To be clear, you do not believe that the Rust Leadership should make it clear how they came to this decision such that any speculation of other reasons can be put to bed?

The fact that it’s open to speculation is the exact reason they need to address it. Just ignoring it at this point doesn’t seem like a good idea, does it?

How do you define "reason to suspect"? E.g. what separates the actions that would result from your position from the actions that would result from a position of "there's nothing wrong with racism as long as it's not said aloud"? Established behavioral patterns? Less than that? More?

If the one black guy in the entire convention had his talk downgraded through back-channel means, I would suspect race had to do with it (if only obliquely, in that often black peoples actions are often received in much less good faith than other races). If it was actually just general leadership incompetence I think that would be important to highlight. It’s super weird when the only black guy gets sus behavior, but it’s less weird if leadership has been sus for a while and it just happened to drive off the one black guy.

There is reason to suspect race is a factor: the facts of who was disinvited and how they were treated. There is also reason (the word “uncomfortable” in JT’s post) to suspect people are weaponizing DEI language and sensitivities as an “I win” button to boot the speaker, which ironically is having the opposite effect than what DEI initiatives generally intend.

I vehemently disagree. The possible motives of those in power should always be looked at with a microscope, unless they give us comprehensive reasons as to the decisions they made. Your perspective, while well intentioned, is exactly the sort that drives implicit bias and a disregard for minority considerations or reasoning that the decision makers don't personally relate to.