student rights, particularly in public higher education, developed through judicial rulings beginning nearly three decades ago and are still evolving. In fact, it seems that nothing is off 215 ! limits as possible subject matter in a lawsuit these days. Religious matters are, however, a significantly volatile and recurring focus of litigation due to the seeming contradictions between the two phrases in the freedom of ! religion clause and the less than definitive nature of court rulings on issues religious in nature. Such issues included educational matters dealing with prayer in the ! I I schools; indirect aid to sectarian schools, sex education, j and equal access to school facilities. There have also been larger societal issues including ) abortion, birth control, and the right to die. It becomes j I increasingly apparent why an individual becomes confused ' I about what is right and wrong after listening to church ' doctrine, parental teachings, peer pressure, and society's larger messenger-— the media. It should then be no sur prise that young people turn to the safety and solace of a cult which protects, loves, and gives definitive answers. In short, cults make order out of the chaos. i I It is when those promises are false and misleading, j when the protection becomes enforced isolation; questioning! j of the definitive answers is punished; and the love is * 1 equated with mental and physical abuse that the religious ! i cult becomes destructive. The attraction to cults, the ! 216 ; conversion, and too often, the harmful and illegal realities of membership were all discussed in Chapter II j as part of gaining a perspective in preparation for the j liability assessment. Additionally, Chapter II created I the necessary setting for the study through a description i I of each of the eleven southern California universities i surveyed. Chapter III dealt with the development of the j litigation theme through an analysis of the current status | of case law regarding religious groups and cults in particular in the public sector. Eight areas of possible liability for a public university with regard to religious I i cults provided the structure for the discussion. Those | same eight categories of analysis were used in describing the policies and procedures of each of the eleven southern California universities in Chapter IV. This allowed for . I an overall assessment of each public institution's j I liability based on the eight categories analyzed. Chapter IV attempted to bring the various components of the study t described in Chapters I, II, and III together in their j I application to realistic university settings. 217 ' Summary of the Study In studying the relationship of public universities to religious cults on campus, it is important to consider in particular the role of extra-curricular activities. A student's activity outside the classroom is an instrumental part of the overall academic experience in higher education. Activities range from recreational sports to student government, special interest clubs and student-run publications. The diversity of opportunities is a reflection of the student population and administra tion's tolerance for an open college community. The university and student affairs professionals in particular must be able to integrate and sometimes "protect" the richest aspects of this diversity which are often out of the mainstream. This reflection on public higher education's mission and student affairs professional roots must be combined with an understanding of American religious history. America's experimentation with religious freedom is firmly based on separation of church and state. This is reflected in our nation's Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other governing documents. Unfortunately, the paradox that history presents to us is the fact that many of those 218 who fled a lack of religious toleration soon became j ( intolerant of others. Regardless, to the founders, the ’ boundary of religious freedom was that it should not interfere with the public welfare. In other words, j individual religious believers were free to practice as they desired. Such freedom resulted in a diversity of religious groups with no one religious group having any particular authority over another - In the absence of a central unifying religion, the nation assumed— primarily through the system of public education— the role of advancing values and principles of democracy. When attempts were made to bring religion into ' the public educational system to assist with value ^ development, it was the American legal system which was ; 1 called upon to step in. Initially litigation involved i religion in the classroom on the elementary and secondary ' I school levels but by the 1970's it came to also include public higher education. Rather than secular parties ! taking the offense in lawsuits to end activities constituting establishment, it is now often the religious groups bringing suit to secure constitutional rights to free exercise, expression, and association. 219 Universities have been told that administratively the | j ski club and student group of Hare Krishnas are to be j treated equally. Several court cases have established j clear guideposts and discernible lines which are not to be ^ transgressed. Some lines, however, remain blurred. The i ; 'courts have not authorized the sponsorship of religious j I activities by universities . A thin line exists between the I legally forbidden religious program sponsored by the student government and sponsored programs which examine | I values and in which religious lifestyles are compared and : I contrasted, not promoted. The complexities are compounded when issues of civil liability for actions of student | i I religious cults are raised in a manner similar to the ski club, fraternities, and the intramural softball team. The large picture for cults and public universities isj complex. In spite of the guideposts provided by the legal system, there are probably more questions than answers. To: err on one side is to infringe upon religious freedom and ^ other first amendment guarantees. On the other hand, j I universities must maintain standards for the protection of ^ its constituents and pursuit of its mission. The public ! university should be a free and welcoming place for all j who wish to use it within reasonable guidelines which allow [ 220 the university to pursue its responsibility towards maintaining an educational environment. Societal Influence j The law does not and should not exist within a vacuum. Society tends to forget that the law is made by men and women for men and women and as such cannot escape ^ the influence of society. This does not make the law any j i I less fair or correct but rather points out its more human | dimension. For those who take the time to understand it, | I the law is not simply black or white. A number of | considerations are made in the course of a decision by a j court. These result in majority and dissenting opinions ; voiced by judges. In those texts are found hesitancies, | assertions, concerns over applicability, and, occasionally, the regret for once seemingly correct determinations made ' in past cases. The legal history of Supreme Court rulings regarding students rights and the relationship between religion and public education has been greatly influenced by society's biases and personalities on the Court. Early Court decisions reflected a strict separation of church and state based on the ideology of the framers of the Constitution. At the same time an anti-Mormon sentiment fanned the 2 2 1 flames of decisions against the religion which were ! distinguishing religious actions from religious beliefs j I (see, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 1878). The iubse- I I quent history of the religion clauses reveals an , I expanding awareness and acceptance of pluralism in America. What began as sectarian toleration and offers of privileges and exemptions has tended to become rights— for 1 I all kinds of religion and irréligion equally. The circle | of legitimacy has widened. But the movement has been slow, and practice has not kept up with the law of the land. The same conclusion can be reached with regard to the development of student legal rights on America’s public university campuses. Society’s deference to the wisdom of ! the ivory tower is reflected in centuries of judicial non- - intervention in the student-university relationship. It was the personal belief system of a District Court judge i I who agreed with Harvard Professor Warren Seavey that j created the innovation decision in Dixon v. Alabama State I i Board of Education (1961). It was a time of overwhelming j concern regarding civil rights and certainly was not ■ j judicial precedent that provided the motivation for the | court to break new ground. From that moment on the rapid | evolution of student rights "beyond the school house gate" 222 _ j brought down such icons of higher education as student suspension and expulsion processes, the right to associate with controversial campus groups, and freedom to speak out | I against institutions, issues, and actions on campus. All | of these rulings coincided with the slogans, rallies, and ■ lifestyles that demonstrated a new openness and tolerance in American society. Society's movement towards "meism" i in the 1970's was soon reflected in the rise of litigious ness in society which still exists today with no end in sight. It is clear that an accurate assessment of ; institutional liability for cults on campus could not have ] been conducted based on legal research alone. The | addition of sociological observations regarding the nature of cults and the eleven southern California public | I universities surveyed provided a more complete context in | which to realistically analyze the findings. Based on the ' background information, a setting was provided that ( allowed for the diversity of each institution to be taken | into account prior to assessing liability in each of the j eight categories. ! 1 223 Legal Precedent Do not be misled, however, in assuming that such an understanding would allow an illegal situation to exist in a public university- Where the law is Very clear such as | j regarding recognition or facility use, there is little i I I I that a court would tolerate in denying such a constitu- I tional right. On the other hand, there are issues related j j to institutional liability for cults that have not yet i i ' 1 been clarified such as funding, institutional parameters ] for negligence, and what constitutes defamation of a cult. In these situations, the specifics of the campus and cult : play a large role regarding the determination of liability on the part of the institution. i The legal analysis of student rights and the rights of: religious cults proved to take two different paths in developing the current status of the law in those areas. ! The development of the rights of students at public ; institutions began with Dixon over 25 years ago. During I ' that time the large number of cases, the courts openness to i adjudicate such cases, and the attention of premier legal I scholars to this area of educational law, produced a j I fairly detailed and lengthy set of guidelines and require-! ments for public universities. Several court cases across 224 the nation during the 1960's and 1970's added definition and specifics to the basic guidelines of procedural due process established in Dixon. In addition, a great number ; of cases during that same time dealt with substantive I issues involving the rights of students on campus. The j precedent established by the Court's rulings regarding the ! constitutional guarantees of free speech and association have a particular bearing on the legal rights of religious j cults as well- Despite the fact that Tinker v. Des Moines ! ■ ' ■ I School District, (1969); Papish v- Board of Curators of the I University of Missouri (1972); Healv v. James (1972); and ; Widmar v. Vincent (1981), addressed issues in the public university setting the cases also asserted the Court’s opinion that constitutional rights are granted to all I Americans everywhere. ( Case law regarding religion dates back as far as the ' 1800’s. Over the past one hundred years case law | regarding religious groups has swung between a strict I separationist view and an accommodationist bent by the , courts. It is still not possible to assemble a lengthy I list of definitive guidelines and requirements regarding | the treatment of religious groups. The Supreme Court, ] however, did develop the three-pronged Lemon v. Kutzman 225 . (1971) test during the Court's history of dealing with religion and the state. The test, which determines the question of whether or not establishment of religion was involved, has been used inconsistently by the Court in i recent years. Regardless, the Court has done nothing to i I i diminish its precedents1 value through its occasional : I i ! omission and has enforced its influence when the Court has j relied upon its three criteria of secular legislative purpose; primary effect; and excessive entanglement. The I predominant case regarding free exercise of religion is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) in which the Court acknowledged j that under appropriate circumstances the right to exercise I I I religious beliefs may be considered greater than the states? i compelling interest. Despite judicial confirmation that many cults are j religions, the courts have chosen to steer clear of the j religious clause when involved in judicial review. Rather, issues of freedom of expression, association and equal | protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of , the Constitution become areas of concern and enforcement. ; I These are the same constitutional freedoms asserted in | student rights litigation. When the rights of religious I groups and students are combined a few specific legal ; 226 points are clear. Equal treatment of religious groups is the baseline premise for public universities. This covers issues of recognition, facility use, free speech, and sponsorship of speakers and programs. j What is less clear when relying on legal precedent is 1 I the area of institutional liability for the activities of j cults operating on campus. College and university counsel have traditionally maintained that the closer the , ! university's ties to the student group the more liable the i i institution becomes in the event of a problem. ! Universities generally accord student groups substantial | discretion in terms of finances, programs, meetings, and purpose so long as the group's actions are lawful. Just | how much discretion lis often a matter raised during litigation. University administrators should understand j that in point of law, institutional responsibility for fee- funded campus organizations remains intact, not with standing the autonomy of student governing groups. University liability for the activities of student organi zations may be diminished when such organizations are independently incorporated and sustained by funds solicited by the organizations themselves. 227 ! Universities do, however, establish policies and procedures by which each recognized student group must abide. The extent to which a university can be held j accountable for the consequences of not enforcing regula tions was the issue in a case recently before the Colorado I Supreme Court. In the initial 1985 decision in University ; V . Denver V . Whitlock (1987), the university's knowledge ; j : I of a hazard and failure to deal with the situation prior ' I i to the student's injury was a contributing factor in determining the institution's liability. This was later reversed. Issues of contributory negligence and forseeable', risk have been established in numerous other cases ; involving student groups, university facilities, and related activities. While precedent indicates that j institutional negligence can be found in lawsuits brought ' against the university the value of such rulings ends ' there. Each set of circumstances and actions by adminis- | trators will differ enough to make the certainty of liability uncertain. The message is clear that if a university administra tor has knowledge or suspicion of a policy or law viola- j tion they should address the situation immediately in | order to remove the problem. This demonstrates a standard ' 228 of care that will be appreciated by the courts. Negligence | I is the failure of an administrator to act on such a ; 1 concern and to have injury result. Proof of such injury in? I I a religious and destructive cult could be difficult should | the damage be mental coercion or false imprisonment, I I I I ! issues that have not stood up in a court of law. This, ' ' I 1 however, should not excuse the administrator from ful- ' ' ! filling their obligation to creating a safe and productive ; I learning environment on campus. One of the most significant developments in higher education law in the past several years has been the filing, I of cases involving liability under civil rights law, I Section 1983. Many cases are now being filed, particularly; by cult members, under these laws or the Constitution, and it is becoming commonplace for plaintiffs to ask for j monetary damages and attorney fees. In any action of this ' I type the plaintiff has the burden to establish that his or her civil rights have indeed been infringed. Courts have not, however, been willing to assess monetary damages. j The question is : are all or soma public post- [ I secondary institutions sufficiently like local government units that they will be considered "persons" and thus ' I jsubject to liability under Section 1983? The answer ! j 229 depends not only on a close analysis of Monell v. Depart ment of Social Services (1978); Quern v. Jordan (1979); Maine v. Thiboutot (1980) ; and Vaucrhn v. Regents of the University of California (1981) but also on an analysis of the particular institution's organization and structure ' under state law. Locally based institutions, such as ■ community college district, are the most likely candidates for "person" status. At the other end of the spectrum, j institutions established as state agencies under the direct control of the state are apparently the least likely | candidates. This distinction is appropriate since the I I Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from certain suits in , federal court. The Interviews An analysis of the interviews conducted was presented | in Chapter IV. The most positive finding was that a \ majority of the professionals interviewed were knowledge able regarding basic but important legal matters with respect to cults such as equal access to facilities, rights to recognition, and freedom of expression. This was most likely due to the fact that the calibre of professionals at California public universities was high to begin with. Continued professional development, 230 knowledgeable superiors, communication with legal counsel, and longevity in the position contributed to keeping i current on legal issues impacting their jobs. The more disconcerting finding was the occasional | pocket of legal ignorance encountered with otherwise saavy j I staff members. These professionals included new and long term educators and the issues they were unsure about were diverse. How these professionals could demonstrate an understanding of the law in a variety of related issues and not in one particular area was confusing. This complicated the search for a uniform solution. One administrator was unclear on the appropriate reasons for denying a group recognition. Another was certain that receiving funds from the associated student group was against the state constitution. Only a year ago one campus interviewed was still denying religious groups the right to use university facilities for religious activities. Equal protection and treatment was understood in the very general areas of student group benefits but when it came to lesser known benefits such as mailing lists the religious groups were initially not afforded this privilege. On a number of campuses the associated student group which was involved in recognition and funding 231 decisions was as ignorant on proper legal protocol as some administrators. There appeared to be gross lack of training or advising regarding legal issues surrounding these potentially liable matters for the university. j The survey also revealed that legal problems these i institutions had in the past regarding cults had not only I been rectified but the campus policies were among the most specific, fair, and student-oriented. It was apparent that in most cases those universities with the most thorough written policies, knowledgeable staff, and lowest liability; assessment had frequent and useful contact with legal counsel. The greatest area of liability weakness with most of I the eleven campuses was regarding the issue of negligence. ; ! Several administrators suspected harmful or illegal j I activities but had not addressed this with the cult in any ' way. Various forms of rationalization existed regarding their reasons for not dealing with their suspicions such as the events in question were held off campus; the events in question were not sponsored by the local cult but rather by the national cult; the university could not identify suspected cult members by name; and fear of a lawsuit by the cult against the administrator. 232 Any administrative fears of cults were dwarfed by the resistance on almost every campus by the organized campus religious council. These councils are not sponsored by 1 the university but they are comprised of mainstream | : religions that cater to the student population. Council j j I j members were either in fear of a cult attempting to join j I I or had already spent twenty years keeping them out. None- j theless, the students, faculty, and staff at the eleven i institutions's largely ignored the cults and simply | tolerated them in recognizing their right to exist. The noticeable lack of cult awareness programs on campuses may also contribute to this reaction. It is obvious that university professionals dealing with student groups do not have the time or expertise to understand the historical-legal nature of first amendment guarantees of free speech, religion, and association as well as the fourteenth amendment's equal protection guarantees. Negligence and defamation were more familiar terms to the interviewed professionals but they were not anymore educated in these matters. University legal counsel or on-campus legal advisors were, in very few cases, providing the understanding of these constitutional i guarantees as applied to that particular university i _____________ _ ___ _ ' ____________ 233 I setting. Civil torts education of staff was unheard of by all interviewed. In discussing the study with university attorneys all were quite accepting of legal situations ! arising out of administrator ignorance- This assures that j t problems between at least some of these eleven public universities and religious cults will surely arise, most likely around the less definitive issues but possibly around the definitive as well. Findings of the Study Religious cults are active to varying degrees on most southern California public university campuses. While most faculty, staff, and students tend to take the existence of cults in stride, the university administra tors responsible for these recognized student groups were typically more concerned with legal issues related to religious cults on campus- It has been determined through this study that in order to reduce liability at the public university, administrators must have a thorough knowledge of legal issues pertaining to students, student organizations, and religious cults. This encompasses an understanding of four essential constitutional guarantees— freedom of expression, association, and religion and equal protection. 234 The right to free speech and to associate with a group regardless of the viewpoint or belief as long as it is "lawful" seems to be well understood among public university administrators. What is less clear to the administrator, legal scholar, and court are the establish ment and free exercise clauses. The most certain which can be said is that the establishment clause was written to prevent a national church or domination of one religion over others. The free exercise clause was written to ensure that all beliefs were protected no matter how radical or unconventional from mainstream religion. What I i complicates the honoring of the religion clause is the | I ruling in Reynolds v. United States (1878) and later in I United States v. Ballard (1944) which separates out belief j from action. Often these are inseparable and it is j I difficult to discern ans from the other. Equal treatment under the law (or university policy) is the basis upon which principles of fairness are based in the university setting. Its application by administrators, however, is complicated by the issue of religious establishment, how ever, when certain student organization benefits are I granted to religious cults; possibly funding- The most certain finding is that constitutional freedoms have been 235 an acknowledged right of college students since the early I960's. Public universities have had several years to accommodate policies in compliance and to develop methods of enforcement to meet the established judicial guidelines. In areas of waivering certainty such as establishment issues which become entangled with constitutional rights, universities may simply have to rely on court rulings for further clarification. i I Dealing with religious cults and then the destructive j versions of those groups has become more complex than ' honoring constitutional freedoms. The concept of constitu tional torts and tort liability for negligence or defamation complicates the liability an institution could j incur. Thus far, case law rules in favor of the univer- | I sity. Administrators interviewed admitted to "crossing | their fingers" when any student group sponsored an event. ! The problem with destructive dults is that the institution | is not aware of the group's activities unlike most other student groups. Prevention of a harmful or injurious 1 situation becomes difficult despite the group's recognized | status with the institution. The underground nature of j these groups, deceitful practices for the good of the cult, and an excessive belief system create the possibility of 236 ; problems which places the institution in a vulnerable position. This is because, as several administrators admitted in their interviews, there are suspicions around j campus regarding unlawful or damaging cult behavior but 1 these have not been addressed with the cult. Often , I I ! administrators are reluctant to confront the cult out of ' fear over legal repercussions and the hard facts. Grounds ; I for confronting the group are not, however, required to ba | based on the same firm basis as action such as removal of recognition- Again, suspicions regarding groups should be dealt with beyond cults so that specific harassment is not taking place. In general it seems that public university campus | I liability is greatest in terms of negligence for not j addressing suspicions and complaints against cults through j the established institutional procedures. While mere | I suspicion of cult activity in violation of university | policy or the law is not grounds to deny privileges the I I suspicions should trigger some form of university confron- j tation with the group regarding the perceived wrongdoing. At this point in time a public university has not been sued by an ex-cult member or the parent of a cult member for the university's contribution to the negligent 237 situation which allowed the destructive cult to operate on campus and recruit the student. Ex-members and parents have, however, sued the cults for their harmful practices with mixed success. Proving the actual injury has been a difficult point for the plaintiff. Despite this, given the increasing litigiousness of our society combined with rising litigation against universities and colleges, the odds are increasing that such a suit will materialize in the years ahead. The plaintiff's chances of a successful suit are intensified if the institution's negligence in monitoring activity, enforcing university policy, and in dealing with suspected violations can be proven- Conclusions 1. The existence of religious cults on college campuses contributes to He aly v. James's (1972) vision of the university as a market place of ideas. Administrators interviewed stated that cult meetings and open forum proselytizing often drew in students with varying points of view who initiated critical dialogue with cult members. If the cult was "destructive" such open discussion often revealed the group for what it really was. In addition, all those present were forced to clarify their own beliefs. The belief system has value beyond the religious 238 realm. It can serve to develop a student's sense of self in terms of personal values and priorities. At the very least it is hoped that students can learn an important lesson regarding first amendment freedoms by the mere I existence of cults on campus. I I Cults have also served to promote the more mainstream 1 religions on campuses. In the few efforts to create cult I awareness the more mainstream religions have gained exposure among students. Their ability to recruit was enhanced as an incidental benefit of cult activity- Whether a student joins a more mainstream religion or religious cult, there is the positive factor that the i student has found a support group of people with similar ? interests. This can be particularly important but harder | to establish on a predominantly commuter campus. It is j I also important that the cult not be involved in destruc- j I tive behavior. | I 2. Despite the university's ability to enforce I reasonable regulations with regard to cults, destructive groups do exist on campus as recognized student organize- ^ tions. Administrators can work with these organizations. | F The various rulings in favor of religious cults and > ; against public universities regarding recognition and use ? I I 239 of campus facilities have not, as is commonly perceived, worked against the university but rather in favor of it. The visibility of these groups on campus, their constitution and other registration information, and inter action with other student leaders and university staff have brought these groups more and more into the mainstream of campus life. This enables an institution to have greater awareness of the cults activities, better communication with leaders and knowledge of who are the members. It also serves to demystify the nature of these groups which may be an attraction to some students. The more these groups become a part of student life the more administrators can work with the organizations to bring their deceptive and harmful conduct under control. It could be argued that universities actually increase their control over these groups when they are formally recognized by the institution. Once the organiza tion is recognized, it has a vested interest in abiding by institutional policies to protect the legitimizing value recognition brings. Groups then become a part of the "religious establishment" which tends to have a moderating effect. Universities must not, however, be deceived by good public relations by a religious cult or any other ^ ____ 240 student group. Destructive cults are masters at deception. 3. Recent court decisions regarding religious cults j I and religious student organizations on campus signals a j i renewed interest in the religious clauses and in university: I . . • I policy, Widmar v. Vincent (1981) and Aman v. Handler i (1981) illustrated the balancing of student and university ' rights required by the courts. Courts are maintaining an ! accommodationist trend between church and state. In I J Widmar the court apparently reasoned that when the free j exercise and establishment clauses collide head on as they did in this case, the establishment clause must bow to the I I interests protected by the free exercise clause. j I The courts have not been as predictable with regard | to civil tort liability. The mixed bag of cases merely solidifys the strong suspicion that public universities were not going to be released from responsibility regarding student behavior or injury. Given the results of the liability assessment it should not be surprising if a southern California public university became a testing ground for further religious cult litigation. 4. One of the problems university administrators and I students face in dealing with cult groups on campus is 241 discovering who they are. Cult members are often told that it is perfectly acceptable to lie and deceive people ^ in positions of authority because what they are doing for | the cult is for a much greater good. It is not uncommon for cults to withhold the name of the organization from I not only prospective members but also from the university. | Names used such as Collegiate Association for the Research | of Principles (C.A.R.P.) and International Meditation Society do not connote a religious purpose much less a cult group. Even knowing that C.A.R.P. is associated with • Moon's Unification Church does not help because the I I I organization has approximately 130 different front groups, I I I at least 23 of which are used by the Moon organization to j I recruit on college campuses. Some campuses surveyed | required a student organization to list any external affiliation on the registration form. A deceitful group, however, would lie in this instance as well. 5. Destructive religious cults do exist and can do a great deal of harm to the individual student, the campus, and in the long run, to society. Protecting one's self and the institution from liability is one motivator for dealing with these organizations. In addition, university administrators have a responsibility toward their students. 242 Universities have a commitment to the personal growth and development of students; not as parents to protect students from the evils of the world, but as educators, to ensure that these young people are making informed choices. It is also a basic legal issue of educational philosophy. Cults, through the conversion process, close off and break down the logical faculties of the mind by robbing members of critical thinking skills, intellectual growth, and self development. This is in direct opposition to the principles for which universities exist. For this reason an institution cannot give blanket approval to the actions and behavior of these groups by recognizing them as student organizations, allowing them to use university facilities, and so forth. It is also not acceptable for universities to turn their heads and ignore these groups, hoping thât they will dis appear. Universities cannot deal with destructive cults alone. They must utilize every legal, social, political, and religious resource available in dealing with the harmful and illegal actions of some cult organizations. Recommendations The only sure thing about the legal implications of religious cult activity for public universities in 243 California is that there is no sure thing. Nonetheless, public institutions can take some reasonable measures to ensure safe, unrestricted extracurricular activity by such student groups on campus. 1. As a way of setting parameters for permissible activity by religious cults on campus, the public institution should develop a set of clearly stated institutional policies to be applied to all student organ- | 1 izations. I a. Every student organization should be required to submit a constitution with specific attention to stating the current name of the organization; any previous history regarding the organization at that particular institution such as former names and whether the group left in good standing with the university; all external affiliations the organiza tion has; and the purpose for which the group is being formed. All groups with affiliations should be required to use the external organization's name in conjunction with the local group's name so that the groups is properly identified. Whenever a group is exercising its constitutional rights with the full name of the group. For example, this name should 244 appear on all advertisements, recruitment publica tions, and solicitation materials. b. Universities should develop a written set of I policies that specifically prohibit the use of I I coercive mental or physical techniques and other | I forms of coercive persuasion by student groups. Many j institution's currently have specific policies | i against hazing which lists mental abuse as one facet i I of forbidden activity. Campuses should review this | stipulation so that it is worded in such a way that it could apply to a diverse group of student organi zations including a destructive cult. Several universities require fraternities and sororities to sign a statement of understanding regarding what constitutes hazing and the ramifications of violating the policy. Since other student organiza tions are also likely to engage in such destructive behavior every student organization should sign such a statement with each change in student leadership and at each registration period. c. Policies should be written in specific terms regarding use of facilities, funding, public speaking, dissemination of information, scheduling 245 off-campus speakers, fundraising, and disclaimers of university sponsorship. Most institutions' surveyed were very clear in these areas. What then becomes important is to ensure that all staff follow university guidelines in dealing unilaterally with all student groups. d. Universities should develop a policy on the recruitment of new members by student organizations, which are not permitted to: (1) use any form of deception; (2) use excessive pressure, harassment^ or threats to recruit or retain students; (3) enter the private sanctity of prospective members without invitation; and (4) may not recruit door to door in residence halls or university-owned fraternities, I sororities, office buildings, or classrooms. | e. It is to the institution's and group's advantage ; if they are required to have an active on-campus | advisor. Several campuses urge but do not require this due to the difficulty in securing someone. This | would, however, act as a deterrent in dealing with | I inappropriate behavior. Advisor education, written 246 guidelines, and communication with student activities I I advisors could assist in recruiting a knowledgeable | 1 advisor to focus the group in a positive direction- | I t Since he or she would be selected by the group, the 1 advisor could serve as a strong influence. ! 1 f. There is no requirement that a public university | recognize a student organization that is composed in j part of individuals not affiliated with the university! Universities reasonably may restrict recognition to i groups comprised solely of students, faculty, and | staff. g. Many public universities prohibit the use of j campus facilities to support the advancement of , external commercial activity. If it is discovered that a religious cult's primary purpose is commer cial, the university may be able to deny or withdraw recognition. At the very least the student organiza tion would be subjected to additional regulations regarding commercial activity. h. Universities should have established a written procedure to withdraw and to deny recognition of a student organization- The system must be based on explicit rules, and it must be substantively and 247 procedurally fair. This should, of course, be reviewed by legal counsel and other necessary political groups prior to final adoption. The policy must be followed unilaterally with regard to all student organizations. 1. Campuses should have an administrative procedure ! I in place to deal with the less factual but i significantly suspicious behavior or complaints regarding student groups, including religious cults, j Such a policy would force administrators to deal with | groups prior to an injurious situation in a less j formal setting than a review or hearing. ' 2. The institution possesses a responsibility for j I all staff who work with student organizations. This also includes campus advisors to student groups. It is i incumbent on the institution to train all such personnel , I to enact the institution’s policies on student organize- j tions. Staff must know the extent of their authority and ' I of their personal liability in the decisions they must i implement daily. This must occur on an on-going basis so that staff receive the most current and useful information ■ 1 I regarding the legalities involved in working with all | student groups, religious cults in particular. This would ! 248 ' allow for a uniform understanding and compliance with the definitive rulings of Widmar, Healy, and Aman. It would also allow the institution to anticipate and plan for those constitutional issues to be raised in the future. | ! This is likely to include a religious cult's right to funding from student activity fees on those campuses where ; ! this is not permitted. Other areas of potential j ; I litigation include negligence with regard to a cult's i activities and defamation with regard to cult awareness I efforts. ' I 3. On those campuses where student government plays , a significant role in granting recognition or awarding j i funds to a student organization, knowledgeable staff should provide educational sessions along with written guidelines | to ensure compliance with the law. On a majority of the campuses interviewed the student government had their own I legal counsel on retainer. It was pointed out, however, ^ that this person changed quite often with student leader- I ship changes. Legal advisors are selected more by friend-j j ships rather than the attorney's expertise in educational | law. While the student government should have the ! ability to change legal counsel, it is important that they be advised on the qualifications to look for in selecting 249 ! such an attorney along with the advantages of low turnover in this position. 4. Universities should be supportive of off-campus religious centers that cater to the student population. Student activities personnel should establish a working relationship with such a group to better serve the needs of all student organizations but student religious groups in particular. This also enables the religious directors to be knowledgeable in the privileges accorded student religious groups and their own off-campus « organization (i.e., facility use, dissemination of information). If religious cults are a part of such an off-campus center it will allow the university to increase lines of communica tion with the group. If cult awareness programming is not in existence, as on most of the campuses surveyed, the religious center could be called upon to coordinate such an effort. 5. Universities should arrange for educational programs on campus that would create an awareness among students and staff regarding destructive cult practices. Students and parents should receive information through programs beginning as early as summer orientation and ! following up with awareness sessions in the residence 250 ' halls, greek houses, in the student union, and at activity fairs. Institution's should create a "Learn to Be a Questioner" brochure that advises students on how to select a student organization that is appropriate for them. I This brochure should include a list of campus resource ! I staff to assist the student with concerns. An off-campus religious council could develop a more specific brochure for students regarding recruiting practices and promises made by cults. Staff should receive professional development regarding destructive cults. Training sessions should be held with residence hall staff, campus I I activities staff, other student personnel professionals, i and religious directors. ' It is not necessary nor is it wise for the university | to wage a war to discredit a particular religious cult. | It may be most effective to disseminate information regarding recruitment and conversion techniques and | provide informational programs on the cult movement on American college campuses. Personal testimonies by former j cult members as well as audio-visuals are effective media vehicles. The important point is not to attack a certain i. group on jaampu_s_ as. much _as it is to create an awareness among students and staff regarding these types of 251 specific organizations so people can make informed i I decisions. i ] 6. The university should develop a plan for an , official response to litigation resulting from its j relationship with a religious cult or any student group. | i It is far better to spend the time in developing a | procedure that may never be used than to be caught without | such a plan in the event of litigation. The plan should incorporate all legal counsel within the institution, for j I the student government, and outside of the university. j Specific roles should be assigned to each of these j attorneys as well as other key administrators. A j I hierarchy of command and who should contact whom as liti- I gation ensues would be useful. A spokesperson, preferably j I the public relations director, should be designated to ! deal with media while legal counsel should designate the ! one contact for the plaintiff at the university. Strict * i adherence to the plan is imperative to its worth. ! In dealing with an official response to litigation it j I is important that a policy be established to assess | factors in the situation being litigated. A plan to inter-- view all university personnel who may have information in I preparing a legal response must be executed in a timely 252 ! manner. Assessment also needs to consider the political climate on and off campus. Often, community relations play a critical role in the timing and type of university response to litigation. 7. Because public universities will continue to deal with religious cults amidst the litigiousness of society, an increase in litigation involving these organizations seems to be inevitable. For that reason careful planning alone cannot deal with the problem. What is also necessary is additional research on the less definitive topic areas regarding institutional liability and religious cults. As has been noted, situations exist on southern California universities that could provide the test case for settling such issues as a religious group's right to funding, defamation for anti-cult programs, and negligence on behalf of the university for the destructive activities of a recognized religious cult. Additionally, the law is constantly changing. As new rulings are set forth by the courts, a liability assessment will be altered in any number of ways. 253 REFERENCES General Sources REFERENCES Abraham, H. J. (1982). Freedom and the court. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexander, K., & Soloman, E. S. (1972). College and university law. Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Company. Altbach, P. G., & Berdahl, R. O. (1981). Higher education in American society. Buffalo, N. Y.: Prometheus. America's Q & Aman. (1987). Newsweek, June 15, 1985, pp. 50-56. Anderson, J. W. (1981). The constitutional rights of college students to use state-owned university buildings for religious services. The Notre Dame Lawyer, 5_7 (91) , 91-111. I Arnold, O. C. (1978). Religious freedom on trial. Valley ; Forge, Pennsylvania : Judson Press. j i Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence : | A critical assessment of priorities and practices in ; higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. j Bauer, J. A. (1983). The constitutionality of student fees for political student groups in the campus public forum: Galda v. Bloustein and the right to associate. Rutgers Law Journal, 15, 135-185. Biemiller, L. (1983). Campuses trying to control religious cults. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 1983, pp. 1; 7;8. Black, H. C. (1979). Black's law dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West. Blimling, G. S. (1981). Cults, college students, and campus policies. NASPA Journal, Autuim 1981, 19 (2), 2-11. 255 Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational measure ment. New York: Longman. j Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate I experience in America. New York: Harper and Row. i t I I Boyer, E. L., & Kaplan, M. (1977). Educating for survival. Washington, D.C.: Change Magazine Press. ' ' I Boyer, E. L., & Levine, A. (1981). A guest for common j learning: The aims of general education. Princeton, | New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement | of Teaching. ! I Bromley, D. G., & Hammond, P. E. (1987). The future of | new religious movements. Macon, Georgia : Mercer University Press. , Brubacher, S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in | transition. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. | I Burstein, A. (1980). Religion, cults and the law. j Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications. i t Byrne, D. (1982). Heffron v. Iskcon; The tenuous touch stone— a step in the wrong direction? Houston Law Review, 1,9, 325-338. Cass, J., & Birnbaum, M. (1985). Comparative guide to American colleges. New York: Harper and Row. Caughey, J. W. (1975). The California gold rush. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chickering, A. (1972). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The dhilling impact of litigation. (1977). Business Week, June 6, 1977, pp. 58-64. Clark, B. R. (1985). Listening to the professoriate. Change, 1/7 (4) , 36-43. 256 Clark, J. (1979). Cults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 242, 179-281. The college blue book. (1987). (21 st.ed.). New York: Macmillan. Conservatorships and religious cults: Divining a theory ' of free exercise. (1978). New York University Law i Review, 53, 1247-1289. " ' Conway, F., & Siegleman, J. (1978). Snapping: America's : epidemic of sudden personality change. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. | Coons, F. (1974). The developmental tasks of the college j student. In D. DeCoster and P. Mable (Eds.), I Student development and education in college I residence halls. Washington, D.C.: American College | Personnel Association. ' Cox, H. (1977). Eastern cults and western culture : Why i young Americans are buying oriental religions. Psychology Today, July 1977, 11, 36—41. Cox, H. (1977). Turning east. New York: Simon and Schuster. Cross, K. P. (1984). The rising tide of school reform reports. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 167-172. Cult Awareness Network Citizens Freedom Foundation. (1986) Destructive cults in America : A statement of the i problem. Chicago, Illinois : Author. j Cuyjet, M. J., Gilbert, N. S., & Conboy, P. M. (1983). ' Student organizations : Some legal implications. In M. J. Barr (Ed.), Student Affairs and the Law, pp. ; 53-65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ! Davis, M. (1979). Testimony before a special U.S. Senate , committee entitled, "Information Meeting on the Cult j Phenomenon in the United States," February 5, 1979. I I Delgado, R. (1977). Religious totalism: Gentle and | ungentle persuasion under the first amendment. j Southern California Law Review, 5i, November 1977, 1-98. 257 Delgado, R. (1982). Cults and conversion. Georgia Law Review, 16, 533-574. Dohrman, H. P. (1975). The cult transformation. In Roy Wallis (Ed.), Sectarianism. New Yorks John Wiley and Sons. Enroth, R. (1980). The lure of the cults. Chappaqua, New York; Christian Herald Books. Fitzgerald, L. E., Johnson, W. F., & Morris, W. (Eds.). (1970). College student personnel. Boston Houghton Mifflin. Franki, V. E. (1963). Man's search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books, Freilich, R. H., & Carlisle, R. G. (1983). Section 1983; Sword and shield. American Bar Association Press, New York. Gardner, J. W. (1978). Morale. New York: Norton. j Gibbs, A. (1979). Gay student organizations on campus: ; The controversy continues. Journal of College | Student Personnel, 20, 485-489. ' I 1 Gibbs, A. (1984). Colleges and gay student organizations :I An update. NASPA Journal, 22, 38-42, j ! Gifis, S. H. (1975), Law dictionary. Woodbury, New York: Barron's Educational Series. Goldman, A. L. (1966). The university and the liberty of | its students— a fiduciary theory. Kentucky Law | Review, 54, 643-698. | ! Greene, R. H. (1977). People v. religious cults : Legal | guidelines for crimal activities. Suffolk | University Law Review, 11, 1025-1058. | Hayek, F, A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 258 I Hexham, I., & Poewe, K. (1986). Understanding cults and new religions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. I Hinnells, J. R. (Ed.). (1984). The penguin dictionary of i religions. Penguin Books. | I Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What i every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton ! Mifflin. I Holmes, G. W. (Ed.). (1969). Student protest and the j law. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute of Continuing | Legal Education. - | Horowitz, I. L. (1978). Science, Sun and Scholarship. Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, Howarth, D., & Connell, W. D. (1981). Students' rights to organize and meet for religious purposes in the university contest. Valparaiso University Law Review, 16, 103-143. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego: Edits Publishers. Jackson, B. L., & Richardson, R. L. (1975). Legal issues in higher education : A look toward the future. Journal of College Student Personnel, 16, 514-519. Jackson, R. M., & Rothney, J. W. M. (1961). A compara tive study of the mailed questionnaire and the interview in follow-up studies. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 39, 569-571. Jayson, L. S., Killian, J. H., Beckey, S., & Durbin, T. (Eds.). (1972). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court to June 29, 1972. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Jones, G. W. (1981). Students and the practice of religion on the campus. NASPA Journal, 1^(3), Winter 1981, 2-7. 1 259 : Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy; The management révolution* in American higher education. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kionka, E. J. (1977) . Torts : Injuries to persons and property. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company. Komarovsky, M. (1985). Women in college : Shaping new feminine identities. New York: Basic Books. Konvitz, M. R. (1968). Religious liberty and conscience. New York: Macmillan- Korns, W. (1979). Cults in America and public policy. Editorial Research Reports, 3^, April 13, 1979, 267. Kurland, P. B. (1962). Religion and the law. Chicago: Aldine Press. Laffey. T., & Henderson, R. (1987). Personal Communication, June 30, 1987. Leparulo, L. S. (1981). The rights of student religious groups under the first amendment to hold religious meetings on the public university campus. Rutgers Law Reviewi 33, 1008-1053. Levine, A. (1978). Handbook on undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lieberman, J. K. (1981). The litigious society. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Litturn, S. (1986). The postponed generation; Why Aftierican youth are growing up later. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Lynn, B. (1979). Testimony before a special U.S. Senate Committee entitled, "Information Meeting on the Cult Phenomenon in the United States," February 5, 1979. 260 Martz, L, (1987a). God and money. Newsweek, April 6, 1987, pp. 16-22. Martz, L. (1987b). Keeping God out of the classroom. Newsweek, June 29, 1987, pp. 23-24. Meagher, P. K., O'Brien, T. C., & Aherne, C. M. (Eds.). (1979). Encyclopedic dictionary of religion. Washington, D.C.: Corpus Publications. Michael, G. E. (1971). The student-school legal relationship: Toward a unitary theory. Suffolk University Law Review, 4681-4486. j I Michaelsen, R. (1964). The supreme court and religion in | public higher education. Journal of Public Law, 13, ' 343-352. Millington, W. G. (1979). The law and the college student : Justice in evolution. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, | Millington, W. G. (1986). The purposes and functions of American higher education: Definitions and limita- ! tions. Unpublished paper. Department of Higher and ' Postsecondary Education, School of Education, • University of Southern California. j I Morgan, R. E. (1972). The supreme court and religion. | New York: The Free Press. j Morrill, R. C., Mount, E. C., & Fass, R. A. (1986). In j loco parentis revisited? Change, 2^(1), 34-41. ' Morrow, L. (1988). 1968- Time, January 11, 1988, pp.12-23 j Moser, C. A. (1972). Survey methods in social investiga- j tion. New York: Basic Books. Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York : Warner Books. National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning : Realizing the potential of American j higher education. Washington, D.C.: Author. j 261 Needleman, J., & Baker, G. (Eds.). (1978). Understandina the new religions. New York: Seabury Press. Newell, L. M. (1982). Use of campus facilities for first amendment activity. Journal of College and University Law, 2# 27-39. Parrinder, E. G. (1973). A dictionary of nonchristian religions. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Parry, R., & Jacoby, T. (1987). Coveraid and the church. Newsweek, June 15, 1987, pp. 27-28. Pavlos, A. J. (1982). The cult experience. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Piele, P. K., & Pitt, S. M. (1984). The use of school facilities by student groups for religious activities. Journal of Law and Education, 13, 197- 207. Pritchett, B. (1976). Religious cults. Staff Paper of the Office of Research and Analysis of the American Lutheran Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Prosser, W., & Keeton, W. (1984). The law of torts (5th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West. Quarantelie, E. L., & Wenger, D. (1973). A voice from the 13th century: The characteristics and conditions for the emergence of a Ouija board cult. Urban Life and Culture, 1^, 379-400. Ritner, P. (1961). The society of space. New York: Macmillan. Robbins, T, (1980). Religious movements, the state, and the law: Reconceptualizing "the cult problem." Review of Law and Social Change, B _ , 33-49. Roles religion plays. (1984). Newsweek, September 17, 1984, pp. 31-32. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. New York : Vintage Books. 262 Schurmann, F. (1984), Today's protests spring from ancient Christianity. Long Beach Press— Telegram, January 22, 1984, p. 87. Sciarrino, A. J. (1983). "Free exercise" footsteps in the defamation forest: Are "new religions" lost? American Journal of Trial Advocacy, %, 57-121. Scientologists rally, protest fraud verdict. (1985). Long Beach Press— Telegram, May 20, 1985, p. A3. Shaffer, R. H. (1967). Meeting the challenges of today's students. Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 4, 177-182. Shapiro, E. (1979). Destructive cultism. American Family Physician, 15, February 1979, 80-83. Shapiro, R. (1983). Of robots, persons, and the protection of religious beliefs. Southern California Law Review, 56, 1277-1318. Sheehy, G. (1977). Passages. New York: Bantam Books. Shepherd, W. C. (1985). To secure the blessings of liberty. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company and Scholars Press. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Singer, M. T. (1979). Coming out of the cults. Psychology Today, 12, January 1979, 75-82. Smart, J. M. (1983). Widmar v. Vincent and the purposes of the establishment clause. Journal of College and University Law, 9 _ , 469-483. Stoner, C., & Parke, J. A. (1978). All God's children : The cult experience— salvation or slavery? New York: Penguin Books. Strasser, S., & Abramson, P. (1984a). Bhagwan's realm. Newsweek, December 3, 1984, pp. 34-3 7. 263 Strasser, S & Abramson, P. (1984b). Why people join cults. Newsweek, December 3, 1984, p. 36. Strohm, P. (1985). A portrait of the professoriate. Change, 17(4), 22-29. j Swope, G. W. (1980). Kids and cults. Who joins, and why. Media and Methods, 22# 18-21. I I Thomas, L. (1984). Late night thoughts on listening to | Mahler's Ninth Symphony. New York: Bantam Books. ! I Tice, J. N. (1976). Student rights, decision-making, and I the law. New York : American Association for Higher ; Education. Toff1er, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books. Tribe, L. H. (1978). American constitutional law. Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press. ! Turner, F. J. (1920). The frontier in American history. | New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. i I Tyack, D., James, T., & Benavot, A. (1987). Law and the shaping of public education, 1785-1954. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. t I United States Bureau of the Census. (1986). Statistical j abstract of the United States; 1987 (107th edition). | Washington, D.C. j United States House of Representatives. (1978). j Investigation of Korean-American relations. Report of the Subcommittee on International Organizations of i the Committee on Internal Relations, October 31, 1978.j Van Alstyne, W. W. (1962). Procedural due process and j state university students. UCLA Law Review, 10, ; 378-401. j : 1 Van Alstyne, W. W. (1968). The demise of the right- I privilege distinction in constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 8 _ ï . ' 1439-1464. 264 Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wallis, R. (Ed.). (1975). Sectarianism. New York: John j Wiley and Sons. Warshaw, T. S. (1979). Religion, education, and the supreme court. Nashville : Parthenon Press. Whittier, C. (1979). The cult phenomena: New and emerging religious movements in America (Report No. 79-124 Gov., Congressional Research Service). Washington, D* C.: Library of Congress. Woodward, K. L. (1984a). Arguing Armageddon. Newsweek, November 1984, p. 91. Woodward, K. L. (1984b). Witness for the millenium. Newsweek, October 15, 1984, p. 120. Wright, C. A. (1969). The constitution on the campus. Vanderbilt Law Review, 22, 1027-1088. Yinger, J. M. (1982). Countercu Hures: The promise and the peril of a wor ld turned upside down. New York : Collier Mcmillan Publisher. Young, D. P. (1970). The legal aspects of student dissent and discipline in higher education. Athens : Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia. Young, D., & Gehring, D. (1983). The college student and the courts. Asheville, N. C.: College Administra tion Publications, Inc. 265 TABLE OF CASES 266 TABLE OF CASES Aman v. Handler, 653 F. 2d 41 (1st Cir. 1981). American Future Systems, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State University, 618 F. 2d 252 (3d Cir. 1980). Anthony v. Syracuse Univ., 224 App. Div. 487, 231 N.Y.S. 435 (1928). Associated Students, Etc. v. Trustees of California State Universities and Colleges, 128 Cal. Rptr. 601, 56 Cal. App. 3d 667 (1st District 1976). Baldwin v. Zoradi, 176 Cal. Rptr. 809, 12 3 Cal. App. 3d 275 (5th Dist. 1981). Bayless v. Maritime, 430 F. 2d 873 (5th Cir. 1970). Bearman V . University of Notre Dame, Ind. App., 453 N.E. 2d 1196 trans. denied (1983). Bernai v. Fainter, 104 S. Ct. 2312 (1984). Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). Board of Trustees v. Waugh, 105 Miss- 623, 62 So. 827 (1913), aff'd 237 U.S. 589 (1915). Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F. 2d 135 (3rd Cir. 1979), cert. denied sub nom, Doylestown v. Bradshaw, 446 U.S. 909 (1980). Brandenberg v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 948 (1969). Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961). Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941). Brown V . Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954). 267 Brown V . First Christian School, 556 F. 2d 310 (5th Cir. 1977), cert, denied 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). Brown V . Oakland, 51 Cal. App. 2d 150, 124 P. 2d 369 (1942) . Bunn V . North Carolina, 336 U.S. 942 (1949). Buttrey v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 D. Colo. (1968). Campbell v. Board of Trustees of Wabash College, Sigma Chi Fraternity and Delta Chi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity 495 N.E. 2d 227 (Ind. App. 1st Dist. 1986). Campus Christian Fellowship v. Santa Monica College, No. CV-80-04419-AAH (C.D. Cal., filed October 3, 1980). Cantwell V . Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978). Cbanning Club v. Board of Regents of Texas Tech University, 317 F. Supp. 688 (N. D. Tex. 1970). Chappel V . Franklin Pierce School District No. 402, 71 Wash. 2d 17, 426 P. 2d 471 (1967). Chaturn v. United States, 326 U.S. 455 (1946). Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Dr App. 203 (1982). Church of Scientology v. Cazares, 455 F. Suppl 42 0 (M. D. Fla. 1978). Church of Scientology v. Dell Publishing Co., 362 F. i Supp. 767 (N. D. Ca. 1973). j Church of Scientology of Boston v. Garritano, Cir. No. i 40906 (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk County, 1980). j I Church of Scientology v. Minnesota Medical Foundation, 264 j N. W. 2d 152, 3 Med. L. Rptr. 2177 (1978). | 268 ; Cintron v. State Board of Education, 384 F. Supp. 674 (D. P. R. 1974). Coffelt V . Nicholson, 224 Ark, 176, 272 S. W. 2d 309 (1954). Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyguist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973). I Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980). Connelly v. University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 244 F. Supp. 156 (1965). Cooper V. Molko, 512 F. Supp. 563, N. D, Ca. (1981). Cox V . New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). Craig v. State, 220 Md. 590, 155A. 2d 684 (1959). Davidson v. City of Westminster, 185 Cal. Rptr, 252 (1982). Davis V . Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890). DeFunis v. Odegaard, 507 P. 2d 1178 (1973), vacated as moot 416 U.S. 312 (1974). Dittman v. Western Washington University, No. C79-1189 v I (W. D. Wash? Feb. 27, 1980) appeal docketed. No. 80- ] 3120 (9th Cir., Apr. 7, 1980). Dixon V . Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2d 150 (5th Cir.) cert, denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961). Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., 159 Cal. Rptr. 835 (1979). Dudley v. William Penn College, 219 N. W. 2d 484 (Iowa 1974). Dunn V . Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972). Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). Eiseman v. State, 489 N. Y. S. 2d 957 (Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1985). 269 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F. 2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969), cert denied, 398 U.S. 965 (1970), Everson v. The Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). I I Exon Corporation v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176 (1983). I I Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. I App. 2d 673, 315 P. 2d 394 (1957). | Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. , United States, 409 F. 2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. ! denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969). ! Fowler V . Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953). j Frieze v. Rosenthal, 269 N. Y. S. 1010 (1934), | I Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents, 638 P. 2d | 1116 (Okla. 1981). j Gay Alliance of Students v. Matthews, 544 F. 2d 162 (4th I cir. 1976). [ Gay Liberation v. University of Missouri, 558 F. 2d 848 (8th Cir. 1977). Gay Rights v. Austin Peay State University, 477 F. Supp. 1267 (M. D. Tenn. 1979). Gay Students Organization of the University of New Hampshire v. Bonner, 367 F. Supp, 1088 (D. N. H. 1974); aff'd, 509 F. 2d 652 (1st Cir. 1974). Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971). Giroud V . United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946). Goldberg v. Regents of University of California, 57 Cal. Rptr, 463 (Ct. App. 1967). 270 Good V . Associated Students of the University of Washington, 542 P. 2d 762 (Sup. Ct. Wash. 1975). Goss V . Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Gott V . Berea College, 161 S. W. 204 (Ky. Ct. App. 1913). Grayned v. Cith of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Grossner v. Trustees of Columbia University, 287 F. Supp. 535, 544 (D. C. N. Y. 1968). Hall V . McNamara, 456 F. Supp. 245 (N. D. Cal. 1978). Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934). Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (D. C. S. C. 1967). Hansel1 v. Purnell, IF, 2d 266 (6th Cir.) cert, denied, 266 U.S. 617 (1924). I I Hansen v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Civ. No. 4107 j (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Cty. filed Apr. 2, 1980). | Healy v, James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness,; 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981). Helander v. Salonen, No. HC7-75 (D. C. Super. Ct. Sept. | 23, 1975). I I Hill V . McCauley, 3 Pa. County Ct. 77 (1887). Holdridge v. United States, 282 F. 2d 302 (6th Cir.) ; 1960. I Holy Spirit Association v. New York State Congress of S Parents and Teachers, 95 Misc. 2d 548, 408 N. Y. S. 2d 261 (1978). i Horowitz V . Board of Curators, 98 S. Ct 948, 955 (1978). ‘ I 271 I Ingersoll v. Clapp, 263 P. 433 (1928). International Society of Krishna Consciousness v. Bowen, 456 F. Supp. 437 (S. D. Ind. 1978), aff'd, 600 F. 2d 667 (1979), cert denied, 101 S. Ct. 2563 (1981). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) V . Conlisk, 374 F. Supp. 1010 (N. D. 111. 1973). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (TSKCON) V . Englehardt, 425 F. Supp. 176 (W. D. Mo. 1977). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) V . Griffon, 437 F. Supp. 666 (W. D. Pa. 1977). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Inc. V . Reber, 454 F. Supp. 1385 (1978). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Inc. V . Rochford, 585 F. 2d 263 (7th Cir. 1978). International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) V . 453 F. Supp. 869 (E. D. Wise. 1978). Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). Jaffe V . Alexis, 659 F. 2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1981). Jehavah's Witnesses v. King County Hospital, 278 F. Supp. 488 (W. D. Wash. 1967). John B. Stetson University v. Hunt, 102 So. 63 7 (Fla. Supp. Ct. 1924). Jones V . Board of Regents of University of Arizona, 436 F. 2d 618 (9th Cir. 1970). Katz V . Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 141 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1977). Keegan v. University of Delaware, 349 A. 2d 14 (Del. 1975), cert, denied, 424 U.S. 934, reh. denied, 425 U.S. 945 (1976). Kennedy V . Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, 459 F. 2d 410 (9th Cir. 1972). 272 Kent V. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1964). Kovacs V . Cooper, 3 36 U.S. 77 (1949). Larson v. Valante, 456 U.S. 228 (1982). Leahy y. State, 46, N. Y. S. 2d 310 (Ct. of Claims, 1944). Lemon v. Kutzraan, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Lovell V . City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938). Lawson v. Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 437, 164 S. W. 2d 972 (1942). Li V . Yellow Cab Company of California, 13 Cal. 3d 804 (Sup. Ct, 1975). Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. I (1980). Malnak V . Yogi, 592 F. 2d 197 (3d. Cir. 1979). Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943). Maryland Public Interest Group v. Elkins, 565 F. 2d 864 (4th Cir. 1977). McCollum V , the Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964). Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975). Miller V . State, 478 N. Y. S. 2d 829 (N. Y. 1984). Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 104 S. Ct. 1058 (1984). Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). Mitchell v. Pilgrim Holiness Church Corp., 210 F. 2d 879 (1954). 273 I Molko V . Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 721 P. 2d 40, Cal. App., 224 Cal. Rptr. 817 (1986). Monell V . Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961). Morey v. Riddell, 205 F. Supp. 918 (S. D. Cal. 1962). Mortiboys V . St. Michaels College, 478 F. 2d 196 (2d Cir. 1973). Mozart v. State, 108 Misc. 2d 1092, 441 N. Y. S. 2d 600 (1981) Mueller v. Allan, 103 S. Ct. 3062 (1983). Muhammed Temple of Islam-Shreveport v. City of Shreveport, 387 F. Supp. 1129 (W. D. La. 1974). Mullins V . Pune Manor College, 389, Mass. 47, 449 N. E. 2d 3 31 (1983). Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). NAACP V . Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). National Strike Information Center v. Brandeis University, 315 F. Supp. 928 (D. Mass. 1970). Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976). Nelson V . Dodge, 76 R. I. 1, 68 A. 2d 51 (1949). Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951). D’Hair v. Andrus, 613 F. 2d 931 (D. C. Cir. 1979). D 'Moore v. Driscoll, 135 Cal. App. 770, 28 P. 2d 438 (1933). Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). 274 Pape V . State, 456 N. Y. S. 2d 863 (N. Y. App. Div. 1983). Papish V , Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1972). People V . Cole, 219 N. Y. 98, 113 N. E. 790 (1916). j People V - Handzik, 410 111. 295, 102 N. E. 2d 340 (1951), | cert, denied, 343 U.S. 927 (1952). ; 1 I People V . Martinez, 15 0 Cal. App. 3d 579, 198 Cal, Rptr. ! 565 (1985). ! People V . Murphy, Nos. 211417, 2012176 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 16, 1977). People V . Patrick, n-320-778 (N. Y. Crim. Ct- March 30, i 1973). : i People V , Sacks, No. AP-1946 (Orge Cty, Cal App. Div. | March 26, 1976). j People V . Vaughn, 65 Cal. App. 2d 844, 150 P. 2d 964 ! (1944). j People V . Vogelgesang, 221 N. Y, 290, 116 N. E. 977 (1917).! ! People V . Woody, 78 Cal. Rptr. 69 (CA Sup. Ct. 1964). People ex. rel. Turkoff v. Northwestern University, 33 111 App. 224, 77 N. E. 2d 345, cert denied, 335 U.S. 829 (1947). Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983). Peterson v, San Francisco Community College District, 685 P. 2d 1193 (Cal. 1984). Police Department v. Moseley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972). Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979). 275 ! _____ 1 Rankon v. Howard, 457 F. Supp. 70, D. Ariz. 1978, rev'd, 633 F. 2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 451 U.S. 939 (1982). Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Remmers v. Brewer, 361 F. Supp. 537 (S. D. Iowa 1973), aff'd per curiam, 494 F. 2d 1277 (8th Cir* 1974), cert, denied, 419 U.S. 1012 (1974). Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Roe V . Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Roemer v. Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S* 736 (1976). Ross V . Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974). Rubtchinsky v. State University of New York, 46 Misc. 2d 679, 260 N. Y. S. 2d 256 (Ct. of Claims 1965). San Antonio School District v, Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Sandoval v. Board of Regents, 75 N. M. 261, 403 P. 2d 699 (1965), Schenck V . United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Scheuer V . Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Schuppin V . Unification Church, 435 F. Supp. 603 (D. Vt. 1977). Scott V . State, 158 N. Y. S. 2d 617 (1956). Scully V . State, 305 N. Y. 707, 112, N. E. 2d 782 (1953). Serrano v. Priest, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345 (Sup. Ct. 1976). 276 In re Shapiro, Civ. No. 471805 (Middlesex, Mass. P. Ct. June 24, 1977). Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). Sheldon v. Fannin, 221 F. Supp. 766 (D. Ariz. 1963). Shelton V . Tucker, 384 U.S. 479, 81 S. Ct. 247 (1960). Sherbert V . Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). Siegel v. Regents of the University of California, 308 F. Supp. 832 (1970). Spartacus Youth League v. Board of Trustees, 502 F. Supp. 789 (N. D. 111. 1980). Stacy V . Williams, 306 (F. Supp. 963 N. D. Miss. 1969). State V . Bullard, 267 N, C. 599, 148 S. E. 2d 565 (1966). State V . Verbon, 167 Wash. 140 (1932). Student Coalition for Gay Rights v. Austin Peay State, 477 F. Supp. 1267 (M. D. Tenn. 1979). Swann V. Pack, 527 S. W. 2d 99 cert, denied, 424 U.S. 954 (1976). Swearson v. Myers, 455 F. Supp. 88 (D. Kan. 1978). Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 13 Cal. 3d 177, 118 Cal Rptr. 129, 529 P. 2d 553 (1974). Taylor v. Gilmartin, 434 F. Supp. 909, (W. D. Okla. 1977), rev'd, 686 F. 2d 1346 (10th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 103 S Ct. 788 (1983). Teterud v. Burns, 522 F. 2d 357 (8th Cir. 1975). Theriault v. Silber, 453 F. Supp. 254 (W. D. Tex. 1978), appeal dismissed, 579 F. 2d 302 (5th Cir. 1978). Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). 277 Tilton V . Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1976). Tinker v. Des Moines School Independent Community District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). { Trimble V . Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977). I 1 I Troy V . Church of Scientology of Boston, Civ. No. 41073 i (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty. filed April 2, 1980). ! I Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D. R. I. i (1978). i jUnification Church v. New York Times 99 Misc. 2d 125, 415 N. Y. S. 2d 554, 4 Med. L. Rptr. 1478 (1978), aff'd, 68 A. D. 2d 88, 414 N. Y. S. 2d 328 (1979). United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944). United States v. Carruthers, 152 F. 2d 512 (7th Cir. 1945), cert, denied, 327 U.S. 787 (1946). United States v. Ingalls, 73 F. Supp. 76 (S. D. Cal. 1947). United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. 687 (1975). United States v. Kuch, 288 F. Supp. 439 (D. C. Cir. 1968). United States v. Leary, 383 F. 2d 851 (5th Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 395 U.S. 6 (1969). United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 61 (1946). United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). United States v. Rasheed, 663 F. 2d 843 (9th Cir. 1981). United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965). Universal Life Church, Inc. v. United States, 3 72 F. Supp. 770 (E. D. Cal. 1974). 278 ' University of Denver v. Whitlock, 744 P. 2d 54 (Colo. 1987). University of South Florida Student Government v. Trundle, 336 So. 2d 448 (Fla. Dist., Ct. App., 2d, 1976). Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, 535 F. Supp. 1125 (1982). Van Stry V . State, 479 N. Y. S. 2d 258 (N. Y. App. Div. 1984). Vaughn v. Regents of University of California, 504 F. Supp. 1349 (E. D. Cal. 1981). Velle Transcendental Research Ass'n. v. Sanders, 518 F. Supp. 512 (C. D. Ca. 1981). Walz V . Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Ward V . Connor, 495 F. Supp. 434, E. D. Va. 1980, rev'd, 657 F. 2d 45 (4th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 907, 1982. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F. 2d. 12 7 (D. C. Cir. 1957). Welsh V . United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970). Whitaker v. Sandford, 110 Me. 77, 85A. 399 (1912). Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). Williford V . People of California, 217 F. Supp. 245 (1963). Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Wolman V . Walter, 433 U.S. 229 (1977). Wood V . Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975). Wright v. DeWitt School District, 238 Ark. 906, 385 S. W. 2d 644 (1965. 279 Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Zablocki V . Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). Zavala v. Regents of University of California, 125 Cal App. 3d 646, 178 Cal. Rptr. 185 (1981). Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). ! 1 280 ! APPENDIX A TOPIC OUTLINE FOR INTERVIEWS 281 TOPIC OUTLINE FOR INTERVIEWS Administrative Interviews Cult Activity 1. What is the current level of cult activity on campus? 2. On what do you base this opinion? 3. Which cults are most prevalent on campus? 4. What activities are cults engaged in on campus? 5. Do you know or suspect that any of these cults are involved in any wrongdoing, i.e., mental coercion, deprivation of sleep and proper diet, deceitful I I recruiting methods? I i 6. If yes, why do you suspect/how do you know this? ' I 7. What did you/are you doing about this ? I i 8. Do you know or suspect any of the cults are involved 1 in more secular activities than religious, i.e., j commercial or political? j 9. If yes, how did you/are you dealing with this? j I 10. How are cults perceived by students, faculty, staff, religious leaders, parents? 11. Has the university had any negative experiences with religious cults ? 282 Cult Activity (cont.) 12. Has the university had any positive experiences with religious cults? 13. Have you ever received complaints against a religious cult on campus? If so, what was the complaint? How did you deal with it? Recognition 14. Does the university recognize any of the religious cults on campus? 15. What incidental benefits go along with university recognition? 16. Are religious groups/religious cults afforded these same benefits? 17. If no, why not? 18. If a group you knew was a cult came to you seeking recognition would you allow it? 19. If no, why not and on what basis? 20. What if you suspected the group of illegal activity? | or of being a front for secular activity? | 21. On what grounds would you deny a religious cult | recognition? ' 22. Has the university ever denied a religious cult recognition? j ________________________________ 283 J Recognition Benefits 23. Are religious cults able to use university facilities for religious purposes? If not, why not? 24. Are religious cults able to proselytize on campus? Solicit? Distribute literature? 25. If no, why not? 26. If yes, are there any restrictions placed on this activity? ( I 27. Are these restrictions any different from those ! ! placed on other recognized student groups? | 28. Are religious cults able to sponsor off-campus I speakers? | 29. If no, why not? 30. If yes, are there any restrictions placed on this activity? i 31. Are these restrictions any different from those placed on other recognized student groups? 32. Are religious cults eligible for funding from the i university? or associated student organization? j 33. If no, why not? j 34. If yes, are there any restrictions placed on this j funding? I 284 Recognition Benefits (cont.) 35. Are these restrictions any different from those placed on other recognized student groups receiving funds? Non-recognized Cults 36. Are non-recognized cults able to exist on your campus? 37. If no, why not? 38. If yes, what are they able to do? What do they do? Institutional Policy Towards Religious Cults 39. What is the institutional policy toward cult activities on campus? 40. What is permitted? 41. What is not permitted? 42. How do the policies/relationships regarding | religious cults compare to those regarding other student organizations on campus? 43. Describe the university-cult relationship. 44. Is there any programming on campus regarding cult awareness? 45. Have you or any other university administrators ever been approached to participate in deprogramming/ conservatorship/kidnapping situations involving a student in a cult? 285 Legal Issues 46. Have you ever consulted with university legal counsel regarding cult activities? If so, on what issue? How were you advised to handle it? 47. Are you concerned for the institution's liability with regard to cult activities? If no, why not? If yes, what activities and why? 48. What if a freshman left school to join a recognized religious cult on this campus. The parents come to you threatening a lawsuit against the university for allowing the cult to function on campus and take their child. Illegal activity is strongly suspected and you are getting pressure from the community to deal with the group. How would you deal with this? Personal Information 49. What are you personal feelings about the existence of cults in general? on campus ? 50. How extensive is your knowledge of cults? 51. How knowledgeable are your colleagues about cults? Attorney Interviews 1. What are the boundaries of the university's liability for actions of a recognized student organization. 286 2. Is liability influenced if the recognized student group acts off campus versus on campus? 3. How would you assess the university's liability if parents wanted to sue for allowing the destructive cult to exist on campus and take their child? 4. With cults there are suspicions of harmful activities (sleep deprivation, diet deficiencies, etc.) and deceitful activities. What would you advise a university employee to do if they suspected such activities? 5. What is the university's liability in this scenario? 6. What advice would you give to an employee who had more substantial evidence ? 7. What is the university's liability in this scenario? 8. How would you describe the university's relationship with its recognized student groups? recognized religious groups? cults? 9. What is the university's liability simply for recognizing a group? 10. May religious cults receive funds from the institu tion under the law? ! 11. Have you ever been involved in a situation on campus | i involving a religious cult? If so, please describe. ! 287 i Definition of Cult A cult "usually involves a relatively small religious group whose beliefs, values, and practices are at variance with those of dominant or traditional forms of religion" (Pavlos, 1981); and Quarantelle and Wenger (1973) described a cult as "a diffuse group exhibiting inward innovative behavior that both differentiates and makes for conformity among group members and which is supported by religious beliefs and an ideology." Stoner and Parke (1978) provide this definition of a cult: 1. Cults have living leaders and the cult's religious doctrine is based on the leader's revelations and ideology. 2. A cult's religious leader has absolute authority over members. 3. Cults promise converts that through hard work and loyalty they can save humanity from sin and eventual destruction. 4. Cults require that members do "demeaning work" for the cause. 5. Cults promise everlasting salvation for faithful followers. 288 6. Converts must remove themselves from greater society— jobs, schools, families, and friends— i I and devote full-time effort to the cult and its leader. i 1 7. Cults indoctrinate members through elaborate and I I extreme personality, attitude, belief, and | behavioral change techniques. 8. Cults discourage critical thinking and suppress j alternative views of social reality. i 9. Cults create strong feelings of dependency on | the group and demand absolute obedience to cult j 1 norms or standards for behavior. I ! 10. Cults practice religious rituals or meditative ! ! techniques that are psychologically unwholesome to their members. ; Examples of Cults ; Examples of groups typically identified as cults : j Children of God | CARP— Collegiate Association for the Research i of Principles I ISKCON— International Society for Krishna ! j Consciousness j 1 , I I Transcendental Meditation ! 289 : Maranatha Scientology Dianetics (L- Ron Hubbard Foundation) Self-Realizational Fellowship Unification Church Spiritualism 290 I APPENDIX B STATE OF CALIFORNIA: TRIPARTITE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL 291 ce LU X a X <ü z ce o L U < ü o t r Q X Ui J - < ( A >- V) UJ H H X < 2 ! - — I O X o l ï Q “g Z' < O X o lis 25 Cl . 3 2 = O ô • O o 5 ) o « S3 E 292

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Transition to parenthood: The influence of a couple's age and the length of their marriage on marital satisfaction

PDF

The 'Widmar' (1981) decision and the status of religious liberty on the public college and university campus: Antecedents, effects, and prospects

PDF

Knowledge among educators, parents and students of educational law that governs California public secondary schools

PDF

The role of the high school principal under the California collective bargaining law

PDF

A study of the effectiveness of returning Saudi Arabian graduates from American universities in the national development of Saudi Arabia

PDF

The association of the social and familial environment with adolescent and young adult crime: A longitudinal perspective

PDF

Effects of court obscenity rulings on student newspapers in California public colleges and universities

PDF

The crafts and industries of the American Indian women of California and the Southwest

PDF

The interrelationships among sex role orientation, achievement, and attribution patterns in college women with business majors

PDF

The impact of AIDS stigma on homophobia and sex-role rigidity over time

PDF

Evaluation methods prescribed by theorists for management training programs and methods used in business and industry

PDF

Education and modernization in Togo since independence

PDF

Relationship of career aspiration and educational expectation to reading ability, race (White, Hispanic, Oriental), and sex of high school students

PDF

The effectiveness of collective bargaining in the California State University system : the perceptions of the faculty

PDF

Differentiating spouse abusers from nonabusers: Marital satisfaction, history of abuse, and personality traits as predictors of group membership

PDF

The effects of collective bargaining and the Community College Reform Act on faculty reductions in force in the California community colleges: Perceptions of ten selected community college chief ...

PDF

Achievement motivation and attribution theory differentiated by ethnicity for undergraduate female business students

PDF

The role of the superintendent as perceived by superintendents and school board members in selected California school districts

PDF

The use of marketing concepts by private colleges and universities in Hawaii to increase enrollments

PDF

The influence of structured reminiscence on meaning and purpose of life in the institutionalized elderly

Asset Metadata

Creator Ellis, Shannon E (author)

Core Title California public universities and religious cults: The law, liability assessment, and risk reduction

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology,Social Sciences

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c30-313344

Unique identifier UC11225798

Identifier DP25214.pdf (filename),usctheses-c30-313344 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP25214.pdf

Dmrecord 313344

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ellis, Shannon E.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA