Thanks for this, lilly! We really appreciate your input on the norms here, thanks for taking the time :)
Some things I think I straightforwardly agree with:
I think you’re right to point out that appropriate standards will differ across a wide range of contexts. This poses a thorny challenge for setting norms.
Some language in our code of conduct might be unnecessarily vague—“related events” for example, is vague and could be worth clarifying. Thanks for this feedback.
I think it’s worth considering investigating what the community thinks about norms. I’ll suggest this to Catherine, who’s investigating the experience of women, non-binary and trans people in EA (obviously, this is relevant to the experience of men in the community too, but that seems like a good project to consider incorporating this into).
I think there’s a tricky trade-off between clarity and scope here. This isn’t what you’re suggesting, but as a toy example to bring out this trade-off: if we state guidelines that are very specific (e.g. a list of things you mustn’t do in specific contexts), we might fail to prevent harmful behaviour that isn’t on the list. If our guidelines are something extremely wide in scope but non-specific (e.g. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), they’re hard to enforce because people can bend them to justify their behaviour (“but I would have felt fine if they hit on me!”).
My sense is that pre-specified criteria for what constitutes something like “offensive actions” or “unwanted sexual attention” and what the response should be isn’t realistic or a good idea. A lot of factors play into what constitutes a problem — words, body language, setting (the career fair vs. an afterparty vs. a deserted street outside the venue at night), power and status differences between the people, etc. Responses should be shaped by the wishes of the person who experienced the problem — people have different preferences about how much action they want us to take, whether they want us to act immediately or give them time to think over the options, etc.
Another challenge is that CEA is the host of some events but not the host of some others associated with the conferences. We can’t force an afterparty host or a bar manager to agree to follow our guidelines though we sometimes collaborate on setting norms or encourage certain practices.
I think there’s a tricky trade-off between clarity and scope here....if we state guidelines that are very specific (e.g. a list of things you mustn’t do in specific contexts), we might fail to prevent harmful behaviour that isn’t on the list.
I want to gently push back on this a bit—I don’t think this is necessarily a tradeoff. It’s not clear to me that the guidelines have to be all-inclusive or nothing. As an example, just because the guidelines say you can’t use the swapcard app for dating purposes, it would be pretty unreasonable for people to interpret that as “oh, the guidelines don’t say I can’t use the swapcard app to scam people, that must mean this is endorsed by CEA”.
And even if it’s the case that the current guidelines don’t explicitly comment against using swapcard to scam other attendees, and this contributes to some degree of “failing to prevent harmful behaviour that isn’t on the list”, that seems like a bad reason to choose to not state “don’t use swapcard for sexual purposes”.
RE: guidelines that include helpful examples, here’s one that I found from 10secs of googling.
First it defines harrassment and sexual harrassment fairly broadly. Of course, what exactly counts as “reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation” can differ between people, but this is a marginal improvement compared to current EAG guidelines that simply state “unwanted sexual attention or sexual harrassment”.
It then gives a non-exhaustive list of fairly uncontroversial actions for its context—CEA can adopt its own standard! But I think it’s fair to say that just because this list doesn’t cover every possibility it doesn’t necessarily mean the list is not worth including.
Notably, it also outlines a complaint process and details possible actions that may reasonably occur in response to a complaint.
As I responded to Julia’s comment that you linked, I think these lists can be helpful because most reported cases are likely not from people intentionally wishing to cause harm, but differences in norms or communication or expectations around what might be considered harmful. Having a explicit list of actions helps get around these differences by being more precise about actions that are likely to be considered net negative in expectation. If it’s the case that there are a lot of examples that are in a grey area, then this may be an argument to exclude those examples, but it isn’t really an argument against having a list that contains less ambiguous examples.
Ditto RE: different settings—this is an argument to have narrower scope for the guidelines, and to not write a single guideline that is intended to cover both the career fair and the afterparty, but not an argument against expressing what’s unacceptable under one specific setting (especially when that setting is something as crucial as “EAG conference time”)
Lastly, RE: “Responses should be shaped by the wishes of the person who experienced the problem”—of course it should be! But a list of possible actions that might be taken can be helpful without committing the team to a set response, but the inclusion of potential actions that can be taken is still reassuring and helpful for people to know what can be possible.
Again, this was just the first link I clicked, I don’t think it’s perfect, but I think there are multiple aspects of this that CEA could use to help with further iterations of its guidelines.
Another challenge is that CEA is the host of some events but not the host of some others associated with the conferences. We can’t force an afterparty host or a bar manager to agree to follow our guidelines though we sometimes collaborate on setting norms or encourage certain practices.
I think it’s fine to start from CEA’s circle of influence and have good guidelines + norms for CEA events—if things go well this may incentivise other organisers to adopt these practices (or perhaps they won’t adopt it, because the context is sufficiently different, which is fine too!) But even if other organisers don’t adopt better guidelines, this doesn’t seem like a particularly strong argument against adopting clearer guidelines for CEA events. The UNFCCC presumably aren’t using “oh, we can’t control what happens in UN Youth events globally, and we can’t force them to agree to follow our guidelines” as an excuse to not have guidelines. But because they have their own guidelines, and many UN Youth events try to emulate what the UN event proper looks like, they will (at least try to) adopt a similar level of formality.
One last reason to err on the side of more precise guidelines echoes point 3 in what lilly shared above—if guidelines are vague and more open to interpretation by the Community Health team, this requires a higher level of trust in the CH team’s track record and decision-making and management of CoIs, etc. To whatever extent recent events may reflect actual gaps in this process or even just a change in the perception here, erring on the side of clearer guidelines can help with accountability and trust building.
Thanks for this, lilly! We really appreciate your input on the norms here, thanks for taking the time :)
Some things I think I straightforwardly agree with:
I think you’re right to point out that appropriate standards will differ across a wide range of contexts. This poses a thorny challenge for setting norms.
Some language in our code of conduct might be unnecessarily vague—“related events” for example, is vague and could be worth clarifying. Thanks for this feedback.
I think it’s worth considering investigating what the community thinks about norms. I’ll suggest this to Catherine, who’s investigating the experience of women, non-binary and trans people in EA (obviously, this is relevant to the experience of men in the community too, but that seems like a good project to consider incorporating this into).
I think there’s a tricky trade-off between clarity and scope here. This isn’t what you’re suggesting, but as a toy example to bring out this trade-off: if we state guidelines that are very specific (e.g. a list of things you mustn’t do in specific contexts), we might fail to prevent harmful behaviour that isn’t on the list. If our guidelines are something extremely wide in scope but non-specific (e.g. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), they’re hard to enforce because people can bend them to justify their behaviour (“but I would have felt fine if they hit on me!”).
Here’s something related that Julia wrote recently:
Another challenge is that CEA is the host of some events but not the host of some others associated with the conferences. We can’t force an afterparty host or a bar manager to agree to follow our guidelines though we sometimes collaborate on setting norms or encourage certain practices.
Again, thanks so much for engaging here.
Hey Ollie! Hope you’re well.
I want to gently push back on this a bit—I don’t think this is necessarily a tradeoff. It’s not clear to me that the guidelines have to be all-inclusive or nothing. As an example, just because the guidelines say you can’t use the swapcard app for dating purposes, it would be pretty unreasonable for people to interpret that as “oh, the guidelines don’t say I can’t use the swapcard app to scam people, that must mean this is endorsed by CEA”.
And even if it’s the case that the current guidelines don’t explicitly comment against using swapcard to scam other attendees, and this contributes to some degree of “failing to prevent harmful behaviour that isn’t on the list”, that seems like a bad reason to choose to not state “don’t use swapcard for sexual purposes”.
RE: guidelines that include helpful examples, here’s one that I found from 10secs of googling.
First it defines harrassment and sexual harrassment fairly broadly. Of course, what exactly counts as “reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation” can differ between people, but this is a marginal improvement compared to current EAG guidelines that simply state “unwanted sexual attention or sexual harrassment”.
It then gives a non-exhaustive list of fairly uncontroversial actions for its context—CEA can adopt its own standard! But I think it’s fair to say that just because this list doesn’t cover every possibility it doesn’t necessarily mean the list is not worth including.
Notably, it also outlines a complaint process and details possible actions that may reasonably occur in response to a complaint.
As I responded to Julia’s comment that you linked, I think these lists can be helpful because most reported cases are likely not from people intentionally wishing to cause harm, but differences in norms or communication or expectations around what might be considered harmful. Having a explicit list of actions helps get around these differences by being more precise about actions that are likely to be considered net negative in expectation. If it’s the case that there are a lot of examples that are in a grey area, then this may be an argument to exclude those examples, but it isn’t really an argument against having a list that contains less ambiguous examples.
Ditto RE: different settings—this is an argument to have narrower scope for the guidelines, and to not write a single guideline that is intended to cover both the career fair and the afterparty, but not an argument against expressing what’s unacceptable under one specific setting (especially when that setting is something as crucial as “EAG conference time”)
Lastly, RE: “Responses should be shaped by the wishes of the person who experienced the problem”—of course it should be! But a list of possible actions that might be taken can be helpful without committing the team to a set response, but the inclusion of potential actions that can be taken is still reassuring and helpful for people to know what can be possible.
Again, this was just the first link I clicked, I don’t think it’s perfect, but I think there are multiple aspects of this that CEA could use to help with further iterations of its guidelines.
I think it’s fine to start from CEA’s circle of influence and have good guidelines + norms for CEA events—if things go well this may incentivise other organisers to adopt these practices (or perhaps they won’t adopt it, because the context is sufficiently different, which is fine too!) But even if other organisers don’t adopt better guidelines, this doesn’t seem like a particularly strong argument against adopting clearer guidelines for CEA events. The UNFCCC presumably aren’t using “oh, we can’t control what happens in UN Youth events globally, and we can’t force them to agree to follow our guidelines” as an excuse to not have guidelines. But because they have their own guidelines, and many UN Youth events try to emulate what the UN event proper looks like, they will (at least try to) adopt a similar level of formality.
One last reason to err on the side of more precise guidelines echoes point 3 in what lilly shared above—if guidelines are vague and more open to interpretation by the Community Health team, this requires a higher level of trust in the CH team’s track record and decision-making and management of CoIs, etc. To whatever extent recent events may reflect actual gaps in this process or even just a change in the perception here, erring on the side of clearer guidelines can help with accountability and trust building.