I want to thank everyone for contributing their well thought out comments for yesterday's post.  I attempted to approach the post with a seriousness befitting the topic.  I will follow up with everyone in the next couple of days.

I'd like to extend this line of thought for a bit, taking it to a new place - and in doing so, I have some questions. 

~C4Chaos pointed me to this blog post by Jake, over at Zaadz. called About Spiritual Teachers.

It's a good post.  I would add one thing however.

The spiritual relationship with a teacher, is not like the relationship with, say, your basketball coach. 

Like therapy - it's a relationship of deep vulnerability for the students, and also a very unequal power dynamic.

And as such, shouldn't the Code of Ethics that are "signed off on" by teachers be similar to the Code of Ethics signed off on by therapists?

Most organizations have some type of Code of Ethics.  And when complaints arise about signers to the code of ethics, there exists a body to INVESTIGATE the complaints - separate from any type of legal action.  And the signees to the code of ethics, have a pre-agreement to accede to this type of investigation.

Take a look at this American Association of Pastoral Counselors Code of Ethics.  A large bit here:

PRINCIPLE III - CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS

It is the responsibility of members of AAPC to maintain relationships with clients on a professional basis.

   1. We do not abandon or neglect clients. If we are unable, or unwilling for appropriate reasons, to provide professional help or continue a professional relationship, every reasonable effort is made to arrange for continuation of treatment with another professional.

   2. We make only realistic statements regarding the pastoral counseling process and its outcome.

   3. We show sensitive regard for the moral, social, and religious standards of clients and communities. We avoid imposing our beliefs on others, although we may express them when appropriate in the pastoral counseling process.

   4. Counseling relationships are continued only so long as it is reasonably clear that the clients are benefiting from the relationship.

   5. We recognize the trust placed in and unique power of the therapeutic relationship. While acknowledging the complexity of some pastoral relationships, we avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. We avoid those dual relationships with clients (e.g., business or close personal relationships) which could impair our professional judgement, compromise the integrity of the treatment, and/or use the relationship for our own gain.

   6. We do not engage in harassment, abusive words or actions, or exploitative coercion of clients or former clients.

   7. All forms of sexual behavior or harassment with clients are unethical, even when a client invites or consents to such behavior or involvement. Sexual behavior is defined as, but not limited to, all forms of overt and covert seductive speech, gestures, and behavior as well as physical contact of a sexual nature; harassment is defined as but not limited to, repeated comments, gestures or physical contacts of a sexual nature.

   8. We recognize that the therapist/client relationship involves a power imbalance, the residual effects of which are operative following the termination of the therapy relationship. Therefore, all sexual behavior or harassment as defined in Principle III, G with former clients is unethical.

Especially look at 5 and 6 above. 

"We recognize the trust placed in and unique power of the therapeutic relationship"
"We do not engage in harassment, abusive words or actions, or exploitative coercion of clients or former clients."

This is completely pie in the sky - so feel free to mock me here! -  that organizations that I would like to be associated with - like, say Integral Institute - would be willing to sign some  adapted form of a Code of Ethics, on behalf of the organization.  And, pushing it further, would associate in the main, only with other organizations that ALSO would have adopted a formal Code of Ethics, with an assent to have an investigating body - again, separate from legal investigations.   (And note - there is nothing regarding a code of behavior or a code of ethics that I can find on the website of Integral Institute, regarding relationships among people at the institute, or relationships with other organizations.)

Now, would this prevent abuse?  Of course not - but at least it would put a mechanism in place, whereby there is some accountability.  And then ticking ethical timebombs, like say Marc Gafni situation (where there were previous accusations that, sadly, ended up being accurate) or the Andrew Cohen situation, end up tainting the organization that I do want to be part of, and that I do care about.

The above is most likely completely unrealistic, but I thought I would throw it out there.  As Tuff Ghost said in comments to the previous post:

"Wilber is in a position of power in regards to teacher endorsements".  (Please go back and read the comment, its a good one).

As well, I've had personal email communication from a couple of folks, who haven't been willing to engage more with Integral Institute because of the "taint" of these type of associations.

And that's a shame, I think.