The woman did bring this concern to us. I donāt want to share details that would break her privacy, but I did my best to follow her wishes as far as how the matter was handled. My post on power dynamics was informed by that situation.
Looking back at the situation, Iām not sure about some aspects of how I handled it. Weāre taking a renewed look at possible steps to take here.
Thanks. Is this person still active in the EA community? Does this person still have a role in āpicking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobsā?
Just bumping this in case youāve forgotten. At the moment there only seem to be two possibities: 1/ā you forgot about this comment or 2/ā the person does still have a role āpicking out promising studentsā as Peter asked. Iām currently assuming itās 2, and I imagine other people are too.
We are working actively on this, but it is going to take more time. As a general point (not trying to comment on this situation in particular), those are not the only two possibilities, and I think itās really crucial to be able to hold on to that in contexts where thereās issues of legality, confidentiality and lots of imperfect information flow.
Edit note: I at first had ālocal pointā instead of āgeneral pointā, which I meant in a mathy way, like the local logic of the situation point rather than speaking to any of the context, but looking back I donāt think that was very clear so Iāve edited to clarify my meaning.
Hey, thanks for the response. I think simply acknowledging my message and telling me you are working on it is a great first step, and I really appreciate that. Saying āWeāre looking into this, hold on for a few weeksā is actually genuinely helpful.
I also recognize that you and the Community Health team have a very difficult job even under the best of circumstances, so I have a lot of sympathy for this being very hard.
So I apologize though that my role here still has to be pushing you for more information, since I run an organization with multiple concerned staff members (including myself). Like you, I am also under a lot of pressure here, especially given it is an unusually tense time.
So to be clear, I am not looking to learn the identity of the person. Though Iād love to know who it was, I understand it may just not be possible to know. I get that. I donāt even really need details. But I would really love to hear about (A) whether this person is still in the movement and (B) whether they still have a role that allows them 1-1 contact with a lot of young women. I donāt particularly need any details, though I guess an (A) Yes (B) Yes answer would definitely make me want more details. Also given the lack of response, you must understand that imaginations naturally run rampant to fill the gaps in negative ways, as much as we might want to tamper them.
I totally understand how youāre seeing your role and why youāre pushing here. Iām really sorry, I canāt answer questions right now, but really hope to be able to next week.
Thanks Chana. Iām glad we can both see each otherās perspectives. I look forward to hearing more next week. Committing to a response and a rough timeline is already very helpful.
Just to be clear so I donāt look better than I deserve now (and possibly worse in some future timelines), the āhopeā is operative there; I wish I could make a firm commitment, but I canāt. But it gives us a starting point that we can come back to if needed.
Hi Peterāthese posts (from Owen and from the UK boards) + comments from me and Julia on the latter have just gone up that might have the information and comments youāre looking for.
Thank you. I am still considerably unhappy with how this situation was handled but I accept Juliaās apology and I am glad to see this did come to some sort of resolution. Iām especially glad to see an independent investigation into how this was handled.
I imagine not many people would meet the description of the person , so I think itās plausible that publicly providing further information of that sort would allow for the personās identificationādespite what I understand to be the harassment survivorās request that the person not be publicly identified.
I donāt need any description of the person. I just want to know in broad strokes what the risk level is, so I can advise my organization accordingly. Hence the two-part yes/āno questions.
Iām saying that Time gave a description that likely narrowed down the list to a few people. Letās say there were five to ten people it could reasonably apply to. If CH told you the person is no longer in EA, or is in EA but no longer performing that role, you could probably identify the person by looking into what those five to ten were up to nowadays. Even if there were more candidates, presumably you could significantly narrow the list with those answers.
Thus, if CH doesnāt have permission from the survivor to answer those questions and had agreed to keep the personās identity confidential, answering them could breach that promise. They would need to go back to the survivor and ask permission to make additional disclosures.
I know Iām probably being dense here, but would it be possible for you to share what the other possibilities are?
Edit: I guess thereās āThe person doesnāt have the role, but we are bound by some kind of confidentiality we agreed when removing them from postā
I donāt see how confidentiality would prevent anyone from literally saying āThe person doesnāt have the role, but we are bound by some kind of confidentiality we agreed when removing them from postā, which would actually be a reassuring thing to hear.
Two posts (from Owen and from the UK boards) + comments from me and Julia on the latter have just gone up that might have the updates youāre looking for.
ThanksāIāve already commented. Iām pretty disappointed that Owen resigned 3 days before my comment and I was filibustered. (Iāve already commented there about the timeline, very curious to know what can possibly have been going on during that period other than getting together a PR strategy).
The woman did bring this concern to us. I donāt want to share details that would break her privacy, but I did my best to follow her wishes as far as how the matter was handled. My post on power dynamics was informed by that situation.
Looking back at the situation, Iām not sure about some aspects of how I handled it. Weāre taking a renewed look at possible steps to take here.
Thanks. Is this person still active in the EA community? Does this person still have a role in āpicking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobsā?
Seconding Peter Wildefordās questions.
Just bumping this in case youāve forgotten. At the moment there only seem to be two possibities: 1/ā you forgot about this comment or 2/ā the person does still have a role āpicking out promising studentsā as Peter asked. Iām currently assuming itās 2, and I imagine other people are too.
We are working actively on this, but it is going to take more time. As a general point (not trying to comment on this situation in particular), those are not the only two possibilities, and I think itās really crucial to be able to hold on to that in contexts where thereās issues of legality, confidentiality and lots of imperfect information flow.
Edit note: I at first had ālocal pointā instead of āgeneral pointā, which I meant in a mathy way, like the local logic of the situation point rather than speaking to any of the context, but looking back I donāt think that was very clear so Iāve edited to clarify my meaning.
Hey, thanks for the response. I think simply acknowledging my message and telling me you are working on it is a great first step, and I really appreciate that. Saying āWeāre looking into this, hold on for a few weeksā is actually genuinely helpful.
I also recognize that you and the Community Health team have a very difficult job even under the best of circumstances, so I have a lot of sympathy for this being very hard.
So I apologize though that my role here still has to be pushing you for more information, since I run an organization with multiple concerned staff members (including myself). Like you, I am also under a lot of pressure here, especially given it is an unusually tense time.
So to be clear, I am not looking to learn the identity of the person. Though Iād love to know who it was, I understand it may just not be possible to know. I get that. I donāt even really need details. But I would really love to hear about (A) whether this person is still in the movement and (B) whether they still have a role that allows them 1-1 contact with a lot of young women. I donāt particularly need any details, though I guess an
(A) Yes (B) Yesanswer would definitely make me want more details. Also given the lack of response, you must understand that imaginations naturally run rampant to fill the gaps in negative ways, as much as we might want to tamper them.Thank you again for all your work.
I totally understand how youāre seeing your role and why youāre pushing here. Iām really sorry, I canāt answer questions right now, but really hope to be able to next week.
Thanks Chana. Iām glad we can both see each otherās perspectives. I look forward to hearing more next week. Committing to a response and a rough timeline is already very helpful.
Just to be clear so I donāt look better than I deserve now (and possibly worse in some future timelines), the āhopeā is operative there; I wish I could make a firm commitment, but I canāt. But it gives us a starting point that we can come back to if needed.
Hi Peterāthese posts (from Owen and from the UK boards) + comments from me and Julia on the latter have just gone up that might have the information and comments youāre looking for.
Thank you. I am still considerably unhappy with how this situation was handled but I accept Juliaās apology and I am glad to see this did come to some sort of resolution. Iām especially glad to see an independent investigation into how this was handled.
I imagine not many people would meet the description of the person , so I think itās plausible that publicly providing further information of that sort would allow for the personās identificationādespite what I understand to be the harassment survivorās request that the person not be publicly identified.
I donāt need any description of the person. I just want to know in broad strokes what the risk level is, so I can advise my organization accordingly. Hence the two-part yes/āno questions.
Iām saying that Time gave a description that likely narrowed down the list to a few people. Letās say there were five to ten people it could reasonably apply to. If CH told you the person is no longer in EA, or is in EA but no longer performing that role, you could probably identify the person by looking into what those five to ten were up to nowadays. Even if there were more candidates, presumably you could significantly narrow the list with those answers.
Thus, if CH doesnāt have permission from the survivor to answer those questions and had agreed to keep the personās identity confidential, answering them could breach that promise. They would need to go back to the survivor and ask permission to make additional disclosures.
I know Iām probably being dense here, but would it be possible for you to share what the other possibilities are?
Edit: I guess thereās āThe person doesnāt have the role, but we are bound by some kind of confidentiality we agreed when removing them from postā
No, itās a reasonable question. I hope to be able to answer these questions better next week. Iām really sorry, I know thatās not very helpful.
I donāt see how confidentiality would prevent anyone from literally saying āThe person doesnāt have the role, but we are bound by some kind of confidentiality we agreed when removing them from postā, which would actually be a reassuring thing to hear.
Hi Simon -
Two posts (from Owen and from the UK boards) + comments from me and Julia on the latter have just gone up that might have the updates youāre looking for.
ThanksāIāve already commented. Iām pretty disappointed that Owen resigned 3 days before my comment and I was filibustered. (Iāve already commented there about the timeline, very curious to know what can possibly have been going on during that period other than getting together a PR strategy).