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

PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

pyfound.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 886 posts

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#181

Post by f33d5173 »

bakugo wrote: post #51
f33d5173 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Or" means at least one of multiple alternatives. Alteratives contrast with each other, they differ. Of course, the original author could be repeating the same thing for emphasis, but more likely they are saying two different things. Since the second thing is discrimination, the first thing, "DEI", must necessarily not be discrimination. If they merely wanted you to not discriminate, they could have just said "follow…

They are saying the same thing twice. They repeat themselves specifically because certain groups hold a strong belief that "discrimination" only goes one-way, and have effectively twisted the meaning of the word in their minds. The explicit mention of DEI is a way of saying "yes, that means ALL kinds of discrimination, including the kinds you may believe are morally correct".

That may be what they mean, but it is a sufficiently dubious interpretation that one can't reasonably use it to obtain the funding unless clarification is provided by the administration.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#182

Post by burkaman »

XCabbage wrote: post #179
burkaman wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was the clause included if it's completely redundant? PSF's decision is based on the government's demonstrated track record of what they consider to be "illegal DEI", not what the law actually says. Grant cancellations have been primarily based on a list of banned words ( https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/nsf-has-canceled-more-1500-... ), and of course nobody involved with any of the thousands of cancelled grants…

> Why was the clause included if it's completely redundant? It's not and I didn't suggest it was. It gives the NSF itself the ability to litigate discrimination by grantees (in order to claw back its funds) instead of only the people discriminated against and the EEOC being able to do that. That's a real effect! But it doesn't impose any new obligations whatsoever on PSF - just changes the recourse mechanism if PSF v…

I don't know if they've attempted to claw back any NSF grants yet, but they have done this with EPA grants. There was no lawsuit, they just ordered banks to freeze the funds and the banks complied: https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-green-bank-recipients-lo...

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

#183

Post by worik »

dang wrote: post #310

[stub for offtopicness / flamewarness / guideline-breakingness] (this is a rough cut - I know there are other posts left in the thread that arguably belong here, but this time I'm in a bit of a rush) (please, everyone, you can make substantive points thoughtfully but do so within the guardrails at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - avoid the generic-indignant-flamey-snarky-namecalley-hardcore-battley…

[flagged]

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

#184

Post by worik »

zo1 wrote: post #45
rectang wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-DEI forces, once in power, turn out not to favor putative “diversity of opinion” after all.

[flagged]

> Playing nice seemed to not work for White people because they are systemically discriminated against in almost every Western and non-Western countr

What utter ignorance of the prevailing social conditions in the West

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

#185

Post by worik »

ipaddr wrote: post #73
etchalon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pro-skin-diversity is a real weird way to say "against racism."

They are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race. We can debate whether doing this rights historical wrongs but we can't pretend it is not racist to treat different people of different skin colors differently.

> They are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race.

"Racism" means the oppression of one group because of race.

In an historically racist society (writing this in New Zealand) righting those historical wrongs involves some treating "...one group different from others based on race."

It is bad enough here, and it continues here explicitly by the current government (indigenous people just lost a bunch of property rights because they were indigenous, blatant, official, statutory racism), but according to people I respect in the USA it is considerably worse there.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

takluyver wrote: post #101
politician wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirement that grantees not violate existing laws is common in Federal grants. Taking umbrage with the DEI coloration on this entirely reasonable and standard requirement is absurd. There could be a long laundry list of such clauses that all have equally zero weight ("don't promote illegal drug trafficking", "don't promote illegal insider trading", ...).

If it has zero weight, why would the grant agreement specifically highlight it? I would guess it's much easier to enforce a particular interpretation of the law via a grant agreement than having to argue it in court.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by tasuki »

zo1 wrote: post #45
rectang wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-DEI forces, once in power, turn out not to favor putative “diversity of opinion” after all.

[flagged]

> Playing nice seemed to not work for White people because they are systemically discriminated against in almost every Western and non-Western country.

I'm white and not discriminated against in my Western-adjacent country (Czech Republic) and think most of Europe is the same.

I see race-based politics as primarily a US thing: both the militant "diversity advocates" and the white supremacists. From my point of view over the ocean they are quite similar: putting importance of skin colour over other things.

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

#188

Post by ipaddr »

worik wrote: post #185
ipaddr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race. We can debate whether doing this rights historical wrongs but we can't pretend it is not racist to treat different people of different skin colors differently.

> They are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race. "Racism" means the oppression of one group because of race. In an historically racist society (writing this in New Zealand) righting those historical wrongs involves some treating "...one group different from others based on race." It is bad enough here, and it continues here explicitly by the current government (indigenous people just lost a…

Are you talking about:

"ACT New Zealand party, a junior partner in the governing centre-right coalition government, last week unveiled the bill, which it had promised during last year’s election, arguing that those rights should also apply to non-Indigenous citizens."

How does grant others the same rights turn into racism. Shouldn't everyone have those rights including groups that are bigger minorites in New Zealand like blacks of Indians from India?

When we single out groups for special treatment we exclude others who might need it more but who's voices are softer.

It might be worse in the US compared to New Zealand but compared to most of the rest of the world: Middle East, India, Africa, Europe, Russia, China, Korea the US is the least racist place but also has the biggest anti-racism industry which makes their voiced louder.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

djoldman wrote: post #26

> These terms included affirming the statement that we “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws .” (Emphasis mine) I'm curious if any lawyer folks could weigh in as to whether this language means that the entire sentence requires the mentioned programs t…

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by XCabbage »

burkaman wrote: post #182
XCabbage wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why was the clause included if it's completely redundant? It's not and I didn't suggest it was. It gives the NSF itself the ability to litigate discrimination by grantees (in order to claw back its funds) instead of only the people discriminated against and the EEOC being able to do that. That's a real effect! But it doesn't impose any new obligations whatsoever on PSF - just changes the recourse mechanism if PSF v…

I don't know if they've attempted to claw back any NSF grants yet, but they have done this with EPA grants. There was no lawsuit, they just ordered banks to freeze the funds and the banks complied: https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-green-bank-recipients-lo...

Hmm. That'd be pretty nasty to be on the receiving end of (and may well have been an outrageous abuse of executive power), but still, an administrative freeze is temporary and is not in itself a clawback. Even if it was a certainty this would happen to PSF, it would still be worth it for $1.5 million!
Post reply on HN