Apparently, people are having issues leaving comments on my site here.  I need to look into this. 

At any rate, I need to walk back on a bit of hyperbole - I received an email which pointed out that Cohen has very little interaction with Integral Institute.  Basically, there have been a few public talks with Ken, and that's about it.

And the truth is, over the last year, there hasn't been much interaction with Andrew Cohen, at IN.  There has been some, but not much. 

I guess what is brought up here - and again, I think the second post of VC's threads the needle between an "unthinking condemnation", and a "what's really going on here" authentic analysis, very well.

As most people who read here probably know, Marc Gafni - a frequent teacher hosted at Integral Institute - has had sexual misconduct charges filed against him by three women.

Vomiting Confetti, has the best take on this.

There have been responses by Wilber - follow the link above, Bill at Integral Options, Matthew Dallman, and then Vomitting Confetti again (probably more that I don't know of).

Since I care here about Integral Institute, my thoughts are below.

I think Bill is too easy on Wilber, while VC's take is similar to mine.

Mainly, Ken is creating a false equivalence, equating the condemnation to "mean green".  I hardly thing the jewish groups in question are "mean green", yes?

Ken writes:

"Nonetheless, there is some truth to these allegations because of grave wrongdoing on Marc’s part, and I believe this wrongdoing is due not just to bad judgment on Marc’s part, but to a pathology or dysfunction affecting Marc".

I don't know what to make of that sentence - "confused" at best. If you have a pathology or dysfunction, then this does have a relation to judgement - not a one to one correspondence, but a relation, yes?

However, remember, this is a PERSONAL FRIEND of Ken's.  The last thing you do as a personal friend is to throw your friend under the bus, right? 

So while I understand why Ken is not doing that, his statement so far, in my opinion, is underwhelming and unsatisfying. 

And this brings up Andrew Cohen again, who is STILL roaming the halls of Integral Institute, with apparent impunity.

The broader question is, what is Ken's personal failing that he seems to have a pattern of spiritual teachers with significant moral flaws?  (Da Free John, Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni, etc.)

And why is this somehow acceptable?  Should it be? 

Rommel, who of course is THE best of those who are nominally "integral" bloggers - he also falls for this, in that he separates out What Is Enlightenment, from Andrew Cohen, in that one doesn't affect the other.

I'd like others opinions, actually.  Is this a valid separation?  Given that there is SO MUCH stuff about Cohen out there, why do people ignore this as it relates to What Is Enlightenment?

Or am I simply being "mean green" myself? 

What is your opinion?