International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

The two articles appeared in the ISKCON Communications Journal, the movement’s official journal, in 1998. Its editor had asked Rochford, a Middlebury College sociologist who had studied the movement for two decades, to write the history of abuse in the schools (The New York Times). He described children abused “physically, psychologically, and sexually by people responsible for their care”, in schools staffed by untrained devotees, and estimates of the share of pupils abused ranged from 20 percent of all ashram-gurukula pupils to as many as 75 percent of the boys at one school in Vrindavan, India (as summarised by the Los Angeles Times in 2003). The Times reported that the highest levels of abuse in American schools were in Dallas, Seattle and New Vrindaban, West Virginia, and that the leadership had first been confronted by former pupils at a meeting in May 1996.

ISKCON set up a Child Protection Office in 1997–98. In June 2000 its director told AP that the office had compiled the names of 200 people who allegedly abused children in the 1970s and 1980s and had finished more than 60 investigations: “There is no doubt many children did suffer … while under the care of the organization.” ISKCON’s spokesman said then that its leaders “have acknowledged abuse in the boarding schools” (AP, 2000).

The claims of former pupils against ISKCON’s leaders and temple corporations, and the 2005 settlement, are recorded in the separate entry on the lawsuits and in the case Children of ISKCON v. ISKCON.

Federal suit (2000–2001). On 12 June 2000 the Dallas firm of Windle Turley filed Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al. in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas for 44 former pupils, seeking $400 million. The complaint alleged abuse “primarily between the years 1972 and 1990” at ISKCON schools in the United States and in Vrindavan and Mayapur, India. It claimed that the GBC administered the school system and that ISKCON, “by and through its GBC”, concealed the abuse. It sued under the federal racketeering law (RICO); according to Nori Muster’s documentation of the case, Turley chose federal court so that the organisation as a whole, including the Indian schools, could be brought into one case. Turley told AP that ISKCON “knowingly allowed suspected sex offenders to work in its boarding schools”.

On 28 September 2001 Judge Sam A. Lindsay dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice because the former pupils had not shown an injury to their “business or property”, which RICO requires. He declined to hear the state-law claims, so these were dismissed without prejudice and could be refiled in state court. Defendants who had never been served were also dismissed without prejudice. Religious groups including the National Council of Churches and the US Catholic Conference had asked to file a brief supporting ISKCON on the RICO question; the court found it unnecessary (Doc. 135; ISKCON press release).

State suit and bankruptcy (2001–2005). On 25 October 2001 Turley refiled in the District Court of Dallas County (192nd Judicial District, No. 01-09282) for 91 former pupils. In February 2002 eleven ISKCON temples and related corporations filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: six in California (US Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, San Fernando Valley Division, lead case SV 02-13532-AG) and five in West Virginia (Northern District of West Virginia, No. 02-51295), jointly administered. AP reported, citing ISKCON’s spokesman, that they would file “to avoid being sued”; ISKCON said the filing would let it set up a compensation fund instead of spending its money on a trial. The filing stopped the suit (My Generation, 2002). In April 2003, as part of the bankruptcy, the debtors published notices asking anyone abused in the schools to file a claim by 30 June 2003 (Los Angeles Times, 2003; claims notice).

Settlement (2005). The reorganization plans were confirmed in West Virginia on 16 May 2005 and in California on 23 May 2005. They created a $9.5 million fund for former pupils, at about $2,500 to $50,000 each, which included claimants who had never joined the suit (ISKCON press release; Hindu Press International). Turley called the outcome, in which “the defendant explicitly apologizes and acknowledges their wrong”, a “validation” for the former pupils (Los Angeles Times, 2005).