A Review of Juan Cole's Panopticon

8/14/2019 A Review of Juan Cole's Panopticon

1/42

A Review of Juan Ricardo Cole's

"The Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997"

Ian Kluge

[email protected]

see Cole's original article online atwww-personal.umich.edu/~ jrcole /bahai /1999/jssr /bhjssr.htm

Note: The opinions expressed in this review are personal and may not properly beattributed to any Bahai institution or member thereof.

Jump to:

Introduction

Part I: The Content 1: Problems with Facts 2: Problems with Omissions 3: Problems with Substantiation 4: Problems with Reasoning 5: Problems with Statistics

6: Problems with Assumptions 7: Problems with Anecdotal Evidence 8: Problems with Methodology 9: Problems of Understanding And Misrepresentation

Part II: Presentation 10: Creating a Paranoid Mind-Set 11: Buzz Words: Using Diction to Manipulate Feelings

12 Scare Tactics 13: Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

1. In 1998, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Vol.37, No.2, June,234-248) published an article entitled "The Baha'i Faith in America asPanopticon, 1963-1997" by Dr. Juan Ricardo Cole, a former American Baha'iand a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan. Thisarticle, appearing in one of the premier journals in the field of religious studies,seeks to prove that the Baha'i Faith, at least in America, has become a dishonest,repressive and quasi-totalitarian organization that is antagonistic to theAmerican Constitution, the Bill of Rights as well as American values and"American individualism" (Cole,1998). Dr. Cole has further pursued this themeon his Baha'i Studies website at the University of Michigan and in his posts to

various Talisman e-lists to which he has been an active contributor.
mailto:[email protected]://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htmmailto:[email protected]


2/42

2. Supported by copious quotations and examples from the article itself, this in-depth review will examine "Panopticon" in regards to its content and

presentation. On the basis of an in-depth analysis, this review will conclude that"Panopticon" is not a reliable source of information about the Baha'i Faith eitherin the past or in its current state. The article contains numerous problems with

facts, serious omissions, substantiation, logical reasoning, statistical reasoning,anecdotal evidence, hidden assumptions, and methodology. In addition it isfilled with a wide variety of well-recognized propaganda devices.

3. The author of this review has been a member of the Baha'i Faith in Canada forover twenty years and has, at various times, debated with Dr. Cole among othersabout some of the issues discussed in "Panopticon". This review has grown outof these discussions.

Part I: THE CONTENT

I: PROBLEMS WITH FACTS:

4. "Panopticon" is marred by at least thirteen significant errors of fact the first ofwhich is Cole's statement that "[t]he problem with strict internal controls formissionary religions, however, is that they are most often incompatible inWestern societies with significant growth" (Cole, 1998). Oddly enough, theexact opposite is true. Religious organizations with "strict internal controls suchas the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses as well as a wide variety ofEvangelical and Pentecostal churches have experienced "significant growth" inCanada and the U.S., usually at the expense of more liberal denominations.

5. This error of fact is of enormous importance because one of the foundation

stones of Cole's article is that the "strict social controls" (ibid.) are what preventthe Baha'i Faith from expanding. In discussing an alleged "informant system",Cole writes, "This practice, like many other control mechanisms, discouragesspiritual entrepreneurship and keeps the religion from growing in the West"(ibid.). However, it is logically obvious that if other religions with "strict internalcontrols" are experiencing "significant growth" (ibid.) , such controls cannot beused to explain why the Baha'i Faith is not growing as fast as he thinks it should

be. Some other factor must be at work. Thus, Cole commits the logical fallacyknown as "the fallacy of false cause", that is, the erroneous attribution ofcausality. It is also an example of special pleading. Why should "strict internalcontrols" hinder growth in the Baha'i Faith when it does not do so in other

religions? Cole's article never considers what other factors might be becausesuch consideration would draw attention to the weakness of Cole's belief that"strict internal controls" cause poor growth.

6. Cole's second factual error concerns his claims that ruling body of the Baha'iFaith, the Universal House of Justice, was at first "reluctant to abandon itsquietism in order to protest the persecutions" (ibid.) of Baha'is in Iran under theKhomeini regime. From the moment the persecutions began, the UniversalHouse made Baha'is around the world aware of the situation (See, Baha'iCanada, Iran's Secret Pogrom, "People Are Asking") and encouraged them tospeak to their elected representatives about the matter in order to put pressure on

Iran. This is not a quietist or acquiescent response. Indeed, pressure throughother countries was the only effective response because the government of Iran,


3/42

given its enmity to the Baha'i Faith, would hardly listen to protests by thesupreme Baha'i ruling body. Any protests from the Universal House would alsoentrench the anti-Baha'i mind-set in Iran and expose Iranian Baha'is to furtherharassment and danger.

7.

The effectiveness of this campaign of quiet but unrelenting diplomatic pressureon Iran through other countries and the United Nations is demonstrated by thefact that the persecutions, except for sporadic flare-ups, have largely stopped.Eager to normalize its relations with the rest of the world, Iran has been forcedto conform to minimal standards of religious liberty. In short, Cole presents thefact that the Baha'i Administrative Order (BAO) did not do what he, perhaps,wanted it to do as proof of its inaction. This is reveals the polemic agendaunderlying "Panopticon".

8. Cole makes third error of fact when he writes, that the Universal House "offeredno support to Iranian Baha'is attempting to flee" (ibid.). This statement is false

because it does not distinguish between direct and indirect help. The UniversalHouse of Justice most certainly helped "Baha'is attempting to flee" by makingarrangements with neighboring countries (Turkey and Pakistan, not to mentionmore distant nations like Canada and the U.S.) to receive and shelter refugeesand to encourage other countries to process them for immigration. The notionthat providing a secure destination to their flight did not help refugees escapefrom Iran is absurd and cannot withstand rational analysis.

9. The fourth error of fact is Cole's claim that "the Baha'i authorities wish to projectan image more liberal than the reality" (ibid.). In effect, Cole claims that theBAO is deceiving vast numbers of people, including the media. However, thiscannot stand up to rational analysis. The Baha'i Faith has never hidden some its

supposedly less 'liberal' teachings, among them the ban on non-marital sex andhomosexual acts, the ban on alcohol and illicit drugs, the strong discouragementof abortion, the fact that only men may be elected to the Universal House ofJustice, the principle of obedience to the elected institutions and the acceptabilityof capital punishment in some cases. These 'un-liberal' Teachings have never

been concealed from the public and are mentioned in a variety of teachingbooklets in addition to readily available works such as Lights of Guidance .Consequently, the fact that some converts or reporters did not investigate theFaith thoroughly cannot rationally be blamed on the BAO.

10.Cole's fifth error of fact lies in his claims about the standard practice of

"censorship" (ibid.) which he confuses with the kind of pre-publication reviewprocess used by all major academic journals. Censorship, is defined by OxfordEnglish Dictionary as "official licensing or suppressing as immoral, seditious, orinopportune, books plays, news, or military intelligence (vb, exercise suchcontrol over, make excisions or changes in." (OED) Baha'i writers whose worksdeal specifically with the Baha'i Faith are required to submit their work to pre-

publication review to ensure there are no errors of fact. Such a review isessentially different from "suppressing as immoral, seditious, or inopportune"(OED) factual information required for a thorough and accurate view of thesubject at hand. Pre-publication review in the Baha'i Faith, like pre-publicationreview anywhere, also exists to ensure that controversies are presented in a

balanced manner with due regard to all sides. Ensuring such balance is pre-requisite for establishing credible publications and cannot be reasonablyregarded as 'censorship'.


4/42

11.As an example of the systematic practice of 'censorship', Cole refers to theBaha'i magazineDialogue, writing, "In 1988 the editors [ofDialogue] proposedthe publication of a 9-point reform program, 'A Modest Proposal', which theysubmitted for censorship ... The article pointed to the decline in conversions,argued against continued censorship and proposed term limits for N.S.A.

members" (ibid.). Cole then discusses the negative response from the AmericanN.S.A. and the editor's subsequent decision to close the magazine.

12.There are two serious problems with Cole's example of 'censorship.' The first isthat Cole flatly undercuts his own claims about the practice of censorship.According to Cole, the magazine survived for over three years even though therewas "a feeling of distrust toward the magazine's left-liberal editorial line thatgrew in Wilmette and in Haifa". What does this prove except that despite serioustensions between the BAO andDialogue, the magazine continued to publish? Itwas not suppressed - despite differences with the BAO. Such differences weretolerated for over three years in whichDialogue had time to spread its ideas andattitudes throughout the American Baha'i community. This is an extraordinarily

poor example of an administrative order exercising "strict social controlmechanisms" (ibid.) over its believers.

13.The second problem about Cole's claim is that hisDialogue example misses thepoint entirely. It is not an example of censorship even in the widest sense of theterm. The bottom line is thatDialogue was publicly proposing changes to theBaha'i electoral system, an electoral system that, in the Baha'i view, was divinelyordained by Baha'u'llah, and developed by His lawful successors, Abdu'l-Baha,Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice. Rather than taking theirsuggestions to the consultations at Feasts, to the annual convention via electeddelegates, to the NSA and the Universal House of Justice, the editors of

Dialogue took their suggestions to rank-and-file Baha'is in a widely circulatedpublication. In effect, their actions constituted an attempt to pressure the BAOby forming a 'party of disaffection' to change the electoral system in a mannernot authorized by the Faith's Founder and His authorized successors.

14.Attempting to change any political system in a manner not sanctioned by therules (i.e. the constitution) is 'sedition' and rebellion, an attack on thefundamental principles of order. In the Baha'i case, the proper protocol for tryingto make changes is for individuals to write the NSA and the Universal House ofJustice with their suggestions. However, using the media to form a faction or

party of dissent within the organization in order to bring about changes is simply

a violation of Baha'i laws about avoiding internal parties and factions. Thus thematter is quite clear: by acting as they did, the editors ofDialogue had openlyviolated Baha'i law and forced a response from the BAO. Cole's attempt to

portray this as an act of censorship simply avoids the fact that "A ModestProposal" was a serious breach of Baha'i protocol and law. The NSA'ssubsequent reaction was not a case of censorship but rather a case of defendingthe Faith's basic principles. This is also shown by the NSA's charge that, ineffect, the notion of term limits for NSA members was "negative campaigning"(ibid.), i.e. campaigning against incumbents simply because they wereincumbents. Campaigning of any sort is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith.

15.

Cole's sixth error of fact concerns his statement that the Baha'i Faith attractedintellectuals only after the 1960's: "Some of those [ who joined in the 1960's and70's] who remained went on to obtain higher degrees, giving the community for


5/42

the first time a significant number of intellectuals..." (ibid.). Cole's statement -presented without any supporting statistical evidence or references - is easilyrefuted by referring to O.Z. Whitehead's Some Early Baha'is of the WestandSome Baha'is to Remember. These two histories show that of 42 early prominentAmerican Baha'is, 15 had university education or trained in reputable artistic

institutes. This represents 36% of the sample. Given the very small size of theearly American Baha'i community and the fact that most converts came from themiddle and upper classes, one can reasonably extrapolate from Whitehead'ssample of prominent Baha'is to the American Baha'i community and concludethat the Faith had a high number of intellectuals or 'brain workers' long beforethe 1960's and 70's.

16.Cole's seventh error of fact concerns his claim regarding the Counselors' task of"imposing orthodoxy" (ibid.). This description is outrightly false because itcontradicts the fact that all Baha'is explicitly have an unfettered right to theirown personal understanding of the Writings as well as the right to express thisunderstanding in their community. Neither Counselors nor anyone else have theright to 'impose orthodoxy' on personal understanding.

17.Cole's makes this claim because he fails to understand the Baha'i duty todistinguish between personal understanding and official teaching when

providing information about the Faith to interested non-Baha'is. In other words,the Counselors are there to ensure that Baha'is are engaged in truthful teachingabout the Faith, that is, to ensure they are not luring seekers into the Faith underfalse pretenses. This is not "imposing orthodoxy" (ibid.) as much as imposingtruthfulness in teaching. Since the Baha'i Faith has no clergy, that is, no

professionally trained teachers, the task of ensuring accuracy in teaching is on-going, though, in reality, most Baha'is require no supervision. Even Cole admits

this in his statement that "[c]onventional Baha'is often never discover theinformant system, since they never trip the wire that would lead to their beinginformed on" (ibid.). 18) The other aspect of what Cole mistakes for "imposingorthodoxy" (ibid.) concerns the conduct of Baha'is with heterodoxinterpretations of the Writings. The issue here is not the opinions, as Cole wouldhave readers believe, but conduct. Baha'is with heterodox views must rememberthat their understandings are, in fact, personal and that while they have a right toexpress their views they do not have the right to press them on other individualsor the community once these have made it clear that they do not wish to hear anymore. Essentially it is a matter of good manners. Freedom of speech does notentitle one to harass others with one's views. Heterodox understandings may be

expressed in the community, but they may not be advanced contentiously andmay certainly not be insisted upon against the authorized interpretations ofAbdu'l-Baha, the decrees of Shoghi Effendi and the decisions of the UniversalHouse of Justice. On-going insistence is, in effect, harassment and lobbyingwhich implicitly sets up a power struggle between the individual and the BAO.

18.At this point, a Counselor for protection may get involved in order to preventindividuals and the community from being needlessly disturbed by someonewho has already been given and used his/her right to be heard. It is worthrepeating at this point that the Counselor's involvement is primarily for reasonsof conduct not personal understanding; the Counselor's involvement is a call to

proper conductrather than an imposition of orthodoxy. The Counselor may,indeed, discuss a person's views and try to show where errors of understanding


6/42

have occurred; however, in the last analysis a Baha'i may stick to his/herunderstanding so long as they do not hector others in the community ormisinform seekers.

19.How does all this work in practice? One may, for example, say, "I don't or can't

understand how the Universal House of Justice can be infallible" but not, "TheUniversal House of Justice is not infallible" or "The Universal House of Justice'sunderstanding of its divinely conferred infallibility is false." The first statementis purely personal, perhaps a confession of an intellectual and/or spiritualshortcoming. The second is a direct challenge to the BAO on which the Faith is

built and to which the declarant assents when s/he becomes a Baha'i . Thischallenge can lead to censure - but it is behavioral censure rather thanintellectual censure. With his phrase "imposing orthodoxy" (ibid.) Cole glossesover the essential difference between the two.

20.Interestingly enough, "Panopticon" itself provides proof that conduct and not thepossession of heterodox opinions are what invites involvement by Counselors.Cole quotes what he describes as a "threatening letter from Counselor StephenBirkland" (ibid.):

... the International Teaching Centre has asked me - with the knowledge of theUniversal House of Justice - to warn you that your promulgation of viewscontrary to the Teachings was damaging to the Cause. If you were to resume inany fashion this course of action, the effect would be to bring you into directconflict with the Covenant(Birkland, 1996 quoted in Cole, 1998)

21.As the quote shows, it is the action of "promulgation" (Birkland, 1996) that is

the problem not the possession of personal opinions nor even their expression aspersonal understandings as such. "Promulgation" (OED) is the persistent, publicand systematic spreading of ideas which is a different thing altogether than

personal and private expression of views. The latter is an unfettered right in theBaha'i Faith while the first is a right potentially limited by considerations ofdamage to the Faith as a whole.

22.By pointing out that such "promulgation" would "bring you into direct conflictwith the Covenant" (Birkland, 1996, quoted in Cole, 1998) ), Birkland was beingno more than truthful in the plainest sense. Nor is it unreasonable for anyorganization, and most especially a voluntary one, to protect its fundamental

principles from attack, particularly, from attack from within its own ranks. It isnot, after all, too much to expect that these people have joined because theyagree with the fundamental principles, or, at least, can live with them. Cole'seffort to portray the BAO's reasonable response as a sign of control andcensorship dissolves under rational scrutiny.

23.The bottom line is that Baha'is may be censured or disciplined for insistently andpublicly defying the bedrock principles of the Faith in a manner that disrupts thecommunity. The rules on this matter are clear and unmistakable. Baha'is may notchallenge the authority of Baha'u'llah as God's Manifestation for this age, northat of Abdu'l-Baha as Baha'u'llah's appointed interpreter of the Writings, northat of Shoghi Effendi, the successor appointed by Abdu'l-Baha, nor that of the

Universal House of Justice. In the Baha'i view, these four form a divinelyinspired and guided 'apostolic' succession originating with God. By accepting


7/42

Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this age, a person accepts thedecisions He makes directly or guides His successors to make. What Cole wantsto characterize as "imposing orthodoxy" (Cole, 1998) is, at the very most, nomore than a requirement for individuals to be consistent in accepting the logicalconsequences of becoming a Baha'i .

24.Cole's eighth serious error of fact is found in his claim that "this article is notconcerned with the essence or scriptures or theology of the religion, but with theactualities of its day-today technologies of control" (ibid.). Those familiar withthe Baha'i Writings know this is simply untrue. Many of Cole's critiques of theBAO its structure and its modus operandi refer directly to matters mandated byAbdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi whose work constitutes part of Baha'i"scriptures or theology". A case in point is Cole's discussion of the fact that inthe Baha'i community, once consultation ends and a decision is made, furtherdiscussion ceases; all are to work as if the decision were unanimous. This is notan invention of the current BAO to control and manipulate but originates withAbdu'l-Baha for whom unity was no mere administrative matter but rather amatter of deep spiritual, theological significance. The same may be said aboutthe ban on nominations and campaigning in Baha'i elections - issues for whichCole also attacks the BAO as being undemocratic and manipulative.

25.Cole's ninth serious error of fact is the misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith astorn in a struggle between "conservatives" (ibid.) and "liberals" (ibid.)."Panopticon's" evidence - e-mails, personal communications, uncorroboratedanecdotes - suggests nothing more than a small number of members and ex-members who disagree with the direction taken by the Faith. Cole has none ofthe credible evidence - surveys, corroborated anecdotes of LSA's torn apart byinternal conflicts, masses of e-mails from disaffected American Baha'is - to

justify the claim for anything above a few dozen individuals out of the 60,000adult American Baha'is admitted by Cole. (See the section on Errors inStatistics.) The smallness of their numbers is conceded by Cole himself when hewrites that "antiliberals have captured the key posts" in Baha'i elections.

26.Given the fact that every adult Baha'i votes in elections for LSA's and nationalconvention delegates, it is clear that even Cole knows that the majority ofBaha'is are not disturbed by the Faith's alleged 'conservative' turn and, insofar asthey are not outright supporters, are, at the very least, willing to accept it. Inother words, the Baha'i Faith as found in America today represents what themajority of Baha'is want it to be, Cole's personal animus notwithstanding.

Consequently, the conflict suggested by Cole and alleged in the use of suchwords as "captured" does not really exist. What exists is a small group of Baha'isand ex-Baha'is whose opinions and activities have virtually no affect on theFaith as practiced by the overwhelming majority. Cole is in outright factual errorwhen he presents readers with a portrait of a religion torn in struggle betweenalleged 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

27.This fact destroys the very basis on which the "Panopticon" article rests, sincethere is no reason to establish a panopticon when the overwhelming majority ofmembers support and/or accept recent developments. One does not need toestablish and maintain a panopticon among willing participants. Nor, does one

need to establish an "informant system" among them as Cole claims. Dissidentsinform on, that is, call attention, to themselves simply by holding heterodoxviews amidst a sea of orthodoxy.


8/42

28.Cole's tenth serious error of fact relates to what he calls the "silencing ofminorities" (ibid.) as a part of the usual "control mechanisms" Ibid.). There is noa "silencing of minorities" (ibid.) in the manner implied by Cole's phrase whichencourages readers to conclude minority viewpoints may not be heard during adebate prior to a decision. Every Baha'i has a right to speak during consultation

before, and, if proper protocols are followed, even after a vote is taken. As is sooften the case throughout "Panopticon", Cole fails to present any evidence thatthese rights are being violated by the American BAO in a manner consistentwith his presentation of the Faith as a tightly regimented organization.

29.It is true that once a decision has been reached, all are expected to support it,much as all citizens are obligated to respect even the laws they dislike. However,Cole is flatly wrong in his suggestion that Baha'is have nothing to say after adecision is taken and that a minority of critics is 'silenced'. What Cole plainlymisrepresents, is the fact that there is a certain protocol for voicing criticismsafter a decision is made. Like all other Baha'is, critics have the right to being uptheir concerns to the whole community during the consultative portion of anyFeast . There, before the whole community, they may make recommendationsfor changes to the LSA the NSA and the Universal House of Justice. They havethe right to encourage discussion on what bothers them. However, they may notdisturb others with lobbying outside the consultative session since those whoagree with a decision or, at least, accept it, have the right to be left alone. Thereis no rationale for forcing them to listen to dissidents.

30.Cole errs yet again in presenting the Baha'i Faith as favoring a theocracy, nordoes he cite any studies to support his pseudo-statistical claim that "manyBaha'is " (ibid.) believe in this form of government. There are several reasonswhy his presentation is in outright error. Most obviously, a theocracy requires a

clergy which the Baha'i Faith lacks. Unlike any theocracy that ever existed, allauthoritative and executive offices are held by election: LSA's, NSA's, delegatesto the annual convention and the Universal House of Justice. Any decision made

by appointees such as Auxiliary Board Members and Counselors may beappealed to the elected bodies, which, in the case of the Universal House, havethe final word. This is so unlike any historical examples of theocracy that it is agross misuse of the word to apply it to the Baha'i Faith.

31. Cole's claim is also in outright error because it cannot be reconciled with the factthat all Baha'is have a right to their personal understanding of the Writingsregardless of what the official understandings might be. No historical theocracy

has ever allowed such interpretive leeway. It is true that in the interests ofpresenting the Faith honestly, Baha'is must inform seekers about the officialunderstandings and not their own, but two facts remain firm: all Baha'is havefull freedom of conscience to understand the Writings as they choose and, allBaha'is have the right to express their understanding so long as they are politeand do not try to force their views on others or the organization as a whole.There are no historical examples of such freedoms in a theocracy.

32. Thirdly, Cole's claim is wrong because the Baha'i Faith is a voluntaryorganization. The individual's right to leave the organization is deeplyentrenched in the Faith which rejects compulsion in religious matters. There is

no historical example of a theocracy in which individuals may openly leave theruling religion. Here too, it is clear that Cole's use of this word is factuallyincorrect and is simply being used as a propaganda scare tactic.


9/42

33.What Cole misunderstands and, consequently, misrepresents, is the fact that theBaha'i Faith recognizes that the separation of church and state is impossible toachieve. Though supposedly a foundation stone of American democracy, thetruth is American civil society is saturated with Judeo-Christian religion in itsvalues, laws, customs, political and social expectations and holidays. The

separation of church and state is honored at least as much in the breach as in theobservance. Given the close, though informal, integration of religion and state, itfollows that any major change in American religion - such as mass conversionsto the Baha'i Faith - would inevitably be reflected in changes in law, values andso on. Cole is offended by the frank recognition of this fact. However, in hisdefense it must be said that some Baha'is discussing this issue have been asloose and inaccurate in their use of the word 'theocracy' as he has. The differenceis that they use it as part of their effort to understand what the Faith teacheswhile Cole is trying to use it to scare readers by trying to draw parallels betweenthe Baha'i Faith and the theocratic Muslim Republic of Iran. Such parallels haveno substance.

34.Cole's twelfth error of fact concerns is his suggestion that the Baha'i Faith needsto hide its alleged anti-human rights agenda. Cole suggests the existence of suchan agenda when he writes that a "clear condemnation of human rights

principles" (ibid.) would deprive the Faith of new recruits. This is a purefabrication on Cole's part. The Baha'i Faith does not have any anti-human rightsagenda, a fact supported by its long-time status as a respected NGO at the UN.To keep such status, the Faith must subscribe to and support internationalstandards of human rights because NGO's that do not are either not certified orlose their status. What Cole is trying to do here is turn a difference of

philosophical opinion between himself and the BAO on how to interpret andimplement some human rights in some areas into a wholesale "condemnation of

human rights principles" (ibid.).

35. An example of such an interpretational difference concerns the service ofwomen on the Universal House of Justice. The Baha'i Faith - unlike Cole -

believes that men and women are complementary, equal but also different, andthat these differences can affect the kind of work to which they are best suitedunder certain circumstances. In other words, equality does not precludedifferentiation of function either permanent or temporary. Cole disagrees, andthinks the exemption of women from service on the Universal House is aviolation of human rights. However, given the various privileges enjoyed byBaha'i women - priority in education for example - clearly demonstrate that

there is no gender prejudice in the Baha'i Faith.

36.The thirteenth error of fact concerns Cole's statement that "cults of leadership dogrow up around Baha'i officials" (ibid.). As usual, he presents no evidence orstudies to support this claim. However, its falsity is patently evident becausenone of the behaviors associated with leadership cults are evident in the Baha'icommunity. No individual names appear on any letters from the UniversalHouse of Justice, NSA's and LSA's. They all sign as institutions. Baha'is are notrequired to display pictures of their leaders; if Baha'is display any picture at all,it is Abdu'l-Baha's, and not that of any current official. This claim is simply anattempt to influence readers' emotions by associating the Baha'i Faith with the

Rajneesh commune, Scientology or the personality cults surrounding Hitler,Stalin or Mao.


10/42

2: PROBLEMS WITH OMISSIONS

37.While errors of fact directly and in themselves convey false information, errorsof omission leave out essential information and, thereby, misrepresent,

misinform and mislead. Such errors are made by omitting any information that isdirectly relevant to the topic under discussion or that readers require to makeinformed judgments about what they are reading. While some authorialdiscretion is inevitable in any work, it is not acceptable to exclude material thatcan make fundamental changes in the readers' understanding. At that pointauthorial discretion becomes suppression, of which Cole's article provides atleast three examples.

38.The most serious of these cases is Cole's pose as disinterested scholar. Had Coleleft himself out of the discussion entirely, there could be no objection but hedoes not do this. Rather, he tries to present his former membership as a source ofvalidation and authority for his statements and claims; after all, as a ex-member,he ought to know. More, he tries to present his years of membership as"participant observation" (ibid.), stating that "The author has been studying theBaha'i religion for a quarter of a century, and spent much of that time as anadherent." (ibid.). These words are calculated to create the impression of a manwho has been an ordinary rank-and-file Baha'i, who, for some reason, left theFaith. They do not contain even the slightest suggestion of Cole's highly visibleactivist role in a number of controversies.

39.In other words, Cole misleads readers by suppressing the fact that over the yearshe has been heavily and publicly embroiled in disputes with the BAO over suchissues as pre-publication review, the powers of the Universal House of Justice,

interpretation of Baha'i texts and conditions for membership in the Baha'i Faith.Perhaps not so coincidentally, these are also among the major issues for whichCole criticizes the BAO in "Panopticon". Cole also fails to mention his

prominent role in a number of personal disputes with various members of theBAO including Counselors and several on the Universal House of Justice. Inreviewing Cole's record, readers can only conclude that Cole has been anything

but a disinterested participant-observer in these matters. Instead, he has been aheavily committed combatant on one side in these conflicts as a protagonist forwhat he describes as 'liberalism'. A visit to his own web-sites will confirm this.

40. The fact that Cole has had disputes with the BAO is not, of course, the problem.

Participants in disputes have as much right to tell their side of the story asanyone else. Winston Churchill, for example, wrote a multi-volume history ofWorld War Two. However, objective and rational scholars do not readChurchill's account without bearing in mind his partisan involvement in theevents he describes; consequently, they read with a heightened awareness forerroneous and/or incomplete information, misrepresentation and prejudice.Unlike a world-statesman like Churchill, Cole, a relatively obscure scholar, isable to - and, in fact, does - hide his prominent role as a highly partisancombatant with the Baha'i Faith and the current Universal House of Justice. Byomitting to reveal the extent of his struggles over issues on which he purports to

provide a scholarly report, Cole seeks to lull his readers' critical awareness and

gain acceptance and authority for numerous statements that are factuallyinaccurate, factually incomplete and misrepresentative.


11/42

41.Such omissions prevent readers from making accurate critical judgments ofstatements like the following: "Although antiliberals have captured key posts,they shape the community's ideology subtly by controlling media and silencingliberals who begin to become prominent" (ibid.). Cole, as his own websitemakes clear, sees himself as one of those "liberals" who have been silenced

along with Linda Walbridge, Denis MacEoin, Alison Marshall and MichaelMcKenny. By omitting vital information about his own highly partisan role inthe issues he discusses, Cole seeks to prevent readers from asking whether or notthe statement quoted above is a self-serving piece of polemic or a statement

based on genuine objective scholarship. The same may be said about all otherstatements regarding "liberals" and "conservatives" throughout "Panopticon".

42. A second omission - one that is fatal to his argument - is Cole's failure to takeinto account (and remind his readers) that the Baha'i Faith is a voluntaryorganization. One joins the Baha'i Faith voluntarily and can leave at any timeeither formally with a letter of resignation or informally by dropping out. EvenCole has not alleged that former Baha'is are harassed or persecuted by theirformer co-religionists. Indeed, doing so is forbidden since religious belief isregarded as a matter of personal conscience.

43.The voluntary nature of the Baha'i Faith leads to a crucial question: if peoplefreely choose to submit themselves to rigorous discipline, can they be properlydescribed as oppressed? The obvious answer is no. Oppression is oppression

precisely because it is involuntary. But if Baha'i s voluntarily submit to'oppression' by the BAO, why would the BAO need an "informant system" tokeep in line those who apparently want to be 'oppressed'? In terms of Cole's

panopticon image, why would the 'jailers' need a panopticon if the prisonersdon't want to leave and are happily obedient in their imprisonment? The truth is,

they wouldn't. Indeed, how is it possible for the 'jailers' to establish a panopticonwhen a prisoner can leave any time? Even Cole refers to a number of academicswho "withdrew from the religion" (ibid.); nor does he refer to any follow upharassment. The truth is, no one can establish a panopticon under suchconditions and this simple fact rips the bottom out of Cole's central thesis aboutthe dictatorial nature of the BAO. A 'voluntary panopticon' that can be left at anytime is an oxymoron. The peer reviewers at the JSSR should have easily spottedthis fact.

44.With these two facts - the BAO couldn't and wouldn't need to establish apanopticon in the Baha'i Faith - Cole's central thesis dissolves and reveals the

true nature of the article. "Panopticon" is most charitably described as a 'positionpaper'; it is not a work of reasonably objective scholarship written to inform butrather a clearly tendentious interpretation of a pastiche of anecdotes, e-mails,half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, factual errors and even hearsay. It is thework of a prosecutor determined to 'get his man' no matter what.

45. In itself, there is nothing wrong with such a piece; position papers are a staple ofacademic life. However, the problem of honesty comes into play when position

papers are not clearly identified as such and masquerade as purely informationalscholarly work. On this score, both Cole and the editors of the JSSR have a lotto answer for especially since the JSSR does not allow rebuttals. This odd

practice makes the JSSR an accomplice in spreading misinformation. Whatthoughtful reader can avoid asking how often and on what other subjects has theJSSR been complicit in spreading and legitimizing factual error, half-truths and


12/42

careless reasoning? The JSSR has done its own credibility no good bypublishing this work.

46.The failure to define crucial terminology is a third serious error of omission in"Panopticon". Terms such as "liberal" (ibid.) , "conservative" (ibid.) and

"antiliberal" (ibid.) are too nebulous and have far too much subjective content tobe used by any writer without providing a clear and explicit definition forreaders. Without such a definition to control and guide our understanding ofthese terms, readers can only make educated guesses at what Cole is talkingabout. This makes it easy for him to manipulate readers through the uncontrolleduse, "slippage", of these terms.

47.Indeed, one of the oddities of "Panopticon" is the persistent 'politicization' ofCole's presentation of the Baha'i Faith. One problem with this is that fails toexplain why the use of such terms as "liberal", "conservative" and "antiliberal"drawn from American politics is appropriate and applicable to this religion.There is, indeed, good reason why the terms are inappropriate. As already noted,the Baha'i teachings on various issues impinge on both "liberal" and"conservative" portions of the political spectrum. On one hand, for example, wefind the usual "liberal" beliefs about racial equality and economic justice whileon the other, we find a "conservative" essentialism on gender and permission touse the death penalty in certain instances. Baha'is are free to interpret theirWritings as they please - a "liberal" facet of the Faith - but are expected to teachseekers the official tenets instead of their personal understandings - a more"conservative" facet.

48.This leads to three questions. How can "Panopticon" improve the reader'sunderstanding of the Baha'i Faith by forcing the Faith into pre-determined

politically based moulds that do not really fit its teachings? Doing so is asdistorting as trying to view Christianity through categories derived fromBuddhism. Such misapplication can serve no scholarly, pedagogical purpose.But this leads to the next questions: 'If Cole's purpose in "Panopticon" is notscholarly, then what is it? Why does Cole persist in this misapplication ofterms?' Given Cole's history of deep and personal conflict with the BAO, onecannot automatically rule out a desire to paint the BAO in negative colors for theacademic world.

49.A fourth error of fact by omission lies in Cole's description of the Counselors'tasks as "encouraging proselytizing and imposing orthodoxy"(ibid.). The latter

phrase, "imposing orthodoxy"(ibid.) is misleading because it fails to mention thefull list of protective duties which includes dealing with attacks on the Faith andindividual Baha'is by external opponents. Such attacks can range from spreadingmisinformation and untruths to efforts to deprive individuals of the jobs and/orrights on account of being Baha'is. It also includes ensuring that Baha'is do notflagrantly and publicly disregard to rules of the Faith, as for example, abusingalcohol or drugs, engaging in forbidden sexual activities and engaging in

partisan politics. All of these are theological issues on which Baha'u'llah andAbdu'l-Baha have provided rulings and are not inventions of the current BAO tocontrol and manipulate.

50.Moreover, Cole fails to mention that those who violate the laws of behavioraland doctrinal orthodoxy are usually only called to account only if their behavioris becomes a public issue. In such cases, the BAO must get involved to maintain


13/42

the reputation or cohesiveness of the community. Regarding behavioralorthodoxy, contrary to the false impression given by "Panopticon", in actual

practice there is no rigid consistency of action on these matters at any levelbecause the BAO, from the LSA on up, takes a whole spectrum of informationinto account and does not confine itself solely to the cut and dry administration

of laws. The BAO recognizes the distinction between dispensing justice and thesimple-minded administration of law. Nor does the BAO get involved withdoctrinal orthodoxy unless individuals create contention in the community byinsisting that their personal understandings be accepted as the official teachingsof the Faith. The mere fact that there is inconsistency and flexibility in BAOaction on these matters undermines Cole's portrait of rigorous and systematicsuppression of heterodox belief and behavior.

51.A fifth error of omission is found in Cole's misrepresentation of Baha'isrelationship to political involvement. Critical of the ban on partisan politicalinvolvement, Cole leaves readers with the impression that this is somehow anunnatural imposition on the Faith, a deviation Abdu'l-Baha's instruction to "take

part in the election of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic"(Abdu'l-Baha, quoted by Cole). In order to misrepresent the Faith on this matter,Cole leaves out three pieces of information that contradict and undercut hisassertions.

52.First, Baha'is may perform the most essential of all democratic acts - voting,which, the case of the U.S. means voting for a party. This requires them to bewatchful and intelligent observers of the political scene, something whichundermines Cole's claims about the political isolation of Baha'is. They may beremoved from personal activity but are certainly not removed from thoughtfulconcern which is in itself a form of involvement.

53.Second, he ignores the fact that partisanship in the wranglings of political partiesis not the only way to "take part in the affairs of the republic" (ibid.). Nothing,for example, forbids Baha'is from discussing the philosophical issues thatunderlie political or social issues, or, for example, publishing an article on therole of government in family matters. What the writer may not do is identify hisviews with a particular party or publish them in a party forum. Such a discussionor article is certainly involvement "in the affairs of the republic" (Ibid.).Furthermore, Cole assumes that all involvement in public life must be personal,

partisan political involvement, ignoring the fact that Baha'is can get involved inall kinds of reform groups and committees and in service clubs.

54.Another of Cole's false assumptions is that the avoidance of partisan politicsisolates Baha'is more than the large numbers of Americans who, like Baha'is, dono more than cast their ballots. Cole simply assumes it does, but fails to explainhow and why his conclusion is reasonable. Voter turnout in local, state and even

presidential elections does not suggest a society so passionately involved inpolitics as to make Baha'is stand out by their avoidance of public involvement. Itfollows that if Baha'is do not differ from millions of other Americans on thisscore, then they cannot be as isolated as Cole claims.

55.Third, Cole omits that in evaluating the ban on partisan politics, one must recallthat the Baha'i Faith is a world-wide organization and that what may be arelatively innocuous activity in countries with strong democratic traditions, isnot so innocuous and sometimes even destructive in other parts of the world.


14/42

Once a global perspective is achieved, the wisdom of the ban on party politicsbecomes virtually self-evident - which is probably why the Universal House ofJustice has re-iterated Shoghi Effendi's decision. Cole, of course, has goodreason to omit this information: it shows that there are solid, tangible reasons forthe ban on partisan politics. These reasons undercut his thesis that the ban was

instituted and is maintained by the BAO as simply as a control mechanism.56.One of the most blatant and prejudicial omissions in "Panopticon" deals with the

freedom of speech and particularly, the freedom of criticisms that Baha'is haveby law. In his effort to show that Baha'is - especially liberal intellectual likehimself and minorities - are 'silenced', Cole neglects to mention that before anydecision is taken by a community or LSA, all members have the right to addtheir views for consideration. The only restrictions on this right are claims todivine appointment or authority above the elected institutions. As already notedabove, no one is 'silenced'. Even after a decision is taken, criticism may still bevoiced. However, there are protocols to follow. At the LSA level, plans and theway they are carried out may be discussed and evaluated at Feasts and changesrecommended to the LSA by individuals or groups. Individuals should also becareful that their private consultations with others about a past decision do notdistress those who feel uncomfortable with such discussions. This, of course, ismerely good manners. Furthermore, an LSA decision may be appealed to the

NSA and a NSA decision may be appealed to the Universal House of Justice,which, like a supreme court, has the final word. The omission of such basicinformation is clear evidence that the purpose of "Panopticon" is not so much toinform about the Baha'i Faith as to misinform and slander.

57.Cole's claims about censorship and suppression of dissent are also belied by thefact that numerous Baha'is take part in his Talisman9 discussion forum where

the tone is generally 'unsympathetic' and, often 'hostile' to the BAO. Were Cole'sallegations on the heavy handed control, censorship and manipulations true,many of the participants on Talisman9 would have been 'silenced' andsanctioned long ago, especially if the Cole's allegations of a vast "informantsystem" had even the slightest substance. The fact that enrolled Baha'is continueto remain active on Talisman9 is direct and incontrovertible evidence that Colesubstantially misrepresents the issue of intellectual freedom within the Baha'iFaith.

3: PROBLEMS WITH SUBSTANTIATION:

58.A third kind of content error undermining the scholarly value of "Panopticon" isCole's habit of making unsubstantiated claims. Were such claims confined tominor issues, this critique would be a quibble: an article of limited length cannot

provide proof and documentation for every point - although ideally, it should.Cole, however, makes numerous unsubstantiated statements of a major nature.Such habitual lapses seriously weakens his case; indeed, because so much ofwhat Cole says rests on unsubstantiated claims, readers have solid and rationalreasons to question the accuracy of the entire article.

59. The most disturbing example of Cole's unsubstantiated statements is hisinsinuation and - through the mouth of another - plain accusation of racist

motivations on the part of the American NSA. Because this is such a seriousmatter, readers have a right to demand an extremely high standard of proof forsuch allegations but such proof is not even remotely forthcoming. Indeed, on


15/42

this most serious issue, Cole's evidence is notable for its utter paucity and hiswillingness to use such eager evidence to make such major accusations indicatesthat his prejudices are not properly controlled by his intellect.

60.Careful reading of the relevant passages in "Panopticon" shows how Cole

orchestrates his material. He begins softly, with references to the AmericanNSA's alleged concerns about the Faith's organizational capacity beingoverwhelmed by "newcomers" (ibid.), then, racializes the issue by references toDr. Kazemzadeh's alleged concerns about "an influx of poor southern Blacks"(ibid.) and finally proceeds to the crescendo - an outright accusation of racistmotivations from an African-American Baha'i . Having made the charge -through the mouth of another - Cole tempers it and finally, in the closingmoments, he concedes that the American NSA did "show concern tosocialize"(ibid.) the new African American Baha'is. However, he has succeededin leveling his charge.

61.The problem is, Cole lacks any credible evidence to impute racist motivations toany of the American NSA's decisions. He presents no evidence to substantiatehis claim that the NSA was worried about being "swamped by the newcomers"(ibid). Was it really? Perhaps, it was delighted; after years of slow growth, toomany newcomers might be a nice problem to have. Either claim requiresdocumentary evidence to be accepted as a certainty. Cole's proof concerning Dr.Kazemzadeh is an uncorroborated report from a so-called "one eye-witness"(ibid.) who sent Cole a "personal communication (ibid.) in 1997, that is, thirtyyears after the events. Cole takes this report at face value, though he does not tellus why we should lay aside doubts about memory and motive after such a longtime.

62.However, Cole's 'piece de resistance' is an uncorroborated e-mail on theTalisman listserv discussion group in which (a) a correspondent reported that hehad been (b) told certain things by an older African American Baha'i ! This issheer, uncorroborated third-party hear-say - and by quoting it in his "HistoricalBackground of the American Baha'i Community" Cole raises it to the dignity ofa fact or at least reasonable possibility. The accusations made by this "olderAfrican-American Baha'i " (ibid.) are nothing but his unsubstantiated suspicionabout a "specific ratio of racial diversity" (ibid.) and an accusation that theAmerican NSA stooped southern teaching because they did not want a Blackmajority.

63.Cole's own misgivings about this man's statements is shown by his disclaimer:"Of course, this is only one opinion, and may be incorrect but it shows that someAfrican-American Baha'is entertained these doubts" (ibid.). Actually, thisstatement shows only that one African-American entertained such doubts, andCole presents not a stitch of proof that allows him to extrapolate from 'one' to'some'. He makes this extrapolation in order to provide this man's statementswith the 'credibility of the crowd'.

64.Reflecting on this part of "Panopticon" leads to two questions. What is thepurpose of including all these uncorroborated innuendoes and accusations? Howdoes the inclusion of these insinuations and accusations inform readers about thehistory of the Faith in America? The inclusion of such uncorroborated but highlyserious accusations clearly indicates that "Panopticon" is intended as a polemicas much as an informative article.


16/42

65.Another of Cole's unsubstantiated claims concerns "informing which is officiallyencouraged "(ibid.) and the BAO's alleged "informant system" (ibid.) which"forms another important control mechanism" (ibid.). Given the enormousgravity of the charge, readers and peer-reviewers might reasonably expect Coleto have some documentary evidence supporting his assertion - but he does not.

What he has is two personal e-mails (July, 1997; April 1996), one passing onhear-say and the other making a personal accusation. If the American Baha'icommunity were really a panopticon, evidence for an "informant system" should

be overwhelming and unmistakable yet Cole's article provides nothing of thekind. Indeed, what he offers is simply fatuous.

66.As proof that informing is "officially encouraged"(ibid.) Cole presents a letterfrom the Universal House of Justice in which Baha'is are asked to challengethose who make unusual statements to show how their views relate to theCovenant, the 'constitution' of the Baha'i Faith. Cole does not explain how sucha direct challenge is informing. Furthermore, given the central role of theCovenant, it is not unreasonable to expect members to be able to explain howtheir views fit into the Faith's constitutional framework. Realizing the weaknessof this argument, Cole then interprets the fact that all Baha'is are free to taketheir concerns about doctrine and belief to the Institution of the Learned or theCounselors as a sign of official encouragement for informing. Others, of course,might rationally see this as a model of accessible leadership. In a desperate bidto shore up his rather feeble claim, Cole adds that "official will sometimesinvestigate" (ibid.) alleged remarks.

67.This last quote gives the game away: "sometimes" (ibid.). Informant systems donot work by "sometimes" (ibid.) investigating a claim; if they did, they wouldn't

be systems. Nor would they be reliable and effective in helping the BAO keep

and maintain control. The death blow to Cole's "Panopticon" comes from therealization that without a rigorous and utterly reliable informant system, onecannot have a panopticon. Occasional 'informing' and investigation makesgenuine control impossible - a fact that undermines the entire thesis of Cole'sarticle. The bottom line is that Cole's use of the word "sometimes" (ibid.) showsthat even he knows there is no "informant system" (ibid.) at work in the Baha'iFaith.

68.Cole's third unsubstantiated claim is that "antiliberals" (ibid.) have managed to"shape the community's ideology subtly by controlling media and silencingliberals who begin to become prominent" (ibid.). Precisely what did they do to

be so influential and so subtle? Cole says they controlled the media but providesno examples or evidence of such control and the reason why is obvious: in areligion that forbids campaigning, it is impossible to run ads calling attention toLSA and NSA candidates, much less their supposed 'political' leanings. How isthis influence supposed to work?

69.A perusal of official Baha'i magazines shows their preoccupation with teaching,the fund and, in recent years, the Arc. There are also messages from the NSAand the Universal House of Justice on a variety of topics from economics, Baha'ischolarship, women's rights to the internet. These letters bear no individualsignatures and, therefore, cannot function as campaign literature. Their

statements are copiously supported with quotes from Writings that are widelyavailable to all Baha'is who wish to examine matters more deeply. Baha'is whoare puzzled by a statement or a scriptural understanding are free, even


17/42

encouraged, to write the NSA and the Universal House for clarifications andmany have done so. If the 'subtle' influence is happening through these means,then it is up to Cole to provide examples that support his otherwise empty claim.

70.Could it be that Baha'is are being influenced by the fact that members of the

BAO get their pictures published more often than others? Cole seems to thinksuch things are "informal campaigning" (ibid.). Again, it is hard to imagine howseeing a picture of a particular Counselor or NSA member could sway a Baha'ito adopt an "antiliberal" (ibid.) position and it is Cole's responsibility to explainhow such an unlikely scenario could unfold. Given their positions andwidespread duties, frequent publication of some BAO members' photos isunavoidable unless one deletes all photos and name references entirely. This isunreasonable, especially in a highly visual age. The letters from individualsfound in official Baha'i magazines are almost exclusively positive but whowould reasonably expect otherwise in a religion that stresses accenting the

positive? Besides, such letters don't elect anyone.

71.Finally, there is nothing 'subtle' about "silencing liberals who begin to becometoo prominent" (ibid.). Silencing individuals who are becoming prominent is notan activity that can be hidden, most especially in the age of the telephone, fax,internet and personal web-pages. Indeed, even before his resignation from theBaha'i Faith, Cole was an example of how very difficult it is to silence a

prominent believer; his struggles regarding the Talisman discussion list not tomention pre-publication review were all very much in the public eye. His ownexperience belies his extravagant claims.

72. Typical of Cole's lack of hard evidence is his presentation of what he calls"informal campaigning" (ibid.) for office at the national level in the USA. Cole,

and some others, cite the following evidence: current NSA members enjoy "allthe advantages of incumbency" (ibid.), that is, their duties allow them to traveland speak widely; they attend conferences with "close associates" (ibid.), theyare widely photographed for Baha'i magazines and in general engage in the"semiotics of prominence" (ibid.). Cole does not explain just how exactly theycould avoid doing these things without also neglecting their duties. Moreover, itseems clear that if the publicity that accompanies doing their jobs is anaccidental and unavoidable by-product, then it is not appropriately understood as"informal campaigning" (ibid.). Campaigns are intentional actions undertaken toachieve a predetermined electoral result; what Cole describes here is anaccidental by-product of fulfilling one's duties. The truth is that Cole has nothing

worthy of being called evidence for his claims.

73.What does he really have? Two e-mails, and an anonymous anecdote in whichindividuals relate what they claim to have heard and believe! None arecorroborated. From these meager sources, he concludes that "there is awidespread perception among some portions of the community" (ibid.) that"some sort nomination" (ibid.) and subtle campaigning is going on. Later hementions the "semiotics of prominence [that are] thought by many to operate atthe National Convention" (ibid.). Cole presents no studies to justify theextrapolation from three to 'many' in a community of at least 60,000 adults.

74.Cole also makes other unsubstantiated statistical claims. He writes that "manyBaha'is believe" one thing or another about "their ecclesiastical institutions"(ibid.) or their "individual consciences" (ibid.). To the detriment of his article,


18/42

Cole provides no evidence to support his use of 'many' - whatever 'many' mightmean. Does it refer to an overwhelming majority, a bare majority or a strongminority? The bottom line is that Cole doesn't know and a scholarly journal hasno business in printing such pseudo-statistical claims. More on "Panopticon's"

problems with statistics follows below.

75.Still another example of Cole's unsubstantiated claims is his statement that the"ban on campaigning leads to a situation where a great deal of suspicion falls onany active intellectual or any medium of communication not directly controlled

by the NSA" (ibid.). "Suspicion falls on any intellectual ... not directlycontrolled by the NSA"? Surely, readers have a right to expect some hard,documentary evidence for a claim of such proportions - but at this point, wellinto "Panopticon", they have already noticed that the more grandiose Cole'sclaims, the weaker the evidence. In this case, it is non-existent.

76.Does Cole mean to suggest that all Baha'i intellectuals not under suspicion are"directly controlled by the NSA"(ibid.) ? It would be fascinating to see his proof,as one would for the following statement : "Great suspicion attaches to anyBaha'i teacher or lecturer who is not an elected or appointed official and isthought to be 'gaining a following" (ibid.) The best Cole can do on this issue isan anecdote about a single Baha'i , an anecdote which he closes with thestatement that "The rumor was that it [the closing down of his tour] was becausehe as developing a following (personal communication, 16 April, 1997)" (ibid.).The evidence we have here is not exactly high grade: a rumor and anuncorroborated personal communication about a single incident which is thenextrapolated into a common feature of the entire American Baha'i community.There will be more about this particular anecdote in the section on anecdotes

below.

77.The paucity of substantial and credible evidence for his claims leads Cole intoerrors of reasoning, as he tries, among other things, to connect his scraps into acoherent pattern.

4: PROBLEMS WITH REASONING:

78."Panopticon" contains numerous errors of reasoning which lead to self-contradiction or to incorrect, irrelevant or unwarranted conclusions. Some ofthese have already been mentioned, and others will be discussed below under theheading of "Errors in Statistics" and "Presentation".

79.One of the most pervasive logical errors in "Panopticon" is called "proof byselected instances". The physicist Richard Feynman provided a good example:he once dreamed a relative was going to die, but the relative didn't. Feynman didnot write a parapsychology institute about this negative example; if, on the otherhand, the relative had died, he probably would have and thus his letter wouldhave become additional 'proof' for a theory of pre-cognition. From the numberof all death-dreams, only a few are selected. Similarly, from the entire repertoireof e-mails (conversations, letters etc.) about the American BAO, Cole hasselected those that support his case. However, without some sort of statisticalstudy comparing the number of e-mails supporting Cole's views with the totalnumber of e-mails written about the BAO, it is a logical error to assume Cole'sselected examples represent anything other than isolated instances.


19/42

80."Panopticon" contains a major - and fatal - logical error in its second paragraph,where Cole writes: "One solution to this difficulty [of growth with strict internalcontrols] is to attempt to control what are thought of as key pressure points -vocal intellectuals, media, prominent institutions - and to give greater leeway toordinary believers" (ibid.). The body of "Panopticon" makes clear Cole's belief

that the BAO is following this strategy.81.The error of reasoning is simple: self-contradiction. One cannot, on one hand,

claim that the Baha'i Faith is a panopticon where everyone is informing oneveryone else to ensure orthodoxy and, on the other hand, also claim that thevast majority of members are given "greater leeway" (ibid.), that is, lesssupervision, for their thoughts. A panopticon in which the vast majority are freeor even relatively free of supervision is not a panopticon, not even in Foucault'ssense of the word. With the admission that only some (instead of all) are undersurveillance, Cole, once again, destroys the rational foundation of his belief thatthe Baha'i Faith is a panopticon.

82.Cole contradicts himself on this matter elsewhere in his article. On one hand, heclaims that "the cadre of 4,000" (ibid.) that serve as part of the Baha'i Faith'smonitoring system "forms a significant portion of the active believers" and onthe other, that "[c]onventional Baha'is often never discover the informantsystem, since they never trip the wire that leads to them being informed on"(ibid.). If a "significant portion" (ibid.) of "conventional Baha'is" (ibid.) areknowingly a part of the alleged "informant system" (ibid.) , then it cannot be truethat conventional Baha'is never discover it. After all, many of them, are part ofit. How can they help but notice that the "informant system" (ibid.) exists?

83."Panopticon" also falls into a circular argument. On the subject of 'tripping' "the

wire" of the "informant system" (ibid.), Cole writes, "The independent-minded,however, usually discover fairly early on in their Baha'i careers and then have todecide whether they wish to live the rest of their lives in a panopticon" (ibid.). Inother words, anyone who 'trips the wire' is independent and anyone who isindependent trips the wire. The argument is obviously circular, though Coleseems unaware of this problem.

84. This circularity itself leads to the fallacy of false alternatives because it suggeststhat people are either independent thinkers (and, therefore ex-Baha'is or Baha'is'in trouble' with the BAO) or they are not genuinely independent thinkers. Herejects out of hand the reasonable possibility that people may independently

have come to agree with the Faith or do not interpret the actions of the BAO ashe does.

85.Another argument that ends in a vicious circle involves Cole's use of ananecdote related to membership in the Baha'i Faith. Here, Cole refers to yetanother experience relayed to him by a "personal communication" (ibid.)regarding how there were only 3 Baha'is in Compton, California, whereas the

NSA had 22 addresses. The Cole admits "[t]his case cannot be typical but it issuggestive" (ibid.). Aside from the fact that the anecdote doesn't prove much ifit's only an atypical isolated incident, we have a serious problem. If this atypicalincident is "suggestive" (ibid.), one can only ask 'Suggestive of what?'.Obviously it suggests Baha'i numbers are inflated - but then it is not typical ...and so we go around and round. A atypical example cannot prove or support a


20/42

general conclusion. It is difficult to imagine how credible peer-reviewers at theJSSR missed such a logical lapse.

86.Another formal fallacy in "Panopticon" is the "fallacy of false attribution" orStraw Man fallacy. He attributes to the BAO the policy of trying to overcome

the incompatibility of strict intellectual controls with growth by keeping an eyeon "vocal intellectuals" (ibid.) and giving "greater leeway" (ibid.) to ordinarybelievers. Only the most short-sighted leadership would even try this becausegiving "greater leeway" (ibid.) to ordinary believers, creates and stimulates thevery conditions for heterodoxy which the BAO is supposedly trying to suppress.Given the obvious silliness of such a policy, Cole is obligated to provide somehard, preferably documentary evidence for this claim, but none is forthcoming.He simply attributes it to the BAO.

87. This leaves Cole falling into another self-contradiction. He claims, on one hand,that the BAO is subtle and insidious in its manipulations, while on the other heclaims these supposed masters of subtlety and intrigue have adopted a self-defeating strategy of curbing heterodoxy in a small minority by allowing"greater leeway" (ibid.) for heterodoxy in a vast majority. Without documentaryevidence, such claims are unworthy of serious consideration.

88.Cole contradicts himself again in his final paragraph, where he writes that "[c]conventional Baha'is often never discover the informant system, since they nevertrip the wire that would lead to their being informed on" (ibid.). Yet, at the startof "Panopticon", Cole states that BAO is so confident in the conventionality ofmost Baha'is that it will even give them "greater leeway" (ibid.) in their thinkingin order to isolate a few "key pressure points"(ibid.).

89.Another lapse in reasoning raises a fatal problem for "Panopticon": if mostBaha'is are so obedient and "conventional" (ibid.) that they never "trip the wirethat would lead to their being informed on" (ibid.), why would the AmericanBAO need an "informant system" (ibid.) ? There is no rationale for theestablishment of an "informant system" (ibid.) or a panopticon. Among so manyconformists, dissenters will be immediately obvious and vocal ones willinevitably draw considerable notice. Why then a need for all the subtlesubterfuges Cole attributes to the BAO? Unless confronted by overwhelmingevidence - especially of a documentary nature given the gravity of Cole'saccusation - thoughtful readers can only dismiss Cole's claims about an"informant system" (ibid.) as a figment of his imagination.

90.Another major error in reasoning stems from Cole's misunderstanding of therequirements of a panopticon. Unlike Cole, both Bentham and Foucaultrecognize that compulsory presence is essential in establishing and maintaining a

panopticon. Bentham's model is a prison and Foucault's is society as a wholewhich encloses all who live in it regardless of their wishes. Except byimmigration, leaving a social panopticon is extremely difficult. The problem isthat the Baha'i Faith is a voluntary organization.

91.This fact leads to a simple question that strikes at the heart of Cole's article: howcan anyone establish and maintain a panopticon in an organization which one

joins and leaves voluntarily?. By ignoring the voluntary nature of membership inthe Baha'i Faith as well as the need for compulsory presence in a panopticon,Cole creates a model that makes no sense: a panopticon with open doors to


21/42

freedom in a different environment. To escape observation and being spied uponone need only resign or leaves the organization and thereby go beyond the reachor the attention of the BAO and its alleged its alleged "informant system" (ibid.).

92.The fact that the Baha'i Faith is a voluntary organization leads to a deeper

problem with Cole's reasoning. The voluntary nature of the Baha'i Faith givesrise to another fundamental question: "If people freely submit to the discipline oforganizations they choose to join, are they being oppressed?" Cole seems tothink so and yet, there can be no rational defense of such views. Oppressionmeans precisely that people are subjected to pressures against their will. Being'voluntarily oppressed' is a contradiction of terms.

93.One of Cole's most pervasive logical errors is known as "special pleading". Forexample, he is disturbed that "Baha'i elective institutions are not beholden to theelectorate and may decide as they please" (ibid.). Logically, this statement is true- but trivial because it says nothing more than the obvious. This is true of anyelected institution, Baha'i or non-Baha'i : they can do as they please until thenext election. But if this is true of virtually all elected bodies, why is it evidenceof control and manipulation in the case of the BAO? Cole's critique has norationale, and does nothing to prove the control and manipulation he alleges.

94. Another example of special pleading involves his attempt to portray the BAO ascontrolling and manipulative in regards to what Baha'i owned businesses do withthe commercial materials related to the Faith. Like any other organization, theBaha'i Faith has certain symbols that function as its trademark. Theirmanufacture and sale is closely monitored - as plain common sense, notdictatorial delusions, would suggest. The same is true with teaching materials,musical or literary, as well as with other Baha'i -related work. Although virtually

all commercial enterprises, service organizations, clubs, educational institutions,religions, political parties engage in such 'product control', Cole - without everexplaining why - interprets these standard practices as evidence of a specialdictatorial trend in the BAO.

95.Cole's special pleading is also evident in how he treats the relationship betweenindividuals and Baha'i institutions. He states that "[n]o public criticism of Baha'iinstitutions is permitted" (ibid.) though he admits criticisms may be voiced atFeasts among other Baha'is and by letters to the institutions. These exceptions,which he tries to gloss over in a subordinate clause, are already broad enough to

blunt the worth of Cole's critique. However, if one remembers that service clubs

and political parties have similar rules and take a dim view of members airinglaundry in public, Cole's special pleading is irrational. Why is a behavior that isnormal in other parts of American society interpreted as a sign of repressionwith the BAO? Cole provides no reason for doing so.

96. A far more serious error of special pleading - and consequent grossmisrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith - involves the issue of the role discipline inthe Baha'i Faith. Membership in any community unavoidably involvesrestrictions on one's actions and speech; Rotarians, for example, are expected toconduct themselves to a certain standard. Cole, however, seems oblivious of thefact that both voluntary and involuntary communities not only have certain rules

by which all members are expected to abide but also have sanctions with whichto punish violators. This is necessary to maintain the integrity and cohesivenessof the community so that it and its members may go about achieving their goals.


22/42

Any community that fails in this task will soon disintegrate. Given this universalstate of affairs, it is difficult to see why what is common to all - disciplinarymeasures should - in the Baha'i case - be viewed as evidence of somethingspecial. Cole certainly gives us no reasons to take this path.

97. Because Cole misrepresents the Baha'i disciplinary system in his effort to use itas proof of the controlling and manipulative nature of the BAO, it is necessary toprovide a more accurate account.

98. In the section titled "Control Mechanisms and Sanctions" (ibid.), Cole lists theremoval of administrative rights, being dropped from the membership rolls and

being declared a "covenant breaker" (ibid.) and "shunning" (ibid.). He writesthat "Baha'i leaders employ a number of important control mechanisms to shapethe speech and behavior of Baha'is" (ibid.).

99.In essence, the Baha'i Faith has three grades of sanctions, the first of which, lossof administrative rights, does not involve loss of membership. Without

administrative rights, a Baha'i may not be married as a Baha'i, may not take partin Feasts, vote or hold Baha'i office until whatever difficulty which occasionedthe loss is remedied. Loss of these rights is caused by clear and publicly flagrantviolations of Baha'i laws pertaining to alcohol, marriage political involvementand homosexual acts. LSA's have the right to recommend such a loss to the NSA

but they are obligated to investigate matters fully and have considerable leewayin making such recommendations. They must decide, for example, whethermedical or psychiatric conditions are involved, whether or not the well-being ofchildren must be taken into consideration and how much time people may needto mend their behaviors. In other words, these matters are far from cut and dryand lack the consistency one would expect from the kind of tightly controlled

panopticon described by Cole. The variety of LSA actions on such matters alonerefutes the central thesis of Cole's article about programmatic, persistent andrigorous control and manipulation by the BAO.

100.According to Cole, "[i]n some instances the NSA has removed rights foressentially political reasons, because a believer has publicly or even privatelycriticized (Baha'is would say 'slandered') the National Spiritual Assembly"(ibid.). Unfortunately, he offers neither names nor details, to support his claimthat the motivation was "essentially political" (ibid.). Given Cole's penchant for

politicizing his presentation of the Faith as torn between liberals andconservatives, aware readers simply cannot take such claims at face value.

101.A second, more serious sanction is being removed from the membership lists.This is an intermediate step between the removal of administrative rights and themost serious sanction, being declared a covenant breaker. Being removed fromthe rolls results when an NSA or the Universal House of Justice decides that a

person's words and actions demonstrate that s/he does not really understand thenature of their commitment to Baha'u'llah. Such individuals may even have areasof agreement with the Faith but their actions show that they do not understand -and, therefore, cannot genuinely have consented to - the requirements of fullmembership in the Baha'i Faith. Their words and actions are not motivated byill-will or personal ambition but rather by simple misunderstanding of the natureof the Faith and membership.


23/42

102.Even though "Panopticon" is supposedly about the controlling practices of theAmerican BAO, Cole cannot name a single American who has been dropped.The only example he names is Michael McKenny, a Canadian science-fictionwriter. Cole's inability to name an American treated in this manner deals aserious blow to his portrait of an all-controlling and dictatorial BAO in the

U.S..It should also be noted that since McKenny's departure, one other Baha'ihas been dropped from the rolls - in New Zealand. In other words, even threeyears after his article, Cole could find exactly two cases - in the entire Baha'iworld - of someone being dropped from the rolls. None of these cases areAmerican. The rarity with which this sanction is used flatly disproves Cole's

portrait of a highly regimented, controlled, panopticoned community.

103.Elementary math demonstrates the rarity of this sanction. If we use a veryconservative 20,000 as the Canadian Baha'i population, we find that Mr.McKenny represents .00005%. This miniscule percentage is clear mathematical

proof that this sanction is rarely used. This fact leads to an obvious question:"Does a method of discipline used against 5/10,000 of a population constitute acredible threat or deterrent to anyone? Is it likely to be effective in controlling

people? This question becomes even more forceful when we recall that Baha'isare people who have already shown enough independence of mind and spirit toleave behind the main-stream religions in their society. The unlikelihood of suchrarely used discipline being effective obligates Cole to provide evidence that itis.

104.Contrary to the impression given by "Panopticon", the decision to dropsomeone from the rolls is made only after consultation and correspondence withthose concerned. On this matter, "Panopticon" unfortunately descends into plaindisingenuousness when it states, "Baha'is who publicly disagree (e.g. on email

lists) with policies of Baha'i institutions can also be simply dropped from therolls and declared non-members, as happened to Michael McKenny, in July,1997" (ibid.). The writer of this review has, in fact, corresponded with Mr.McKenny since they both belonged to an earlier incarnation of the Talisman9listserv. The truth is that Mr. McKenny was not "simply dropped" asunceremoniously as suggested by Cole.

105.Indeed, Mr. McKenny had long and extensive discussions about his issues withall levels of the BAO. Nonetheless, he chose to continue his challenges on such

basic matters as the composition of the Universal House of Justice. This placedthe BAO in the position of having to decide whether he was intentionally

subverting the Faith, that is, a covenant breaker, or whether he genuinely didn'tunderstand the nature of his membership in the Baha'i Faith. The BAO chose thelatter, less severe option which allows for the possibility of an eventual return tothe Faith and allows Baha'is to remain in contact with him.

106.The fact that Baha'is may remain in contact with Mr. McKenny and the otherperson who has been dropped from the rolls seriously undermines"Panopticon's" portrait of Baha'is as rigorously controlled, manipulated andisolated by the BAO. So does the fact that numerous Baha'is remain in contactwith Cole himself for the purposes of intellectual discussion. Some Baha'is, ofcourse, may choose to avoid individuals who have been dropped but this is no

more than the exercise of their personal freedom of association. Since this is amatter of personal choice, it is a complete misrepresentation to present this stateof affairs as "shunning" as Cole tries to do. Genuine shunning is a community


24/42

action, not a matter of choice simply because it is ineffective if not supported byall. Other Baha'is, however, may stay in touch with individuals dropped from therolls. Cole's portrait of Baha'is as rigorously controlled, manipulated and isolatedis factually false.

107.The third and by far the most serious sanction against a Baha'i is being declareda covenant breaker, that is, a person who knowingly and intentionally tries tosubvert the basic teachings and organization of the Faith while claiming to be aBaha'i. This sanction is so serious that only the Universal House of Justice canimpose it. Like being dropped from the rolls, this sanction is rarely applied

because the consequences are so extraordinarily severe: Baha'is are forbidden allcontact with the individual; spouses and even children can only evade similarsanctions by removing themselves from contact or by resigning from the Faith.

108.This is a tough measure but not without its rationale. In the Baha'i view,covenant breaking is like an infectious, albeit spiritual, disease. Some may findthis medical metaphor distasteful, but thoughtful analysis shows it to be mostapt. This is because covenant breaking originates in the person's mind. Itinvolves a belief that s/he is superior to the elected authorities, that s/he

possesses the 'real' Teachings and that s/he has a duty to bring these trueteachings to power by converting others from within the Faith. In other words,covenant breaking involves the attitude that one is above the law - entitled tochallenge duly elected authority - and, in some way, the recipient divineguidance to correct the institutions established by Baha'u'llah. It involves the

belief that one is somehow necessary for the good of the Faith, that is, itinvolves an immense egoism, as well as the conviction that others must be madeto see this fact. Furthermore, covenant breaking involves intellectual andspiritual dishonesty. The fact is, Baha'u'llah has clearly designated His

successors. People who feel they belong in this line have obviously abandonedtheir faith in Baha'u'llah and His decrees and should, therefore, resign in anorderly manner and then go about their mission. However, they refuse to do this;they refuse to recognize that their self-appointed mission contradicts andsubverts Baha'u'llah's instructions and that, in effect, they no longer believe inBaha'u'llah. Rather than admit this, they create problems within the Baha'icommunity.

109.Once the psychological nature of covenant breaking is understood, one canreadily see why the disease metaphor is appropriate. As any classroom teacheror other person in a leadership position can attest, bad attitudes and their

consequences are, in fact, infectious. Others around the problematic individualpick up the attitudes, often as the result of clever manipulation. If consultationfails, the only remaining alternative is rigorous isolation; in schools, students are

put in corners, sent into the hall or to the office, and in extreme cases, expelled.Military recruits can be expelled with a dishonorable discharge. These toughmeasures are taken because long experience has demonstrated that bad attitudescan spread from one person to another and destroy any organization. For thisreason, the severe sanction of covenant breaking is not only reasonable but alsois the only action a responsible leadership can take for the good of all.

110.Cole's presentation of covenant breaking is a gross misrepresentation for two

reasons. First, he does not make it clear that this sanction is used with extra-ordinary rarity and then only as a last resort. Second, Cole misrepresents theissue by writing that individuals can be declared CB's "for expression of


25/42

conscience" (ibid.). He then disproves his own statement in the immediatelyfollowing quote which uses as an example, an individual who had "urged reformof Baha'i judicial procedure" (ibid.). This has nothing to do with individualconscience; this individual was lobbying for changes in the Baha'i justice systemas established by Baha'u'llah and His appointed successors. By challenging the

system, i.e. claiming to know better than God's duly appointed successors, thisperson's behaviors, his actions, were a clear violation of his contract to acceptBaha'u'llah's guidance and judgment. Cole's claims to the contrary, this person,was in actual fact " fomenting a schism" (ibid.).

5: PROBLEMS WITH STATISTICS:

111.In his "Historical Background of the American Baha'i Community", Coleprovides a variety of statistics on the growth and alleged shrinkage ofmembership in the U.S. . Unfortunately, however, problems with these statisticsthemselves as well as with Cole's statistical reasoning devalue much if not all ofhis claims.

112.Cole's most obvious problem with statistics lies in his use of a 1990 CUNY(City University of New York) poll which estimated the size of the AmericanBaha'i community at 28,000. Even Cole admits this is "perhaps on the low side"(ibid.) but the utter worthlessness of the CUNY poll is definitively demonstrated

by the fact that the American NSA has confirmed addresses for 60,000 adults, anumber which even Cole accepts. Oddly enough, Cole then tries to use thisdeeply flawed study to "confirm that there are not a large number of lost Baha'isfloating around the general population" (ibid.). How, one might ask, how cansuch a worthless study be used to confirm anything at all - except sloppystatistical work at CUNY?

113.One of "Panopticon's" most astounding lapses in statistical reasoning concernsCole's belief that the actual number of American Baha'is is well below the130,000 claimed by the American NSA. He describes this number as a "vastexaggeration" (ibid.). One reason for disputing the official figure is a NSAsurvey showing only one third of Baha'is attend the regu

Documents

A Review of Juan Cole's Panopticon