Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 259 posts

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#141

Post by KerrAvon »

hedora wrote: post #54
jajko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Brexit Brits got exactly what was promised, they just didn't realize what that promise actually meant and very few are happy about it these days. This is next level of "I'll deliver anyway, I know what you wanted" while fucking it up spectacularly. If only all of our pensions wouldn't be now siphoned to those few with advanced government access I would be laughing a bit more.

The market’s down what, 10-20%? The dollar’s down 10%. 20-30% of average 401k’s have already been siphoned, and we haven’t even seen the impact of the tariffs or elimination of social security yet.

Could be even worse even quicker. The big box CEOs just told Trump that we're two weeks from empty store shelves for at least some things. Welcome to the USSR, don't forget to tithe to the Republican party on your way to the toilet paper line.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#142

Post by tehjoker »

pseudalopex wrote: post #121
tehjoker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resigning sends a signal to the people under you and outside the organization that fighting back is ok. Staying sends the message that things are ok enough.

Resigning sends a message fighting back is futile. A praising and grateful resignation letter sends a message things are OK. Staying sends different messages depending on words and actions.

Don't praise them in the resignation letter. Say something sharp and critical.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#143

Post by timschmidt »

jltsiren wrote: post #134
timschmidt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, if academics wanted to work on topics mandated by somebody else, they would go work in industry for that somebody, and earn much more money than they earn right now. Very few academics become principle investigators. Most every academic who's not a PI is working on something for that PI.

The vast majority of those working for a PI are students and postdocs, which are inherently trainee positions. Though, depending on the field and the PI, trainees may also have plenty of freedom to work on their own topics. If you want an actual career in the academia, the main options are becoming a PI or choosing a teaching-focused position. There are some staff scientists and similar, but such positions are rarer…

> postdocs

> inherently trainee positions

Do we live on the same planet? I understand that the point of being an academic is to always be learning, but there's no place on earth I know of that thinks of someone with a PhD as a trainee.

> the main options are becoming a PI or choosing a teaching-focused position. There are some staff scientists and similar, but such positions are rarer than tenured professors.

Implying that one gets a choice is bold. My understanding is that there's a job for about 1 in 10 postdocs in academia these days.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#144

Post by flkfsjklfdslkj »

sathackr wrote: post #4

One thing I don't understand is people resigning on principles. If something bad is happening to an organization that I hold a significant amount of clout and power in, I'm not just going to leave and hand the reigns to someone on 'their side' -- I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. So many people are just leaving...instead of fighting. Which seems like it's going to have the effect of j…

Honest question - have you ever worked somewhere where people above you in the food chain have made decisions you consider bad or unacceptable?

If not, it may not be clear that those above you are ultimately going to win any disagreement. If you can't change their mind, there really isn't anything you can do, except limit any damage to your repuation for your next role (ie, leave before the s*it hits the fan).

The other effect, explained so well in the short book "The Power of the Powerless", is that the idea of using your increasing clout and power as you rise through an organisation to make changes for the better is largely a fallacy. Paradoxically, the higher up you go, the less freedom you have to use that clout and power.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#145

Post by pixelpoet »

nandomrumber wrote: post #140
soared wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there is one more check, one more not so proverbial bullet in a gun.

[flagged]

If this isn't the tyrannical government (disappearing people, destroying public services even the Dept of Education, deliberately dismantling checks and balances, ...) the 2A was specifically created for, then what would be? And if the 2A isn't about countering tyrannical government, what IS it for?

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#146

Post by flkfsjklfdslkj »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #120
sathackr wrote: post #4

One thing I don't understand is people resigning on principles. If something bad is happening to an organization that I hold a significant amount of clout and power in, I'm not just going to leave and hand the reigns to someone on 'their side' -- I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. So many people are just leaving...instead of fighting. Which seems like it's going to have the effect of j…

You're getting a lot of pushback, but this resonates with me. I guess I have a hard time understanding the value in a "noble departure" rather than just going down swinging. If a shark was eating me, I wouldn't say "welp I'm boned, better just resign from life". I'd punch the shark, until that shark had to fire me from life. Maybe from a PR perspective its somehow better? Idk, I don't see it.

If a shark was eating me, and I have the choice at almost any time to immediately vacate the vicinity of the shark, I'm probably going to just leave. I've had jobs, early in my career, where I figuratively punched the shark instead. The shark won.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#147

Post by ziddoap »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #122
ziddoap wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. Can you give me some examples of how you would fight? Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?

If you're in a hierarchical structure and someone higher up gives you an ultimatum, your choices are: comply, resist and face consequences, or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it. None of those are cost-free. "Fighting" isn't about magic moves that keep everything safe. It's about choosing when and how to accept the risks. Expecting a fight with no threat to your position is cowardice disguised as pragm…

>or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it.

I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive, incremental ways to undermine it" would be.

You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF director could have done that are subversive, incremental ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the president?

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#148

Post by wavefunction »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #131
lesuorac wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it disagree and commit? NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a problem for the president not you. Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent the president from corruption, how are you going to do…

Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control, as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all officers of then government

The Judicial Branch is supposed to provide oversight over the Executive and Legislative Branch.

Re: NSF director to resign amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy

#149

Post by ziddoap »

tobias3 wrote: post #137
ziddoap wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. Can you give me some examples of how you would fight? Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?

Don't do it. Perhaps obfuscate and delay as much as possible that you are not actually doing it. Perhaps get fired. Then go to court for wrongful termination (this would depend on the order being unlawful)?

You can't "not do" getting a budget cut. They just give you less money.

I'm also not sure how to just... not fire people. Sure, you can delay it a week or two. Okay. Then what? Get fired for non-compliance? That seems about as effective of a tactic as quitting is.

Post reply on HN