I disagree. Or at least I think the reasons in this post are not very good reasons for Bostrom to step down (it is plausible to me he could pursue more impactful plans somewhere else, potentially by starting a new research institution with less institutional baggage and less interference by the University of Oxford).

Bostrom is as far as I can tell the primary reason why FHI is a successful and truth-oriented research organization. Making a trustworthy research institution is exceptionally difficult, and its success is not primarily measured in the operational quality of its organization, but in the degree to which it produces important, trustworthy and insightful research. Bostrom has succeeded at this, and the group of people (especially the early FHI cast including Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Andrew Snyder Beattie, Owain Evans, and Stuart Armstrong) he has assembled under the core FHI research team have made great contributions to many really important questions that I care about, and I cannot think of any other individual who would have been able to do the same (Sean gives a similar perspective in his comment).

I think Bostrom overstretched himself when he let FHI grow to dozens and hundreds of people, and this seems to me like it was a mistake, and leaned too hard on skills that are hard to combine with intellectual integrity and vision, and skills that Bostrom otherwise does not seem exceptionally strong at (like navigating university politics and facilitating operational scaling). I do think that aspect of FHI has recently run into a bunch of problems, but at what I think of FHI's core responsibility he has done very exceptional work and I see no suitable replacement for Bostrom at this point.

When I think of the value that FHI has produced for the world it has been in the unabashed exploration of ideas, with great willingness to explore wherever they go, even if this might involve engaging with ideas that are scary, sound crazy and speculative, or are societally taboo. To me, the core value add of FHI has always seemed to me to be one of providing a beacon, and one of the world's best places to work at, for people who want to take ideas seriously and think rigorously about the future. The cultural components to create this kind of environment are very rare, and do not exist almost anywhere else in the world (and for example, IMO very clearly do not exist at GCRI or CSER or CSET or OpenAI or Anthropic or Longview or CLTR). 

I think these are the things to pay attention when evaluating the historical performance of Bostrom's FHI. Not on the basis of the organizations ability to write PR-statements, or scale a large research lab while navigating politically difficult relationships with a 1000 year old university.  Most well-run large research labs with squeaky-clean public image do not answer interesting questions that are crucial to humanity's future, in a way that a a reader can trust is actually driven by the desire to get the right answer, as opposed to pushing some kind of political or intellectual agenda. Indeed, I personally trust people more who don't spend a huge chunk of their energy trying to maintain a completely clean public image. 

For basically any other organization that is not FHI that pursues similar questions, when I read their takes on the macrohistory, or the future of humanity, I usually primarily see attempts to spread some ideology, to gain resources for some interest group, or attempts to build some sphere of influence by telling the right kind of macrohistory. For core FHI work, like "Eternity in Six Hours" (one of the papers that's been most influential on my world view) I see what seems to me genuine interest in figuring out the truth and to answer the big questions, instead of secretly trying to trick me into supporting them, or get me to buy into their ideology, or support their favorite political cause or social movement, or to suspiciously shy away from a conclusion whenever that conclusion would be too hard to defend publicly to people who only want to spend 5 minutes on this question.

It is possible, and would be very sad, that FHI sadly cannot continue being this beacon, both because it scaled too quickly and its cultural magic is therefore no longer there, and because it is too deeply entwined with the University of Oxford, which will smother both its operational capacity and intellectual exploration. 

In that case, I think the right choice is not for Bostrom to leave FHI, but for FHI to shut down. FHI is responsible for many of the best intellectual contributions for exploring the future of humanity, and I think before we do something that would substantially sabotage that legacy, it would be better to close down in a structured manner. I think it would be bad to let it fall in the hands of someone interested in making FHI into just another talent funnel, or another machine for producing prestige for Effective Altruism or AI Alignment or the people running FHI, while using up the credibility and intellectual integrity of Bostrom and many other core researchers who have created one of the highest integrity research institutions in the world. 

I don't know enough details about the FHI situation to have a strong judgement on whether Bostrom should stay and try to right the ship, or shut FHI down, but I think asking Bostrom to step down because of controversies belies the value that FHI most provides for the world. 

I do think it is plausible that we should consider FHI a lesson on why getting too involved with risk-averse institutions will ultimately bite us, and we should be more hesitant to embed ourselves deeply into institutions like Oxford university. If indeed FHI is irrevocably tied to Oxford, and Oxford is unlikely to give FHI the operational and intellectual independence it needs, then I strongly encourage Bostrom to close down FHI, and to start something new with more independence, less need for both difficult PR work, and less need for navigating messy university politics. 

It's also possible to me that Sean's proposal of finding a co-director to run FHI with might be the best choice, and might allow Bostrom to focus more on producing great research, and run a somewhat larger organization at the same time, though of course and finding such a co-director is also very difficult (though does seem easier than finding someone to lead the institution fully on their own).

But the Apology […] reused the original racial slur[…]

Where? You mean in the 26-year-old email that he quoted in the apology? If so, the above claim seems unfair and deceptive.

(context: worked at FHI for 2 years, no longer affiliated with it but still in touch with some people who are)

I'd probably frame/emphasize things a bit differently myself but agree with the general thrust of this, and think it'd be both overdue and in everyone's interest.

The obvious lack of vetting of the apology was pretty disqualifying w.r.t. judgment for someone in such a prominent institutional and community position, even before getting to the content (on which I've commented  elsewhere). 

I'd add, re: pre-existing issues, that FHI as an institution has failed at doing super basic things like at least semi-regularly updating key components of their website*; the org's shortcomings re: diversity have been obvious from the beginning and the apology was the last nail in the coffin re: chances for improving on that front as long as he's in charge; and I don't think I know anyone who thinks he adds net positive value as a manager** (vs. as a researcher,  where I agree he has made important contributions, but that could continue without him wasting a critical leadership position, and as a founder, where his work is done). 

*e.g. the news banner thing displays 6 year old news; no publications at all were added to the publication page in all of last year, despite there definitely being several publications; etc.

**Edit: Sean's comment above suggests he maybe thinks Nick added value as a manager during a period that didn't overlap with mine, and I know Sean, so maybe I spoke too strongly here :) unclear if he meant as manager, or founder, or research visionary, or what, though. In any case, I think it is fair to say, from what I know, that many people who have been at FHI don't think he's a super active or effective manager.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I am talking about “genetic” differences not “environmental” differences in this comment. Thanks to titotal for pointing out I wasn’t clear enough. The survey of experts finds that far more experts believe both genetic factors and environmental factors play a role than just environmental factors. I spend the rest of my comment arguing that even if genetic factors play a role, genetic factors are so heavily influenced by environmental factors that we shouldn’t view them as evidence of innate differences in intelligence between races. 

I find the repeated use of the term "discredited" to refer to studies on race and IQ on the forum deeply troubling. Yes, some studies will have flaws, but that means you have conversations about the significance of these flaws and respect that reasonable people can disagree about how best to measure complicated issues. It doesn't mean  you dismiss everyone who agrees with the standard perspectives of experts in an academic field as racist. My favorite thing about this community is the epistemic humility.  We are supposed to be the people who judge studies on their merits, no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel. The more we stray from this value, the less we are able to discover effective solutions to the catastrophic problems facing the world.

 Scott Alexander (a psychiatrist and leading thinker in the rationalist community) tried his best to find surveys of experts in the field that would make the term "discredited" fair, and despite how uncomfortable it made him, he could not. In the best study he found, about four times as many experts agreed with the belief that the OP believes  is discredited than disagreed. There is abundant data that lead poisoning impairs cognition, and that a third of children are victims of lead poisoning. Roughly a third of GiveWell's estimate of the value of preventing malaria comes from long term income gains, implying that malaria often impairs the cognitive development of its victims in both direct and indirect ways. Economic changes have produced the Flynn Effect of IQs typically increasing as countries get richer. People's protection from the economic and medical harms that these studies observe vary widely depending on what country they are born into. Countries happen to have different racial makeups from each other. Family differences in IQ perpetuate themselves because people tend to marry other  people with similar IQs. If there are genetic differences in average IQ between races,  there is no reason to think they wouldn’t go away if unequal access to resources did. I don't view this data as evidence of innate intelligence differences between races, but as a call to arms to work till every child has equal opportunities to live up to their full potential no matter how poor their parents are. 

In his apology statement, Bostrom refused to state an opinion about whether environmental factors influence cognitive development,  whether some races have less access to protection from harmful environmental factors on average, and whether people are more likely to marry people that are more economically similar to themselves. If we think that is grounds for disqualification from a job, how can we use studies to find solutions to these problems? 

I don't know enough about the rest of the problems the author described to have an opinion. I'm just objecting to this specific part.

This post lines up with my outsider perspective on FHI, and it seems to be quite measured. I encourage anyone who thinks that Bostrom is really the best leader for FHI to defend that view here (anonymously, if necessary).

If Bostrom did step down as FHI director, who is likely to replace him? How confident are you that  a new director will succeed in resolving conflicts with the broader philosophy department?

I have very little direct experience with FHI (just a very brief internship) but from the outside it looks like FHI has produced some really amazing research while Bostrom has directed it.

Perhaps a good way to appraise whether FHI has been performing above/below par during Bostrom's directorship is to compare its output to a similar organisation such as Global Priorities Institute. How would you compare the value of work done by FHI versus GPI? I don't know enough to be confident in this, but to me it seems like FHI has generated far more value (not that Bostrom is the only person to thank for this, but it seems like an important piece of evidence).

In any case - the views and oppinions of random users of this forum like me who aren't directly involved with FHI don't mean much, and I don't really see the benefits of raising this question in public on the EA forum.

I think it's beneficial for the community if someone presented a very different view (publicly):

While I don't know enough to comment on the 'pre-existing issues' section of your post, my view is that Bostrom's apology was sufficient.

I think a lot of people might be reacting excessively to mistakes that he made more than two decades ago.

Some words may be considered particularly inappropriate in certain socioeconomic and cultural contexts. However, it's important to recognize that others may be acting and speaking from a different background with different norms and values that one isn't familiar with. Bostrom isn't from the Anglosphere, probably isn't very neurotypical, and grew up as part of another generation.

Furthermore, I'm concerned about contemporary authoritarian trends encouraged by some individuals who identify as social justice activists. While these trends may make the immediate environments of some individuals more pleasant, they can also have consequences (political or otherwise) that could place the world on a riskier trajectory. I think EAs need to reflect on these risks and avoid contributing to them.

3 notes on the discussion in the comments.

1. OP is clearly talking about the last 4 or so years, not FHI in eg 2010 to 2014. So quality of FHI or Bostrom as a manager in that period is not super relevant to the discussion. The skills needed to run a small, new, scrappy, blue-sky-thinking, obscure group are different from a large, prominent, policy-influencing organisation in the media spotlight.

2. The OP is not relitigating the debate over the Apology (which I, like Miles, have discussed elsewhere) but instead is pointing out the practical difficulties of Bostrom staying. Commenters may have different views from the University, some FHI staff, FHI funders and FHI collaborators - that doesn't mean FHI wouldn't struggle to engage these key stakeholders.

3. In the last few weeks the heads of Open Phil and CEA have stepped aside. Before that, the leadership of CSER and 80,000 Hours has changed. There are lots of other examples in EA and beyond. Leadership change is normal and good. While there aren't a huge number of senior staff left at FHI, presumably either Ord or Sandberg could step up (and do fine given administrative help and willingness to delegate) - or someone from outside like Greaves plausibly could be Director.

This post argues that:

• Bostrom's micromanagement has led to FHI having staff retention problems.
• Under his leadership, there have been considerable tensions with Oxford University and a hiring freeze.
• In his racist apology, Bostrom failed to display tact, wisdom and awareness.
• Furthermore, this apology has created a breach between FHI and its closest collaborators and funders.
• Both the mismanagement of staff and the tactless apology caused researchers to renounce. 

While I'd love for FHI staff to comment and add more context, all of this matches my impressions. 

Given this, I stand with the message of the post. Bostrom has been a better researcher than administrator, and it would make sense for him to focus on what he does best. I'd recommend Bostrom and FHI consider having Bostrom step down as director.

Edit: Sean adds a valuable perspective that I highly recommend reading, highlighting Bostrom's contributions to creating a unique research environment. He suggests co-directorship as an alternative to consider to Bostrom stepping down.

1. FHI is dying under Nick Bostrom. It doesn't matter if you think he's done good work as director before. The dispute with the faculty means that either he goes or FHI goes, for all intents and purposes. FHI is down to a handful of people and the university makes it hard for them to hire or renew contracts, de facto sunsetting the organization.

2. That said, this post is sadly perhaps counterproductive, because according to several people Nick might otherwise consider stepping down but in the wake of the apology this has become less likely.

It frustrates me that a lot of the comments appear to be based on "vibes". This is not a referendum on the apology nor about whether you generally like the work FHI has produced.

No matter whether he was the only person who could have led FHI so well before, at this point he should step down before FHI goes completely defunct. I don't think it would make him look bad to step down. I think it looks bad for him to stay at the expense of FHI. There is not another place like FHI in the world, and it would be really bad for it to shut down, or even for it to hobble along as a shell of its former self.

I agreed with you a few months ago; it does seem like FHI has suffered significant mismanagement, though as Sean suggests maybe a strong co-director would work also.

However, after recent events I think the case for him staying on is actually stronger, because it is important to set a precedent that we support people genuinely thinking for themselves and do not give in to bullying. I don't see how we can hope to build an inclusive community of original thinkers if everyone has a Sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing they might be denounced and fired if that became politically expedient. For more details on this I recommend Cinera's excellent post.

I also think you have significantly overstated your case in various places. For example, while CEA did condemn him, their statement was widely criticized and they ended up issuing a partial apology for it. You mention funding, but don't provide any evidence this will prevent FHI from fundraising; any funder that wants to promote a diverse and inclusive group of intellectuals producing novel work will have to accept that they will sometimes strongly disagree with grantees. Similarly, freedom of speech is a major concern for the english government right now, and it is currently passing a law to help combat cancel culture and defend academic freedom against pressure from university administrators. 

Finally, I'm not sure what you're referring to by 'discredited race science'. As I discussed with Habiba, Bostrom's views are not very different from those of scientifically informed leading anti-racism campaigners. They simply use slightly different wording.

Combining these two views, I think the best approach might be for him to step down or take on a strong co-director after a sufficiently long period has passed to make it clear he wasn't just giving in to pressure.

I repeat here my previous post supporting Bostrom, and his apology:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/r3f45au7ewEkypygf/wokism-rethinking-priorities-and-the-bostrom-case

He is a simply one of the best philosophers of our time, and the main founder or longtermism. The comment in the original mail list was a modest misstep by a person without special responsibilities at the time, and his apology in 2023 has been entirely appropriate.

The racial IQ gap is an observational fact, and he is not an expert on its determinants, so he shall not take a position on a scientific issue that lays beyond his academic authority.

Peter Wildeford wrote a personal post criticizing the Apology

I want to flat that this link goes to a post written by Shakeel Hashim in his role managing communications for CEA, not a personal post by Peter Wildeford. Could you please either update this link or change the wording?

"This post is anonymised because I don't want to have to deal with the interpersonal consequences of the beliefs I hold; I don't want people knowing that I hold my beliefs, and would rather trick people into associating with me in ways they might not if they actually knew my true stance."

The endless nothingburger scandals in EA are driving me out of my mind. Please just do effective interventions instead of community debating.

I'm this close to never using the term "EA" to refer to myself again despite the fact that I'm going to be shooting for the goal "Do the most good per resource unit" because of this.

In the very useful and interesting comments before this one, there is much discussion of administrative issues and other specific matters which relate to the success or otherwise of the FHI. I offer no view on any of that. Instead, I wish to say that Bostrom, and by extension the FHI, has been far more seriously damaged by both his 1996 comments and his 2023 apology than some of the comments here disagreeing with the view of the OP recognise. As an adult and a scholar well into his 20s, Bostrum "liked" and thought true the sentence; "blacks are more stupid than whites". It is not possible to deconstruct these words in a way which makes them publicly benign. His apology this year contains disastrous caveats which reflect ambiguity on his part on matters of race and IQ, and even eugenics. The fact that some commenters here have sought (genuinely benignly) to contextualise his ambiguity by referring to authors such as Rindermann and Snyderman illustrates the thin-ness of the ice around the hole Bostrom has fallen (or hurled himself) into. Like some other commenters, I dislike the seemingly ubiquitous "discredited" epithet often used to refer to science which is potentially unpalatable to the wider public. It is also true that geneticists, for example, invariably finesse the word "eugenics" to refer only to pre-war atrocities in order to protect their present work from harm; it is of course perfectly legitimate to consider some lines of contemporary genetics research as essentially eugenic in nature (see Agar, for example). I imagine this is Bostrum's view, too. But the simple fact is that all serious scientists understand the need to be extraordinarily careful around issues of race and biology; those who chose to focus on or even be ambiguous about that area, like Rindermann and Snyderman, and indeed their associate Richard Lynn, are usually very open about the highly controversial nature of their personal opinions and choose a marginalised academic life. Bostrum's foray into these areas in his apology, along with the absurdly ill-advised opening sentences, conveyed the strong impression both that he did not feel the need to make a heartfelt apology and that he thought he could deal with the story by making a reluctant sort-of-apology. These would be serious offences for any senior scholar, but Bostrom trades in large part on his understanding of the future needs of humanity. If his understanding of humanity is suspected by people to contain a hint of what most people would consider racism, then his thinking cannot be applied to anything. Since he regards himself as an applied thinker, his work is therefore potentially over. I appreciate that some commenters here might consider that an overstatement, and of course it may turn out to be. But a glance at the US context will reveal, I think, that no-one beyond over enthusiastic tech titans will touch Bostrom with a bargepole now. There can be no doubt that he will have to step down as FHI leader, and he will continue to harm FHI if he remains there at all. He will, indeed, continue to harm Oxford if he remains a tenured professor; and so I think he will likely have to resign from that too. He might have recourse to a new appointment elsewhere in a few years, but that would require a great deal of work on his part which I am far from convinced he is psychologically capable of. The OP is therefore,  in my opinion, absolutely right. The FHI is in trouble and Bostrom's association with it now could feasibly sink it in its current form. 

This post is anonymised to avoid interpersonal drama, not because I’m worried about any career blowback.

Can you clarify what you mean by "interpersonal drama" here? 

There have been so many posts on this already - and, oh, here's another one - seeing the Apology part makes up most of the post. Here's an opinion from outside: the Apology is not anywhere close to being this serious of an issue it is presented. I'll say more: many people would even argue the original post Bostrom issued the apology for wasn't particularly bad. Because many people worldwide may well hold views that here are seen as abhorrent. I'm not sure this holier than thou attitude on the forum is all that beneficial.

Im happy Oxford might be taking this seriously. The EA community needs to take a way stronger stance against racism.