(Section 6 of Part 3 – Why I Left the Church)
I haven’t yet mentioned what I think is the worst aspect of the Golden Age of Tech. COB implied that before his “Golden Age” that no previously trained auditor was good enough without doing their Golden Age of Tech. Individual auditor production records were not taken into account at all in judging who needed to do the Certainty Courses. All previously trained auditors were eventually not allowed to audit anymore if they hadn’t done their “Certainty Courses”. It was as if nobody had ever audited standardly before COB “discovered” what was “wrong” with ALL auditors, even the ones who had been auditing successfully for years, and EVEN the ones who had been trained by LRH!
To blanketly order all auditors to re-tread or re-train or for all of them to get the same correction is a clear violation of the Cramming Series. Correction done in Qual is a one-on-one proposition and is only done on auditors when they do something wrong.
“There is a certain technology on how to write up a cramming order.
- “Isolate the exact outnesses in the folder.
- “Order those HCOBs or PLs crammed.
- “Now look in a slightly wider circle around the data flunked and get which basic is involved (e.g., Auditor’s Code, TRs, metering, handling the session, handling the pc, etc.) and get that crammed too.” – LRH (HCOB 12 Dec 71, Cramming Series 8, C/S Series 70, How to Write Up a Cramming Order, Technical Series Volume 2, page 509)
“Invalidation kills auditors. So don’t chew on them any harder than is necessary to get the job done.
“So invalidation could be defined as:
a. Letting an auditor lose.
b. Correcting things he does right.”
LRH (HCOB 1 Sept 71 I, C/S Series 57, A C/S as a Training Officer, A Program for Flubless Auditing, Technical Series Volume 1, page 219 and 220)
“It is up to Qual to handle, fully and totally. This means, not following the exact order, but finding the real Why on the person and handling it at once.” – LRH (HCOB 15 Mar 72, Cramming Series 9, Cramming, Technical Series Volume 2, page 510)
“What occurs with an auditor who takes a nonstandard action in a session is as follows: The auditor, in doing his training, does not fully grasp some data in his materials to the point where he can apply it in the session. Then, when he is auditing, a situation comes up that he does not know how to handle. The auditor does not know the correct action to take because he didn’t fully get the material in his training, so he does something goofy and the case caves in.
“A Cramming Officer, working with the Case Supervisor, must keep auditors on a standard line of application. When an auditor moves off that narrow path, he has got to be put back on it with a club.
“In this type of circumstance, the Cramming Officer’s key cramming question is: What situation did you run into that you had to invent something to do something about?
“At the moment that question is answered, the Cramming Officer will have established immediately the missingness of the auditor’s data.
“In other words, the key cramming question can trace it back to a given level, but if an auditor has gone seventeen levels above the point where he missed, those will all be missed. The Cramming Officer can ask the auditor, ‘When did you first have to invent something in a session to handle the situation?’ And by tracing that down, the Cramming Officer has established the level he didn’t get. This tells the Cramming Officer where the auditor has a misunderstood word in his study materials, which is just before what the auditor didn’t get at that level.
“Once the Cramming Officer has isolated this, he can use Word Clearing, Crashing Misunderstood Finding, retreads of courses and other tools as needed to handle what was found and clean up the auditor so he has no missingness of data.
“Summary” [name of last section of the bulletin]
“Proper use of this key cramming question and handling what comes up can shorten an auditor’s training time enormously. It has a precise use and, when properly applied, can increase the effectiveness of cramming and thus the standardness of Scientology and Dianetics application.” – LRH (HCOB 19 Apr 91, Cramming Series 18, A Key Cramming Question)
The above references are ones I found in the C/S Series and Cramming Series which I think most give the understanding on how correction of auditors is supposed to be done in Scientology. I have never seen a reference that says that you EVER correct an auditor beyond any specific errors that he has made (except to sometimes look at a more basic or fundamental area that that particular auditor has somehow missed on his training), or that you give the same correction to every auditor in all of Scientology. When an auditor is productively auditing, you let him audit. You don’t make him train again all the way from the beginning. And when an auditor is goofing, you correct him on the specific errors he made and you give him a study and drill program that is best suited to him at that particular time. Sometimes he has to retread or retrain courses but not always, it depends on the individual situation.
I personally know of at least two auditors who were auditing before the release of the Golden Age of Tech who are no longer auditing. One of them was my auditor and was my personal favorite. He was told, not too long after the GAT release, that he was forbidden from auditing at all until he completed his certainty courses. He was one of the best, if not the best, auditor I have had. He hasn’t audited in about 15 years. While you may argue that he could still have just done his Certainty Courses and it wouldn’t have killed him, that still doesn’t justify this gross out-tech situation on the part of COB, RTC and all of the Church of Scientology.
I have since read other auditors’ stories about how their auditing was invalidated by this arbitrary.
To me, I look at this as one more indicator that COB has no regard for LRH tech and policy except for how skilled he is at using false PR to make it look like he is the champion of Standard Tech and Standard Admin.