Catherine, thanks for taking the time to respond to this.
I think both the TIME story and this thread underscore the need to devote some additional resources to transparent, proactive reporting about incoming reports [1] (in a way that protects the privacy of everyone involved). Every report should be accounted for in some fashion (e.g., “closed due to reported person’s non-involvement in EA” is fine; “reported person was an EA, but not enough information was provided even after a follow-up to open a matter” is fine). [2]
For example, hearing that at least four people will not be allowed at CEA events as a result of reports about sexual assault last year is helpful. Arguably the most significant effect of CEA’s actions in reducing future misconduct is general deterrence (i.e., convicing other people that they should not commit misconduct lest they suffer the same consequences), and that only works if the consequences are publicized (as well as they can be).
In addition to some apparent factual disagreements between CH and the original poster, I get the sense that one of the cruxes here may be a lack of clarity about who is involved with EA. As Julia mentioned in her comments to TIME, that can be a tricky question.
I think it would be helpful to develop and publicize non-exhaustive criteria of who will be considered to be involved with EA for purposes of statistical reporting and potential action. For example, I would consider anyone meeting any of the following criteria to have been involved for statistical purposes (there are probably others):
Anyone who was accepted to EAG in the relevant time period;[3]
Anyone who worked for an organization during the relevant time period, if that organization received a grant from any of a specific list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Anyone who received a grant from any of those funders during the relevant time period;
Anyone who is in a position of leadership in an EA group during the relevant time period, where that group that has received funding from a specified funder.
The point of committing to non-exhaustive published inclusion criteria is that it provides something objective to help mitigate factual disagreements like the one we see here and promotes public confidence in the reported data. [4] When there are reports of misconduct in the media, I think it will be helpful to have published objective criteria to which we can refer to determine whether the person was clearly an EA.
There could also be criteria for individuals who are potentially involved, such anyone who applied for EAG at any time, or anyone who more than occasionally attends official functions of a group described above. Those could be decided on a case-by-case basis; the outcome should report the individual as “somewhat involved” or “determined not to meet involvement criteria after individual-specific review” depending on the exercise of judgment. In other words, there should be a distinction between people in the grey zone and people who are clearly not involved.
Finally, you could make clear that living in a “EA house,” attending parties thrown by EAs or with EAs in attendance, etc. do not count as involvement with EA for statistical or action purposes. It’s understandable that the original poster may be looking at EA more as a social group, but as a practical matter CEA isn’t in a position to take any action against these sorts of individuals. I also don’t think it’s necessary for EA as a movement to somehow accept responsibility for these individuals.[5]
Given the nature of this thread, this comment focuses on reports relating to sexual assault. However, I think data on reports of non-assault sexual harassment also needs to be provided.
In my view, CH should encourage and log reports from individuals in the EA community even if the reporter does not wish to name the individual, as long as the reporter provides enough information to conclude that the individual counts as EA-involved as described below (e.g., “was at EAG this year” or “works for [Organization]”). I do think reports from outside the community generally need both an identified survivor who can be contacted and an identified perpetrator to count for statistics.
CH would not need to go through the specific exclusion criteria unless it was planning to no-action the matter on grounds that the person accused of misconduct was not involved in EA.
I default to trying to apply the same standards to EA as to other movements or organizations absent a good reason. I wouldn’t (e.g.) generally view actions of a roommate of a member of a church, actions of someone who attends parties with a lot of church people present, or actions of someone who has attended a few worship services as “chargeable” to that church.
Thanks for this! I would broaden this criteria somewhat.
Someone who meets any of the following criteria relevant time period (really like the way you defined the period as “the year in which the incident occured, the year prior, and the following year (to the extent the following year has transpired)”):
Accepted to EA-branded events such as an EAG(x), retreat, summit or workshop
Worked (temporarily or full-time) for an EA-aligned organization or one that received a grant from a list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Received a grant, scholarship or fellowship from any of those funders or programs they have funded during the relevant time period;
Is an organizer or regular member (as defined by attending some number of events in the given period, or is considered as such by the group organizer) in an EA group that has received funding from EA funders
Rationale:
Expanded EAG to EA branded events because there are lots of other EA branded events, but didn’t include e.g. cause-specific events that might have a large number of non-EAs
Mentioned temporary work (e.g. contractor) in case it’s unclear
Expanded grant to include scholarship / fellowship
Expanded to include being a member of a group, because i think it’s really important to count that person as invovled in EA. Very uncertain of exact boundaries there.
Thanks—I figured my list was incomplete. I think there’s a potential administrability tradeoff here. It’s reasonable to expect CH to check certain internal, critical, and/or easily accessible data. However, I suspect there are might be things that would auto-qualify for EA status under that proposal that CH might not pick up on after a reasonable inquiry into the alleged offender’s status. So I think there are things that should auto-qualify, but for which I wouldn’t necessarily call a failure to apply auto-qualification a miss.
I struggled with the group inclusion criteria. One challenge is that CH may need to be able to apply the statistical criterion without tipping off to anyone else that there has been a complaint about a specific person. In a large group, CH could get around that by asking for the full active-member list (although that might be a burden on group leaders depending on whether CH was asking for a pre-existing document or asking the leaders to create a list5 that met the statistical criterion). In a smaller group, they would need to find a way to get this information without arousing suspicion that there had been a complaint about a group member.
Finally, you could make clear that living in a “EA house,” attending parties thrown by EAs or with EAs in attendance, etc. do not count as involvement with EA for statistical or action purposes. It’s understandable that the original poster may be looking at EA more as a social group, but as a practical matter CEA isn’t in a position to take any action against these sorts of individuals. I also don’t think it’s necessary for EA as a movement to somehow accept responsibility for these individuals.
I think that since CH does let peopel come to them with issues in scenarios like EA group house or events thrown by EAs (but not parties that EAs are in attendance at) , I’m not sure this makes sense. I think the problem is you can’t really separate EA as social group vs EA as professional group, especially in the Bay Area. But it can be really hard to figure out the boundaries here.
Yeah, I didn’t mean to discourage CH from addressing any situations it thought should be addressed.
I think for statistical purposes the involvement of the alleged perpetrator in “official” EA is a critical line, but other reports should still be catalogued and reported.
Catherine, thanks for taking the time to respond to this.
I think both the TIME story and this thread underscore the need to devote some additional resources to transparent, proactive reporting about incoming reports [1] (in a way that protects the privacy of everyone involved). Every report should be accounted for in some fashion (e.g., “closed due to reported person’s non-involvement in EA” is fine; “reported person was an EA, but not enough information was provided even after a follow-up to open a matter” is fine). [2]
For example, hearing that at least four people will not be allowed at CEA events as a result of reports about sexual assault last year is helpful. Arguably the most significant effect of CEA’s actions in reducing future misconduct is general deterrence (i.e., convicing other people that they should not commit misconduct lest they suffer the same consequences), and that only works if the consequences are publicized (as well as they can be).
In addition to some apparent factual disagreements between CH and the original poster, I get the sense that one of the cruxes here may be a lack of clarity about who is involved with EA. As Julia mentioned in her comments to TIME, that can be a tricky question.
I think it would be helpful to develop and publicize non-exhaustive criteria of who will be considered to be involved with EA for purposes of statistical reporting and potential action. For example, I would consider anyone meeting any of the following criteria to have been involved for statistical purposes (there are probably others):
Anyone who was accepted to EAG in the relevant time period;[3]
Anyone who worked for an organization during the relevant time period, if that organization received a grant from any of a specific list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Anyone who received a grant from any of those funders during the relevant time period;
Anyone who is in a position of leadership in an EA group during the relevant time period, where that group that has received funding from a specified funder.
The point of committing to non-exhaustive published inclusion criteria is that it provides something objective to help mitigate factual disagreements like the one we see here and promotes public confidence in the reported data. [4] When there are reports of misconduct in the media, I think it will be helpful to have published objective criteria to which we can refer to determine whether the person was clearly an EA.
There could also be criteria for individuals who are potentially involved, such anyone who applied for EAG at any time, or anyone who more than occasionally attends official functions of a group described above. Those could be decided on a case-by-case basis; the outcome should report the individual as “somewhat involved” or “determined not to meet involvement criteria after individual-specific review” depending on the exercise of judgment. In other words, there should be a distinction between people in the grey zone and people who are clearly not involved.
Finally, you could make clear that living in a “EA house,” attending parties thrown by EAs or with EAs in attendance, etc. do not count as involvement with EA for statistical or action purposes. It’s understandable that the original poster may be looking at EA more as a social group, but as a practical matter CEA isn’t in a position to take any action against these sorts of individuals. I also don’t think it’s necessary for EA as a movement to somehow accept responsibility for these individuals.[5]
Given the nature of this thread, this comment focuses on reports relating to sexual assault. However, I think data on reports of non-assault sexual harassment also needs to be provided.
In my view, CH should encourage and log reports from individuals in the EA community even if the reporter does not wish to name the individual, as long as the reporter provides enough information to conclude that the individual counts as EA-involved as described below (e.g., “was at EAG this year” or “works for [Organization]”). I do think reports from outside the community generally need both an identified survivor who can be contacted and an identified perpetrator to count for statistics.
The year in which the incident occured, the year prior, and the following year (to the extent the following year has transpired)
CH would not need to go through the specific exclusion criteria unless it was planning to no-action the matter on grounds that the person accused of misconduct was not involved in EA.
I default to trying to apply the same standards to EA as to other movements or organizations absent a good reason. I wouldn’t (e.g.) generally view actions of a roommate of a member of a church, actions of someone who attends parties with a lot of church people present, or actions of someone who has attended a few worship services as “chargeable” to that church.
Thanks for this! I would broaden this criteria somewhat.
Someone who meets any of the following criteria relevant time period (really like the way you defined the period as “the year in which the incident occured, the year prior, and the following year (to the extent the following year has transpired)”):
Accepted to EA-branded events such as an EAG(x), retreat, summit or workshop
Worked (temporarily or full-time) for an EA-aligned organization or one that received a grant from a list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Received a grant, scholarship or fellowship from any of those funders or programs they have funded during the relevant time period;
Is an organizer or regular member (as defined by attending some number of events in the given period, or is considered as such by the group organizer) in an EA group that has received funding from EA funders
Rationale:
Expanded EAG to EA branded events because there are lots of other EA branded events, but didn’t include e.g. cause-specific events that might have a large number of non-EAs
Mentioned temporary work (e.g. contractor) in case it’s unclear
Expanded grant to include scholarship / fellowship
Expanded to include being a member of a group, because i think it’s really important to count that person as invovled in EA. Very uncertain of exact boundaries there.
Thanks—I figured my list was incomplete. I think there’s a potential administrability tradeoff here. It’s reasonable to expect CH to check certain internal, critical, and/or easily accessible data. However, I suspect there are might be things that would auto-qualify for EA status under that proposal that CH might not pick up on after a reasonable inquiry into the alleged offender’s status. So I think there are things that should auto-qualify, but for which I wouldn’t necessarily call a failure to apply auto-qualification a miss.
I struggled with the group inclusion criteria. One challenge is that CH may need to be able to apply the statistical criterion without tipping off to anyone else that there has been a complaint about a specific person. In a large group, CH could get around that by asking for the full active-member list (although that might be a burden on group leaders depending on whether CH was asking for a pre-existing document or asking the leaders to create a list5 that met the statistical criterion). In a smaller group, they would need to find a way to get this information without arousing suspicion that there had been a complaint about a group member.
I think that since CH does let peopel come to them with issues in scenarios like EA group house or events thrown by EAs (but not parties that EAs are in attendance at) , I’m not sure this makes sense. I think the problem is you can’t really separate EA as social group vs EA as professional group, especially in the Bay Area. But it can be really hard to figure out the boundaries here.
Yeah, I didn’t mean to discourage CH from addressing any situations it thought should be addressed.
I think for statistical purposes the involvement of the alleged perpetrator in “official” EA is a critical line, but other reports should still be catalogued and reported.