Why I care so much about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in EA

I tick 2.5 of the DEI boxes you’ve identified, and I found this post quite off-putting. It’s hard for me to evaluate the examples as the box you’ve reasonably chosen to focus on I don’t tick, but the anecdote about your experience on the plane I found quite alarming. You say “I get it”, but I don’t get it. Airport security is overly stringent, and I’d be very surprised if I’d react that way in similar circumstances. Should I be offended that you think it’s representative of the average white person’s feelings? So I wonder if you might be projecting your own biases onto other white people/men/etc.

I'm going to respond to the individual incidents you describe, because I think some interesting patterns will emergy here.

I brought my significant other (SO) to an EA party and another guest kept on commenting awkwardly and rudely on the height difference between my SO and I

That sounds mildly annoying. I'm sorry it happened. A reasonable response would be to move to a different group of people. An unreasonable overreaction would be to read it as indicating something sinister about EA, and describe it in a DEI discussion with the implication that this person engaged in some kind of terrible ism. Is Heightism even a thing?

In another of my encounters with EA, another EA asked where a non-EA PoC (also present) was from. When the EA was told “Sweden” (which was true, birth, citizenship and fluency in Swedish) the EA pressed on wanting to know where the PoC was really from

Again, this sounds annoying and I'm sorry it happened. I can imagine a curious person with low social skills (know any of those in EA?) thinking this was an interesting point to press on, but I can also understand why the PoC would be unhappy about this line of questioning, and I would not blame the PoC at all for disengaging and thinking less of the questioner. But I have trouble seeing it as indicative of a big dramatic problem of racism in EA.

At the only EAG I attended, and to almost the first PoC I talked to there, I was told this EA PoC was during one of the first EA events they attended asked by another EA where they came from and this EA PoC subsequently had a very rough "onboarding" into EA in large parts due to this incident

I'm getting this after 3 links in a game of telephone, so there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened here, but, um, asking someone where they are from seems like a normal way to try to get to know a new person. I'm not seeing the problem here. Is that a question we are only allowed to ask white people now?

EAF posts on eugenics (e.g. posts like this by white people on eugenics in poor, non-white countries)

Your link leads to a discussion of modern technologies very different from traditional eugenics, and the connections between genes and intelligence and what that implies for doing good, which seems like a reasonable topic to discuss in EA. And your suggestion that the author's race (and I'm not sure how you even know the author's race) is relevant seems pretty racist to me.

Of course all the Bostrom emails, inappropriate sexual behavior and what not

One bad email 25 years ago, before there even was EA, and for which he appologized, should be a non-story.

In terms of your introductory story of your presumably non-white friend being threatened with a shotgun on a stranger's private property, you stopped right before the most important part. Did you in fact go ask this person for water as your friend suggested? If so, how did this person respond? Did they threaten you with the shotgun, or give you water, or what? Just from what you've said, the suggestion that race was a factor seems unwarranted. Lots of people, particularly the sort who live in the middle of nowhere, love their property and their guns and will point their guns at any strangers on their property regardless of race, and view it as their right to do so. I believe you and your friend were in a difficult situation and that your friend was reasonably very scared from the encounter, and I am sorry about that. But your friend's apparent belief that race was a factor is not evidence that race actually was a factor. You have presented no other evidence that race was a factor. And telling stories like this, without evidence, just perpetuates unjustified racial fears of exactly the kind your friend experienced.

In terms of your own story of your experience sitting next to an arab man on a plane, I don't particularly blame you for having those thoughts, we all have irrational thoughts sometimes, though I hope some of your language ("flod of adrenaline", "grips of panic", etc) was an exageration for dramatic effect. I see that you noticed that you were having an emotional reaction, you took a step back and asked whether the objective facts justified your fear, you rightly concluded that they did not, and therefor you rightly chose to take no action. Congratulations, this is how a mature adult handles a random irrational thought and corresponding emotion. What baffles me is that you found this experience significant enough to remember and retell. You never quite articulate why, or what you think it says, but I take your retelling as implying that you see yourself as somehow racist for having the thought and the emotion, and to me that just does not follow at all. Nothing seems to have actually happened, so this should not be a big deal. Viewing it in the context of what else I know about you, which is thatt you see basically all social interactions in terms of the races of the people involved, that you see your own whiteness as important to how you interact in the world, I have to wonder if you would have had a strong reaction here if you stopped looking at the world in terms of race, if you stopped thinking of your whiteness as important. I suspect it is your own habbit of thinking about race that made race so salient to you in that moment.

So after going through 7 stories that you present, the only clear racism that I can find is in your description of another writer here on the forum. What I see is a lot of things that are either everyday annoyances of someone being a jerk, or not actually connected with race in any apparent way, or both. It seems that you have chosen to view these events through a DEI lens and place a sinister interpretation on them, when there was no need to do so. And this is at least consistent with the DEI trainings that I have seen in a corporate setting. Those trainings were composed primarily of stories of someone being a jerk to a person who happened to be a woman or a PoC, and then telling us that what we saw was sexism or racism. And that is actually a terrible way to interpret the world! People are actually jerks to each other in minor ways all the time! With people of every race and every gender on every side of that jerkiness! And in most cases, it is both more accurate and more useful to interpret it as a random jerk, and not as being related to race or sex.

The other thing that baffles me is your claim that in other environments you inhabit, your job and non-EA social circles, you don't see these things. Has nobody every been annoyed by anybody else being insensitive at your job or in your other social circles? If so, that is absolutely amazing and we should send in a team of social scientists to try to discover what is going on and see if we can replicate it. What I suspect is actually happening is that you haven't been given a narrative, an expectation, that people will be racist or sexist in those environments, and so when you do see someone being a jerk, you correctly interpret it as just someone being a jerk, you do not interpret it through a DEI lense. By contrast, you have been hearing stories of terrible racism and sexism in EA for years, and so when you see someone being a jerk in an EA space, you do interpret it through a DEI lense. I think the difference you see between the different spaces you inhabit is a difference in what lenses you choose to interpret what you see though, and not a difference in the world. I suggest you consider making different choices about lenses.

Nice post and I agree that we should avoid saying things that might make people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable based on characteristics.

One thing that I bristle at a bit is that I think the exclusion that offhand comments or controversial posts cause is probably dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the exclusion caused by material considerations that prevent minorities (as well as the vast majorities of whites) from being able to contribute to the same degree in EA. If you look around at people at an EAG, you can pretty safely bet that they are not only in college/college educated, but that their parents were as well. They probably have savings, either personally, or through family that they can rely on, to be able to take risks for their personal ambitions, which in the case of EAS, are often choices that enable them to better the world. It kills me when I listen to podcasts and audiobooks that note that mornings are often the most important parts of the day, yet I, and the vast majority of people must direct most of our most productive time in a day to a job that is not impactful rather than the projects that we think can profoundly better the world. 

I realize that maybe this is a  less tractable issue than make EAs do less microaggressions/controversial and offensive posts. But I think the EA community is grossly negligent with regard to what may be its most valuable resource... EAs. Maybe another amnesty post will be about considering people as agents and people as patients... I think the people I'm talking about - low and middle income people in rich and middle income countries, a lot in lower income countries - basically everyone not in the top global 0.5% , are mostly not good targets as moral patients. The very poorest people, farmed animals, and future people are probably much more fruitful targets for direct utility increases. But if these people are committed to using their minds and effort as EAs do, many of them may be excellent targets as agents. This point probably applies with even greater force to people in middle and low-income countries who are disproportionately likely to be POC.

Anyways, apologies for the digressive response. I should probably just write the full amnesty post on the subject with the time I do not have because I have a full-time non-EA job and run a nonprofit.

If you downvote (no offense taken!) can you please indicate why by voting in my sub comments to this comment? I am asking as I know there is cancel culture and I can definitely understand if people do not want to be publicly saying something strongly negative about this post. I think having a general idea why people react negatively is helpful for the larger community.

You call "whiteness in EA" an "issue." You say that being asked to get to the EA part of your point "by men and white folks is widespread in EA. And it makes [your] blood boil." You consider my post on the EA forum to be a bad experience, saying you are disappointed in "posts like this by white people on eugenics in poor, non-white countries." 

The entire purpose of my post was to provide a plan to uplift the poor of the world, something every EA advocates for. I did so in a respectful manner, and I did not attack any race or say anything hateful whatsoever. Did you read it? I tried to argue my case in an extremely non-inflammatory manner citing a huge number of studies. Now it's at -26 karma. You criticize me explicitly for my race. You make it a salient aspect of my argument when it is not relevant whatsoever and I'm being penalized for it. You also just assumed I'm white. Based on what? My picture? My name? Would you find me more reasonable or moral if I was a different race? If not, then why does it matter. If so, then how is this not racist/biased?

You on the other hand are especially disgusted bothered by things that white people do by your own admission. You are especially concerned when white folks do something or post something. Also, you consider whiteness a problem. 

This is a disappointing trend in EA that will drive out interesting thinking. Do you want more data analysis or anecdotes and appeals to emotion? Do we want to be trying to find the most effective ways to maximize human welfare (for all races) or do we want to be engaging in identity politics where non-white opinions and welfare are less important?

Executive summary: The author is passionate about promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the effective altruism (EA) community due to personal experiences and a conviction that marginalized groups should feel welcome and included in the movement.

Key points:

1. The author provides personal anecdotes highlighting their lived experiences and exposure to marginalized groups, shaping their high expectations for inclusive behavior.
2. The author expresses embarrassment and fear of bringing close friends and family from diverse backgrounds to EA events due to observed insensitive and discriminatory behavior from some community members.
3. The author aims to work towards improving DEI in EA to create a sense of belonging for themselves and those they care about, even if it means overstepping boundaries or ruffling feathers.
4. While acknowledging personal biases and potential lack of statistical significance, the author emphasizes that DEI is a personal and emotional issue, not just a political campaign.
5. The author suggests potentially great value in making EA more welcoming to underrepresented groups for tapping into a larger global talent pool.
6. The author recommends properly compensating marginalized groups taking the lead on DEI work in EA to avoid unfair burden on them.

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Thanks for the post, I definitely agree with the importance of DEI. 

I wonder to what extent the issue comes from individual ignorance (asking "where are you from" once is fine, but do not reject an answer and ask again), and to what extent it comes from ideology. There are a sizeable contingent of people with anti-social justice beliefs, who have a natural inclination to be dismissive of sexism and racism concerns. And as you noted, it only takes 1 or 2 bad experiences for someone to feel unwelcome in a place and leave, so even if 90% of the people are committed to DEI, will it have that much of an impact if the others are anti-woke crusaders? 

Appreciate the post, and I see this very valuable to raise, as I have similar thoughts, but didn't see many posts discussing/raising this. One of my worries is that without awareness and perspective from different groups, we will make decisions that are biased by human nature (not by intention), and would probably also effect prioritization decisions. I have also encountered situations from related community where they have mentioned "rape is a side effect of erotic excitement, and so probably should not work towards getting rid of it because that means getting rid of erotic excitement", which again may not be intentional, but poorly aware/educated. 

Thanks for writing this, Ulrik. I also want to see better inclusiveness within EA, so we have something in common. 😂

My general way of learning about an area involves a lot of exploratory learning, so I've been doing some reading and having conversations with EAs about inclusion/feeling welcome in the EA community during the past year or so. I don't have any particularly amazing discoveries yet, but I'll keep my eyes open. I'm glad to see that some other people are also paying attention to these kinds of issues.

Thanks for publishing this take, it was interesting to read!
What do you think are the main differences from the EA community to your work environment in Bristol? Can't be the level of education, EA rates pretty high on that. 
And do you have any ideas what single groups could do to tackle this issue? So not necessarily "the community" at large, but a group that wants to change the way they act?