MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Matthew Israel Interviewed by Jennifer Gonnerman

Page 2 of 12



TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


JG: Where were the houses?

MI: One was in South End in Boston, one was in Arlington.

JG: And they just flopped?

MI: Well, they had all the problems of a marriage without the satisfactions people have in marriage. All the problems of living together.

JG: How many people were in them?

MI: The first had six or seven people; the second had five. The first had a three-year-old girl who had these terrible behaviors. Screaming. She was very spoiled. Her mother was a Freudian. She was an unwed mother, but she gave me the chance to do training with her child.

JG: What did that entail?

MI: Well, the first thing was that she had to stop this; she was very wild and screaming. I had started a group called the Association of Social Design—people who wanted to work toward building a behavioral community—and at a party she would walk around with a toy broom and whack people over the head.

JG: This was the Association of Social Design?

MI: Yeah, we'd have a meeting once every eight days, invite people, try to get people interested in a utopian community; that was when behavioral modification was beginning to. . .the first journals were in the '60s, and I remember at one point she would be screaming and I would retreat to my own room, and she'd be trying to pull away and get into my room, and I'd have to hold the door on one side to keep her from disturbing me while I tried to talk to someone.

When she was screaming one day, I asked her mother if I could try a few behavioral procedures, and her mother said, "Okay." I would reward her when she was quiet and not screaming, but that alone didn't seem to work sufficient. One day I found myself alone in the house with her and she started to barge into my room when I was trying to work or something, and maybe she was screaming or whatever; I found myself putting her in her room and saying, "There's no screaming. Time-out for you." Time-out was a procedure that was being used in a lot of papers and literature. The idea was that you took away the opportunity for reward—it was time-out from reinforcement.

And she kept screaming, and that was annoying. And now she's trying to come out of the room and I'm a 40-year-old, in my late 30s, holding the door on one side and this little 3-year-old is on the other side, and I thought, "This is ridiculous." I went into her room. I gave her a snap on her cheek, and said, "There's no screaming when you're in time-out."

JG: What is this, like a. . .

MI: A punishment. It's a snap on the cheek with the finger; it was either a snap or a slap, I'm not sure which. And I went outside again and I would measure how long she was quiet. And I noticed: I did this a couple of times, and she would stop her crying. And I would take walks with her—that was a source of a lot of reward—and it got to the point where she was so well-mannered that if I sat across the table from her and she started to do something inappropriate, I could just shake my head at her like this, and she would…Instead of being an annoyance, she became a charming addition, a charming individual to the house.

And I'd teach her how to play by herself. I'd say, "If you can play by yourself for a while"—I'd set a timer—and I'd say, "If you can play by yourself for two minutes, we'll do something fun." It was the same basic behavioral techniques. It was general property. It wasn't something I invented; it was obvious principles. So that was kind of an eye-opener to see how effective this was. Skinner's work was mostly with pigeons and rats, and he speculated that the same basic principles would work with human organisms as well. And only in the '60s, '70s, and '80s did people start to actually do research with humans, at first with psychotic and retarded people, then with more normal, unimpaired individuals.

JG: What was this little girl's name?

MI: Andrea.

JG: And what ever happened to Andrea?

MI: I don't know. I would like to know.

JG: So she was in some ways your first pupil. I don't know if pupil's the word.

MI: Yes, that's right, and there was a couple that joined the house that summer, largely because they found her so charming. She could be a sweet, charming little girl.

JG: How often would you have to slap her on the face?

MI: It was just a couple times. I think I didn't use a slap. If I used it the first time, then I went to just a cheek snap. I would give her instructions to just follow directions. I'd say, "Andrea, we're going to learn to follow directions." I'd give her directions that weren't necessarily meaningful things. I'd say, "Touch the doorknob, please." If she did, I'd pick her up and reward her extravagantly. If she refused, I might give her a snap on the cheek.

Skinner had not really been a proponent of punishment. His Walden Two was a world where reward was used so skillfully that you didn't need to ever punish. And he said of punishment that it works temporarily but in the long run it has—he related a lot of the problems people had to punishment early in life. That was the theme of the Freudian approach also.

Anyway, to skip forward a little bit, in the late '60s I decided perhaps—these two communal houses were in '67 and '68—and I decided maybe a better way was to start a school, because a school will provide jobs for the members of the community. And that's how I got into starting a school.

Once the school got started—it started in the homes of two students in Providence, Rhode Island—once the school got started, I think the first couple of employees…I insisted they had to be people interested in Walden Two.

JG: The first couple employees?

MI: Yeah. And then I found that I didn't want to compromise the quality of the school by making that requirement. And I also found as the next three or four years went by that I was getting such satisfaction out of running the school that the potential satisfactions of the utopian community were less important to me. I was sort of getting satisfaction out of real life, for the first time really, so the dream of the utopian community kind of faded away and I worked on developing the school. But little elements of the school, in some respects, still has similar elements of Walden Two.

JG: Were there any elements in particular?

MI: Well, Walden Two had a…there was a woman described—there are a lot of elements, really, if I think about it—there was a woman who went around the community with a clipboard just asking the members—there's only 1,000 people in the community, and she would ask people if they're satisfied with things and if they had any problems. 'Cause the idea of the government community is that you wanted to have a community where people are getting their needs met, things are working smoothly.

We have a discussion board for our staff—it's online—which does the same thing. In fact, the practicing employees are required to make some entries.

JG: So you don't need someone with a clipboard anymore?

MI: Yeah, we don't need the clipboard. Another example would be, yesterday we talked about the "programmed opportunities." In Walden Two, he described some training and self-management, with little children, and one example of the training would be they would have to sit in front of bowls of hot, steaming cereal when they were hungry and not eat it. Or there was another where they would hang lollipops around their neck and coat them with white sugar so if they lick them they could tell. These were essentially little programmed opportunities that were hopefully intended to build resistance, tolerance to frustration, ability to defer gratification for a period of time.

Photo: Larry Sultan


 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I have posted an extensive response to Ms. Gonnerman's article under the main article at http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html. And for a fully formatted version of my response to Ms.Gonnerman's article, please see http://www.judgerc.org/ResponsetoGonnermanArticle.pdf Matthew L. Israel, Ph.D. Executive Director Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
Posted by:Matthew L. IsraelAugust 24, 2007 12:31:04 AMRespond ^
Please see my response at: http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html
Posted by:Ilana Slaff, M.D.August 24, 2007 10:28:31 AMRespond ^
That's a nice load of ego-inflating crap, but you're still going to get owned.
Posted by:Luke StephensAugust 24, 2007 1:17:02 PMRespond ^
WHAT THE [deleted].
Posted by:August 24, 2007 1:42:36 PMRespond ^
LOL
Posted by:anonAugust 24, 2007 2:27:19 PMRespond ^
Re. the evolution of JRC from Skinner: Something about that time, I'm not sure what it was, created a hotbed for these types of places. There were a lot of new ideas floating around about the human psyche, and people tried mucking around with those ideas, for whatever reasons... perhaps some of them were even good-intentioned. I guess some people thought they could apply these ideas to solving some of the "problems of the day," e.g., straightening up the "errant and wayward youth" and turning them into productive citizens. It would seem that the idea that one's teenage years are, by definition, turbulent times fraught with stress and filled with a modicum of experimentation, had not yet been accepted as not necessarily a bad thing. Apparently it still isn't. ...Matthew Israel appears to have escaped close scrutiny of his methods and ideology since he focused on a small subset of youth, namely, self-abusing and mentally disturbed individuals whose parents felt they had no other alternative. His target clientele in the early days weren't exactly able to speak for themselves. Now that the Judge Rotenberg Center has started to target more mainstream malcontents, be it for reasons of greed or myopia, we are starting to hear stories of what life is really like there. May the sunlight of this current exposure prove to be the requisite disinfectant needed to put these atavistic barbaric cruelties to rest.
Posted by:UrsusAugust 25, 2007 12:15:12 PMRespond ^
Pigeons and rats .... behavioural psychologists are sadists and since when did a 'slap' on the cheek develop into electroshock torture? Is this evil stupid idiot jewish or what?
Posted by:DaftAidaSeptember 6, 2007 1:38:41 PMRespond ^
"He loved Big Brother. He had always loved Big Brother." ----George Orwell's 1984
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 10:44:06 AMRespond ^
Yeah. Mickey Mouse's a good, funny cite for backdrop to pain and discomfort. Kinda like the playing of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine during excruciating torture in South America recently set forth in documentary "We Have Ways of Making You Talk" on Link T.V.
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 11:16:39 AMRespond ^
My foregoing comments were posted on an initial misunderstanding that each related to the particular page I was then reading and found the opportunity-for-comment box thereunder. My previous comments would make more sense taken in that context. For example, my citation to Orwell's famous concluding lines to 1984, if read in the context of "Katie's" purportedly willing endorsements of Israel's methodology. Similarly, the analogy to Beatles' song w/i context of article's referenced posting of mickey mouse posters within Israel's facility. But, now, in conclusion. I feel obliged to counter Israel's rather disingenous references to his organization's--and it was HIS operation, however much the corporate zig-zagging undoubtedly permitted by law consterns such attribution--CALIFORNIA experience. My then employment for the State of California in Sacramento's headquarters' offices (I am now retired after more than 30 years employment) of various agencies informs my recollection here. And, such recollection follows hereinafter: Operations conducted under the aegis of Behavioral Research Institute (BRI) were centered at a licensed facility on Zelzah Avenue in Northridge, CA. That facility, similar to those in this article, specialized in severely involved clients suffering "developmental disability(ies)" per (then) Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 4512. This statutory definition included both autism and mental retardation, among other specified conditions subsumed under the rubric "developmental disability". After receipt of more than a single complaint, both the funding agency (North L.A. Regional Center, an entity dispensing state funds via contract with the State Dept. of Developmental Services) and licensing authority (viz., the Dept. of Social Services' Community Care Licensing Division) commenced investigations of the Northridge facility and its practices. Said practices were not appreciably different from those still employed and embraced according to Israel's avowals in this article. At least one death, and (if memory serves, perhaps another) occurred at the Northridge facility DURING implementation of BRI containment "treatment intervention(s)". (One such technique involved many staff members "bringing down" a single client and rolling said client up in a lengthy piece of carpet/rug. This, of course, was defended as being for the client's "own good.") Similarly, as in the instances cited in this article, sundry "satisfied customers" (i.e., parents--never the mostly non-verbal BRI "clients/residents" themselves--were presented in "defense" of expressed agency concerns. Competent (assumedly costly) lawyers were also enlisted by BRI. Ultimately, at least one significantly lengthy appellate decision was rendered by the courts. (A published decision, this cannot be too hard to obtain a cite for by any paralegal/law clerk interested in doing so; I simply do not have the capacity here at my desk.) The facility was ultimately DE-licensed (although, as things legal go, it may well have been officially deemed a "surrender" by the licensee, as lawyers worked out all the fine points) and DE-funded by California agency action. Finally, as I recollect (and everything I assert here is in good faith predicated upon solely the recollections of an aged man [me] long after the fact!), the entire matter was "resolved" without any guilt/fault findings and essentially with an agreement that Israel's minions would no longer seek California public monies nor the official sanction of licensure while practicing such "theraputic" approaches as had brought the entire matter to a head in the first instance. In short, Israel's practices were effectively disapproved and put out of business in California insofar as taxpayers' dollars were concerned. In consequence, as Israel hedgingly ackknowledges in this article, his type of "therapy" with defenseless "developmentally disabled" clientele as employed at the Northridge BRI facility no longer is funded nor officially sanctioned in Calif.--notwithstanding his referenced reminant at the Tobin facility. As everywhere else where Irael's tax-paid practices have been challenged, he successfully enlisted the support of various politicos in seeking to defeat his rejection in California. It appears to always be predicated upon certain parents' assessments of the efficaciousness in his methods. These parents may, or may not, be lawfully authorized to surrender their progeny's rights to bodily integrity, which Israel's methods entail. And, at least in California, a parent of adult children must be authorized by a court before being legally able to consent to such "treatment". Hard won statutory acknowlegements of the personal rights possessed by persons with disabilities are apparent in California. (I am unfamiliar with status in other states of the union.) Specifically, the Calif. Legislature has long averred that persons with mental or developmental disabilities are entitled to precisely the same rights as all other persons. (See Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code sections 4201/4202, 5325.1) Nevertheless, as the Calif. State Supreme Court found necessary to remind, this statutory acknowledgment is (quoting from memory alone) "but a legislative affirmation of long established constitutional principle." (In re Irene Hop ___Cal.3d _____) Given Israel's continued operations, it may well be nigh time to have such constitutional (state AND federal) reasserted on behalf of those whom others provide "consent" to have "treated" in such avowedly painful manner. Yeah, I know. Lotsa luck with the Roberts, et al., courts today. Hah!
Posted by:Jake DonovanSeptember 8, 2007 2:02:17 PMRespond ^
The Gulag Business is the second largest industry in America. They make parents pay while they torture and kill kids. 10,000 to 20,000 kids are caught in this system each year. Everyone involved should be prosecuted.
Posted by:ALDecember 6, 2007 11:06:01 PMRespond ^
your left should be your own left
Posted by:gerald bauskeJanuary 9, 2008 7:36:12 PMRespond ^
I noticed that this blog is 99.9% anti-JRC. I urge all parents who have children at JRC who benefit from this life-saving treatment as well as current/former students who benefit from this life-saving treatment come forward and try to set the story strait. I do worn you however, that when you post pro-JRC/pro-Mathew Israel comments on this blog, that you will probably be greated with tons of derogatory responses as you understand and support a treatment that sadly, just about the entire world opposes. I urge you not to be intimidated by such derogatory greetings and that you don't reply to such greetings.
Posted by:JRC SUPPORTERMarch 13, 2008 1:53:10 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS