While I understand that people generally like Owen, I believe we need to ensure that we are not overlooking the substance of his message and giving him an overly favorable response.
Owen’s impropriety may be extensive. Just because one event was over 5 years ago, does not mean that the other >=3 events were (and if they were, one expects he would tell us). Relatedly, if it indeed was the most severe mistake of this nature, there may have been more severe mistakes of somewhat different kinds. There may yet be further events that haven’t yet been reported to, or disclosed by Owen, and indeed, on the outside view, most events would not be suchly reported.
What makes things worse is the kind of career Owen has pursued over the last 5+ years.Owen’s work centered on: i) advising orgs and funders, ii) hiring junior researchers, and iii) hosting workshops, often residential, and with junior researchers. If as Owen says, you know as of 2021-22 that you have deficiencies in dealing with power dynamics, and there have been a series of multiple events like this, then why are you still playing the roles described in (i-iii)? His medium term career trajectory, even relative to other EAs, is in the top 20% of pathways that would make these kinds of mistakes happen more, rather than less, often.
The fact that there has never been precisely the same mistake made twice should give little comfort, while the admission that mitigating these problems has gone “more slowly” than it should is worrying. Problems with sexual harassment usually have a lot to do with personality, so it should not be surprising that this behaviour has been hard to change with therapy.
Owen’s altered duties are somewhat underwhelming. His departure from the EV UK board is acknowledged as a temporary one, and while new mentoring connections are currently on hold, existing mentorship will carry on. The planning of events is currently suspended, but participation in them is permissible. Moreover, it is framed as a question of “when” he will resume these responsibilities, rather than “if”.
Owen attempts to insert himself into the conversation regarding governance measures. However, the act of a board member providing their opinions to the community health team could potentially disrupt efforts to uncover the truth of what occurred.
So I don’t believe that the apology was very reassuring. But what concerns me more is that from skimming the forum, one may think that forum readers are taking Owen’s side here. I think two things are going on. Firstly, few seem willing to speak against Owen due to his still considerable power in the EA community (that he indicates he intends to cling onto), so there is an imbalance in the comments. Secondly, people like Owen and his writing, and face cognitive dissonance in contemplating that he might be a bad guy, so there is an imbalance in the votes (e.g. between this post and the one from the EVF board). Understandable though this may be, it could have a chilling effect on those who have their own cases of sexual assault to report. I realise that we are a community who prize ourselves on thinking about the big issues, and striving to do the most good. But here I worry about our ability to handle the basics. For me, it’s a matter of decency—we should make righteous whistleblowers feel comfortable, rather than backing powerful members of own tribe.
While I understand that people generally like Owen, I believe we need to ensure that we are not overlooking the substance of his message and giving him an overly favorable response.
Owen’s impropriety may be extensive. Just because one event was over 5 years ago, does not mean that the other >=3 events were (and if they were, one expects he would tell us). Relatedly, if it indeed was the most severe mistake of this nature, there may have been more severe mistakes of somewhat different kinds. There may yet be further events that haven’t yet been reported to, or disclosed by Owen, and indeed, on the outside view, most events would not be suchly reported.
What makes things worse is the kind of career Owen has pursued over the last 5+ years. Owen’s work centered on: i) advising orgs and funders, ii) hiring junior researchers, and iii) hosting workshops, often residential, and with junior researchers. If as Owen says, you know as of 2021-22 that you have deficiencies in dealing with power dynamics, and there have been a series of multiple events like this, then why are you still playing the roles described in (i-iii)? His medium term career trajectory, even relative to other EAs, is in the top 20% of pathways that would make these kinds of mistakes happen more, rather than less, often.
The fact that there has never been precisely the same mistake made twice should give little comfort, while the admission that mitigating these problems has gone “more slowly” than it should is worrying. Problems with sexual harassment usually have a lot to do with personality, so it should not be surprising that this behaviour has been hard to change with therapy.
Owen’s altered duties are somewhat underwhelming. His departure from the EV UK board is acknowledged as a temporary one, and while new mentoring connections are currently on hold, existing mentorship will carry on. The planning of events is currently suspended, but participation in them is permissible. Moreover, it is framed as a question of “when” he will resume these responsibilities, rather than “if”.
Owen attempts to insert himself into the conversation regarding governance measures. However, the act of a board member providing their opinions to the community health team could potentially disrupt efforts to uncover the truth of what occurred.
So I don’t believe that the apology was very reassuring. But what concerns me more is that from skimming the forum, one may think that forum readers are taking Owen’s side here. I think two things are going on. Firstly, few seem willing to speak against Owen due to his still considerable power in the EA community (that he indicates he intends to cling onto), so there is an imbalance in the comments. Secondly, people like Owen and his writing, and face cognitive dissonance in contemplating that he might be a bad guy, so there is an imbalance in the votes (e.g. between this post and the one from the EVF board). Understandable though this may be, it could have a chilling effect on those who have their own cases of sexual assault to report. I realise that we are a community who prize ourselves on thinking about the big issues, and striving to do the most good. But here I worry about our ability to handle the basics. For me, it’s a matter of decency—we should make righteous whistleblowers feel comfortable, rather than backing powerful members of own tribe.