Scientology and the Smiths
Oh, my heaven! (Oh, my Hubbard?) Is Will Smith a secret Scientologist? Is that why he appeared in that dreadful sequel to "Men in Black"? If he is (and he says he's not), why is he being so coy about it? Will the private school that he and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith are funding inculcate scientological principles on the impressionable minds of the young students who attend?
And, breathlessly, above all: Why are they being given such a hard time about it?
It's a private school, and Smith & Smith are entitled to fund it according to their educational vision, without having to explain, deny or be coy about their personal beliefs. At least, unlike a celebrity or two we could name, they're not trying to shove beliefs of any sort down our throats. Maybe, as one educator in the know says, the school will cram a lot of Scientology jargon into kids' heads, maybe it actually will make learning more fun by having children learn through experience instead of deadly long lectures, and maybe it will do both.
This is why we have private schools, so that people of any particular belief can frame education according to their own philosophies. Sometimes this means no standardized testing, and sometimes it means Advanced Placement kindergarten.
There is something to be taken from this whole celebrity stew, though. The Smiths' money is the Smiths' call. But what if the taxpayers were called on to pay for kids' education at this school? If the supporters of school vouchers had their way — and they never give up on trying to have their way — this is the kind of question we'd have to confront.
This is why school vouchers are not, as proponents like to frame it, just a way to save students from miserable inner-city schools. Once the public's money is involved, the public should have the right to ask these questions and approve or disapprove of whether a school like the Smiths' would be entitled to a share of that money.
Vouchers aren't just problematic for public schools, or for public expenditure. They're a problem for private schools, too. Once the public is paying, it has the right to demand — and it should demand — good performance from those schools. But how do we measure performance? These days, through standardized tests. So what about schools whose very philosophy runs counter to those tests? The private schools wouldn't just put financial pressure on public schools; the public would be placing subtle financial pressure on private schools to change their ways to make them acceptable for public funding. There goes the beautiful diversity of private schooling.
Is the Smiths' school an example of that beautiful diversity? That's up to the beholder. The important point is that private schooling works best for both private and public schools when it stays private.
Two points: the same argument applies to public schools as it does to vouchers, and there is an alternative policy that ensures universal school choice without the kind of social tensions that both public schools and vouchers can create: education tax credits.
As my Cato Institute colleague Neal McCluskey pointed out in his paper: "Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict," it is precisely the obligation of all taxpayers to pay for a single official system of schools that has created our endless "school wars," dating all the way back to the origins of state schooling in the mid 1800s (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7040). Conservatives living in majority liberal areas and liberals living in majority conservative areas must pay for schooling that they may at times find in conflict with their deeply held convictions. This breeds conflict over what is taught. McCluskey documented well over a hundred such battles all across the country in a single year.
And, as by colleage Adam Schaeffer wrote in his "Public Education Tax Credit Act" model legislation, it is possible to ensure that everyone can afford to choose a public or private school without forcing anyone to fund types of schooling that violate their convictions. It can be done by cutting taxes on the parents of school-aged children, and by giving tax credits to individuals and businesses who pay for the education of low-income kids, either directly or through scholarship-granting organizations (www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8812). Both kinds of programs already exist, separately, in various states, though at a very small scale.
We recommend combining and expanding these programs so that ALL families can enjoy the educational choice and freedom that only the wealthy currently enjoy. As we near the 4th of July, it's time to start thinking about the kind of educational system that best fits with a nation founded in liberty.
Posted by: Andrew Coulson | June 30, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the Fresh Prince and his beautiful bride could have some interest in Scientology ideas while not being actual members of the church?
It's weird that every news story notes that they have denied being Scientologists as if that's central to the story of this school. I have met people who recommended Dianetics as an intriguing read even though they were not in fact Hubbardites. Though I'm a firm believer in the quacks-like-a-duck approach to making uninformed assumptions about others' interior lives, it seems perfectly reasonable to think you can have an interest in L. Ron's theories about this and that without going for the whole shebang. Is everybody who studies Thomas Aquinas a Catholic?
For religious texts, I prefer Diuretics: The science of matter over mind, and the only Hubbard book I like is Fear, but still, I can see how reasonable people might take a casual interest.
Posted by: Tim Cavanaugh | June 30, 2008 at 05:48 PM
In just the last couple of month...
Scientology front groups have been caught passing out pamphlets during school assemblies for human rights claiming:
"Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard as one of the five greatest human rights leaders alongside such historical figures as Kofi Annan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Voltaire."
NOW do you see what their interest in education is?
Seriously, they themselves don't believe they have a better method of education. In fact, the leaders of Scientology know they are losing the PR war in 2008. So by brainwashing our children into believing their crooked founder was this historical figure, 100 years from now everyone will be a scientologist. This is a cult with aspirations to "clear" (take over) the world. Looks like they are already running Hollywood & have 1000's of offices hinden in every corner of the Earth.
Go spend 10 minutes at http://xenu.net/ and you'll see why thats a disastrous thing.
PROTECT OUR KIDS!! PROTECT THE FUTURE!!
Posted by: SNIFF | June 30, 2008 at 06:11 PM
Why listen to those hostile, naysaying unpleasant critics? By all means, go to the source. Here's a little (danceable) Hubbard in his own words. Honestly, I couldn't even begin to make this stuff up. Kids would eat this up!
Posted by: Artoo45 | June 30, 2008 at 08:22 PM
"Am I the only one who thinks the Fresh Prince and his beautiful bride could have some interest in Scientology ideas while not being actual members of the church? "
Yes
Who donates a million dollars to start a school using LRH tech. Will Smith is being sucked into the rabbit hole that is the cult of scientology.
I think the word "RELIGION" really confuses the issue. Scientology is not a religion and does not resemble a religion in any way. It is a business designed to SELL LRH TECH. This school will be paying royalties (royalties to "church") to use LRH tech (which is obvious and free anyway) and this money will go to fund scientology's ultimate goal which is to clear the planet. Or in other words convert everyone on earth to scientology and dispose of any who will not convert or who are unworthy, like homesexuals for example.
The world has seen this type of group before,
it was called the third reich.
JC
Posted by: Jack Copey | June 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM
It's sooooo bizarre to see that such an intelligent guy like Cruise and another like Smith can be trapped into the Hubbard's traps. Why is that? Because some few things are of some interest in the scientology system.
Problem is that Hubbard mixed his own intentions to make more money in the few truths he uttered, so as to make more money.
The best evidence I could think of is that he refused to see his inventions taught elsewhere than in his profit centers; that he refused to see his techniques analyzed officially so as to prove them, and finally, that he added step on past steps on past steps for decades, so as to increase the price and time asked for his "Bridge to total Freedom" - that Bridge had only one step in 1950, and never produced any "Clear", while the same system has some 200 "services" now, and is yet unable to produce any of the results described as "Clear" or "OT".
Posted by: roger gonnet | June 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Head over to www.exscientologykids.com to discover more about the horrifying life of a Scientology child.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 01, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Hey, I believe in the duck test too. But does one have to wait till it craps all over the place to declare it a duck? Lron wasn't a great theologist, or even that good a sci-if writer (he pretty much sucked...) and none of his "teaching theories" would ever wind up on a standard schools curriculum based on it's own merits. He thought up the Co$ as a way to separate money from suckers so he wouldn't have to type anymore.
If Will and Jada want to shut everyone up about the speculation, why don't they just come out and say that Lron was a nutcase and they have too much intelligence to fall for a line like scientology.
Posted by: HeckSpawn | July 01, 2008 at 07:37 AM
It seems to me that the issue is not Will Smith's attachment to Scientology, but rather the dishonesty of a Scientology school presenting itself as secular. Representatives have certainly gone to some effort to distance the school from this destructive cult, but when you boil it down, all roads lead to Ron.
L. Ron Hubbard, that is. Writer of crappy fiction. College dropout. Phony war hero, "humanitarian," and now, educator!
I certainly think a parent has the right to know of the affiliations this school and its curriculum have with L. Ron Hubbard's fantastic nonsense. How many instructors are Scientologists? What tenets of Scientology are taught here? How effective are the results going to be?
Scientology front group Narconon lies about its relationship with Scientology as well. It also lies about its success rate in getting substance abusers off drugs and alcohol. An untoward number of graduates become Scientologists and begin working for...Narconon!
Parents have the right to know about the school they choose to send their children to! Of course they're trying to cover up the Scientology association, if it were widely known, nobody but Scientologists would want their kids exposed to it!
Posted by: imominous | July 01, 2008 at 08:39 AM
Andrew, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I would disagree that parents have some sort of absolute right to have the education they specifically desire for their children paid for with public money. The idea behind compulsory education was not to confer a right on parents, but to create a social good--that of an educated society. The popular concept these days that parents get to "vote with their feet" is off base. In the early days of charter schools, there was one school that was getting parents to "vote with their feet" by offering free cab rides to and from school, instead of quality education. Is that something you and I should have to underwrite?
Speaking of charter schools, in California and many other states, parents and private schools do have a choice. They can form charter schools. They are given most of the freedoms of a private school, but they have to meet certain requirements to make them worth the taxpayer's money, such as hiring credentialed teachers and having their students take standardized tests. They also cannot teach religious beliefs. I know not all states have charter laws as liberal as California's, but that's something to work toward rather than vouchers.
It's also easy to home school in California, in which case parents don't need to bother with tests or credentialed teachers. Or at least that will be true if the appellate court changes its mind about its poorly structured ruling against home schooling. Better yet, the Legislature should put home schools into the Education Code so they don't have to operate in continual legal limbo.
Posted by: Karin Klein | July 01, 2008 at 09:00 AM
Will needs to come out of the c
They are teaching:
"Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard as one of the five greatest human rights leaders alongside such historical figures as Kofi Annan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Voltaire."
Seriously? An equal to MLK & Gandhi? Doesn't that make your blood boil?
L Ron Hubbard was a crook, always on the run from the law. Founder of Scientology, The most "classically terroristic" cult the world has ever seen.
While this is bad enough in itself, Scientology has also been implicated in numerous fatalities among its members, including the famous case of Lisa McPherson, whose tragic death is remembered at her website (http://www.lisamcpherson.org/).
There have been numerous recorded cases of litigation against people who had attempted to paint the church in a manner that they did not specifically endorse, including Scientology’s attempts at silencing a Time magazine article that referred to them as a greedy and dangerous cult.
PROTECT OUR KIDS!! PROTECT THE FUTURE!!
Posted by: SNIFF | July 01, 2008 at 09:32 AM
They "are being given a hard time about it" because Scientology is a destructive cult.
Posted by: Clement Rosenberg | July 01, 2008 at 02:00 PM
One more thing: here's a little snippet from a great article in the village voice
"Using Scientology’s own internal documents—many of which, penned by Hubbard and considered sacred, cannot be altered and must be followed to the letter—Young shows that Scientology has a rigid, paramilitary chain of command. Even non-religious entities that market themselves to the public as having no obvious tie to Scientology fall under the strict rubric. The Way to Happiness Foundation and Applied Scholastics, for example, are two organizations that market non-religious Hubbard writings to school districts and avoid mentioning a tie to Scientology. Narconon and Criminon, meanwhile, try to convince prison officials that they are effective methods for turning inmates from drugs and crime. “To the non-Scientology world,” Young writes, “they will say they are not Scientology and try to appear secular.” But internal documents, he shows, are explicit that these organizations fall under the command of the Scientology’s hierarchy."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0826,Scientologys-Crushing-Defeat,487758,2.html/full
Posted by: Artoo45 | July 01, 2008 at 03:28 PM
The ignorance of the anti-Scientology critics is really astounding. They are "throwing the kitchen sink" and are hoping something sticks. Despite what the critics are saying absolutely known of it is true.
The Hubbard Study Technology is actually pretty simple and straight forward. As someone who has used it on a number of occasions, it is an extremely effective way to approach your study matter. There is even a course on how to use a dictionary which is simply mind boggling to the uninitiated.
Anyone can read about and learn the "3 barriers to study" -- that is what the "study tech" really is. Once you get the idea, then you can really see what insipid fools these critics, especialy these critics representing themselves on this forum, really are.
Posted by: Mike | July 01, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Scientology has been investigated by the IRS, the State Dept., just about every major legal body in the EU. They have found nothing criminal or non-religious. The critics use half-truths, heasrsay and out and out lies to defend their own pitiful bigotry. Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Latinos" or "Catholics" for the word "Scientology" in everyone of their comments and you start to see the true nature of their intent. The Smith's have every right to choose whatever ciriculumm they choose to use in their own private school. The critics want to deny the Smith's their own freedom of choice. Bigots are bigots, it doesn't matter their target, the thought process is always the same -- abject ignorance of their target.
Posted by: Mike | July 01, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Posted by: Mike | July 01, 2008 at 05:29 PM
'Substitute "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Latinos" or "Catholics" for the word "Scientology" in everyone of their comments and you start to see the true nature of their intent.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Cult is dangerous.
The "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Latinos" or "Catholics" don't try and break up families. Scientology does.
The "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Latinos" or "Catholics" don't label their ex members "SP's" or suppressive people and excommunicate the from their friends and families that are still in the Cult. Scientology does.
The "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Latinos" or "Catholics" didn't carry out the largest infiltration of the US government in American history. Scientology did!
Scientology is Black Magic and Hypnotism.
Go see their "Psychiatry: An Industry of death" exibite and I gaurantee they lock the door behind you. Thats just sinister.
Go in for your first auditing class and they well lock you in there for hours, tag teaming you until they break you. They use a method called "the confusion technique" and their goal is to find your "ruin" and break you down mentally. Hypnotism!
FEAR the Cult!!! Its pure evil!
Posted by: ANON | July 02, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Vouchers? Published reports have said that the number of children in Medicaid getting such drugs ('"atypical antipsychotic'') has grown from more than 9,000 kids in 2000 to more than 18,000 in 2006. If that's a fact, vouch that.
Posted by: Willie | July 05, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Ok...I went there today and I had something really strange happen. I wondered if anyone else had? I walked in feeling fine, signed in, and talked to others that were going in. We got our headphone sets and walked into their "padded room" to watch a short film. Everything was fine. We walked in and I started watching the other film (the one that you hit the play button for that makes your headphones go on). I was watching it when I started noticing my hearing getting a little weird and I started feeling a little light headed.
Now I will admit I tend to be a little sensitive to smell something in the air or hear something far away so maybe I was sensitive to something in the room but I have NEVER felt this way before....
I tried to ignore it but my hearing continued to get weird and my perifrial (how do you spell that?) begin to go and I thought I was going to throw up. I grabbed my BF's hand and told him I needed to leave. I could hardly walk and my knees were giving out. I made it outside and after a minute or two I was fine....
has anyone that has been there had this happen to them?
Posted by: YIKES?! | July 20, 2008 at 10:51 PM