The TIME article is what prompted me to realize I hadn’t properly dealt with everything here.
Can you clarify the extent to which not informing the EV UK board was a result of the victim explicitly requesting something along these lines
She did not request that I not tell the board—I don’t think we discussed that possibility.
What actions did you take to reduce the risks associated with these events
I had conversations with several of his colleagues alerting them to the situation so they could intervene if they thought something like this might be happening again.
An email was sent to researchers he mentored encouraging them to bring concerns to me if they had feedback about their experience in the program or how personal and professional relationships were intersecting in the workplace.
I talked with Owen about the problems I saw with his behavior, including the power dynamics.
what’s the role of OCB’s colleagues here? Were they complicit, or was this for harm-mitigating reasons?
As far as I know, they did not previously know about any of this. The goal was harm mitigation.
Are you also happy to comment on whether your CoI with OCB was disclosed with Nicole when you informed her of this situation, or with anyone else in the CH team at any stage? What details did you share with Nicole in 2021, when she became your manager?
We expect that we’ll be interviewed separately about what we recall of this conversation as part of the investigation, so I think it’s best if I don’t go into detail here.
Did the complaints from the woman in the Time article come before or after other feedback you heard about OCB?
The order was: I learned about one situation from a third party, then learned the situation described in TIME, then learned of another situation because I asked the woman on a hunch, then learned the last case from Owen.
I don’t have a clear answer about the ways various considerations played into my decisions. I expect this is the kind of thing we’ll be discussing as part of the investigation into our work here.
The order was: I learned about one situation from a third party, then learned the situation described in TIME, then learned of another situation because I asked the woman on a hunch, then learned the last case from Owen.
with
No other women raised complaints about him to me, but I learned (in some cases from him) of a couple of other situations where his interactions with women in EA were questionable.
Emphasis mine. (Highlighting your first statement implies he informed you of multiple cases and this statement implies he only informed you of one)
In the first case, I initially heard about the situation from a third party, but nearly all the information I knew came from Owen. (I asked the woman if she had concerns about the situation that she wanted to discuss, and I didn’t hear back.)
She did not request that I not tell the board—I don’t think we discussed that possibility.
To clarify—do you mean you didn’t tell them by because you hadn’t discussed the possibility that you would, or you did tell them because you didn’t discuss the possibility that you wouldn’t? That’s an important ambiguity!
Either way, for all my recent disillusionment with EVF, I feel like you’ve been the one constant I’ve continually heard good things about, so I hope you learn whatever lessons apply here and continue providing much needed support to the community :)
In 2021, the woman and I discussed who she wanted to know about the situation. Our focus was on his colleagues at that time and people he might have a mentorship relationship with. I’ve clarified here that this did include one person who was a board member of EV UK (then called CEA UK) at the time.
When the TIME piece publicly described the situation but not either of the people’s identities, Nicole and I decided that the board should know that the account was about Owen (but not the identity of the woman).
Based on this comment and this excerpt from the UK EV board above, my interpretation is that the board as a whole did not know about this until Feb 2023.
I do think the comment doesn’t fully clarify between whether she considered telling the board but opted against this versus this option did not cross her mind back in 2021, but I suspect this is something that will also be part of the investigation, which is why I didn’t follow up on this.
The TIME article is what prompted me to realize I hadn’t properly dealt with everything here.
She did not request that I not tell the board—I don’t think we discussed that possibility.
I had conversations with several of his colleagues alerting them to the situation so they could intervene if they thought something like this might be happening again.
An email was sent to researchers he mentored encouraging them to bring concerns to me if they had feedback about their experience in the program or how personal and professional relationships were intersecting in the workplace.
I talked with Owen about the problems I saw with his behavior, including the power dynamics.
As far as I know, they did not previously know about any of this. The goal was harm mitigation.
We expect that we’ll be interviewed separately about what we recall of this conversation as part of the investigation, so I think it’s best if I don’t go into detail here.
The order was: I learned about one situation from a third party, then learned the situation described in TIME, then learned of another situation because I asked the woman on a hunch, then learned the last case from Owen.
I don’t have a clear answer about the ways various considerations played into my decisions. I expect this is the kind of thing we’ll be discussing as part of the investigation into our work here.
How do you square:
with
Emphasis mine. (Highlighting your first statement implies he informed you of multiple cases and this statement implies he only informed you of one)
In the first case, I initially heard about the situation from a third party, but nearly all the information I knew came from Owen. (I asked the woman if she had concerns about the situation that she wanted to discuss, and I didn’t hear back.)
To clarify—do you mean you didn’t tell them by because you hadn’t discussed the possibility that you would, or you did tell them because you didn’t discuss the possibility that you wouldn’t? That’s an important ambiguity!
Either way, for all my recent disillusionment with EVF, I feel like you’ve been the one constant I’ve continually heard good things about, so I hope you learn whatever lessons apply here and continue providing much needed support to the community :)
In 2021, the woman and I discussed who she wanted to know about the situation. Our focus was on his colleagues at that time and people he might have a mentorship relationship with. I’ve clarified here that this did include one person who was a board member of EV UK (then called CEA UK) at the time.
When the TIME piece publicly described the situation but not either of the people’s identities, Nicole and I decided that the board should know that the account was about Owen (but not the identity of the woman).
Based on this comment and this excerpt from the UK EV board above, my interpretation is that the board as a whole did not know about this until Feb 2023.
I do think the comment doesn’t fully clarify between whether she considered telling the board but opted against this versus this option did not cross her mind back in 2021, but I suspect this is something that will also be part of the investigation, which is why I didn’t follow up on this.