In 2017, Kelly Witwicki prompted an extensive debate regarding diversity and inclusion (perhaps focusing on preventing negative effects of masculinity stereotypes) in which several now relatively high-positioned EA leaders participated.
In early 2019, CEA summarized a highly positive stance on diversity, equity, and belonging.
Also in early 2019, Kelly Witwicki published a robust framework for diversity, equity, and inclusion in movement building.
In late 2019, Vaidehi Agarwalla found that the ethnic diversity survey respondents value diversity for additional perspectives, potential members, and opportunities for impact.
In mid-2020, Angela María Aristizábal Borrero suggested several considerations regarding geographic diversity.
In late 2020, CEA prioritized diversity, equity and inclusion alongside epistemics/culture in its community health plan for 2021.
While I recommend the CEA’s stance as the resource on diversity, this piece to an extent elucidates the rationale for diversity and provides some elaboration on the meaning of this term.
My post was mostly done independent of AGB’s post and I probably would have done something around this either way—the survey was inspired by the POC meetup at EAG London 2019, and as far as I can tell Angela’s post was also
independent. Not sure about the others.
Hm, the 2016 post also looks independent, and possibly informing the CEA’s official stance. The 2017 piece and the 2019 post of the same author also seem to build on other diversity writing to a relatively low extent. The inclusion of diversity in the CEA’s 2020 planning could have advanced the discussion from 2016 as well as responded to general community discourse. The EA Survey collects general demographic data, so may not seek to examine the community diversity based on people’s talent, experience, opinion, and appearance.
This post seems to have started a conversation on diversity in EA:
[This post] In 2015, AGB discussed the counterfactual value and possible ways of increasing diversity of talent, experience, opinion, and appearance.
In 2016, Julia Wise suggested strategies to make groups more welcoming to persons from less represented groups in various areas of diversity.
In 2017, Kelly Witwicki prompted an extensive debate regarding diversity and inclusion (perhaps focusing on preventing negative effects of masculinity stereotypes) in which several now relatively high-positioned EA leaders participated.
In early 2019, CEA summarized a highly positive stance on diversity, equity, and belonging.
Also in early 2019, Kelly Witwicki published a robust framework for diversity, equity, and inclusion in movement building.
In late 2019, Vaidehi Agarwalla found that the ethnic diversity survey respondents value diversity for additional perspectives, potential members, and opportunities for impact.
In mid-2020, Angela María Aristizábal Borrero suggested several considerations regarding geographic diversity.
In late 2020, CEA prioritized diversity, equity and inclusion alongside epistemics/culture in its community health plan for 2021.
The most recent (2020) EA Survey reports that about 90% of EAs live in developed countries.
While I recommend the CEA’s stance as the resource on diversity, this piece to an extent elucidates the rationale for diversity and provides some elaboration on the meaning of this term.
My post was mostly done independent of AGB’s post and I probably would have done something around this either way—the survey was inspired by the POC meetup at EAG London 2019, and as far as I can tell Angela’s post was also independent. Not sure about the others.
Hm, the 2016 post also looks independent, and possibly informing the CEA’s official stance. The 2017 piece and the 2019 post of the same author also seem to build on other diversity writing to a relatively low extent. The inclusion of diversity in the CEA’s 2020 planning could have advanced the discussion from 2016 as well as responded to general community discourse. The EA Survey collects general demographic data, so may not seek to examine the community diversity based on people’s talent, experience, opinion, and appearance.