(References:
There are two ways a course can be run. It can be in-ethics or out-ethics.
An in-ethics course means that HCOBs are applied, verbal data doesn’t exist whatsoever, schedules are strictly adhered to, musters are held, the Supervisor applies all the study tech, etc.
An out-ethics course would be anything less and sometimes becomes so obviously out-ethics that you see students goofing around on course, late arrivals for roll call, students taking cigarette breaks whenever they feel like it, verbal data running rampant, and a Course Supervisor that does nothing but stand around.
There’s such a thing as group agreement and if a new student walks into an out-ethics course room, he will tend to go into agreement with it and join in.
There’s no in-between point. A course (or any activity for that matter) cannot be run semi-standardly or with “pretty much in-ethics.” It must be run with totally standard tech and in-ethics. If this is not the case you’ll get a gradually lowered ethics level, admin will go out and standard tech slips down to “some of the tech being applied when we can.”
When a student or Supervisor goes into a course room and sees things that are out-ethics or nonstandard or “not the way Ron says they should be” and doesn’t do something effective to handle the scene then he himself will become part of it; he goes into agreement with it and will actually contribute to the out-ethics.
This situation is a widespread thing in our society today. It’s not limited to our course rooms. You see it in marriages. It has become an acceptable thing to get divorced, create broken homes, cheat on your spouse. In the world of big business you’re told to swindle Mr. X before he swindles you. This is group agreement. It is agreed upon out-ethics.
Now, if a course room is run like this you’ll get auditors who won’t keep auditing appointments, misapply tech, fail to handle their pcs’ ethics, give and accept verbal data, have nonstandard admin, etc. etc. You will also train executives who will operate out-ethics, off-policy orgs. Either way, you’re setting yourself up for losses.
Therefore, it is now a Comm Ev offense for a Course Supervisor or MAA (Ethics Officer) to allow the following out-ethics activities in their course rooms, with the result of declare of being a suppressive person:
1. Does not muster his students in the morning, after lunch, and after dinner, precisely on time, note absences and take action.
2. Permit students to talk to each other or wander around or take unscheduled breaks or goof off during course hours.
3. Permit students to eat or smoke in the course room.
4. Permitting persons to come into the course room and bother students for any reason.
5. Supervisor standing around or sitting at his desk not actively handling students who need help.
6. Not getting students through their course and graduated.
It goes without saying that all elements of HCO PL 16 March 71R What Is A Course? should be in on a course. A Supervisor who does not run a course per checksheet, lets students study without dictionaries and demo kits, does not make all materials available and does not fully apply study tech and use Word Clearing is of course suppressive and should be declared, as he is actively blocking Scientologists from having and benefiting from Scientology.
Flag and FOLO observers and missions should always have a target to see that this policy letter is fully in.
You see, our success in clearing this planet depends upon the success of our courses as this is where we train our auditors, C/Ses, Supervisors and administrators and that is the whole team!