On behalf of the leadership team and board of GWWC, I wanted to respond to this forum post that has affected a lot of people across the community, including our own team.
Firstly, Fran, thank you for your courage in writing this. We’re deeply sorry for what you experienced, the rape, the sexual harassment that followed, and the painful, drawn-out process of seeking accountability. You deserved far better, and we’re grateful you shared this so honestly. We hope you can take some time to rest and heal after all of this.
As an organization working in the same ecosystem, we want to say: we are not immune to the inequalities and harm that exist in the world simply because we’re trying to reduce suffering. If anything, our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less. Thank you for flagging the aspects of our ecosystem’s culture that we need to be extra mindful of.
We want to build an organization and wider community where harassment is as unlikely as possible to happen, and where people are genuinely supported if it does. At GWWC, we and our boards are actively working on strengthening our HR capacity as we grow and have safeguarding, whistleblowing and harassment policies in place. This tragic event and your courageous post only underline the importance of doing this well.
Hi James S., this is a lovely comment. Please keep me updated on how GWWC’s safeguarding, whistleblowing and harassment policies support and encourage things like seeking accountability and sharing courageously/honestly. I can’t find them on the website very easily anymore, but I’m sure I just misplaced the link.
Could you let all of us know whether GWWC currently participates in any practises like:
external mediation or investigation of discrimination/harassment complaints
transparently discussing any suspected or alleged discrimination/harassment separately with each party to the issue before decisions
discussions with employees from experiences of trauma/marginalization/neurodivergence about how to proactively support them
as well as during any conflicts, asking whether experience with trauma/marginalization/neurodivergence is affecting their experience/communication and what equity would look like from their perspective
trauma-informed external training of supervisors on recognizing signs of mental health crises and referring exclusively to qualified, external support
a policy to flag and prevent internal conflicts of interest, including but not limited to coworkers also being each other’s:
roommates
partners
family members
1-1 peer support providers
an internal policy against NDAs, or at least ones that
prevent a person from bringing forth claim’s with their country’s human rights tribunals
prevent a person from discussing any and all particulars of their situation with a licensed clinical counsellor, doctor, nurse, victim service provider, etc. in their region
never expire
(All of these NDA “not-best practises” are just taken from this proposed bill that I helped petition for at Vancouver Pride a couple of years ago when I was volunteering with the BC Greens under their leader at the time, the sponsor of this bill, Sonia Furstenau.)
(Also inspired by this resolution from the Canadian Bar Association which was carried, overwhelmingly, back in 2023.)
It would be great if you could address these potential strategies for preventing harassment and discrimination in our community.
James, you and Sjir were particularly supportive to me when I left GWWC, and I am very grateful for you both. I continue to structure my giving around the GWWC principles, even though I ended my pledge.
For good measure of course, it would be great to hear from CEA, AIM, and any other large orgs in our community about their policies regarding discrimination/harassment, training and support from external experts in supporting members of marginalized communities, COIs, and NDAs. But just seeing your supportive comment here, I am especially interested in all of us being able to hear about how GWWC models this.
I would appreciate if people downvoting this could leave a comment about whether you disagree that these are potentially helpful policies, or if you are under the impression that I am choosing the most visibly supportive people to put on the hot-seat, or something else.
This is a disappointingly supportive message towards CEA’s handling of the situation.
There will be some people who do not want to associate with CEA knowing that this is how they handle actions by employees, and how they address failures by the leadership team.
Surely you don’t speak on behalf of all of GWWC?
And surely some will reconsider their support of GWWC as well?
-The Dub-meister
EDIT: It’s easy to ‘disagree’ and spread negative karma with just a tap, isn’t it?
It’s harder to explain why.
Maybe eventually we’ll agree that once people have made mistakes, doubled down on them, been independently assessed to have made avoidable mistakes, make ineffective changes to prevent the preventable mistakes, that those people are not suited to those roles...
...the “E” in EA stands for ‘Effective’. If the HR function of an organization can’t be effective, how can the altruism be?
Hi Amit, I think people might be downvoting you because they don’t see James’ comment as indicating support for CEA or a similarity in this area between GWWC and CEA.
I’m actually also not sure what part of his comment gave you that indication, but maybe you have some context you can share? I’m not able to weigh in.
Despite the leaf showing your profile is new, I get a hunch from your post history that you have some longer engagement with EA, not that you’re an opp who has come from afar to criticize as much as possible about the movement. If something in your experience with EA has jaded you, I would value hearing your story.
I think at this time, we both come across as passive aggressive towards EA in general. If you’re able to, I would recommend getting someone to review your posts/comments before you post them, so that they come across in a way that’s more aligned with the tone of the forum. I would get feedback on my posts myself, but if I were to share my posts with the people in my life, I would not be able to answer their questions about why I am posting or what I am trying to change. So I am just trying to keep things as positive and indirect as I can. Judging from the karma on my comment a few days ago, I think I’m not really hitting the mark.
My view on @James Steijger 🔸 ’s GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about “thank you…sorry…we need to be extra mindful…”.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, “on behalf of GWWC” and says “our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less”
I’m definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other people’s feelingsabout a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. That’s not my objective.
Your comment was not taken “in the spirit that it was intended” for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of James’ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps that’s because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication style—literal and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEA’s fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I don’t know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is “Keep Calm and EA on”
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate “because they should” about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re “either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,” good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isn’t skilled at “the spin.” The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.
On behalf of the leadership team and board of GWWC, I wanted to respond to this forum post that has affected a lot of people across the community, including our own team.
Firstly, Fran, thank you for your courage in writing this. We’re deeply sorry for what you experienced, the rape, the sexual harassment that followed, and the painful, drawn-out process of seeking accountability. You deserved far better, and we’re grateful you shared this so honestly. We hope you can take some time to rest and heal after all of this.
As an organization working in the same ecosystem, we want to say: we are not immune to the inequalities and harm that exist in the world simply because we’re trying to reduce suffering. If anything, our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less. Thank you for flagging the aspects of our ecosystem’s culture that we need to be extra mindful of.
We want to build an organization and wider community where harassment is as unlikely as possible to happen, and where people are genuinely supported if it does. At GWWC, we and our boards are actively working on strengthening our HR capacity as we grow and have safeguarding, whistleblowing and harassment policies in place. This tragic event and your courageous post only underline the importance of doing this well.
On behalf of GWWC,
Thank you again, Fran.
-James (COO @ GWWC)
Hi James S., this is a lovely comment. Please keep me updated on how GWWC’s safeguarding, whistleblowing and harassment policies support and encourage things like seeking accountability and sharing courageously/honestly. I can’t find them on the website very easily anymore, but I’m sure I just misplaced the link.
Could you let all of us know whether GWWC currently participates in any practises like:
external mediation or investigation of discrimination/harassment complaints
transparently discussing any suspected or alleged discrimination/harassment separately with each party to the issue before decisions
discussions with employees from experiences of trauma/marginalization/neurodivergence about how to proactively support them
as well as during any conflicts, asking whether experience with trauma/marginalization/neurodivergence is affecting their experience/communication and what equity would look like from their perspective
trauma-informed external training of supervisors on recognizing signs of mental health crises and referring exclusively to qualified, external support
a policy to flag and prevent internal conflicts of interest, including but not limited to coworkers also being each other’s:
roommates
partners
family members
1-1 peer support providers
an internal policy against NDAs, or at least ones that
prevent a person from bringing forth claim’s with their country’s human rights tribunals
prevent a person from discussing any and all particulars of their situation with a licensed clinical counsellor, doctor, nurse, victim service provider, etc. in their region
never expire
(All of these NDA “not-best practises” are just taken from this proposed bill that I helped petition for at Vancouver Pride a couple of years ago when I was volunteering with the BC Greens under their leader at the time, the sponsor of this bill, Sonia Furstenau.)
(Also inspired by this resolution from the Canadian Bar Association which was carried, overwhelmingly, back in 2023.)
It would be great if you could address these potential strategies for preventing harassment and discrimination in our community.
James, you and Sjir were particularly supportive to me when I left GWWC, and I am very grateful for you both. I continue to structure my giving around the GWWC principles, even though I ended my pledge.
For good measure of course, it would be great to hear from CEA, AIM, and any other large orgs in our community about their policies regarding discrimination/harassment, training and support from external experts in supporting members of marginalized communities, COIs, and NDAs. But just seeing your supportive comment here, I am especially interested in all of us being able to hear about how GWWC models this.
Thanks so much!
I would appreciate if people downvoting this could leave a comment about whether you disagree that these are potentially helpful policies, or if you are under the impression that I am choosing the most visibly supportive people to put on the hot-seat, or something else.
James,
This is a disappointingly supportive message towards CEA’s handling of the situation.
There will be some people who do not want to associate with CEA knowing that this is how they handle actions by employees, and how they address failures by the leadership team.
Surely you don’t speak on behalf of all of GWWC?
And surely some will reconsider their support of GWWC as well?
-The Dub-meister
EDIT: It’s easy to ‘disagree’ and spread negative karma with just a tap, isn’t it?
It’s harder to explain why.
Maybe eventually we’ll agree that once people have made mistakes, doubled down on them, been independently assessed to have made avoidable mistakes, make ineffective changes to prevent the preventable mistakes, that those people are not suited to those roles...
...the “E” in EA stands for ‘Effective’. If the HR function of an organization can’t be effective, how can the altruism be?
Hi Amit, I think people might be downvoting you because they don’t see James’ comment as indicating support for CEA or a similarity in this area between GWWC and CEA.
I’m actually also not sure what part of his comment gave you that indication, but maybe you have some context you can share? I’m not able to weigh in.
Despite the leaf showing your profile is new, I get a hunch from your post history that you have some longer engagement with EA, not that you’re an opp who has come from afar to criticize as much as possible about the movement. If something in your experience with EA has jaded you, I would value hearing your story.
I think at this time, we both come across as passive aggressive towards EA in general. If you’re able to, I would recommend getting someone to review your posts/comments before you post them, so that they come across in a way that’s more aligned with the tone of the forum. I would get feedback on my posts myself, but if I were to share my posts with the people in my life, I would not be able to answer their questions about why I am posting or what I am trying to change. So I am just trying to keep things as positive and indirect as I can. Judging from the karma on my comment a few days ago, I think I’m not really hitting the mark.
Hi @Spencer R. Ericson ,
My view on @James Steijger 🔸 ’s GWWC response to the CEH response to Frances is that either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing, but not that they should make some flacid statement about “thank you…sorry…we need to be extra mindful…”.
Frances went through something horrible, then CEA amplified and prolonged it. Rather than being a group of people who would help her with what she needed, they gaslit her. Then James comes along, “on behalf of GWWC” and says “our missions make paying attention to these inequalities more important, not less”
I’m definitely not here to criticize as much as possible. As you know from your own post, the downvoting has more to do with other people’s feelings about a comment than the literal text or even the sentiment behind it.
Getting pre-publication review of comments would be a good idea...if my objective was to only say things that other people agree with. That’s not my objective.
Your comment was not taken “in the spirit that it was intended” for two reasons.
One is that it followed mine, which was critical of James’ comment. There are a lot of people here who want to maintain a positive atmosphere, even at the risk of not being honest. Perhaps that’s because they believe that CEA is on thin ice with this very public misstep. And perhaps people are sensitive after the whole Sam Bankman-Fried situation too.
The second reason is that while you started your comment positively, overall it reads sarcastically and critically. I suspect you did not intend this, but that is the communication style—literal and inquisitive.
Saying that GWWC policies are newly absent from their website will not be taken as you intend it because it will be taken as them hiding their policies (which may very well be true). Those kinds of policies would ordinarily be for internal availability only, and asking for them now after CEA’s fumble is less likely because there will be more scrutiny on them.
I don’t know enough about the cultural factors, but both CEA and GWWC originate in the UK, so their response to a situation like this may be different than what I would expect. Probably the attitude is “Keep Calm and EA on”
And your detailed question will be taken as inappropriate in a comment where GWWC is just trying to say something appropriate “because they should” about a poorly handled situation. Nobody wants to actually have a public discussion about the factors underlying the situation, let alone under a post that demonstrates that the people you are asking the question to are not capable of answering the question!
-The Dub-meister
Thank you, you have responded very thoughtfully! Re “either they should have condemned it wholeheartedly, or said nothing,” good on you to call out the implicature of non-statements. I think the dehumanizing nature of boilerplate-like speech goes generally unacknowledged.
It is calamitous that while candid critical questioning can be considered calm and composed, working within a parameter of imperative public positivity ends up sounding sarcastic if the scrutinizer isn’t skilled at “the spin.” The passive voice is not liked by anyone, and least of all by me.