Sex, teachers and conduct

There seems to be significant confusion in this community on how to handle spiritual teachers who sleep with their students. One could even go as far as to say that the community is not very good at handling these kinds of situations.

Why is this happening? Why is a self-proclaimed cutting edge community having just as much or even more trouble handling these situations as regular communities? Something doesn't add up.

Perhaps it has to do with recognizing more nuance, more complexity, than conventional communities and institutions. After all, when things aren't black and white it's harder to settle on a singular line of action.

Do we find ourselves in a territory where we can perceive more complexity and nuance than we can process? Have our cognition and values evolved further than our decision making capabilities?

Personally, I do not believe that to be the case. At least not to the point that it can explain what is going on here. I think it's something much more simple.

For some reason there is more confusion than necessary around the following terms:

• Post-conventional
• Growth

Let's start by addressing "post-conventional".

The idea that post-conventionality turns every idea on its head, and makes every moral decision relative, is simply not true. It might seem that way in our interiority (UL), but checking with other quadrants shows us that this is not the case.

Any human brain still needs the same basic structure, nutrients and gateways to function in a healthy way – regardless of the complexity it attains. Any given culture still needs a minimum of conventional structures as the glue that holds it together, no matter how post-conventional it is.

The conventional is good at protection and boundaries. Keeping some of the conventional relevant never goes out of fashion. No matter how high you grow you still need to protect that which is alive, healthy, free and flowing.

In other words, we would do well to remember some basic conventional principles if we aspire to be leaders or teachers. In a post-conventional territory, these principles are no longer stringent rules, but they are a good starting point, and we need a pretty convincing rationale if we are to completely disregard them.

A more simple way of stating this is that healthy transcendence also brings an element of inclusion.

Next, let's address "growth". In the integral community everybody seems to want to grow. Vertical development and growing through spiritual states is highly coveted. More is better, even though you'd be hard pressed to actually find someone admitting that.

Chasing growth can be dangerous, though. Especially if both the student and the teacher have the same mindset. Who slams down the brakes? Who is concerned with safety?

In medicine we talk about "primum non nocere". First, do no harm. Obviously this cannot be used as an absolute rule, since it would prevent you from doing pretty much anything. Growth is disruptive by nature, and you rarely get any reward without accepting an element of risk.

However, even the most sophisticated spiritual growth is dependent on being a person who is reasonably healthy and happy. Spirit cannot be reduced to our bodies, but without our bodies there is no foundation for growth. Therefore, it makes abundant sense to err on the side of caution, and always remember to "first, do no harm".

The very reason that psychologists, therapists and doctors promise not to sleep with a client is to create an environment for growth and healing that is as safe as possible. There will always be risks, but why add more risks than necessary?

Does post-conventional morality change this? I don't know. But I do know that the burden of proof rests squarely on those who believe that sexual interactions is kosher where there is a deep, sacred bond of trust between spiritual teacher and student.

So what does all of this mean for the leadership of Integral Life and beyond? How should they respond when a teacher has demonstrated a repeated lack of judgment and integrity vis-a-vis his or her students?

While I'm a staunch proponent of the presumption of innocence -- the notion that everyone is innocent until proven guilty -- being a spiritual teacher is a privilege, not a constitutional right. It is entirely reasonable that such a privilege be put on hold, if reports of questionable behavior surface.

Creating workshops or retreats that encourage participants to go deep is tricky enough as it is. Adding a teacher that is potentially unsafe upsets the delicate balance that is needed.

In the case of a spiritual teacher who time and again has demonstrated an inability to keep deep and sacred student relationships separate from sexual activity, there should be no hesitation to sideline that teacher for as long as is needed – even indefinitely. This does not mean that our love or compassion for this teacher diminishes, simply that we do what is needed.

Let me also clarify that I'm not saying that sleeping with a student is always wrong. If a teacher-student relationship is consciously terminated in order to pursue a sexual relationship, then that may be fully appropriate. If the student has been highly dependent on the teacher, then it may be necessary for the student to find a new teacher, before engaging in a sexual relationship.

I'm also not saying that you become a student by simply attending the lecture of a spiritual teacher. You need to go to a retreat, do one-on-one work or something of that nature to be in an asymmetrical and deep teacher-student relationship.

High vertical development and strong spiritual states are not always easy to handle. The higher the tree the longer the shadow. We want our teachers to have this kind of verticality and spiritual attainment, while also being safe. This is no small demand.

However, this is what we have the right to demand, when it comes to the privilege and calling of being a spiritual teacher (or therapist, or doctor, or social worker...). If you ask to be entrusted with a position of power you also accept unusual levels of accountability.

We cannot and shall not be a court of law, but we can do what it takes to protect our spaces for growth.

Links:

• Where I Stand
• My Bad