This was really upsetting to read. I really feel for the people impacted, and even if it’s not perfect, I’m glad that this piece was published and don’t want to miss any lessons to take from it.
Most sexual harassment is never reported. I wonder if we could reduce any perceived barriers to reporting by creating a wider air gap between CEA (which has, by its nature, conflicts of interest inside the community) and the people tasked with first receiving and responding to reports. Right now, it seems reports are read first by CEA staff, and the confidentiality policies are a bit vague.[1] It could lower the barrier to reporting if the complaint was initially received and handled by a person or organization outside of the EA community (personally and professionally), or at least adjacent to it.
Then, after discussing with the external affiliate and learning more about confidentiality, policies, steps forward, etc., people can decide what they want to do next (be it ending the conversation there, forwarding it to the community health team, forwarding the complaint to other institutions —even straight to law enforcement for severe issues, etc.)
To be clear, I think the community health team has done, and will continue to do, a great job — this would just be about who is the initial point of contact, in case it makes people more comfortable speaking up.
From the google form: “If you have questions about how we’ll handle confidentiality, we’re happy to discuss that at the start of our conversation. Different team members have different policies, because they handle different kinds of cases. If you start talking with a member of our team and they can’t promise the level of confidentiality you want, we can refer you to a different team member who will be able to keep to a stricter confidentiality policy.” All of this relies on a team member at CEA first reading and responding to the complaint, of course.
Thanks for bringing this up; we have talked about approaches like this [having an external affiliate], and have done some early considering of the costs and benefits.
One thing I want to flag is that “All of this relies on a team member at CEA first reading and responding to the complaint, of course” is not quite true, since people can make an appointment to call a contact person and talk at the beginning of the call about level of confidentiality without revealing anything about the concern. (This has happened with me [note: I don’t usually take cases, it was a special situation], and we talked through my confidentiality policy before proceeding).
Appreciate the flag about our confidentiality policies being vague. We have confidentiality policies listed here but had thought talking it through with each person would allow us to convey more nuance and specificity to their situation; I’m going to take another look at the current setup.
Thank you for all the work your team has done, and is doing, on this issue.
And thanks for clarifying the point about reading and responding — I worded it poorly and I’ve retracted it in my comment. But I do think the sort of thing I was gesturing at is just what you mentioned: right now, the structure is intended such that info is given after a conversation with CEA has been started and some level of nuance and specificity to the individual situation has been divulged.
I see the benefit to that — I guess there are tradeoffs in everything — but I also wonder if some people might prefer more info on confidentality and options without having to open dialogue with CEA disclosing any specifics of their situation. I don’t know if that’s true, though. I’m not an expert on this by any means, just trying to contribute to brainstorming a bit. I do think reading the forum post you linked helped me understand a bit more about this.
This was really upsetting to read. I really feel for the people impacted, and even if it’s not perfect, I’m glad that this piece was published and don’t want to miss any lessons to take from it.
Most sexual harassment is never reported. I wonder if we could reduce any perceived barriers to reporting by creating a wider air gap between CEA (which has, by its nature, conflicts of interest inside the community) and the people tasked with first receiving and responding to reports. Right now, it seems reports are read first by CEA staff, and the confidentiality policies are a bit vague.[1] It could lower the barrier to reporting if the complaint was initially received and handled by a person or organization outside of the EA community (personally and professionally), or at least adjacent to it.
Then, after discussing with the external affiliate and learning more about confidentiality, policies, steps forward, etc., people can decide what they want to do next (be it ending the conversation there, forwarding it to the community health team, forwarding the complaint to other institutions —even straight to law enforcement for severe issues, etc.)
To be clear, I think the community health team has done, and will continue to do, a great job — this would just be about who is the initial point of contact, in case it makes people more comfortable speaking up.
From the google form: “If you have questions about how we’ll handle confidentiality, we’re happy to discuss that at the start of our conversation. Different team members have different policies, because they handle different kinds of cases. If you start talking with a member of our team and they can’t promise the level of confidentiality you want, we can refer you to a different team member who will be able to keep to a stricter confidentiality policy.”
All of this relies on a team member at CEA first reading and responding to the complaint, of course.Thanks for bringing this up; we have talked about approaches like this [having an external affiliate], and have done some early considering of the costs and benefits.
One thing I want to flag is that “All of this relies on a team member at CEA first reading and responding to the complaint, of course” is not quite true, since people can make an appointment to call a contact person and talk at the beginning of the call about level of confidentiality without revealing anything about the concern. (This has happened with me [note: I don’t usually take cases, it was a special situation], and we talked through my confidentiality policy before proceeding).
Appreciate the flag about our confidentiality policies being vague. We have confidentiality policies listed here but had thought talking it through with each person would allow us to convey more nuance and specificity to their situation; I’m going to take another look at the current setup.
Thank you for all the work your team has done, and is doing, on this issue.
And thanks for clarifying the point about reading and responding — I worded it poorly and I’ve retracted it in my comment. But I do think the sort of thing I was gesturing at is just what you mentioned: right now, the structure is intended such that info is given after a conversation with CEA has been started and some level of nuance and specificity to the individual situation has been divulged.
I see the benefit to that — I guess there are tradeoffs in everything — but I also wonder if some people might prefer more info on confidentality and options without having to open dialogue with CEA disclosing any specifics of their situation. I don’t know if that’s true, though. I’m not an expert on this by any means, just trying to contribute to brainstorming a bit. I do think reading the forum post you linked helped me understand a bit more about this.
Yup, your point seems quite reasonable to me. I’ll be thinking about it!