I can understand why people want more info. Jacy and I agreed three years ago what each of us would say publicly about this, and I think it would be difficult and not particularly helpful to revisit the specifics now.
If anyone is making a decision where more info would be helpful, for example you’re deciding whether to have him at an event or you’re running a community space and want to think about good policies in general, please feel free to contact me and I’ll do what I can to help you make a good decision.
For convenience, this is CEA’s statement from three years ago:
We approached Jacy about our concerns about his behavior after receiving reports from several parties about concerns over several time periods, and we discussed this public statement with him. We have not been able to discuss details of most of these concerns in order to protect the confidentiality of the people who raised them, but we find the reports credible and concerning. It’s very important to CEA that EA be a community where people are treated with fairness and respect. If you’ve experienced problems in the EA community, we want to help. Julia Wise serves as a contact person for the community, and you can always bring concerns to her confidentially.
By my reading, the information about the reports contained in this is:
CEA received reports from several parties about concerns over Jacy’s behavior over several time periods
CEA found the reports ‘credible and concerning’
CEA cannot discuss details of most of these concerns because the people who raised them want to protect their confidentiality
It also implies that Jacy did not treat people with fairness and respect in the reported incidents
‘It’s very important to CEA that EA be a community where people are treated with fairness and respect’ - why say this unless it’s applicable to this case?
Julia also said in a comment at the time that the reports were from members of the animal advocacy and EA communities, and CEA decided to approach Jacy primarily because of these rather than the Brown case:
The accusation of sexual misconduct at Brown is one of the things that worried us at CEA. But we approached Jacy primarily out of concern about other more recent reports from members of the animal advocacy and EA communities.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion Julia. I’m writing replies that are a bit harsh, but I recognize that I’m likely missing some information about these things, which may even be public and I just don’t know where to look for it yet.
Jacy and I agreed three years ago what each of us would say publicly about this, and I think it would be difficult and not particularly helpful to revisit the specifics now.
However, this sounds… not good, as if the decision on current action is based on Jacy’s interests and on honoring a deal with him. I could think of a few possible good reasons for more information to be bad, e.g. that the victims prefer nothing more is said, or that it would harm CEA’s ability to act in future cases. But readers can only speculate on what the real reason is and whether they agree with it.
Both here and regarding what I asked in my other comment, the reasoning is very opaque. This is a problem, because it means there’s no way to scrutinize the decisions, or to know what to expect from the current situation. This is not only important for community organizers, but also for ordinary members of the community.
For example, it’s not clear to me if CEA has relevant written-out policies regarding this, and what they are. Or who can check if they’re followed, and how.
I have a general objection to this, but I want to avoid getting entirely off topic. So I’ll just say, this seems to me to only shift the problem further away from the people affected.
I can understand why people want more info. Jacy and I agreed three years ago what each of us would say publicly about this, and I think it would be difficult and not particularly helpful to revisit the specifics now.
If anyone is making a decision where more info would be helpful, for example you’re deciding whether to have him at an event or you’re running a community space and want to think about good policies in general, please feel free to contact me and I’ll do what I can to help you make a good decision.
For convenience, this is CEA’s statement from three years ago:
By my reading, the information about the reports contained in this is:
CEA received reports from several parties about concerns over Jacy’s behavior over several time periods
CEA found the reports ‘credible and concerning’
CEA cannot discuss details of most of these concerns because the people who raised them want to protect their confidentiality
It also implies that Jacy did not treat people with fairness and respect in the reported incidents
‘It’s very important to CEA that EA be a community where people are treated with fairness and respect’ - why say this unless it’s applicable to this case?
Julia also said in a comment at the time that the reports were from members of the animal advocacy and EA communities, and CEA decided to approach Jacy primarily because of these rather than the Brown case:
Thanks for engaging in this discussion Julia. I’m writing replies that are a bit harsh, but I recognize that I’m likely missing some information about these things, which may even be public and I just don’t know where to look for it yet.
However, this sounds… not good, as if the decision on current action is based on Jacy’s interests and on honoring a deal with him. I could think of a few possible good reasons for more information to be bad, e.g. that the victims prefer nothing more is said, or that it would harm CEA’s ability to act in future cases. But readers can only speculate on what the real reason is and whether they agree with it.
Both here and regarding what I asked in my other comment, the reasoning is very opaque. This is a problem, because it means there’s no way to scrutinize the decisions, or to know what to expect from the current situation. This is not only important for community organizers, but also for ordinary members of the community.
For example, it’s not clear to me if CEA has relevant written-out policies regarding this, and what they are. Or who can check if they’re followed, and how.
I would expect CEA’s trustees to be scrutinizing how decisions like this are made.
I have a general objection to this, but I want to avoid getting entirely off topic. So I’ll just say, this seems to me to only shift the problem further away from the people affected.