Substantiating Claims on the Jewish Issue
BY: SUN STAFF
Jul 02, CANADA (SUN) — We appreciate Janet Sullivan's comments and concerns on our editorial policy on the Jewish Issue, however we don't accept the notion that the devotees interested in this topic are unable or without the necessary resources to do the research. Perhaps the term "research" should be qualified. The intention behind our editorial guidelines was not to require that the only valid research that can be put forward is that done in a sociologist's laboratory… that highly qualified, degreed statisticians or political scientists, or those expert in surveys and data collection have to do the work. No. To make a beginning, this is research work that can be done by anyone willing to spend the time and online energy working on it.
In fact, a great deal of this research is already a work in progress. Numerous websites exist where 'inventories' are being made of all the ISKCON leaders, their personal backgrounds, service history and sphere of influence in ISKCON, etc. If one simply dedicated themselves to building a data grid and Googling, keeping close track of the citations, a significant collection of information could be amassed relatively quickly.
We've received many articles from those who believe there has been a significant Jewish influence on ISKCON. Some of these documents are very long, and very detailed. They obviously took a significant amount of effort to compile. If that same level of energy was put into compiling a dossier on ISKCON leaders, establishing the basic facts, a great deal would be accomplished.
Obviously, many pieces of information will be anecdotal, but that doesn't disqualify them. It can still be put down, organized and related to other information, so that informal conclusions can be put forth. Any personality mentioned in such a study is free to offer corrections, reject certain things outright, or provide their own citations or evidence. Then a dialogue can take place wherein the truth is arrived at.
If anecdotal information is put forth, with reasonable source citations (e.g. time, place, location, who said it, who heard it, what documents refer to it, etc.), we see no reason why that should not stand as 'raw data'. If one reads the sociological writings of authors like Burke Rochford or Dr. Kim Knott, they will find just such anecdotal statements being put forth as the truth, without sworn affidavits or video evidence to back them up. So the same principles apply here.
If the person under study believes that data referring to them is wrong, and he or she does not see fit to correct it, then let it stand, and let assumptions be made accordingly. This situation is faced by all public figures. If someone cannot be bothered to engage in such a dialogue, then let the record stand uncorrected, until enough pressure is brought to bear so that they're moved to set the record straight. This is a shared burden: the person making the original allegation carries a burden of not slandering another, and the person under the microscope has the burden of pursuing slanderous or incorrect statements being made about them.
"Data" is an interesting material element. In some ways, it almost has a life of its own. When one block of data exists, it tends to act as a magnet, drawing related data towards it. Anywhere we find a corpus (collection) of data, we typically find many satellite collections of related data that refers to the corpus, and those references become two-way paths. That is the nature of data. Where anecdotal information is set down with reasonable references, it's very likely that somewhere else, in another 'data collection', reference to it will be made, challenged, and refined. In other words, to a degree, data seemingly has the tendency to vet itself.
Yes, as Janet Sullivan states above, in the past, ISKCON leaders have met such inquiries with censorship and heavy-handed reactions. But that is the price one pays to engage in such an act of exposé. It requires personal sacrifice, no doubt. But if one wishes to make broad public allegations against another person based on ethnicity, cultural or religious persuasion, and they don't want to be accused of racism or bigotry, then they had better be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. This is the price of free speech, which is not 'free', at all.
In the handful of articles that have been published in the Sun that launched this issue, numerous allegations have been made about individuals. But what are these statements based on? Where are the citations to other anecdotal or historical references that support these ideas? To simply 'name names' and offer no more background evidence than has been offered up to now is really just an unacceptable work effort. Yes, many comments are generally made about ISKCON leaders and anecdotal information stated about them without citation, but this subject is different: in this case, individuals or groups of individuals are being characterized by their ethnic, cultural, or religious affiliations. It has become a globally accepted ethic that when one wishes to engage in such personal characterizations, they had better do so with some sort of evidence in hand. So the same rule applies here in the Sun. We do make a distinction between the level of support required for generally critical statements about the leaders, compared to statements such as those being made about Jewish leaders, and we think the reasons for that are self-evident… or certainly should be.
With respect to comparing the recent Puri coconut-vendor story with the editorial policy on the Jewish Issue, we see no comparison at all. First, the facts of the Puri fracas were presented by our Sun Correspondent, who is a paid, professional reporter. He maintains professional practices in his work. He went to bona fide Puri sources for his facts, and reported what was conveyed to him. Just because no affidavit or written police report was in hand does not mean he can't write a fair report of the incident. In fact, his report stated clearly just what evidence was and was not available on the matter. In our opinion, there are no other qualifications or protocol that this reporter should have met; he did the needful, and he did it properly. When the story was challenged by the boy's father, our correspondent went so far as to make a personal call to the parent of the boy, and he then followed-up with a second report. Just because events are not formally documented does not mean we're not free to discuss them, or draw conclusions about them. But there is a significant difference between a general news story, and an expose that crosses over into the territory of a highly surcharged social issue like the one at hand.
Janet Sullivan writes: "I believe that the devotees who have presented the case that JBD’s have an impact on our society have already proved their point. To push for more and more evidence is not the solution."
We disagree. We don't think that any kind of case has been made yet, except to prove, by the articles and responses, that this is a 'burning issue' in the minds of many. How right or wrong the original writers have been in their conclusions remains to be seen. We think that more evidence, more research, more thoughtful sharing of ideas, and more push-back, i.e., more challenges to wrong ideas or information, is the only way forward from here. (And in fairness to Achyuta prabhu, he has not been silent on the issue, and we have one, if not two articles from him waiting in the queue and under consideration.)
Janet further writes:
"I confess that I know very little about the Jewish faith or culture, coming from an Irish Catholic background and with my study of Srila Prabhupada’s books, my children and my work it leaves me with very little time or energy to study anything else. It would be constructive and highly informative to have concise information on the Jewish culture and belief system and how their religion impacts upon the world. It would be advantageous and timely if you published one of the academic pieces that you refer to in your editorial. Preferably an article that covered all of the above points you have mentioned would be invaluable indeed in order to understand the mindset of the Jewish people and especially how they see themselves relate with ISKCON."
Like you, the Sun editors have relatively little knowledge of the Jewish faith or culture, beyond what Srila Prabhupada has instructed on the matter. We agree that it would be helpful for the devotees to have access to summary level information that will help make things clearer, and we are in the process of sifting through many incoming articles that purport to be just that. The problem is, most conflict with one another, and most are highly incendiary.
While we have stated in the editorial policy that we are looking for facts now - basic data that goes to support the conclusions being put forth - and that we do not wish to turn the Sun into a venue for historical or sociological study and debate, that does not mean we won't publish some articles that appear to represent the main points of view on what is the essence of Jewish culture, ethnicity, and religion. But even this seemingly simple task is fraught with challenges, and will take us time. What one party calls 'the truth', another calls 'conspiracy and lies', and vice versa. In effect, there is no safe ground in this issue, at all. No neutral territory, no commonly accepted position. Every facet of the matter appears to be imbued with surcharged emotion, intellectual snobbery, and contention of the highest order. It's beginning to make even the Great Rtvik debate pale in comparison.
That said… we're working on it. Our readers are invited to send us documents (with source citations), or links to other online material, and we will consider them as we parse through the digital stacks in an effort to present some fundamental material on definitions and historical points of view that are appropriate for the Sampradaya Sun venue, as best we can determine it.
Hare Krsna.
