Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Can Austin Zen Center Tolerate Public Discussion of its Policies?

I have been an active participant in AZC activities for over a year and haven't noticed any situations calling for special treatment for women. I would like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group, as well as Head Teacher Kosho McCall, why a women-only group is needed at AZC.I would also like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group whether they think some AZC practices and traditions, as opposed to others, work well "for women" (as opposed to zen practitioners in general)? If so, which ones are good for women, and which others are not? Why do you feel that female practitioners may need a special kind of "support" beyond that needed by zen practitioners in general? Is there such a thing as "women's practice?" How does it differ from men's practice? Do we really need to polarize the genders at AZC?Why should anyone care what the male-female ratio is for AZC practitioners or leaders so long as everyone is welcome to practice regardless of gender and the best leaders are picked regardless of gender?I don't see why the male-female ratio should be of any interest unless one gender is being discouraged from practicing (which isn't the case) or one gender is being kept out of leadership positions (which also isn't the case).In zen practice, we rise above consciousness of gender, age, career, etc. A group such as the AZC Women-Only group, which discriminates against many Austin zen practitioners on the basis of gender, strikes me as being directly opposed to fundamental principles of zen. March 19 at 1:11pm

By Koji Rick Dreher: As a male zen student i have to say that i completely support women's groups and women's events at AZC and beyond. though i'm not one of the organizers who this post is addressed to, i would like to respond to some of these concerns. bear in mind that i've only been practicing for 10 years or so, and my understanding of zen is minimal. i'm a very novice priest."I have been an active participant in AZC activities for over a year and haven't noticed any situations calling for special treatment for women."the term "special treatment" here seems a bit loaded, inaccurate, and perhaps condescending. a group of people with common concerns organizing themselves and meeting isn't a request for "special treatment." perhaps you haven't noticed the need for a women's group because you're not a woman."I would like to ask the organizers of the AZC women-only group, as well as Head Teacher Kosho McCall, why a women-only group is needed at AZC."kosho isn't active on the facebook page, so if you want to ask him something you'll have to actually ask him in person. why is a women's group needed at AZC? AZC exists within a cultural context and isn't something independent of western culture, world culture, social conditioning and influences. the leadership of the world has been a "men-only group" since the advent of agriculture. we can't wish things equal, some countermeasures must be made. you can cool boiled water by letting it sit, but it's more effective to add cold water."Why do you feel that female practitioners may need a special kind of "support" beyond that needed by zen practitioners in general? Is there such a thing as "women's practice?" How does it differ from men's practice? Do we really need to polarize the genders at AZC?"why is the word support in quotations here? what if it REALLY IS support? perhaps there are ways of understanding and relating to the world that are particular to the female psyche. perhaps when women get together amongst themselves they are able to share things with each other and communicate in a way that they aren't free to do in mixed company. perhaps women feel the solidarity and strength that any group subject to oppression and discrimination feel when they meet together and offer each other support. is there such a thing as women's practice? maybe so. also, i don't consider a group of women meeting together "polarizing" the genders." Why should anyone care what the male-female ratio is for AZC practitioners or leaders so long as everyone is welcome to practice regardless of gender and the best leaders are picked regardless of gender? "there's a group in colombia whose slogan is "without the voice of women, the truth is incomplete." we can't insure that the best leaders are picked regardless of gender. men and women across the country have internalized this cultural understanding of the implications of being male or female. i say again, we are not something outside of our culture's sphere of influence. i agree the no one should become a teacher, an ino, a director, or even a doan without being suited for the job, but the voice and presence of women is crucial for a complete sangha. we can't just wish it equal, we can't wish ourselves unbiased, we need to take countermeasures against the patriarchal culture we are steeped in and the standards we subconsciously abide by."In zen practice, we rise above consciousness of gender, age, career, etc. A group such as the AZC Women-Only group, which discriminates against many Austin zen practitioners on the basis of gender, strikes me as being directly opposed to fundamental principles of zen."i don't see a women's group as discriminating on the basis of gender. i see it as discriminating on the basis of experience. i don't have the experience of being a woman, i haven't lived that, i don't know what it's like. a women's group is no more guilty of gender discrimination than a 10 year class reunion is guilty of age discrimination. it may be true that, in zen, we look past conventional views of gender, age, and social status, but we also look right at it. it is our life situation. we study the absolute as well as the relative, as well as the co-existence of both, and the non-existence of both. absolute reality is a fraction of the picture. a person of the way does not ignore relative circumstances. she engages them with the same careful attention that she engages the absolute. we've inherited a particular world, a particular life situation, and we have to work with it. teachings on non-dualism don't offer us a "get out of the relative world freecard."the women that i've spoken to have said they they really enjoy and value the group. that's all the proof i need. my wish is that men help in any way they can...even if just by getting out of the way ;)if i've misrepresented the women's group in any way, please let me know so that i can correct my understanding.

By the blog editor: More on WOMEN-ONLY EVENTS AT AZC. In order to make this discussion more concrete, let's look at an example. On March 19, 2010 at AZC there was a "Women's Evening with visiting teacher Shotai De La Rosa. Zazen, potluck dinner, dharma talk." Here's a case of a dharma talk for women. Surely some men could have benefited, but they were apparently excluded--I say "apparently" because when a talk is labeled part of a "Women's Evening," then many people, myself included, will assume, with good reason, that men are prohibited from hearing this dharma talk. (If men were not prohibited, then the announcement ought to have said so.) Now even if Shotai De La Rosa gave another talk, for everyone, the fact is that Shotai may have taught some things in the women-only talk that were not repeated in the talk that didn't discriminate against a large number of people on the basis of gender. That's why giving non-discriminatory talks (in addition to separate talks for women who don't want men around) isn't anadequate way of compensating for the discriminatory conduct (by which I of course do not mean conduct on Shotai's part--she of course simply spoke at whatever events she was invited to speak at and, for all I know, may not have even known in advance of the gender discrimination).Koji Rick Dreher makes the very odd remark that my use of the term "special treatment" in reference to events that discriminate on the basis of gender is "loaded, inaccurate, and perhaps condescending." It strikes me as so obvious that when you have a women-only dharma talk you are giving women "special treatment" that I hardly think it's worth wasting any words to defend the use of the term "special treatment." Probably Koji thinks the term is loaded, inaccurate, and condescending simply because he has a special emotional feeling in favor of gender discrimination.Koji thinks that Kosho won't respond to my complaint on Facebook because he isn't active on the Facebook page. I myself think anyone who presides over a group engaging in discrimination ought to respond to public complaints about that discrimination whenever the opportunity presents itself. Of course, no one can force him to respond, just as no one can force the Masons to respond to the many correct and accurate complaints that they discriminate against Jews, Catholics, and Moslems (in violation of their own rules), and no one can force Louis Farrakhan to respond to complaints that he has made antisemitic statements.Koji says the leadership of the world has been a "men-only group." It strikes me that the only correct response to past discrimination is to end discrimination, not to engage in more discrimination. The vast majority of the whites and males who are nowadays routinely vicitimized by illegal employment discrimination and by illegal discrimination in university admissions (to take just two examples out of hundreds) have had absolutely nothing to do with past discrimination against women and non-whites. Koji apparently supports punishing people for offenses they had nothing to do with. I find this position highly immoral.There are a number of other odd remarks in Koji's posting, e.g., "I don't see a women's group as discriminating on the basis of gender." What Koji is saying is that an event that excludes men doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. It looks like Koji just doesn't know what "discriminate" means--he really should just look it up in the dictionary.I'm not opposed to women-only groups that have a legitimate justification. For example, a purely social women-only group (something like a church women's fellowship) would be fine with me, because single-sex socializing can be easily justified. In the same way, as a matter of law, because there is an adequate justification, you're allowed to discriminate against whites in some employment situations. For example, a police department can assign a black policeman to patrol a black inner-city neighborhood full of racial tension. That department doesn't have to toss a coin to choose between a black and a white policeman for that job because it has a valid reason for sending a black officer to that area. But when events at the center of zen training, such as dharma talks, meditation sessions, policy discussions, discussions about zen practice, etc., discriminate against people on the basis of gender, then I think they should not occur at AZC.Koji says, "The women that i've spoken to have said they they really enjoy and value the [women-only] group." That's something like Klan members saying, "We really enjoy and value not having any blacks or Jews around when we have policy discussions and discussions about the racial situation in the US." AZC should not be a group that supports discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or religious background in central, non-social events.

-----------------------------------------------
Robin Anderson wrote that she thinks I am trying to start a "flame war." I am not trying to start a "flame war." I'm just expressing my views on a matter of public concern. If every time someone expresses controversial views, he gets attacked for trying to start a war, then before you know it there won't be any free speech left. Robin thinks I should talk to Kosho McCall, AZC's Head Teacher, about this. However, Kosho doesn't like to talk about it. He has difficulty discussing controversial issues. I already tried to talk to him about this--we didn't get very far. His main concern seemed to be that someone might get upset if a discussion on this topic occurred in a public or semi-public manner. His reasoning seemed to be something like this: A person with emotional problems who disagrees with me might become very upset upon hearing of my opposition to women-only events at AZC that are not purely social; therefore, there should not be any discussion on this topic in a public or semi-public manner. I find this reasoning seriously defective. It shows a dismaying contempt for the methods of decision-making that have been found to be so effective in the United States over the last 200 years--free and open public discussion of important, controversial issues. In this country, we generally reject repressive tactics such as stifling the free and public expression of controversial ideas on matters of public importance. I realize that Kosho may be less impressed with American values on free speech than with, say, the values of Japan in the past--say, the autocratic values of Japan in the 1930's. Zen centers in the lineage of Suzuki Roshi, chiefly San Francisco Zen Center, have dealt with autocratic leadership in the past, especially in the case of Richard Baker Roshi, and I am surprised to see that autocratic leadership is still alive and well in centers in the lineage of Suzuki Roshi. It seems that certain lessons from the Baker experience haven't been fully learned.This raises a question about "dharma transmission," which is a status that has been granted to Kosho. Some people think that when a teacher has "dharma transmission," that means he's enlightened, and that what he says is infallable, or necessarily superior to what anyone else says who hasn't been granted the privileges that accompany "dharma transmission." I tried to discuss this with Reb Anderson of San Francisco Zen Center, but he wasn't interested. He said he didn't know anything about dharma transmission (even though he'd just given a public talk on that topic a few weeks earlier). In any event, as those with experience in zen can easily see, dharma transmission has a tendency to result in autocratic leadership and the suppression of free speech.As Flint Sparks and Peg Syverson point out in RESPONDING TO JOKO [BECK]'S REQUEST: OPENING THE CONVERSATION (unpublished), “Practice has no hierarchy….It’s not as if a person ‘has’…transmission that is portable as an object; it maintains its aliveness by its attention and through connection. It’s not something a person can get and have….There is no privilege. The tricky assumption is that transmission is ‘privilege.’ This is the way it has been conventionally viewed.” Indeed, with Kosho, I have noticed a tendency to make decisions not based on reasons, but simply based on authority. Public discussion is the most effective way of counteracting autocratic tendencies.Robin Anderson also states that I took "cheap shots at someone who took the time to give [me] a thoughtful answer to [my] question." However, she neglected to point out which of my comments were "cheap shots." That's because there aren't any "cheap shots" in any of my comments.