[toofy]

Other than this article, I’m pretty much unfamiliar with Ram Dass, so I’m curious what leads you to believe some form of rape took place. Is there something in Ramm Dass’ past that the article doesn’t cover? I feel like I must be missing something, surely it’s not the drug use alone that has led you to believe this, right?

[Nomentatus]

Ram Dass admits in the article using LSD as an attempt to seduce a male student, against the specific strictures of the University. You aren't allowed to drug people to seduce them. That shouldn't need to be said. But he still thinks that's fine.

[adrice727]

No, he doesn't.

"...I got dismissed from Harvard because I had given psychedelics to an undergraduate. We had agreed with the dean that we would not give psychedelics to undergraduates.” Ram Dass flashes a mischievous grin. “He was an attractive kid.”

That's all that is said about the situation.

[brianberns]

You really don't get it? He was using drugs to seduce his students from a position of power and influence over them. That wasn't cool even in 1967.

[neonate]

What are you basing this on? I've been reading up on Alpert and had not heard anything like it. The student who got him fired at Harvard, by the way, was Andrew Weil, who later became famous as a holistic physician. I haven't heard any suggestion that Alpert raped or seduced Weil.

Listening to some of Ram Dass's talks from the 70s, I've been struck by how far ahead of his time he was in facing up to the power dynamics between gurus and disciples, and especially the sexual power dynamics between them. His statements on this from over 40 years ago sound pretty contemporary today. That's unusual, given how different a time that was. So unless you guys have specific evidence that Alpert raped people, I can't help but think you're picking on the wrong figure.

[brianberns]

Why do you think he was fired at Harvard then? I'm not saying he actually raped anyone. I'm saying that he attempted to seduce a student with drugs. He seems to admit that himself.

[neonate]

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting some well-established history. Leary and Alpert were allowed to do their psychedelic study at Harvard on condition that they only give the drugs to grad students. Andrew Weil asked to join the study and was turned down because he was an undergrad. But then Alpert allowed a different undergrad to participate (not Weil - I got that bit wrong above). When Weil found out, he wrote a story for the Harvard Crimson exposing that Alpert had done this, which triggered a scandal that got Alpert fired.

Years later, Alpert/Ram Dass mused that one reason he had slipped up and allowed an undergraduate into the study was because he had found the undergraduate attractive. There is no suggestion that he acted on the attraction. He was simply looking back on his own motivations, reflecting on what might have led to his career-destroying move.

One of Ram Dass's qualities as a spiritual teacher/speaker/seeker has been an unusual openness about his personal experiences. He was talking about being gay, for example, long before that was socially acceptable. I think it is a positive thing that he has been so willing to share his own struggles and challenges. Maybe when some other guru character admits to an "attraction" years later, that would be a euphemism for "seduced" or "raped". But there is no reason or evidence to conclude that here. This was just Ram Dass sharing his experience with the same openness he always has.

[lalos]

You misread the quote, that quote is talking about Ram Dass being gay, and his friend having a theory that his guru (Maharajji) made him gay for Ram Dass to find him easier. It's a messy quote and easy to get lost if you are not familiar with who is Maharajji and why is he important on Ram Dass' life.

[Nomentatus]

Ram Dass's intention was to get a chance to sleep with someone he found attractive, and he was willing to use drugs (against a solemn agreement) to help get himself there. Euphemisms have nothing to do with it; just what he's admitted to in so many words. If you find drugging others for sexual purposes acceptable behavior, make sure you check out local statutes before you act on that belief. We can probably infer that the strategy didn't work, but I think we can also infer that the failure wasn't due to any inaction on Ram Dass's part.

[brianberns]

That's good to know, thank you. He gave psychedelic drugs to an undergrad because he found him attractive, but may not have acted further on that attraction.

[toofy]

Fair point,

I definitely should have been more charitable in my reading, I got stuck on this:

> The most effective rape drug ever, turning adults into children who can be exploited

I was looking to tease out some clarification, because the implication that these drugs turn adults into children and prime them for rape seems like a strange leap from my perspective.

I’ll happily chalk it up to my lack of charitable reading and assume in good faith the commenter was referring to the drugs combined with the power dynamics.

[brianberns]

I think "turning adults into children" is just a reference to using drugs to reduce their inhibitions and/or ability to resist. Not much different from getting someone drunk.

[Nomentatus]

https://www.inverse.com/article/25716-lsd-brain-imaging-lyse...

[FlyMoreRockets]

Is there any actual data to support your claim?

[brianberns]

It's in the article:

“I had leanings towards homosexuality.... I got dismissed from Harvard because I had given psychedelics to an undergraduate. We had agreed with the dean that we would not give psychedelics to undergraduates.” Ram Dass flashes a mischievous grin. “He was an attractive kid.”

[FlyMoreRockets]

This isn't even close to proving intent.

Edit: From the link below: "To prove someone guilty of any crime, the prosecution generally must prove, 1. That the person physically committed the act in question, and 2. That the person intended to commit the crime. Intent in criminal law is complicated. It refers to a person's state of mind. Criminal intent can be either general intent or specific intent. Most crimes are classified under one of the those two categories. Specific intent crimes, require that the person actually intend to commit the crime. General intent crimes only require proof that the person intended to commit the act, not the crime. For example, theft requires specific intent of not only taking the item but also intending to permanently keep it - depriving the owner of possession permanently. With general intent crimes, the fact that the act was committed is enough to prove intent. "

https://videos.lawinfo.com/litigation-and-appeals/how-can-a-...