Edit: I wrote the following without consulting with my team, in private manner only. This does not represent the position or views of EA Germany, nor is it intended as an official statement.
Thanks to the EV boards for deciding to publish this.
As someone who’s directly supported several people right after, and in the months after other sexual misconduct situations, I want to support @Vaipan’s sentiment. The comments defending Owen Cotton-Barratt’s character are clearly well-intentioned and not meant to harm those women who remain silent and anonymous. Although they are not meant that way, the comments might hurt those women and discourage others in similar positions to come forward. Reactions like these are part of the reason why victims of abuse and assault remain silent, they are perceived as reminders that the perpetrator matters more than the victim(s). Depending on he severity of the harm caused, they might cause retraumatization by giving the impression that everyone is supporting the person in power and not caring about the people harmed.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix for that: Owen Cotton-Barratt is not anonymous, and a prominent figure (at least in the UK community). As such, people will want to give their personal testimony of what threat he might pose or not. The women who reported him remain anonymous—no one will come to defend their character or great deeds for the community, since no one knows who they are. [To make this clear: they should remain anonymous for as long as they wish.] This pattern also happens in a context of similar reactions that people grow up with (e.g. media coverage of sexual assault cases). So while the comments in this case might not want to defend Owen’s actions, they are still easily perceived as hitting the same note.
[I previously suggested some ways to comment here, but deleted them after further discussion with others. I just wish we wouldn’t forget the victims so often.]
I haven’t wanted to speak about the people who were upset for fear public attention could be uncomfortable, but for the record and because as you say others can’t speak to this:
I believe all of them are smart, honourable people who care a lot about doing the right thing.
I think they have made important contributions to the community, and I personally have learned deeply from them.
Then a couple of things which probably go without saying, but to remove any ambiguity I’ll say anyway:
I think it would be ridiculous to question their reports of bad experiences; I wouldn’t dream of bearing them ill-will over this; and I sincerely hope they’ve had good support networks and are doing well now.
I’d be happy if any of them wanted to talk publicly (anonymously or otherwise) about their experience, about things that would be helpful for them now, or about their views of my character; but I don’t want to put that on them.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix for that: Owen Cotton-Barratt is not anonymous, and a prominent figure (at least in the UK community). As such, people will want to give their personal testimony of what threat he might pose or not. The women who reported him remain anonymous—no one will come to defend their character or great deeds for the community, since no one knows who they are.
I’d also flag the related risk of cognitive bias here—the women who were affected by Owen’s actions are in a sense abstractions to the vast majority of readers. By that I mean we (understandably) haven’t heard their stories in their own words or in any detail; we largely are reliant on the Boards’ (understandably) concise and not-too-specific factual findings. In contrast, Owen is known and has (mostly) positive history with people in the community.
That’s largely unavoidable, because of course we should honor the women’s desire not to be identified. But I would say that if someone’s reaction to what happened changes too much if they change from evaluating the abstract “a senior EA figure” to “Owen,” they may want to consider that they have been exposed to humanizing/de-abstracting information (I’d like a better word here!) for one participant but not for other participants in the situation.
I don’t know what epistemic strategy is best employed in this kind of circumstance. Having one person as a known entity with the other people feeling like abstractions could lead to a position that is more favorable to the identified person than it would be if humanizing/de-abstracting information existed on both sides. One could argue for falling back to the level of abstractions, deciding how one would react if only aware that “a senior EA figure” committed the actions, and update according to that—but that strategy comes at the cost of disregarding pretty relevant information. Maybe the best that can be done is to evaluate one’s position with and without the Owen-specific contextual information, and update to ~ the median of the two evaluations?
Thanks for asking, Jeff, I see why that might be confusing. I was thinking of a statement such as: “I want to first pay my respect to the people who have been harmed by X’s actions. I want to ask readers to remember that these people might have contributed greatly to our community too, and that several people were harmed by one person.”
Thank you Milena for writing this. Let’s not forget the painful reality of the victims. The fact that their anonymity prevents them from getting the personal support of many only exacerbates the need for our solidarity with them.
I agree that the women affected are what this is primarily about. But there’s also an issue with not wanting to ascribe to anyone how we think they likely feel, without knowing much about them. Like, maybe at least some of the women who had negative experiences have nuanced feelings that aren’t best described as “I feel bad/invalidated whenever I see someone say positive things about Owen, even if they take care to not thereby downplay that the things he did weren’t acceptable.” Maybe some feel things like, “this stuff was messed up and really needed to be dealt with, and it sucks that it took so long/seemed like initially it wasn’t going to be dealt with, but it seems like things are developing in a good direction now.” Or maybe not! Maybe they’re still super upset and wish that Owen never re-enter the community again. That would be their right and seems understandable, too. In any case, the way I see it, we don’t know at this point (at least I don’t), and while I agree that it’s important to create encouraging incentives so people will be likely to report future instances of misconduct, I don’t think this requires a policy of “avoid at all costs saying things that might make someone who was affected uncomfortable.” (In fact, there’s also a risk of making people less likely to report uncomfortable experiences if they worry that there’ll be a community overreaction. That’s not the first thing I’d worry about, to be clear; I’m just pointing out that this could happen/be someone’s reason to be hesitant about speaking up about something.) Personally, the message I find most important is something like: I want us to take seriously that it’s unacceptable for people to predictably be at risk to have bad experiences like that in the EA community, and the community/Community Health takes this seriously and takes appropriate action.
I expressed support of another person’s comment that contained many positive points about Owen. I hope that no one feels like this means I’m “on Owen’s side” rather than on the side of the people who brought up these complaints. Owen seems to largely agree about the facts of what happened, and he seems genuinely committed to making sure similar stuff doesn’t happen again, plus he accepted the consequences (stepping down, two-year ban). These features of the situation IMO make it possible to not have to view this as “either you support the victims, or you can say a redeeming thing or two about Owen.”
This option of “not thinking of the situation as one where it’s about picking sides” isn’t always available. If a person accused of causing harm goes DARVO and accuses the alleged victims to be malefactors in return who make up false stories, then one is forced to either side with the alleged victims, or with the accused. Similarly, sometimes someone does something that’s immediately strong evidence that they are operating without even a desire to respect others (Milena Cenzler’s comment originally contained a hyperlink to the case of Brock Turner, who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman, as an example of how comments by supporters can sometimes be re-traumatizing to the victims). In those cases, it also seems to me like one can’t say much that’s redeeming about the person who caused harm without this being disrespectful towards the victims, both because of the severity of what they faced and because there’s not much redeeming you can say about someone who even lacks a basic desire/intent to respect others. But that sort of case has very different features from “confessed feeling attracted out of scrupulosity and misguided desire to get moral absolution from the people one is attracted to for not having to feel bad about the attraction.” It’s a very different thing. (Edit) Lastly, I guess sometimes someone can be a skilled manipulator and seem remorseful and accept consequences but downplay the extent of the harm and downplay their “bad character.” If Owen were like that and people who said positive things about him just fell victim to his charm, that could also be invalidating for the people who were harmed. I don’t think that’s the case, but this would be another situation we want to try to avoid, so I feel like the people who say positive things about Owen have a responsibility to consider the possibility “am I being manipulated?.”
Thanks for this comment. I think I agree with a lot of what you say, and wanted to clarify that I am not saying people should pick sides. I just wanted to point out the imbalance of total personal support expressed for each “side”, without implying that you can’t show support for both.
I’m confused. Why would people be afraid to come forward? Owen is being banned, was forced to resign, and many other punishments. One of the women who spoke to the Time journalist got a ton of karma for writing about it.
Even the peope saying he’s a good guy in the comments are saying what he did was still unethical (I disagree, but I’m not saying he’s a good guy. I don’t know him. I just disagree with the ethical framework of this whole thing).
EA does not seem to have an under-reporting problem for issues.
Edit: I wrote the following without consulting with my team, in private manner only. This does not represent the position or views of EA Germany, nor is it intended as an official statement.
Thanks to the EV boards for deciding to publish this.
As someone who’s directly supported several people right after, and in the months after other sexual misconduct situations, I want to support @Vaipan’s sentiment. The comments defending Owen Cotton-Barratt’s character are clearly well-intentioned and not meant to harm those women who remain silent and anonymous. Although they are not meant that way, the comments might hurt those women and discourage others in similar positions to come forward. Reactions like these are part of the reason why victims of abuse and assault remain silent, they are perceived as reminders that the perpetrator matters more than the victim(s). Depending on he severity of the harm caused, they might cause retraumatization by giving the impression that everyone is supporting the person in power and not caring about the people harmed.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix for that: Owen Cotton-Barratt is not anonymous, and a prominent figure (at least in the UK community). As such, people will want to give their personal testimony of what threat he might pose or not. The women who reported him remain anonymous—no one will come to defend their character or great deeds for the community, since no one knows who they are. [To make this clear: they should remain anonymous for as long as they wish.]
This pattern also happens in a context of similar reactions that people grow up with (e.g. media coverage of sexual assault cases). So while the comments in this case might not want to defend Owen’s actions, they are still easily perceived as hitting the same note.
[I previously suggested some ways to comment here, but deleted them after further discussion with others. I just wish we wouldn’t forget the victims so often.]
I haven’t wanted to speak about the people who were upset for fear public attention could be uncomfortable, but for the record and because as you say others can’t speak to this:
I believe all of them are smart, honourable people who care a lot about doing the right thing.
I think they have made important contributions to the community, and I personally have learned deeply from them.
Then a couple of things which probably go without saying, but to remove any ambiguity I’ll say anyway:
I think it would be ridiculous to question their reports of bad experiences; I wouldn’t dream of bearing them ill-will over this; and I sincerely hope they’ve had good support networks and are doing well now.
I’d be happy if any of them wanted to talk publicly (anonymously or otherwise) about their experience, about things that would be helpful for them now, or about their views of my character; but I don’t want to put that on them.
I’d also flag the related risk of cognitive bias here—the women who were affected by Owen’s actions are in a sense abstractions to the vast majority of readers. By that I mean we (understandably) haven’t heard their stories in their own words or in any detail; we largely are reliant on the Boards’ (understandably) concise and not-too-specific factual findings. In contrast, Owen is known and has (mostly) positive history with people in the community.
That’s largely unavoidable, because of course we should honor the women’s desire not to be identified. But I would say that if someone’s reaction to what happened changes too much if they change from evaluating the abstract “a senior EA figure” to “Owen,” they may want to consider that they have been exposed to humanizing/de-abstracting information (I’d like a better word here!) for one participant but not for other participants in the situation.
I don’t know what epistemic strategy is best employed in this kind of circumstance. Having one person as a known entity with the other people feeling like abstractions could lead to a position that is more favorable to the identified person than it would be if humanizing/de-abstracting information existed on both sides. One could argue for falling back to the level of abstractions, deciding how one would react if only aware that “a senior EA figure” committed the actions, and update according to that—but that strategy comes at the cost of disregarding pretty relevant information. Maybe the best that can be done is to evaluate one’s position with and without the Owen-specific contextual information, and update to ~ the median of the two evaluations?
I’m confused what you’re proposing here. Since, as you say above, no one knows what their contributions are, what would crediting them look like?
Thanks for asking, Jeff, I see why that might be confusing.
I was thinking of a statement such as:
“I want to first pay my respect to the people who have been harmed by X’s actions. I want to ask readers to remember that these people might have contributed greatly to our community too, and that several people were harmed by one person.”
I would agree with this comment if it was regarding a situation of sexual assault or similar severity.
Thank you Milena for writing this. Let’s not forget the painful reality of the victims. The fact that their anonymity prevents them from getting the personal support of many only exacerbates the need for our solidarity with them.
I agree that the women affected are what this is primarily about. But there’s also an issue with not wanting to ascribe to anyone how we think they likely feel, without knowing much about them. Like, maybe at least some of the women who had negative experiences have nuanced feelings that aren’t best described as “I feel bad/invalidated whenever I see someone say positive things about Owen, even if they take care to not thereby downplay that the things he did weren’t acceptable.” Maybe some feel things like, “this stuff was messed up and really needed to be dealt with, and it sucks that it took so long/seemed like initially it wasn’t going to be dealt with, but it seems like things are developing in a good direction now.” Or maybe not! Maybe they’re still super upset and wish that Owen never re-enter the community again. That would be their right and seems understandable, too. In any case, the way I see it, we don’t know at this point (at least I don’t), and while I agree that it’s important to create encouraging incentives so people will be likely to report future instances of misconduct, I don’t think this requires a policy of “avoid at all costs saying things that might make someone who was affected uncomfortable.” (In fact, there’s also a risk of making people less likely to report uncomfortable experiences if they worry that there’ll be a community overreaction. That’s not the first thing I’d worry about, to be clear; I’m just pointing out that this could happen/be someone’s reason to be hesitant about speaking up about something.) Personally, the message I find most important is something like: I want us to take seriously that it’s unacceptable for people to predictably be at risk to have bad experiences like that in the EA community, and the community/Community Health takes this seriously and takes appropriate action.
I expressed support of another person’s comment that contained many positive points about Owen. I hope that no one feels like this means I’m “on Owen’s side” rather than on the side of the people who brought up these complaints. Owen seems to largely agree about the facts of what happened, and he seems genuinely committed to making sure similar stuff doesn’t happen again, plus he accepted the consequences (stepping down, two-year ban). These features of the situation IMO make it possible to not have to view this as “either you support the victims, or you can say a redeeming thing or two about Owen.”
This option of “not thinking of the situation as one where it’s about picking sides” isn’t always available. If a person accused of causing harm goes DARVO and accuses the alleged victims to be malefactors in return who make up false stories, then one is forced to either side with the alleged victims, or with the accused. Similarly, sometimes someone does something that’s immediately strong evidence that they are operating without even a desire to respect others (Milena Cenzler’s comment originally contained a hyperlink to the case of Brock Turner, who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman, as an example of how comments by supporters can sometimes be re-traumatizing to the victims). In those cases, it also seems to me like one can’t say much that’s redeeming about the person who caused harm without this being disrespectful towards the victims, both because of the severity of what they faced and because there’s not much redeeming you can say about someone who even lacks a basic desire/intent to respect others. But that sort of case has very different features from “confessed feeling attracted out of scrupulosity and misguided desire to get moral absolution from the people one is attracted to for not having to feel bad about the attraction.” It’s a very different thing.
(Edit) Lastly, I guess sometimes someone can be a skilled manipulator and seem remorseful and accept consequences but downplay the extent of the harm and downplay their “bad character.” If Owen were like that and people who said positive things about him just fell victim to his charm, that could also be invalidating for the people who were harmed. I don’t think that’s the case, but this would be another situation we want to try to avoid, so I feel like the people who say positive things about Owen have a responsibility to consider the possibility “am I being manipulated?.”
Thanks for this comment. I think I agree with a lot of what you say, and wanted to clarify that I am not saying people should pick sides. I just wanted to point out the imbalance of total personal support expressed for each “side”, without implying that you can’t show support for both.
I’m confused. Why would people be afraid to come forward? Owen is being banned, was forced to resign, and many other punishments. One of the women who spoke to the Time journalist got a ton of karma for writing about it.
Even the peope saying he’s a good guy in the comments are saying what he did was still unethical (I disagree, but I’m not saying he’s a good guy. I don’t know him. I just disagree with the ethical framework of this whole thing).
EA does not seem to have an under-reporting problem for issues.