oldchakra.com

[HOME] [Printer-Friendly] [E-Mail This Link]

Before entering the debate between His Holiness Srila Danavir Maharaja and Mother Madhusudani Radha devi dasi, I would like to shortly introduce myself: I am teaching at a major state university, and I aspire to be a devotee (or the other way round).

Marrying science (and I mean proper and real, not just fringe science) and devotional service is not an easy task, as some of the more academically inclined devotees here will most probably know. Thus, it was with great interest and pleasure that I read about the RVC. But I, too, was rather disappointed when I looked closer at what RVC claims to be in contrast to what it actually is.

Why? First of all, I should say that I think it is perfectly okay that RVC is an organization that will be recognized mainly, if not only, in the big small ISKCON world.

But I think it is not at all okay to claim to be more than one is, and in this case, RVC obviously presents itself as being much more than it is and can be (at least under the present circumstances): RVC’s degrees are not accredited, and to claim that they are "recognized" is, I think, severely misleading.

"Recognized" is a neutral term, but to uninformed (or not-so-informed) devotee parents, it may seem as if RVC degrees are useful for the careers of their children in the large outside world.

Not so – not at all. And I think, especially if we consider the often difficult financial / career situation many devotees sooner or later find themselves in, it would have been the obligation of RVC to inform its potential clients about the fact that its degrees are as useful (or rather, useless) for further careers as are degrees from mail-order universities.

In fact, there are many simple ways to get a non-accredited degree. But unfortunately, it is not only simple, it also is totally useless. Now please note that I am not saying that RVC is a useless organization, but the degrees are, at least in the outside world. From my own experience as a faculty member at an accredited state university, I can tell you: I consider myself very committed and loyal to ISKCON, but if I try to imagine whether I would or could or should accept a graduate student from RVC as a postgrad, I would have to send him back to start all anew.

To cut a long story short: unaccredited degrees are not and cannot be accepted (or recognized) by the faculty of any real university. (We had a similar case here recently. Can you imagine the disappointment of a student when he finds out that his years of learning at an unaccredited college led him literally nowhere, academically speaking?)

I am not sure whether RVC’s omission was by mistake or by purpose, but I won’t hide my disappointment about it. Either way, this information is far too important and crucial to be simply forgotten or hidden. I sense (and I know that I speculate) that there is at least a shade of dishonesty playing a role here.

And I’ll give you another example: Danavir Maharaja says he laughed about the following quote of Madhusudani Radha dd:

"She says, ‘Their [RVC’s] ISKCON affiliation is strangely absent from the text [the RVC website].’" And he points out that the very front page of RVC states that it is an ISKCON organization.

That may be so, but please look at what Madhusudani Radha dd really said:

"In addition, at least three quarters of the endorsements from the ‘academic community’ are written by devotee insiders, although their ISKCON affiliation is strangely absent from the text."

There is quite a difference here: She was talking about the devotees who are presented as members of the academic community, and not about RVC as such, as Danavir Maharaja falsely claims (see brackets and how the quote was doctored). And she makes a valid point, and not one to laugh about: I also think it is rather strange to turn devotees into karmis just for the sake of presenting a few endorsements by members of the academic community.

Furthermore, this misquotation is hardly an example of a proper academic discussion. And while misquoting isn’t a fair debating method in general, it certainly does even less serve the credentials of the spiritus rector of an academic organization.

Such half-honest presentation techniques are found throughout RVC’s self-portrait, and they are not serving the cause. RVC as it is, is such a great idea and project that it doesn’t need to claim to be more than it is.

Let me close by saying that I want to sincerely apologize for any offenses I have committed herein, especially against Danavir Maharaja, whose wonderful lectures are a source of constant inspiration to me. I would like to emphasize that these minor criticisms are directed against a presentation, not against a person who I highly respect.

And I wrote this letter not to sabotage or criticize what I think is a wonderful project. Rather, I am happy to find a way to serve the RVC by honestly stating what little I know and can contribute. I am sorry that I cannot find anything better so say about this whole show.

Your servant,
Anonymous d.

© CHAKRA 17 May 2002