PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023

To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "

It's literally not illegal. Me telling my friends they should apply to some job is not illegal.

> DEI is at its heart a type of discrimination. You might argue that the end justifies the means, but if intermediate step is that a person gets different treatment depending on their sex or skin colour, then it is discrimination.

The purpose of DEI is to rectify the discrimination that is already present. It isn't as though we live in a discrimination-free world and then DEI arrived on the scene and suddenly started creating discrimination. Rather, the opposite is true. There is rampant discrimination on the basis of race, gender and other characteristics across society. DEI is an attempt to fix that. Like all human endeavours, it is not perfect, and some organizations did it better than others.

You state that you were in a situation where you were denied opportunities due to your sex. This experience is entirely commonplace for women, particularly women who are in male-dominated fields. You say what happened to you wasn't okay, so I have to assume you also believe it isn't okay that it happens to women every day. You don't think DEI is the solution - so what solution do you propose?

Some people are disadvantaged and some are not.

There's no St. Jude's Non-Cancer Cancer Research because that would be fucking stupid. Similarly, there is no "coding for white guys". Well, there is, we just call that the entire industry.

Source: I am a white man living in America.

> In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them?

Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior.

> conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry

First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views.

They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology.

At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist.

That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.