Posts
Comments
Thank you Yitz for this caring and reflective message. Thank you for sharing what you've experienced and witnessed with friends. Creating healthier boundaries, good therapy, and connecting with others regarding their experiences of sexual harassment and molestation at the MA - and subsequent removal and ostracization when they complained has helped me to remain clear in the face of gaslighting and denial from Alex and other persons who are a part of the MA.
I've done what I can to raise a red flag for others and to expose what to me is a systemic issue regarding the abuses of power, lack of experience/competence, and organizational/structural factors that contribute to harm. To be clear I think the majority of abuse happening at the MA is spiritual, psychological and emotional rather then sexual (though I am not the first and will likely not be the last if real change doesn occur) and exists within a cultic dynamic. I think many current and former members have been embedded in a framework that creates an alternate sense of reality, brainwashing, vulnerability, emeshment, dissolving of personal boundaries and agency, assuming of a cult identity, delusional/lying to themselves, guru worship, cognitive dissonance, dysregulation of nervous systems, extreme fear and a sense of the rest of the world being bad, and a belief that they are doing and accomplishing something when in fact they offer no real contribution to the world. They meditate a lot and the environment produces shitty leadership. There do have profound mystic experiences, they do form close bounds with other community/cult members, and some people value their experiences there but from where I'm sitting I haven't seen those people demonstrate the capacity, skill, attunement, wisdom, responsibility or compassion that they believe themselves to be striving for. It's a sad situation. I think people waste a lot of time there and even if they themselves don't get severely traumatized there they come out with a distorted sense of leadership and reality that makes it hard to interface with the rest of the world or genuinely have a positive impact.
The reality is I would not have chosen to share my personal experience of sexual assault if it did not exist within the context of a systemic pattern of abuse affecting many persons in that environment. In many ways, the responses of Alex and the organization are to be expected and follow the typical patterns of many abusers. It is unlikely that there will be an admission of responsibility both because of the legal and social consequences of admitting responsibility and because of the cultic dynamics present. The lack of accountability, victim-blaming, obvious conflicts of interest, and absence of compassion or truth-seeking in the responses of the organization, Alex, and some other current members further demonstrates the patterns to which I am attempting to alert others too. They are painful to read and it is painful to see my ex-partner's denial, confusion, and continued entanglement with a "spiritual teacher" I believe is very unsafe both for himself and others. I will not be updating my sense of reality or confidence against the perceptions and interpretations of those I believe are a bit out of touch with reality or in some combination of denial/delusion/dishonesty with themselves and others. I know what I experienced with Alex and the MA- even if it is a bit unclear to me at times which actions were motivated by clear intent vs. dysregulation, unskillfulness, negligence, and incompetence. I believe that the difficult responses and attempts to reframe events or reverse blame in those responses make it easier for some people (especially those familiar with patterns of abuse) to see what I am attempting to illuminate. My hope is that others will be empowered to make healthier choices for themselves about their involvement and/or if they choose to engage in that environment they will be more aware when harm is happening in that context. Already a number of people have contacted me about their own past experiences, their consideration of becoming involved, and/or their decision not to become involved, or their recognition of how unhealthy their involvement with the organization was. At this point in time, I feel that while I had hoped for more genuine and productive reflection from Alex and the organization - my open letter has accomplished its purpose of sharing my experience and feedback with the organization and broader community and alerting others to the concerns I have about how the organization is operating.
Sending love and support back your way, to those friends, and to anyone else who found themselves in like circumstances. May you be well, and thank you for taking the time to read and respond.
Thanks for clarifying!It's true that many women experience unwelcome advances - and you are right that it's so prolific that many security bots could be kept busy. That's part of why I think comprehensive sex education including how to responsibly navigate sexual consent, developing healthy realtionship and communication skills, and understanding ones personal power/responsibility for ones impact might be one of the best solutions for reducing the systemic nature of sexual violence.
First of all, I want to express appreciation for your acknowledgment of how heartbreaking this situation has been and the suffering involved. This comment is a response to both of your comments.
As you've highlighted in your comments are reflective of your views - and not of my own. In some ways, it feels like you are putting a lot on me about what to do and what my views of sexual assault and punishment do or do not mean. I don't think that's intended. I sense that your goal here is to be reflective and helpful but it's worth noting that my post was not a request for advice. There is also probably a way to address the points you are making that expresses your thoughts without making statements about what my experience is and is not which hits a nerve. Overall I didn't experience your comments as distressing or the like, I'm just wanting to note those things. These are, of course, difficult conversations to navigate for anyone for obvious reasons as are many topics that are sensitive and emotionally charged.
And yes it's obvious from my post that I do feel a crime has been committed by both my former partner and the organization (as you summarized.) It is unfortunate that neither he nor the organization has demonstrated a willingness to be accountable - but also not surprising cause "cults gonna cult." I am not sure that I can change that and I definitely cannot change them if they aren't interested in changing. I certainly cannot change all of "rape culture" though it would be nice if I could.
I do not think that what has happened is acceptable whatever else others may feel my statements and feelings reflect. I am also NOT just now realizing how bad or harmful it was as you've stated in your earlier comment. I've always known what I experienced was a big deal. There probably are some ways I minimized his responsibility and rationalized the abuse that was not healthy in the past in order to maintain the connection and in order to protect myself from feeling the full weight and devastation of the experience all at once. Processing that event and the accompanying complex dynamics and emotions has not happened all at once but in pieces over time with significant support. Getting to a place where one can both articulate a complex and traumatic experience let alone be emotionally stable enough and well enough to risk sharing publicly takes time - but that doesn't mean I wasn't aware of the seriousness of the incident back then. It's likely that there are people who could not see what was happening to me internally or who are making many different assumptions about me and my experience based on the fact that I had a relationship with Alex after this incident. The assumptions others make are another thing I don't have control over. I basically could use/have had to grow another layer of skin the past six months.
If I understand your comment correctly you put forward that the lack of accountability and punishment is a contributor to "rape culture". I agree with that. You mention considering the impact on the world that "a lack of accountability" would have and I just want to say that I've probably more deeply considered this than most people have. I am not advocating for a lack of accountability - but I do care about my ex-partner as a human being.
In an ideal world, if either Alex or the MA were willing ( and I don't get the sense that they are) my preference in this specific situation would be for accountability and healing to happen through financial compensation for harm, restoratives processes, organizational changes, education focused on addressing misconduct, the removal of the "spiritual teacher" from any position of power in the organization due to his ongoing history of negligence and abuse which many people have attempted to address for many years, and the person(s) who harmed me seeking professional rehabilitative and therapeutic support outside the organization. The behaviors described above and others I experienced with my ex-partner were abusive and/or were unhealthy and it was unhealthy for me to have a relationship with him in spite of these violations and the red flags I was seeing. In many ways Alex is also a beautiful person whom at times greatly inspired me, but like many people who perpetuate unhealthy patterns including abusive behaviors he has his own history of trauma and abuse he has experienced. He continues to participate those addictive patterns and unhealthy relationships through his involvement with the MA while believing himself to be pursuing liberation. I hope at some point he will pursue real therapuetic intervention and support instead of simply trying to meditate his problems away. I do believe there is a path to restoration and healing for my ex-partner and for those who were involved in covering it up if they choose to engage with accountability, restoration, and healing. I cannot make him or anyone else walk that path - and at this point it's time for me heal from that relationship (which was a real mindfuck) and to examine what factors/behaviors in my own life contributed to my engagement in a dynamic that was clearly unhealthy for me after abuse had occurred.
When I think of "severe punishment" I think of prison time - and persons who've committed crimes being placed in often hostile and violent environments. Wanting a loved one to be accountable and to address harmful and abusive acts or patterns of behavior is very different from wanting maximum retribution or inflicting extreme suffering on another which I think rarely leads to deep inner change and healing for individuals, between people, and for communities. I think there is probably not a one size fits all solution for crime- and that there are experts in this field who have more insight than I do about how to address the systemic nature of these issues.
As it currently stands very few legal cases pressing for rape result in convictions - and the consequences and impacts of sexual assault undoubtedly fall disproportionality to victims. I am however not opposed to considering legal action - but I do haft to consider the costs, benefits/drawbacks, and impact that a trial might have on myself/others just as I consider the impact on myself and on other people who will be impacted when I write or engage in conversations in a public forum.
I am not looking to receive a sense of closure from message boards - and there are many ways that I'm actively engaged and supported in my recovery that go beyond this space. Trust me when I say I am taking care of myself as well as I know how to do. Seeking closure is not my purpose here - and while you may think it is advisable to simply disengage (and there may be a time and place for that) at my own discretion I have my reasons for continuing to write about this experience.
There is a lot of context in this situation that is not readily apparent to someone reading these posts and which when it comes to writing and reading "ain't nobody got time for that". Complex context and emotions make it more challenging for me to decide what to share and not share - and likely make it difficult for readers to fully understand the various emotions, motivations, and the perspective(s) that I do share.
I can tell you what is a primary motivator for me. In this situation, too many other people have been harmed and will be harmed in this particular environment (and if we are talking about sexual assault and rape in general that extends far beyond this environment)- and I have had multiple conversations with past residents who felt they "should have done more" or whom even tried to address various issues with the organization to prevent harm to others without success. Few people are willing to share their own stories though for a multitude of reasons - and that choice is up to them and it's understandable why some people choose not to. That along with a stubborn determination to not be silenced, or to allow those who've mistreated me to benefit from my "distancing myself and moving on". I do think that this experience has shown me the deep level of complicity many of us have had through our silence - and that is a pattern I wish to break from. I do not wish to be complicit in my own abuse or the abuse of others through my silence. However, "not unique" my experience it feels important to me to speak about it until I'm finished. I'm sure the man who assaulted me and the MA would LOVE for me to simply go away, disengage from these communities, and not speak about my experience because then they could simply deny it, let it blow over, and carry on with business as usual. As long as I am alive and they remain unaccountable I do not intend on making that easy. Only I can decide when, how, and if that's what I want to do and what best serves me as you've already noted above.
Thanks for reading and engaging. Be well.
Thank you for this response and for so clearly pointing out these issues. I also found this comment offensive and hostile - and do not think I could have better or more concisely articulated these points as you have or that they would have been as well-received coming from myself. I appreciate the clarity, awareness, and directness in your response.
This might be a good invitation to examine the "wiring" we've received about sexual violence and how it may both support and/or limit our ability to engage with these issues. Perhaps what you are picking up on is that my views hold more complexity and nuance than what you've attempted to reduce them to here - and yet I think you are picking up on and highlighting some important things.
I do think the violation of sexual consent( I.e sexual assault or rape) is a serious crime and an act of violence that causes real harm. It's worth noting that rape victims seldom receive justice through the courts and that a trial process can often be retraumatizing. Each person must make their own choice about whether they want to pursue that path as a means to retribution and if the cost, risk, and time is worth it to them.
I also do not think that all acts of sexual violence are created equal. For example, my experience was not the same thing as having my life threatened with a weapon as an act of sexual coercion - and those experiences should probably not be evaluated or penalized in the same way. Still, a serious violation of my agency occurred and the resulting psychological, relational, and emotional harm and suffering as a result of the physical violation AND the ways in which I was treated after the assault has been significant.
The language used to speak about sexual violence is limited. It might be helpful if our language and definitions of sexual violence were more nuanced, included more categories, and were more specific about the types of experiences people are having - but they are not. The issue of what language to use and how to articulate an experience is frequently a challenge for many people when writing about various forms of sexual violence.
I'm not sure that "a serious crime that must be punished severely" or "permanently destroying his life" is an approach that many people want to apply to any person they've loved - and you are right in recognizing that that is not what I want for the person who assaulted me. I think Alex's actions have also caused himself pain and suffering - which he alludes to in his description of overwhelming shame and confusion. What I do think would probably be an ideal response is financial restitution for the cost of recovery and lost wages over the past year and a half, acknowledgment of the harm done by himself and the organization - especially to other members of the MA's community, some kind of restorative process that involves both of us, and a commitment to continued education focused on sexual violence and consent and rehabilitative/counseling services regarding these issues and whatever underlying attitudes or traumas maybe driving Alex's harmful patterns of behavior for a certain period of time. This seems unlikely to occur while Alex remains a part of the MA - and it is clear that according to his own account Soryu, his teacher whom has motive to have these claims denied, seems to be actively supporting Alex's denial of responsibility. I also think the organization needs to engage in a similar process of making repairs for the harm they've caused, in developing accountability - especially regarding the extensive harm Soryu has caused over the past ten years, and in outside training for their leaders and teachers regarding how to appropriately handle issues of misconduct if/when they arise. At this point in time, both those outcomes seem very unlikely - and I am still figuring out what to do from here.
It's also worth noting that I think a punitive model of justice such as exists in our country is generally not a helpful response to most crimes - so it follows that I don't necessarily know if that model is effective at addressing the core issues that contribute toward sexual violence and/or repairing the harm done to victims. That approach may be an appropriate response to some cases, but it also makes it harder for both victims and perpetrators to talk about and acknowledge wrongdoing, engage in rehabilitation, education, restorative processes, and/or make amends. I do not claim to be an expert of such matters - but am noting that our current approach to sexual violence and legal system has been highly ineffective.
Worth noting that I reached out directly to Soryu by email at the time of the events and that I requested conversations with Soryu multiple times in 2021 prior to any public acknowledgment of these issues to discuss these issues and specifically his role in these incidents. Soryu had a direct role in instructing others on how to respond to and treat me in these events. These requests for conversation were entirely ignored and Soryu has not been willing to speak to me about any of these events in the year and a half since they happened. I still have not had a direct conversation with any member of MAPLES leadership since these events - which goes to show how "seriously" they are taking these issues.
Thank you for sharing this reflection. I straightforwardly agree with you - and have also felt conflicted re: different definitions and laws and the limited language we have to describe these experiences about what term to use. Part of the motivation for sharing is that I know I'm not alone in this kind of experience, even if the specific details differ across the experiences of many different people. Thank you for witnessing.
Razied, what you have written here and in Alex's comments is indicative of rape culture - and the reality of "human courtship" is that women are tired of being sexually assaulted. Almost every single woman and probably most men will recognize this as a straightforward description of sexual assault or rape. What you are describing may be a common approach people take but also often leads to situations in which people, usually women get hurt. Even the scenario you described in your comment does not at all fit my experience with Alex. One should never go from 0 to 100 in a sexual encounter - and in this case, there was "zero" opportunity to say "slow down" or "stop" - and he did break my trust, clearly I could NOT trust him to respect the boundaries we had set, or to take a walk or to go swimming with him.
Without both parties' consent and without freewill any sexual encounter IS sexual assault. What you have written grossly ignores the reality in which there are many circumstances and reasons for which a person - usually a woman may not feel safe enough to say No and that does not mean she is a willing participant. This could be anything from the sheer size and physical dominance of the assailant to the assailant is her boss and she has two children at home depending on her pay to previous experiences of sexual violence to she already set a boundary and said no but he has continued to push her boundaries anyways.
"Alex is a normal guy going by the actual practice of consent" <- This is the whole problem right here. So much misunderstanding and sexual violence stems from this kind of thinking.
First of all, that's bullshit. You weren't there and you are not the one living with the impact of Alex's actions. Secondly, "Normal guys" who engage in the behaviors you described can and do sexually assault women both intentionally and unintentionally -- which is why I am now advocating for and am now requiring a "yes means yes" approach in my own personal life. There are also as the above response indicates many men who can and do understand the importance of talking to the women they engage with and affirming that there is consent. "Normal guys" need to educate themselves about consent, to behave in sexually responsible ways, to understand the impact they have, and to make amends when they cause harm. In this case, this is known as a "non-violent" assault. I do not think violent and nonviolent sexual assaults are the same- and I think that the stigma and "baggage" you've mentioned is exactly what makes it difficult for many men (and women) to be honest about and to have difficulty discussing issues of sexual violence.
Please educate yourself about what sexual violence and consent "actually" are- because what you are sharing shows that you may not understand how to navigate consent in a healthy way which can be detrimental to both the people you interact with AND to yourself. I am not saying you are a bad person but what you are saying here is a clear indicator that you are unsafe to the women you interact with within a sexual context (not to mention your distinct lack of compassion towards myself or general social awareness.)
I also want to point to the fact that Alex was in an explicit position of power in which he had a responsibility to hold the retreat container. These are rhetorical questions but I say these because it sounds like you are a meditator. Can you imagine going to a silent meditation retreat - a place you have been told was safe, trustworthy, and a place for meditation, reflection, and growth - and then being sexually assaulted by the director? Can you imagine having your first really powerful awakening experience and being in such a vulnerable state - and being mistreated by not only that person but also by other leadership members and then being sent away from the sangha unexpectedly for a sexual act that you had no choice in and which went against your explicitly stated wishes? Can you imagine what it would be like to know that someone you loved had betrayed you because his "spiritual teacher" told him to? Can you imagine struggling through waves of anxiety and aversion for months every time you sat down to meditate - when before it had been a deeply healing, calming, transformative, and beneficial awakening practice?
Nowhere in my writing have I labeled Alex or said this man is a bad person, I have simply described the events in question and why I feel that sexual assault is an accurate characterization. In fact, on the contrary, I have stated publicly in my open letter that I wish for Alex to have real support and accountability, increased awareness and education, have a healthy community and be cared for, and be able to heal. Still, what Alex did and the way he has treated me since then is not ok. I will not be silenced as Alex and others have attempted to do in the past. I will speak frankly about my experiences which exist within a much larger social and cultural context in which sexual violence needs to be examined and addressed and within the context of an organization that is still causing harm to vulnerable people.
You are right, others also need to be accountable for their actions and participation. I do think, that there is a dynamic at the MA in which Soryu has a lot of power over people in the space in ways that are unique to this kind of group that needs to be accounted for and that Soryu and the board need to be accountable for maintaining a program design that is known to cause serious harm. I suspect that if everyone involved in causing harm or in acting unethically to cover harm up in this organization were held accountable there wouldn't be any or there would be very few core leaders left. Nearly everyone has been complicit, and there is a lot of deep learning and healing needed between many community members.
Actually Matt you don't seem to understand what the actual definition of what responsibility is.
Here are a few links:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsibility
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/responsibility
I personally think it is extremely problematic for people to be given positions of greater responsibility in a role without behaving responsibly or being accountable for their impact. Hence the dozens of people that exist whose lives have been very fucked up as a result of engaging with Soryu. Many of whom do know him personally and whom know him better then you do and who spent much longer working and training with Soryu then you have. Some for over 5 years. Some who helped start the organization and have since seen many people leave broken and traumatized as a result of Soryu's abuse and irresponsibility. As founder and head teacher Soryu is responsible and should be held accountable for many things within the organization but specifically for his actions and the actions he has instructed his students to carry out thereby abusing his position of influence and power as a spiritual teacher.
It's funny to me that you can even talk about responsibility or anything else this organization supposedly stands for. Yet you don't seem to think Soryu is responsible for literally instructing his students to coverup an incident sexual assault by an executive director, and telling that director that he doesn't not have a choice except to participate, get rid of the woman he is in love with, and resume a position of power. Yes that man should also be held accountable for his choices as well as others who participated - but that does not mean Soryu should be given a free pass on the harm he personally caused in my life (it doesn't matter if I met him) through his actions and his decisions. Which were then carried out by his students. Either he is brainwashing and indoctrinating people or everyone in the organization also has questionable ethics and morals. Which one is it? You have a real point though that he is not the only responsible party here - in fact the other three main responsible parties in this situation in my sexual assault and in covering it up have all gone out of their way to block any communication with me so that might tell you a thing or two about the how responsible and compassionate they have become as a result of being a part of MAPLE.
Lastly, I know for a fact from speaking to many other women about what they experienced that these sorts of things have happened multiple times. This is far from the first situation where Soryu has been involved in covering up sexual harassment and sexual abuse most of which has happened at MAPLE when incidents were reported directly to him - he has followed the same patterns and script almost to a T to suppress, silence, and deny issues of sexual misconduct. I have zero doubts in my mind that if Soryu continues to be a teacher without radically becoming a different person which I don't think he is capable of as many people have attempted to address issues directly with Soryu over the last decade - that more people will be harmed in many different ways including more incidents of sexual harassment and abuse bring mishandled. But maybe you are one of those followers who seem to believe that it is ok for him to harm others because he is doing "good", because the risks are justifiable, or because you personally get to benefit from it.
No real or legitimate restorative justice will be possible without Soryu also being held responsible and accountabile for his actions; and stepping down from teaching and the board of directors while a third party investigation happens. If you truly cared for the suffering that I and so many other past students have endured you would be asking for the same thing and asking for real responsibility, accountability, growth, increased awareness, compassion for suffering, and integrity in the organization you support and are a party of instead of attempting to defend the organization's irrepressible behavior in online forum. The reality is you don't know the stories I do, you don't know the history of this organization as indicated by your incorrect reference to OAK being less then a year old on your comment on Medium which has since been updated, and you are not seeing these issues clearly.
- Does the program structure significantly differ from OAK? Is there separation between staff and participant roles? Is MAPLE practicing informed consent? What about oversight and accountability? What is the onboarding process?
- I would like to know what the organization is doing to "investigate" and improve based on my post and other feedback. The last "investigation" conducted by this organization consisted of Soryu sending his girlfriend to sort things out during which she never spoke to me about the events in question. The organization's recent public statement was incredibly disappointing to myself and other former members. When I read this statement these were the things that stood out to me from my pov and the information available to me: distortion of information about my interactions with leadership and interactions with other former members, shifting the blame onto the past trauma of participants rather than acknowledging they have created a VERY high-risk environment that exceeds others intensive training practices, denial of and justification of other serious risk factors, mischaracterization of my prior relationship, denial of knowledge of allegations which I have email records of, lack of transparency, a continued pattern of appointing persons with conflicts of interests to handle grievances, lack of a 3rd party investigation which would generally be expected of any other spiritual community or organization in similar circumstances. Based on this public statement alone I would conclude that my concerns are not being taken seriously as they indicate, there are still serious issues that are actively compromising accountability and growth, protecting Soryu from being accountable to harm caused to past students is still a primary concern for some leaders, and it is uncertain whether or not significant changes will actually happen that ensure current and future participants will be treated more ethically than I was.
- I also imagine there are many discussions happening internally which I am not aware of regarding these issues that may reflect something very different. Perhaps there are members who are willing to advocate for real accountability, address issues of privilege and power, and engage restorative processes regarding the harm done to many past members - and to ensure that the organization does not continue to justify patterns of behavior and organizational practices that have been harmful. However, it seems like if the organization is taking other steps this information ought to be a matter of public record.
- I did appreciate the acknowledgment that they had failed to inform myself and past residents of risks and to obtain consent for this training- and that they indicated that they intend to update the website with risks. I still have not seen a list of specific risks yet but this seems like a good first step.
I am curious as to why you feel you can "provide context" for my experience and for events that you were not present for?
I can tell you how it played out from my perspective. The man I was in love with came to me and said Soryu asked me to do write this letter stating that this was loving and consensual and we are abiding by the rules of the Monastic container ( all of which was true except for the consent piece) because the board of directors is worried you might sue the organization or speak up publicly (something I had no intention of at the time); he then repeatedly brought this up to me despite my hesitancy and tried to get me to sign this letter. Finally I was told not asked told we would sign this in front of the whole community. I felt extremely pressured both by him and by the community and other leaders to do so. It seems pretty messed up to me that Soryu personally asked the man I was in love with and whom had sexually assaulted me to write this letter and get me to sign it - followed by immediately instructing OAKs leadership to send me away with 24 hrs notice while this man resumed leadership. All of these to my knowledge were decisions made by Soryu and MAPLE leadership NOT OAK's leadership though they are certainly responsible for their participation. Sending this person was problematic for many reasons not only was I more vulnerable to this person because we had fallen in love; already feeling confused about my experience because nobody was talking to me about what happened or available to walk through the incident with me; but this person had more power in the community as the recently removed ED, had been in the community far longer, and as a donor who had pledged 200,000 to the organization which still hadn't been received and whose personal and professional ties were key in the organization receiving a 300,000 grant from BERI that they were being considered for - all of these are power dynamics; and ultimately he stood the most to gain from securing a letter that stated consent. If there is a question about whether an interaction was consensual or not you don't send the involved party to secure a letter that state consent - that's messed up. That's a great way to end up with coercion. The idea that they didn't know is also bullshit - their leadership should have spoken directly to me about what happened. There should have been a third party investigation then but instead Soryu sent his girlfriend to sort it out during which she spoke to me only only and then only to briefly acknowledge my presence. According to this man - he told me that after we signed this letter the Acting Director who had orders from Soryu told him what was going to happen with me; he objected and said this is unethical and was told that he didn't have a choice about sending me away and resuming his position as director that was also messed up. It would have been messed up even if the sexual interaction had been consensual given that I had not broken any agreements. So yeah I am hella critical of Soryu - because what kind of trustworthy teacher would ask his students to do something like that. what kind of teacher instructs a student/an executive director to cover up his sexual misconduct and get rid of the woman without ever speaking to her? What kind of person tells a man to betray the woman he loves? The man in question never should have participated in those actions but he did - and it broke him, and it broke us completely. I doubt you or very few others will ever understand the depths of betrayal and heartache between myself and this man, myself and this organization. What happened at OAK destroyed any trust between us and we never recovered. The initial incident was not ok and it never should have happened for many different reasons; but the sense of betrayal, being coerced and silenced, and then being kicked out of and basically ignored by a whole community and it's leadership over the next year that was really fucked up.
I think they are trying to spin it like they didn't know and it maybe that they intentionally did not speak to me because they were already afraid it might not be consensual. There is no excuse for this organizations board, OAK and MAPLEs leaders to not speak to me directly about the incident - which frankly I need support to even process it. Which btw many people would say consent isn't possible within a power dynamic. I simply would have liked to be treated with some basic respect and compassion - instead of being mistreated by an entire community for an incident that I did not choose. I loved this man; but I should have had a choice about when, how, where, and under what circumstances I wanted to engage in a sexual relationship. Ultimately, the response of OAK AND MAPLEs leaders and this man's participation in covering this up caused far greater suffering and harm to me personally than even the original incident did. I would like for the person whom directed these actions to be responsible and accountabile.
So yeah, I think the response of this organization is bullshit and I do not trust this organizations leaders whom have failed to make an repairs with me in over a year since all this occured. I doubt that is just a big "mistake". An internal investigation into these events is a massive conflict of interest, it was a year ago and still is today. The fact that Soryu hasn't stepped down while a third party investigation takes places is telling and could have serious consequences for the organization. If there legitimately was a misconception or breakdown in communication or legitimate error made by leadership then that further points to the fact that there are serious error in the program design and model that needs to be corrected. These are not the kinds of actions or "mistakes" that should be happening in ANY organization; they cause real damage and if incidents continue to be mishandled causing serious harm to others it will likely lead to the organization losing credibility, donors, and collapsing.
The organization should not be putting this responsibility on to residents but should be enlisting support from experienced third parties about how to address past reports of abuse and harm from multiple parties and how to navigate crisis.
That maybe your understanding. But that's actually bullshit on so many levels.
I would like to see them take responsibility for their organizational negligence and/or ethical misconduct of it's leaders - and be honest about knowing about these allegations in their public statement. Their public statement is appalling for many reasons - but their lying about not knowing about these allegations is especially upsetting when I shared my grievances in an email exchange in May. I would also like to see 3rd party investigation and a 3rd party nonprofit evaluation of their systems and program - if they are serious about integrating feedback and transparency these are obvious next steps for any organization with a headteacher facing multiple reports and allegations of harm and abuse (many of which are not public.)
Further justification would just be adding insult to injury. I get that you are just a skeptical stranger on the internet whom isn't personally affected by this situation (unless you have an undisclosed affiliation.) But there have been serious abuses of power and breeches of ethics here that are seriously fucked up and have caused deep suffering and heartache that still affects me personally. So at this point in time I'm done sharing information. I'm done engaging. This is too complex of a situation to address in this forum. 🙏
The reason why I was being pressured to sign a letter (which is another seperate document then the agreements) so that "everyone can relax and feel safe" was in the context of that the organization was afraid I might attempt to sue them or speak up publicly. To me this indicates that they were aware to some extent of serious ethical breeches. It is difficult for me to know to what extent the board and Soryu were aware of these breeches; were they covering things up because they realized the breech between an ED and student in the program was a serious ethical breech and liability OR were they covering things up because something he said indicated to the leadership that there were other clear indicators that this was not consensual interaction. Why did Soryu send is girlfriend to investigate these issues? Why was I exclude from all these conversations? Why did no one ask for my account?
If they don't put the onus on me for breaking the rules as stated above - the context of the letter being about " in the context of blaming me for breaking the rules and making up for violations of rules" (which is not the context) doesn't exist.
At this point in time I would not withdraw public statements without extensive organizational change and accountability including Soryu Forall stepping down from leadership while a third party investigation looks at ALL reports of harm and abuse for myself and others - and accountability for the results of such an investigation. It is standard in many practicing communities to do so when these claims come forward. The organization stands to lose a lot of support and credibility by not having a 3rd party investigation of ALL incidents of abuse and harm. These issues are much deeper than just my experience - those whom have been harmed, current and future prospective students, donors and other major stakeholders should all have access to this information and the steps the MA is taking to address these issues so that they can make informed decisions about there support and participation. The fact that they are conducting an "internal investigation" is telling; if they do not believe there are significant issues regarding harm and abuse then why has the organization not taken steps in this direction. I hope they will.
The problem with what you just said is that the proper ethic code and agreements were never shared with me until after this incident occurred, were not reviewed with me when I arrived as was supposed to happen, and were never signed by me. All major organizational oversights. The definition of sexual misconduct that I was aware of when I entered the training was that sexual misconduct was defined as sexual harassment and sexual assault. I'd be more than happy to share a copy of the agreements I received; though according to what Unreal has posted those agreements are not up to date.
These are the agreements I received: https://www.dropbox.com/s/62fexgtupgzt6a6/agreement%2C liability%2C media release docs_maple.pdf?dl=0
When I had difficulty viewing and printing these agreements which were sent appx. week prior I contacted the people running the program to inform them of this issue. I was told we would review and talk about these agreements when I arrived at the center at that time. This never happened - largely in part because of their disorganization and the reshuffling of residents between centers.
The first page of this document with a different definition of sexual misconduct which included romantic and sexual relationship was presented to me after the incident. the second page was presented to me as I was running to catch a train as an "injury waiver" after being injured. I did not intend to pursue any legal action regarding the facial injury experienced while training. I regret not reviewing this document in depth. In retrospect this document reads to me like the organization is well aware of serious risks to participants. These risks are not disclosed to participants anywhere; not on the website, not on this document, these risks were not discussed when I was being recruited or considering training. In now way, shape, or form did I have any indication that there was some serious messed up stuff happening to people that was causing long-term damage. It is concerning to me that apprentices and residents have been asked to sign away liability without being notified of risks. From my viewpoint this compromises a persons ability to make informed decisions about their safety and participation; and compromises their agency and ability to consent to the training.
I had not agreed to any of these conditions prior to entered the container due to organizational oversight. And frankly even if I had been aware of the agreements; a violation of the policy does not make me responsible for or excuse sexual assualt or the organization for covering up this incident. It really does not matter what I said or did in this situation he was the Executive Director and he was aware of the Ethics code and had signed agreements regarding his own conduct. Whatever feelings or action had did not change the fact that this was a serious ethical breech; and that covering up this incident was also a serious ethical issue.
Thank you Unreal for acknowledging that OAK and MAPLE messed up in some big ways.
-
OAK shutdown in March of 2021 several months later
-
It is my understanding that the Acting Director spent much of this past year on tour in collaboration with the MA's mobile tour and recruiting potential participants for the MA. I recently learned that OAKs teacher has since left the organization. I had also heard that he is still active in the community, supports it, and intends to build a cabin as part of MAPLEs village. As you have addressed OAKs former director is training at MAPLE.
-
It nice to know the MA doesn't blame me for NOT following rules and agreements that weren't clearly communicated to me. The statement that you don't blame me for breaking the rules feels out of place considering I did not have a choice in the incident that occured. This is news to me. This still brings up the question as to why I was asked to leave with 24 hrs notice; in combination with the Director stepping back into his position.
-
None of the statements I've seen made address that Soryu directed what to me seems like a poorly executed coverup (i.e. telling OAKs leaders to secure this document, get rid of me, and having the Executive Director returned to power). This is issue is not resolved; Soryu's role in directing actions at OAK and the response of MAPLE to these events is the PRIMARY thing I would like to see addressed. The boards later removal of this man from power does not change the impact that these events had on me. It is not helpful to simply chalk this up to a mistake and a learning experience when ones actions have serious consequences and cause real suffering for others. Not seeking and integrating my perspective during or after events was a serious error, and reflects poorly on the organizations ethics and intentions. When the organization was very aware that I was deeply hurt and impacted by how it handled issues it still did not reach out or make amends. This organization seems to think they adequately handled OAK while take zero responsibility for it's unethical actions, organizational negligence and practices that created these events, and it's harmful impact on myself and others. These statements also do not account for the fact that many such "mistakes" resulting in real hurt and harm have happened repeatedly in this training environment over the last 10 years . This organization actively ignored, dismissed, failed to respond appropriately to my attempts to communicate grievances and respond to allegations until I said I would be making a public statement. Even now this organization has not made a public apology or taken responsibility for the actions that caused this suffering - or made any other attempts to make amends in over a year.
-
Based on this MA report I was under the impression the OAK was rebooted this fall: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1mfx3hzhy9k9fe8/quarterlyreport-maple-fall2021-web.pdf?dl=0
-
Opening lines for feedback on grievances is important; especially now. I was glad to see that there is anonymous link for giving feedback. However, ALL reports of harm, misconduct, and abuse need to investigated by a 3rd party investigator. I personally would be best supported by this organization if an extensive 3rd investigation happened regarding Soryu's conduct and treatment of students. I believe many others would be to. If indeed Soryu is willing to be accountable and responsible in the way he speaks to in his teaching this should not be an isssue. If there is a pattern of abuse and harm it will be made clear through a 3rd party investigation; if there is not a pattern of harm and abuse affecting many parties than this will also be made clear. However, based on my current awareness these patterns have been ongoing over the past 10 years. The justification of risks and denial of responsibility in the MA response to my letter further alienates people like myself who have legitimate grievances and whom have been deeply hurt by this organization and community. The current actions bring taken make it difficult to trust or engage with the organization.The vast majority of people I am aware of whom have been harmed or had very negative experiences in this training do NOT feel safe engaging directly with the MAs leadership and/or persons whom have obvious conflicts of interest in an investigation. It seems unlikely that the current approach being utilized will actually yield the kind of honest feedback that is needed.
-
Please also note my recommendation for an outside evaluation of board governance, program model/risks/outcomes, organizational policies, and organizational health, ect. I believe doing so would have tremendous benefits for everyone.
Thanks for your response.
For the record I think people usually do recieve these documents, ethics code, and are asked to sign a liability waiver for all risks associated with training (without being informed of the specific risks and some of the negative outcomes which also becomes an issue of informed consent) before and apprenticeship and residency. This is definitely a specific case where OAK dropped the ball on providing the correct documentation and orientation to the training. I would not be surprised if others may have encountered similar issues. I hope that future onboarding will be more transparent about training risks; the organizations history, goals, and teachings; and transparency about the lack of training and prior experience in organizational management and monastic practice/ training of teachers.
It is concerning to me that an organization that aspires to create "the most intensive training environment in North America" as so little regard for common and best practices of monastic training environment and of nonprofits. There seems to be a practice of "throwing one's self in" to areas of responsibility and power that have a serious impact on others without previous knowledge or being equipped to hold such a role and a lack of accountability that produces and justifies harm. It is my observation that this produces an environment where mismanagement, harm, and abuse of power is more likely to happen - additionally I believe this training does not produce leaders who are equipped to have a positive impact; but ones who in fact have a lot of healing, deprogramming, and unpacking to do before they can show up responsibly to a leadership position.
It's also worth noting the person appointing to do an "internal investigation" into grievances is a board member who was recently added after she and her husband purchased and invested substantial finances into MAPLEs village (potential conflict of interest) and whom is the mother of one of the four men (OAKs teacher) implicated in covering up this incident in my letter (definite conflict of interest) and I believe she may also be student of Soryu's whom is regarded is a beloved teacher.
There needs to be a 3rd party investigation into ALL the reports of harm and abuse.
Thank you Lukas; it was incredibly hurtful and it is my experience that the organizations unethical response to this incident caused far greater harm and retraumatizion to myself than even the original incident.
You bring up a good point about intent vs. "cluelessness". These are my thoughts. It is difficult to me know how much of this was a result of inexperienced leadership trying to cover up what they may have thought was a consensual experience at the direction of their head teacher (who no doubt was well aware of the risks this posed to the organization) vs. they recognize the issue of consent and the power dynamics were a serious issue and intentionally collaborated to cover this up. Either way I believe that OAKs leadership knew that these actions were unethical.
I do believe that much of the organization's response was in many ways due to having a high risk program model which places people in positions of nonprofit leadership they are not prepared for while also undergoing intensive psychospiritual training. Because everyone is simultaneously having a very intense experience it becomes much more likely that both minor and major organizational oversights and mismanagement will occur. There is a real need for restructuring in the organization and program including separation of key roles like ED and Care Director to avoid future harm and adequate support for participants in training and grounded organizational management. Additionally, in an environment where many unaware and inexperienced (in nonprofit management) leaders look up to and idolize a beloved teacher (Soryu) who they believe to be trustworthy; many of these leaders are acting under the direction of a headteacher whose motives I believe to were driven by seeking to protect the organization at whatever cost necessary. I have never spoken to this head teacher despite multiple requests for a meditating conversation with this man.
Because this program has been running for so long despite many reports of harm and other mishandled situations I ultimately hold the Head Teacher and the board of directors responsible for the decisions they made and instructions they gave to OAKs leaders. While I do think much of OAKs leaders cluelessness maybe forgiveable; there are other leaders in this organization whom are well aware of the substantial harm caused to many people over the years as a result of maintaining this program model. It was and is upsetting to me that this Head teacher and organization knew I was deeply hurt and did not address the harm they had caused through their actions. It is also upsetting to me to see the organization and various members continually justify and support a program model which I believe to have been a significant contributor to the many organizational oversights and unethical actions that created my experience. Experiences like mine should not be considered a justifiable risk of intensive training or simply a "mistake"; especially when the organization does not take steps towards accountability and making repairs with people like myself.
I have since updated this account with more detail about the incidents. Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks for sharing. There is a big difference between clarification and denial of claims. Based on my own experience and that of many other former residents I've spoke to I find this response appalling and misrepresentative of the events and the organization.
It also does not address or list the specific risks of the training either here or on the website. Without which statements such as " We expect people who come here to take personal agency for their mental and emotional well-being" are unreasonable.
For the record, Kenshin Dee who recently joined the board is listed as the head of an Ethics Committee and the person who will be overseeing an "internal investigation" both has major financial investments in MAPLEs village and is the mother of OAKs former teacher, whom is one of the four men whose ethical conduct is implicated in my letter. This is an obvious conflict of interest.
There 100% should be a 3rd party investigation into ALL claims of unethical misconduct and abuse done by a reputable and unaffiliated investigator.
Thank you for sharing this. Yes, this public awareness is needed. I am sorry that you also had a highly adverse experience with the center. Sending you well wishes for support and integration 🙏
The letter could probably use greater clarity on events. There however is a substantial amount of information in the letter regarding recruitment practices, lack of informed consent, training risks and impacts, and lack of teacher/"staff" experience that I am guessing you didn't have a few days ago. You are right that it can be helpful to think in public about organizational issues and that strategic focused documents can be helpful. You have stated your preferences for more detail and thorough documentation about what the environment is like are noted and maybe helpful in future statements.There are already collaborative efforts that have been and are working on this kind of documented effort to which I have contributed substantially that will be available when they are available.
That however, is NOT the purpose for THIS letter. It would be helpful to remember that you are NOT the primary audience for this letter (unless you have an undisclosed affiliation here.) It would also be helpful to remember that we are not entitled to people's stories or more than they wish to share. Please notice that you are engaging with me and with events that were incredibly abusive and traumatic to me. As stated above this style if writing and response is not geared towards less wrong but I none the less thought it would be useful info to some people who maybe on the fence in this community. I am writing in a way that feels heartfelt, clear, and authentic for me. This is a extremely personal and emotional letter about my experience (and one that has been very painful and still is) and a call to action to the Monastic Academy and broader community members. Most of whom do have context for this environment and will not be surprised by statements such as "I experienced this environment as trying to break me..." This letter is very much for those community members who are out there hurting and feeling alone; whom already know what I'm talking about. I want them to know they are not alone. You have no idea what kind of messages I've been getting in ptivate. There are people whom have been waiting a decade for someone to speak out. Someone had to go first. Hopefully more will come forward when they are ready. The silence is over.
Based on your previous comments around consent I suggest you further engage with your own inner work and further education about how to better navigate consent.
Thank you for your input and you're welcome 🙏
Re: my familiarity with high intensity training. I am primarily familiar with nonprofit structures, nonprofit leadership, organizational development, common and best practices, common challenges, and the solutions and practices that would be vital in such a space. From this viewpoint I can see many things that are creating issues that impact individuals and the organization that could be addressed with 3rd party input and guidance but overall I think the organization lacks an appropriate level of training and experience collectively to be able to be able to function safely as an intensive training environment. In order for this to happen substantial outside support would need to be brought in both on the organizational side and the Monastic side to hold the space. Since my training at OAK I have taken time to research, speak to Buddhist teachers and visit other Monastic centers to see how they operate and ask questions. Those interactions have been profoundly beneficial and healing for me. Knowing what I know now I would never train in an environment like MAPLE/OAKs again and I would substantially vet any monastic or other spiritual practice/retreat/community that engages in intensive practices including speaking to a number of former students before attending myself. From these conversations I have gathered much of what is happening there is not in alignment with common or best practices for monastic trainings - and maybe considered inappropriate and dangerous by other legitimate Buddhist practicing community standards. I am not an expert and continue to familiarize myself with Buddhist practice and Dharma as someone interested in learning from this path and practicing meditation. There are others whom are better sources of insight regarding these traditions, practices and risks. What I have learned through a couple of monastery visits and a half a dozen conversations with other experienced practitioners and teachers is enough for me to feel this training is not safe.
Here is a Facebook response posted by the former Assistant Director, whom previously was a part of MAPLE for 3 years and a core leadership member https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10109115376589050&id=900287&m_entstream_source=timeline
In response to ChristianK, I hear that you would like more details and feel strait accounting would be useful. You are right that there is a difference between kissing someone without consent ( would also be messed up to get thrown out of a monastery for being kissed without consent) and the legal definition of rape. I believe my statement was that "consent was assumed without the practice of consent in a sexual encounter" which would indicate more than say being kissed. I will sit with whether or not I wish to give more details about this account. Thanks for bringing to my attention that this feels ambiguous.
In my original account written in a document that will soon be shared with the organizations board when finalized account covers 10 pages of play by play my experience at OAK plus 20 pages of interpretation and organizational feedback. A 30 page document is not an effective way to community to the general public. And I do not currently feel inclined to share that information with those whom do not have a direct leadership role or have an established relationship with myself at this time.
Please consider that my account is attempting to hold someone whom I once loved (as stated in my letter) and with whom I shared deep relationship with as gently as possible despite the impact of his and others actions on myself. And that crossing boundaries, sexual assault, and rape can happen in relationship at any time regardless of ones connection to an individual. The issue of consent is an incredibly difficult one to navigate given that many people have not been adequately taught. I may or may not choose to share further details about this initial encounter for a number of reasons as it is ultimately my personal story and a source of deep pain.
My account is meant to primarily focus on my broader concerns about the training as well as the response of the organization to this incident rather then the initial incident itself. Please consider that in any situation or degree of consent being violated that the subsequent response of the Monastic Academy to this incident was wildly inappropriate, sexist, excluded my voice and participation, and caused damage to emotionally, physically, and relationally. My story is ultimately one of a much broader conversation about safety and harm that needs to happen with the Monastic Academy's broader community.
Thank you for your earlier response. Re: Soryu's ability to safely lead these trainings which I think is a much bigger question that impacts many people. Multiple accounts from others studying at Sogenji with Soryu also raise red flags and conflict with Soryu's own account. There is not really a way I can prove this to you other than asking others if they are willing to converse with you about this. The training Soryu is teaching does not even closely resemble Shinzen Young's system who has given him permission to teach within his system and to my knowledge he doesn't have adequate training or permission to teach the style of training he does which most resembles intensive Zen practice. Soryu is operating outside of any Zen lineage and as such does not have the kind of accountability that would come from a lineage. Many accounts of negative psychological breakdowns and long-term symptoms of cPTSD amongst former members also seems to support the idea that he does not have the capacity to offer this training safely (despite whatever good intentions he may have.) This intensity combined with the lack of experience, a grandiose vision that justifies harm, hierarchal authoritarian guru structure without accountability is an especially concerning combination laden with compounding risk factors. The fact that my experience and the organizations actions took place at his direction (according to what I have been told by those given these instructions) also does not reflect well on his character or ability to lead. The board of the organization is primarily made up of current/former students with Soryu as Head Teacher, Founder and Board President which presents a substantial conflict of interest in effective board governance. Issues of transparency with those recruited and with donors are key areas I am concerned about.
Of course, there is greater context than what can be offered in a letter. However, please consider that what and whom most benefits from denying these events and/or attempts to discredit being that nearly every other person involved in these events is still actively involved and the great lengths they have previously gone to protect their "reputation" which has ultimately led to this statement. If it were not for months of frustration and attempts to connect via a mediation process this would not be here. If apologies and amends had been made for these actions along with a demonstration of genuine integration and learning from these events to promote great safety for future students I would not be making a public statement. I would also take note of others comments and accounts that maybe forth coming. There will likely continue to be many details of people's experiences that they do not feel comfortable sharing in these venues.
My attempts to communicate with the organization directly since last Dec, and primarily since last May have been unsuccessful. This organizations leaders were only willing to engage in a mediated conversation under the conditions of all public criticisms being removed so unfortunately the possibility of creating a multi-party statement did not exist. This account is obviously a highly condensed version of the events. My account primarily focuses on the practices of, other details of my experience, and the response of the organization (i.e. pressure to sign documentation, exclusion from conversations about the events, immediate removal following the inappropriate actions of a leader, shunning) which would be highly inappropriate, sexist, and hurtful under any circumstances but is further compounded by my lack of consent and choice in this encounter.
I would welcome the man involved and possibly others involved into co-creating a multi-party account in the presence of a nuetral 3rd party mediator with acceptable conditions as long as it was truthful and accurate - and did not continue to perpetuate longstanding patterns of sexism, silence and complicity. It is possible I may share more details in the future or may choose to more details with certain people within the Monastic Academy's community. It is also possible that I may decide not to.
Again my story is part of a bigger story; one in which many people of all genders have experienced significant harm as a result of either the training or unethical actions of leadership- most of which detail accounts of psychological, emotional and spiritual abuse rather than sexual misconduct. Though I am aware of other accounts of this as well.
For anyone whom would like to know more about my personal experience and the concerns I have regard patterns of negligence and abuse at the Monastic Academy I have recently shared an open to the organization: https://medium.com/@shekinahalegra/dear-monastic-academy-and-community-members-49c25d9646a4
Unfortunately, victimhood and abuse still exist. I can not speak to Aella's character or intentions because I do not know her personally. But this comment definitely shows me more about your own feelings of discomfort and resentment towards a woman for holding more influence and using her social influence to speak to her view of the world including how patterns like "frame control" can be harmful.
I do know that speaking to these experiences is often not about "playing the Victim card" it is about speaking the truth of one's experience and bringing attention to things, people, patterns who are causing harm. It takes a tremendous amount of courage and cares to challenge and speak to patterns of abuse in communities that often silence and punish those who speak out. We live in a time period where people (finally) feel freer to speak up about abuse - AND still, these simple acts of courage are inevitably met with people who want to disparage your character and judgments like "you're playing the victim card." From where I am sitting, what is it that you think Aella really has to gain here? Maybe some level of recognition within a relatively small community for speaking about a widely known and discussed the matter of community safety and harm that's impacted a substantial number of people. My understanding of this post is that it is meant to inform and identify patterns of "frame control" that are often difficult to identify.
While this community may value a particular style of dialogue that is often inclined to strip away certain ways of relating there is obviously a need for community dialogue and discourse; and greater capacity to engage on a relational level with difficult conversations. While using an object-level format can certainly have its benefits I also think it's far more honest to name one's story and relationship to an issue rather than trying to utilize an intellectualized and detached response (which is fine and seems to be the norm here) that doesn't acknowledge one's personal location, identity, and biases. I see that the OP is adopting a common framework used in this community here - but also in various points within the post and elsewhere is quite transparent about her position and agenda within the broader conversation (re: Leverage) and where she comes from. How many people do you know that have this same level of transparency in their online presence?
Usually but not always by the time something like the Leverage situation happens or other reports of harmful patterns of negligence or abuse in a community or organization make it to an online forum there has been a longstanding history involving multiple people and attempts to address issues directly.
Speaking up personally about community issues of harm is almost ALWAYS a risky move most people don't have the guts to do or the willingness to set aside their own personal concerns of reputation and privilege for even when they are well aware of issues that are negatively impacting and/or causing harm to others. Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of advocacy, leveraging one's privilege, and allyship?
Yes this. Reframing the recipient of violence as a threat or an aggressor when theyve mistreated and/or attacked them is a common frame control tactic.
Additionally, manipulating events through PR and telling stories about the person harmed to others that demonize them so that others won't believe that you harmed them or will justify any harm you've caused is a common tactic used to frame events and your role in them as being different then what actually happened. (I.e. demonizing and excluding women who've been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct from an organizations leadership and/or wealthy donors, framing oneself as "trustworthy" while not practicing transparency with many of its donors or they people they recruit, promoting "community" and "integrity"while lacking a functional accountability structure, actively enabling harmful patterns of negligence and abuse and silencing and getting rid of anyone who express criticism or dissent, ect)
Looking at you Monastic Academy.
PITW #159 "This is hard, Be strong"
Fellow former City Year Member here who served in Columbia, SC. Reading your comment definitely brought up memories and makes me feel like I need to go back over that experience with a new lense now. City Year was definitely challenging to ones sense of individuality and had a very rigid structure. Yes they have very specific ways of building culture (red jackets, morning chants, PITWs, ect.) That could described as culty and definitely focus on instilling a particular view/set of values - hadn't quite thought about it that way at the time. There is definitely a clear hierarchy in structure and a bit of a glorified image put forward that is umm.. different then the experience. The work and the year also yielded a lot of important lessons. I can totally see how "frame control" showed up with certain leaders. That being said to my knowledge there were also clear agreements being made with consent, organizational and financial transparency, clear codes of conduct, people feel comfortable complaining and giving feedback, and at least within the branch I served at the overall cohort lacked many of the defining features of a cult (i.e the cult personality and many group dynamics). People still maintained a level of individuality and agency even within that and nobody was ever pressured to stay beyond their original commitment of one year. Even then people did not meet resistance if they chose to leave mid contract. Though given a particular leader with narcissistic and charismatic authoritarian qualities (like Soryu) I could totally see how a dynamic could easily become more cult like. There were things City Year was really good at - and then there were things that they really weren't.
You mentioned above you think frame control is probably necessary for good leadership - but what if that's based on a cultural script and model of leadership that doesn't actually serve to create a better or more equitable world. What if that model of leadership is actually just perpetuating the same patterns of harm? The question is, is it beneficial to aspire to that level of frame control? Or are these types of hierarchical, power over structures in which heavily utilized frame control is actually outdated, limiting, lacking in diverse perspectives, and creating environments in which abuse of power is more likely to occur.
I'd say one difference between "frame control" and say sharing different points of view is "power" and the extent to which one (mis)uses their skills, talent, status, resources to overpower or control another person's reality vs. them operating from a place of agency and engaging with one another.
Similarly, I've been a part of a many many Women's Circle in the PNW that shared many multicultural elements, groups norms, ceremonies, common language, ect. We also have "agreements" of confidentially. Agreements being the keyword are often co-created. Creating shared realities is not the same thing as frame control. However, cause humans be humans obviously varying levels of frame control can happen in any relational or group environment. For all I know your men's group might have been cult like. Who am I to say!
I have also worked with a number of nonprofits (8) over the past 10 years with various cultural and organizational dynamics I won't go into here in direct services, as a Development Coordinator/Director, Grant Writer, Strategic Planning and Organizational Development, board member, various other service leadership roles, ect which has yielded a lot of insight into how organizations develop at various stages and what best practices support functional dynamics a long the way. It's been my observation that collaborative and egalitarian models which strongly represent the communities they serve, have strong accountability and grievance processes, and actively seek feedback and integrate community voices are most effective at achieving their mission, create healthier communities and are more stable over the long-term. They actually engage in LESS "frame control" and actively create spaces for very different perspectives and lenses to intersect - which seems to create more positive organizational cultures. While structures like City Year can scale quickly and get a lot done - there are also significant disadvantages to having a more hierarchal structures and they tend to leave many young people somewhat burnt out rather than " Fired Up!"
Any group or community can evolve into cult dynamics within an authoritarian, hierarchal structure without clear safe guards and healthy, ethical leaders. It's important to be clear about the difference between a culture and a "cult". When we start talking about cults according to it's current definition what is being talked about is a very specific set of structures and defined group behaviors. Usually it's when these characteristics and behaviors are taken together that you get an actual "cult". I'd highly recommend you aquaint yourself with what these are Friend, because you are in a very high risk situation.
I also happen to be a former Monastic Academy apprentice and am the one who brought them up earlier. In ten years of nonprofit service I have never personally encountered a more high risk, dysfunctional, authoritarian/hierarchal, unethical, sexist and abusive organization. I have never encountered the level of flat out denial, silencing, disassociation, and "frame control" anywhere else other than maybe some fundamentalist Christian churches. City Year was NEVER anywhere close in terms of frame control and the kind of unethical behavior that happens at the MA would never have flown at CY. The one thing they do have in common is using an overly idealism driven and not entirely transparent narrative to recruit young people to engage in areas of work that they are under qualified for and far more inexperienced than what is actually needed which creates a lot of challenge and usually leaves people burnout or in some cases pretty fucked up leaving the Monastic Academy. Having existed for 7+ years and despite consistent feedback about harmful impacts from many past residents and apprentices the MA still does not even have a basic feedback process in place to gather either qualitative or quantitative data about the impact of their programs. At this point it's leadership is actively aware that the program is actually harmful to a substantial number of people and does not communicate these risks upfront. People who dissent or share negative feedback are actively excluded and/or forced to leave the community (especially in instances of ethical and organizational misconduct as happened in my own experience). This ensures that the community consolidates toward those who agree and are willing to be complicit or at least silent when faced with harmful practices. In the case of a former partner, yes multiple members of the community actively told him to cut any contact with me after I was forced to leave and after I spoke out publicly online about the organization and his complicity he did cut contact with me. Many former residents and apprentices experience symptoms of cPTSD and need to recover significantly after leaving. Longstanding patterns of domination, colonization, misogyny and sexism are very much present in the space. For example forcing women out of the community and actively using coercive methods to keep them silent when they are impacted by the sexual misconduct of leaders and wealthy donors. The relationship to power and money is extremely unhealthy - and their are no real accountability structures in place (i.e. no code of conduct for teachers that defines what abuse is, no established grievance process, and a nonfunctional board). As a fundraiser I definitely found their practices to be highly questionable and unethical - and are likely illegal in some cases according to Vermont State law regarding fiduciary duties and 501c3 compliance. The current board is currently primarily made up of former students and others who have direct conflicts of interest that can impact ones ability with board duties as defined by Vermont State law. This along with the fact that Soryu is head teacher, founder, AND board president creates major power imbalances and is not in alignment with nonprofit or Monastic best practices. Recommendations from most sources and nonprofit consultants say that a board should have at least 7 board members with 0 conflicts of interest - the MA has 2. Most people do not understand how board governance works or how important the make up of a board is to ensure a functional board and oversight. Soryu has zero sources of accountability and Shinzen Young is rarely on site and cannot provide adequate oversight either. He is not a part of legitimate Buddhist lineage and in fact his training history with Sogenji is actually pretty sketchy. It has been my experience that I have never witnessed the level of cognitive dissonance, disassociation, and failure to live up to ones stated mission and values anywhere else. And yet somehow they always find a way to frame themselves as ethical, trustworthy, compassionate, wise, and having integrity even whilst actively behaving otherwise. Frame control is by far one of the things they seem to exceed best at.
You talk about the advantages of a mission driven organization but you don't seem to question whether or not that model of expansionist, authoritarian leadership is actually healthy - rather than simply perpetuating longstanding cultural patterns of harm that have been going on for a very long time. There are lot of ways nonprofits are shifting and need to shift away from being mission-driven to being community-centered - and to examine the history of colonization, patriarchy, racism, ablism, ect. That exist everywhere. I love nonprofits and working in this sector, but nonprofits are not inherently free of harm simply because they aspire to do good work. It takes active cultivation, addressing cultural patterns and bias, and listening deeply to ensure that one is actually having the impact that one intends to have!
Someone shared this link with me re: group conversations about interactions with the Monastic Academy. So much resonance with the examples of frame control you share re: lack of reciprocation and vulnerability, refusal to collaborate with other perspectives, reframing or dismissing harm, controlling parameters of engagement in a way that creates unequal power dynamics, so on and so forth. Your example of making claims that exclude 98% or people (re: save the world narratives) but highly effective on the other 2% is especially relevant!
Some examples of frame control I've seen recently are: Have been attempting to engage the Monastic Academy in a mediation process since since last May re: abusive, unsafe, nonconsensual risks, and unethical treatment by the organization. So far they've indicated some willingness to engage in conversation after many attempts of reaching out were ignored and after I told them I'd be going public with my experience (at some point soon.) They then provided a list of affiliated persons whom they are personally and professionally connected to with no mediation background for said process. Have also tried to engage me in unmediated conversations despite explicit instructions from a legitimate 3rd party mediator (whom I insisted on using per the recommendation of another former member and with whom I had no prior contact before this issue) that outline mediations steps including no direct contact between parties, have expressed resistance to other coorganizers about my boundaries and desire mediation, and it remains to be seen if they will in fact choose to engage or not. I hope so as this would actually be the first real commitment and step in the direction of actually addressing harm and attempting to learn and do better! Another thing that is currently happened is that Soryu has actively ignored requests for conversation from multiple women who've been hurt by sexist and unethical organizational practices but recently reached out to a coorganizer who identifies as a white cis male expressing care and a desire to talk about his concerns whom he seem to regards as the "leader". All in all these behaviors and other current responses towards many attempts to engage the org in legitimate paths towards accountability, growth, and restoration/amends making only seem to point towards it being a "cult" or at the very least a deeply dysfunctional and unethical organization. Sadly, as I'd much rather see groups be open to growth, transformation, transparency and making amends for past harms. Only time will tell.
Then again perhaps I'm frame controlling right now and by saying I don't trust them and I will only engage with them directly via the support and presence of a nuetral third party mediator with many decades of experience dealing with misconduct and repair work in spiritual communities. There are certainly times and places where it seems helpful to attempt to bring one into one's frame such as when an organizations behavior repeatedly leaves former members traumatized and with cPTSD. In that case sharing ones frame might be critical to interrupting patterns of harm - but also may not be received at all in situations where frame control is part of the abuse. But then again someone can also just repeatedly ignore your frame of reality too. (I.e gaslighting, denial)
Why am I saying also this here - partly because I am affirming that yes frame control is used as an abuse tactic and I think you've done a good job of breaking down examples (including the fact that we all engage in some level of frame control) I think it's helpful and I hope won't be missused. Secondarily I want to continue to let folks in this community know that their are legitimate risks and reports of abuse happening within the Monastic Academy which displays many of the same characteristics as Leverage ( just so you know some of us are reading your posts and others about those dynamics and feeling a lot of resonance) The MA is actively recruiting in the rationalist community and that very much utilizes frame control - and doesn't not according to my frame warrant anyone's trust. I think they honestly believe what they are saying which makes the deception all the more tricky. I hope sharing my own experiences will serve both as a PSA and as encouragement to others out there who are attempting to break out their own experiences of frame control.
Yes! Reputation/Honor vs. PR management is the difference between being known for adhering to good principles/values/standards of ethical conduct especially in difficult situations and makes amends when neccasary vs. the effort made to maintain one's image and appearance of doing so while not operating from one's stated principles/values/standards of ethical conduct and/or violating these by engaging in PR efforts that are in and of themselves dishonest and unethical.
I understand your desire to make a distinction about your identity and clear up confusion about your thoughts, actions being confused with statements I've made. Here you note that you state that "I'm leaving out my last name so I'm not trivially googled" and then you go on to disclose personally identifying information about me and the names I go by apparently without regard for how others may choose to use this information. While I am generally not interested in hiding my identity, my involvement in activities, and thoughts please consider both the discrepancy in your statement/actions and that my choice to speak publicly to what others have not could put me at risk. Please afford me the same level of privacy, safety, and respect that you do yourself.
I think you have a good point Gunnar - these two things could be better separated. In light of such, I have decided to share some thoughts inspired by the Monastic Academy about organizational practices and how that relates the "big picture" separately.
The Colonization of Cults, Nonprofit Organizations, and Society - LessWrong
I belong to a small group of ex-residents and former apprentices that have been interviewing other community members, have made attempts to create space for dialogue with leadership about issues, have requested a mediation process with a third party mediator be opened for the organization to hear the feedback of current and former program participants, and are now looking at what steps to take to address concerns for safety and well-being of current and future members. There have been fifteen accounts given (12 being within the last 2-3 years) in which people report some or strongly negative experiences that have from my point of view established that these are not one off issues. This is not a large monastery and so this is a significant number of people whom experienced high levels of psychological distress in which participants (i.e. panic attacks, mania, psychosis, flashbacks) There are others who've stated that they had negative experiences behind this whom were not open to bring interviewed and/or did not want to have any contact with the organization whatsoever. Some have also spoken to receiving some positive benefits from meditation practice and other aspects of training. All of whom have spoken to unhealthy group and teacher/student dynamics that are consistent with many high demand groups. These former members also reported experiencing significant psychological disturbances while and after training at the MA and difficulty reintegrating back into the world after leaving. Some of these accounts I have heard and received directly (6), while other interviews have been conducted by other group members.
" In order to let go of those defense mechanisms, we need to put ourselves in a place that demonstrably will take care of us in an ontological crisis."
While I agree with statement by itself. In relationship to the Monastic Academy which is here called the monastery, this is laughable at best and at it's worst deeply untrue and dangerously misguided. This does not track with my own experience; or over a dozen other testimonies from former residents and apprentices that have left the monastery over the last 2-3 years in traumatic states whom have not been cared for or even followed up with to see if they are ok by the organization you are speaking about. While some speak to the positive benefits they received via simple living, community, and meditation practice as you've described here; many have also had suffering significant pschological challenges and needed professional support to heal and deprogram the unhealthy beliefs and behaviors they learned within the organization. So should you or any other person consider the Monastic Academy trustworthy in the face of an ontological crisis? Especially when the environment itself, more often than not drives one into a state ontological crisis that is neither normal or healthy.
So how do we decide what and whom is trustworthy? How much evidence do we need? Do we trust our own direct experience, first and foremost? Do we ignore others direct experiences when they don't align with ours? Do we trust the data? Do we trust reasoning, mathematics, and ethics to show us what's ethical?
The question of " what is trustworthy?" Is of incredible importance. All too often those whose view of things has been skewed by the privileges given to them by society or within a group(I.e class, race, gender, wealth and social influence) miss the mark entirely on this question because they have never had the good fortune of learning the true nature of the people who surround them, and too often they have not even learned there own. The only way to know someone's true nature is to watch how they treat others from whom they have nothing to gain but their humanity. Few recognize that this is the most valuable gift of all.
Background: I am a full-time student at Bellingham's (unimpressive) university who has lived in the Bellingham area and will soon be moving back as classes resume in person. My partner is also an AI safety researcher (previously from the Bay area) who would certainly be interested in building AI research and rationalist community here.
Notes on Bellingham:
- Yes, there is a much stronger Uber presence during non-COVID times. The absence of students living in Bellingham has impacted rideshares here and will likely pick up again when in-person classes return. However, few rideshare alternates. There are longer wait times than what you would normally experience in most metropolitan areas, but you can get a lift most nights of the week within city limits.
- Bellingham's nature, outdoor activities, restaurants, community, and culture are excellent. There are small music, arts, and dance scenes here that are quite pleasant and intimate. A great way to connect with locals. People are relaxed and friendly. It's not difficult to feel at home here. As I like to say Bellingham is small enough that you will always run into someone you know and big enough that you can always meet someone new. Very few people want to leave this area and many make career compromises in order to stay in Bellingham.
- Excellent place for fungophiles and outdoor enthusiasts. Mushroom hunting is a popular activity here in the PNW which an abundance of fruiting bodies in the fall. Bellingham hosts an annual Ski to Sea race that combines skiing, biking, and kayaking. There is a community boating center in Bellingham that offers access to kayaks, paddleboards, sailboats, and more at an affordable rental cost. Easy access to Bellingham Bay, the Chuckanut Mts right outside of town, Whatcom Falls, and the Cascades Mts within an hour. Mt. Baker nearby is perfect for those who enjoy snow sports in the Winter. Also close to the San Juan Islands accessible by ferry, another incredible outdoor area to camp and explore.
- Most people leave due to the lack of job opportunities here in Bellingham. Finding jobs for partners, colleagues, and friends could be quite challenging. This would be the biggest drawback of the area IMO along with low salaries. Though at this time many companies have shifted to create more remote work opportunities than in previous years and may continue this trend.
- Low-cost rentals and properties are a big plus, as well as beautiful pieces of land for sale (some with existing structures) in the area surrounding Bellingham that would make for great campus options. Whatcom County is a gorgeous place to live. A quick craigslist search for rentals yielded studios for under a $1,000, $1,500-1,800 for a 2 bedroom, $1700-2,800 for 3-4 bedrooms, and up to $4,000 for houses with 5-7 bedrooms. This could be helpful for those relocating to the area. Keep in mind that rental availability generally follows the academic year here in Bellingham. The median sale price for a home in Bellingham is appx. 537K at present, and property values are increasing quickly in this area.
- There are a number of small spiritual communities including a Unitarian church, several Christian churches, an Islamic Mosque, and the Center for Spiritual Living. There is also the Red Cedar Zen Center, Mindfulness Northwest, Bellingham Insight, and the Shambala Center for those interested in meditation practice. The closest Sikh temple is in Lynden, WA.
- This little city is expected to grow a lot over the next 20 years. Bellingham's population is increasing quickly as more relocate to this area.
- The projected job growth rate is 41.7% according to Bellingham, Washington Economy (bestplaces.net) which also includes more information about taxes, jobs, and earning potential.
- Close to Seattle and Vancouver airports great for most domestic and international flights. Flights from Seattle to the Bay area are quite affordable making frequent trips doable. Vancouver is an excellent option especially for international flights which are often cheaper than Seattle when the border is open (which has been closed due to COVID).
- The potential to build a rationalist community between Seattle and Vancouver is high. There is a minimal presence compared to the Bay area- yet many people in these areas have similarly aligned interests and values. There are people here who would be interested in this community if a presence was established.
I hope some of this information is helpful. Bellingham is a beautiful community that many love to call home. Wishing you great fortune in your search for the right place.
Shekinah Alegra Schell