Questions for MAPLE’s Board
And some updates
Nine days ago I published a letter documenting what I believe to be high-control and harmful dynamics at the Monastic Academy for the Preservation of Life on Earth (MAPLE). The response has been potent: messages of gratitude from various MAPLE alumni, offerings of support from friends and strangers, many expressions of concern from the public, and critical feedback from some readers (which led to several corrections in the letter—all logged on the mistakes page). To everyone who has reached out: Thank you.
This post contains the email I have sent to MAPLE’s board of directors, and some updates since the last letter.
Why write to the board?
Something I’ve recently been made aware of is that multiple people who’ve been adversely impacted at MAPLE have signed legal waivers, statements, and non-disclosure agreements preventing them from speaking publicly about their experience. I don’t know how widespread this is, so I’m asking the board to clarify. Prospective students cannot honestly evaluate MAPLE and consent to the risks if critics are silenced, and I would like to ask the board to affirm that MAPLE will not sue people for giving honest testimony about their experience at MAPLE.
I have argued in my letter that MAPLE is unable to substantively engage with negative feedback or criticism from ex-members. I would like to give the board the chance to do better.
The letter to the board
The following was sent today by email to all three members of MAPLE’s board of directors. It is published here in full.
To the Board of Directors of the Center for Mindful Learning Inc: Soryu Forall (chair), Zak Stein, and Maitrī Huffaker.
Hello friends. I hope this message finds each of you doing well.
By now I trust you have seen the letter published on July 29th, which makes the case that MAPLE is a high-control group. It concluded with an invitation to respond, and I’d like to make that more specific. First, I’d like to invite Soryu, or someone representing MAPLE, to respond to the substance of my letter and offer another perspective for the public to consider. The second invitation is to you, the board.
I’m sending this email to make that second invitation precise, and to present it to you formally. I am asking for two things:
First, corrections. If anything in the letter is factually wrong please tell me and I will correct it publicly.
Second, a response to the questions below. Your response will be published on the Substack immediately and without any initial framing by me. Responses from individual board members are welcome as well.
This email is public and published in this post on the same Substack that the original letter was posted to. I will publish a follow-up to any responses. If I don’t receive a response by Friday, August 21st, I will write a followup stating that. If you need more time to respond, tell me and I will accommodate a reasonable request for a new specific date.
The questions concern your responsibilities as board members and are plain to answer.
1. Agreements restricting speech
How many people have been asked by MAPLE, OAK, or anyone acting on their behalf to sign agreements of this kind: confidentiality agreements, non-disparagement clauses, releases, settlements, or waivers that restrict them from speaking about their experiences at MAPLE or OAK?
Were any of these agreements approved by board resolution, and do any appear in the board’s minutes?
Will MAPLE release everyone who signed such an agreement so they may describe their experiences freely?
Will MAPLE commit not to pursue legal action against anyone who signed any such speech-restricting agreements, if they indeed speak about their experiences?
2. Conflicts of interest
Since January 2020, how many complaints concerning Soryu’s conduct has the board received? In how many did Soryu recuse himself from deliberating on how to respond to these complaints, and is any such recusal recorded? Will the board ensure that Soryu is recused from dealing with future complaints about his behavior?
Does the board consider it a conflict of interest that a board member is married to the executive director? If so, how is it addressed? Is she recused from deliberations concerning the compensation, performance, or conduct of the executive director?
3. Reports previously sent to the board
A report compiled by former members, containing testimony from more than a dozen people (including two of CML’s cofounders), was sent to the board in March 2023. It made three specific requests: an independent third-party assessment of MAPLE’s governance and organizational health, with results made public; suspension of Soryu Forall from teaching and leadership pending an outside investigation by An Olive Branch or the FaithTrust Institute, with results made public; and public acknowledgment of training risks on MAPLE’s website.
Two of you joined the board after this report was sent. Was it shared with you when you joined? Has each current board member read it?
What was the board’s response to each of the three requests? Is that response minuted?
An internal report dated February 2022 that was initially requested by MAPLE leadership recommended multiple concrete interventions: robust avenues for feedback; creating infrastructure for alumni support; and doing a thorough mental health screening of prospective trainees. It further proposed forming an Accountability Board to handle accusations of misconduct, and a system for the Head Teacher to receive regular feedback from students, peers, and mentors.
Has each current board member read this report?
Which of these were implemented, and which were not? For those that were, in what form? For any that were not, is there a written record of that decision?
The report noted that an email address had been created for the board to receive feedback, yet I couldn’t find one publicly listed (and thus am sending this email via personal addresses). Does it still exist, who monitors it, and how many messages has it received?
4. Informed consent
The report above also proposed public documentation of risks of the training. What material is provided to prospective trainees that names the serious adverse outcomes described in the letter—including psychosis, involuntary hospitalization, panic attacks, complex PTSD, and suicidality? If none, will you ensure such material is created?
5. Next steps
Will you publish your conclusions about what, if anything, should change regarding MAPLE’s practices or governance? If so, by what date?
Maitrī, you have lived at MAPLE for years and trained closely with Soryu. You’ve seen firsthand much of what the letter describes, and the people it concerns are your sangha.
Zak, you are the only member of this board in a position to provide independent oversight, and your public work pertains to institutional integrity.
Soryu, to quote a phrase you have often used while teaching: “the truth matters.” I do not see you as my enemy.
I hope you will each engage honestly with these questions.
May you all be healthy and well.
Sincerely,
Kyle Hubbard (Sky)
Any response I receive will be published here as it arrives. If August 21st passes without one, I’ll write about that.
Updates
There is now a page that shares mistakes and any significant edits made to the original letter. It is a live, rather than static, document.
For those familiar with the LessWrong forum, the conversation there has been lively. A current member of MAPLE’s leadership has been engaging in the comments and I appreciate his participation in the public sensemaking process.
Reminder: If you are a member of the sangha who would like to have a story or essay of yours included on this Substack, please fill out the Support Form or reach out to me directly at kylehubbard962@gmail.com.
‘Sky' is the name I went by at MAPLE, which is why I used it on the original letter. Going forward I'll be signing as Kyle.
The questions to the board are on the record now. What happens next is up to them.
More soon,
Kyle