That makes sense re the power dynamics. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m not sure how to answer the question regarding effectiveness because I don’t think it matters either way. One thing I know for sure is that these allegations will push women away from EA. I appreciate the time and energy you are spending on this.
It’s hard to have a firm opinion without knowing what the post would say. But in general, I think critiques of specific organizations and practices are necessary to move this conversation forward, and you have special experience and knowledge to do that. You also have some structural advantages on the topic—you’re an identifiable person (cf. the distrust in many circles of anonymous “burner” accounts), and you’re not financially or otherwise dependent on EA. So if the CH process isn’t working as it should, I suspect you are uniquely the best person to write about that.
You might consider giving CH an advance opportunity to comment on at least any factual assertions you plan to make in the post. For the reader, it’s hard to know what to think when a poster makes factual assertions, the other party denies them, and the nature of the situation is such that neither party can offer verifiable specifics to back up their claim. So to the extent that common ground on the facts is helpful, I think it would be a more helpful conversation. For instance, I think it would be helpful for CH to broadly explain, to the extent this is possible while maintaining confidentiality, what actions were taken on the 36 reports you made (and why). That might, for instance, reveal that CH has a narrower definition of who is in the EA community than you do—which would enable a discussion about what the scope of CH’s work should be.
Given that you’ve been involved in a number of matters, I think your insight on what CH should be doing differently would also be helpful. (Or if you think, as I do, that certain functions need to be handled outside of CH.) . I feel the discussion engendered by the Time article has been rather light on who needs to be doing what specifically—funders, CEA, employers, local/university EA groups, EAs, etc.
Of course, I recognize that you don’t have funding for any of this, and don’t want to make you feel an obligation to write a post. I’ve tried to float the idea that “ordinary” EAs should establish mechanics to fund certain types of work independently of the major funding pathways, and I think the type of work you’re doing would be a prime candidate. Haven’t gotten much interest in that take so far. (I’m sure there are many ways to be an ally here, but as someone whose role in EA is presently only posting on the Forum and writing modest checks, I tend to gravitate a bit toward what is legible to / achievable by me.)
That makes sense re the power dynamics. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m not sure how to answer the question regarding effectiveness because I don’t think it matters either way. One thing I know for sure is that these allegations will push women away from EA. I appreciate the time and energy you are spending on this.
It’s hard to have a firm opinion without knowing what the post would say. But in general, I think critiques of specific organizations and practices are necessary to move this conversation forward, and you have special experience and knowledge to do that. You also have some structural advantages on the topic—you’re an identifiable person (cf. the distrust in many circles of anonymous “burner” accounts), and you’re not financially or otherwise dependent on EA. So if the CH process isn’t working as it should, I suspect you are uniquely the best person to write about that.
You might consider giving CH an advance opportunity to comment on at least any factual assertions you plan to make in the post. For the reader, it’s hard to know what to think when a poster makes factual assertions, the other party denies them, and the nature of the situation is such that neither party can offer verifiable specifics to back up their claim. So to the extent that common ground on the facts is helpful, I think it would be a more helpful conversation. For instance, I think it would be helpful for CH to broadly explain, to the extent this is possible while maintaining confidentiality, what actions were taken on the 36 reports you made (and why). That might, for instance, reveal that CH has a narrower definition of who is in the EA community than you do—which would enable a discussion about what the scope of CH’s work should be.
Given that you’ve been involved in a number of matters, I think your insight on what CH should be doing differently would also be helpful. (Or if you think, as I do, that certain functions need to be handled outside of CH.) . I feel the discussion engendered by the Time article has been rather light on who needs to be doing what specifically—funders, CEA, employers, local/university EA groups, EAs, etc.
Of course, I recognize that you don’t have funding for any of this, and don’t want to make you feel an obligation to write a post. I’ve tried to float the idea that “ordinary” EAs should establish mechanics to fund certain types of work independently of the major funding pathways, and I think the type of work you’re doing would be a prime candidate. Haven’t gotten much interest in that take so far. (I’m sure there are many ways to be an ally here, but as someone whose role in EA is presently only posting on the Forum and writing modest checks, I tend to gravitate a bit toward what is legible to / achievable by me.)