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.
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.