We've already discussed the Oliver Sipple principle.
The principle being that I have no intention of disclosing the names of women currently in the Center (or out of the Center for that matter) who have been implicated in Guru's sex ring.
Like most rules, however, the Sipple principle admits an exception.
In the gay rights context, it seems that most people don't have a big problem "outing" a person's private sexual orientation when hypocrisy is involved.
The cleanest example of this would be a right-wing, "family values" politician who actively works against the interests of gays, but in private is a closeted homosexual.
In cases like that, there doesn't appear to be a groundswell of sympathy for keeping the hypocritical politician's private life private. Better to out him.
The exception applies here, too.
It's one thing for our sister disciples to be going about the tough business of trying to lead a life in the Center while privately grappling with the pain of their own abuse.
It's quite another for any of these victims of Guru's sexual abuse to actively work in concert with the Center to tear down the reputations of the courageous women who have thus far spoken out or to actively deceive current disciples about what they themselves know to be true.
Though I hope it never comes to that, such women should be outed.
What I'd really like to see -- and what I've blogged about before -- is someone, anyone, to stand up for the truth, to stand up for what's right, even if it means paying a personal price for doing so. That's what I'd like to see.
It's really the flip side to the much more common phenomena of going along with the crowd, of not rocking the boat, of standing by while others get hurt.
A lot of research has gone into what makes people compliant to authority, even when that authority asks the individual to do something wrong, even when the order requires the individual to hurt someone else. Preeminent among such research is the work done by Professor Philip G. Zimbardo.
Professor Zimbardo is famous for the 1971 Stanford prison experiment. In that study, Prof. Zimbardo demonstrated how ordinary people can be corrupted by the roles they play and the environment in which they work. He's written a relatively new book called The Lucifer Effect on the subject, but it's the flip side of this research that I'm more interested in here.
The antidote for this evil of our general willingness to go along with whatever is dictated to us from the authority figure even at the expense of fellow human beings is what Prof. Zimbardo calls the "heroic imagination."
The idea seems to be that if one's own personal psychological narrative is that "I'm a hero in waiting" -- waiting for an opportunity to stand up to the "man" even at personal cost to oneself -- then the chance that you'll cave under pressure from authority or peer pressure is minimized.
Honestly, I'll be doing you a great disservice to write any more about this.
Take 25 minutes and watch Prof. Zimbardo's talk to the audience at TED. (And if you haven't yet discovered TED, take some time there and explore some of the wonderful talks available there.)
It is particularly relevant to our experiences in the Center and the current situation facing all of us.