Wise outlined a variety of considerations she takes into account. On the one side, “take culture seriously” and “take action against bad behavior;” on the other side, she wrote, “don’t unfairly harm someone’s reputation,” “don’t make men feel that a slip-up or distorted accusation will ruin their life, ” and “give people a second or third chance.”
How can any victim of sexual harassment feel comfortable approaching you with any concerns given these comments?
I think the “or third chance” could be phrased differently. Sure, in specific circumstances, that might be appropriate, but it shouldn’t sound like a general rule. Second chances should suffice. People rarely change.
In the article it isn’t presented as a general rule or suitable for all situations, though? It’s presented in the table of things they’re trying to balance as the opposite of “Don’t try to be a rehabilitation space—that’s not a good use of the EA community”, which is also not appropriate in all circumstances.
(Also, at the time this was posted no one pushed back on this, and the top comment is Nuno’s “I appreciate the section on tradeoffs, and I think it makes me more likely to trust the community health team.”)
Okay, that seems right. In the article, it’s worded like this:
Give people a second or third chance; adjust when people have changed and improved
The second part of the sentence adds some nuance, as does the contrast table.
Still, I remember feeling a bit weird about the wording even when that article came out, but I didn’t comment. (For me, the phrase “third chance” evokes the picture of the person giving the third chance being naive.) (Edit: esp. when it’s presented as though this is a somewhat common thing, giving people third chances in “evidence this person is a bad actor” contexts.)
Because at face value it makes sense to tailor the severity of the countermeasure to the severity of the offense, and I imagine that Wise was commenting on incidents order of magnitude less severe than the ones mentioned in the article.
From the Time article:
How can any victim of sexual harassment feel comfortable approaching you with any concerns given these comments?
These are quotations from a table that are intended to illustrate “difficult tradeoffs”. Does seeing them in context change your view at all?
(Disclosure: married to Wise)
I think the “or third chance” could be phrased differently. Sure, in specific circumstances, that might be appropriate, but it shouldn’t sound like a general rule. Second chances should suffice. People rarely change.
In the article it isn’t presented as a general rule or suitable for all situations, though? It’s presented in the table of things they’re trying to balance as the opposite of “Don’t try to be a rehabilitation space—that’s not a good use of the EA community”, which is also not appropriate in all circumstances.
(Also, at the time this was posted no one pushed back on this, and the top comment is Nuno’s “I appreciate the section on tradeoffs, and I think it makes me more likely to trust the community health team.”)
Okay, that seems right. In the article, it’s worded like this:
The second part of the sentence adds some nuance, as does the contrast table.
Still, I remember feeling a bit weird about the wording even when that article came out, but I didn’t comment. (For me, the phrase “third chance” evokes the picture of the person giving the third chance being naive.) (Edit: esp. when it’s presented as though this is a somewhat common thing, giving people third chances in “evidence this person is a bad actor” contexts.)
Because at face value it makes sense to tailor the severity of the countermeasure to the severity of the offense, and I imagine that Wise was commenting on incidents order of magnitude less severe than the ones mentioned in the article.