A Dharma Student's Bill of Rights

Ah, never mind

"
Ah, never mind



"

Dang, wish I was here 22 minutes ago!

Ron and Mike, you're absolutely right. And that's why this discussion is vital and necessary. I'm well aware of the fact that there are "spiritual" teachers from every tradition whose intention is to exploit their students. I've met a few of them. And anyone who has unknowingly wandered into dark night territory is especially vulnerable to these creeps.

And Beta, thanks for that very illuminating account.

FTR, I wasn't trying to make a dharma point about no-self or sunyata. The point I was making is much more mundane, its a point of law. Rights are a guarantee wherein the right holder (in this case, the student) is entitled to treatment to the exclusion of other parties.

Here's an example. Let's say you hate candy bars and, as long as you live, you'll never buy or eat one. Regardless of this fact, you still have the right to know what's in a candy bar. As a potential consumer your right to know is guaranteed despite the fact that you'll never give a penny to a candy bar maker and the candy maker cannot withhold this right. You have rights; the candy maker has obligations.

I see problems with this in the context of a student/teacher relationship.

First, unlike a potential candy consumer (who cannot know everything that goes into a candy bar) a rights framework assumes that the student possesses limited agency and that her/his status will be safe guarded by the teacher/teaching institution. The right has now become a substitute for proper judgement.

Second, a rights framework presupposes exclusive interest, meaning that the two parties do not share the same goal. That presupposition is problematic.

Delineating the student/teacher relationship within a legal framework is unnecessarily rigid and inherently adversarial. A code of conduct, on the other hand, sets behaviour within the parameters of that which is reasonable. Anything beyond the reasonable is misconduct and constitutes abuse. And it's at that line, where the reasonable becomes the unreasonable, that a student should run for the door. Knowing that line should be a basic part of every yogi's toolbox.

I agree that a code of conduct is useful, as I wrote above, I'm working on one as we speak. But I don't see that as a replacement for a student bill of rights, but as flowing from it. Student rights set the boundaries, and a code of conduct or ethics code delineates what teachers can do to respect those boundaries even in difficult situations.

I'm still not sure if I'm getting your objection Avlaro. You seem to be saying that A) having a right will diminish a student's "agency" or "judgement" - I just don't see that happening at all. In fact, having some rights might clear things up a bit and make it easier to judge whether the teacher is being appropriate. Rights assume that the two parties don't share the same goal. I suppose that this might have some merit, but the problem with it is that there are many goals for both the student and the teacher, and some match and some don't, and some aren't fully conscious. And the goals are different from one student/teacher relationship to the next and (in good relationships) are constantly being made as clear as possible and updated. I'm not sure how this is an issue. And C) a bill of rights is unnecessarily rigid and adversarial. I don't see it that way at all. Rigid? Please review the rights and tell me if there are any instances you can imagine in which it is alright for a teacher to cross those boundaries. If you can make a case for it, then I'll start buying the idea that these bright lines are too rigid. And as far as being adversarial, with a bill of rights an adversarial relationship isn't created until a right is violated. Having a patient's bill of rights doesn't make them adversaries of their doctors, and having a passenger bill of rights doesn't make them adversaries of pilots. It sets out basic guidelines that everyone should already be following where one person has more power than the other,

Put me in the Ron Crouch camp on this. It seems confusing to conflate rights with goals. Having rights does not by definition set up a conflict. What sets up a conflict is an act that transgresses someone's rights. And that is as it should be.