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

Post by watwut » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 9:42 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #219

watwut wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to get favors for own company or industry is not the same as fighting the administration. That is just dping what Trump loves when you do.

> Trying to get favors for own company or industry is not the same as fighting the administration. Why would a company "fight the administration"? That sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy.

Post by wiether » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 9:54 AM UTC

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.

Post by refurb » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 12:50 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #221

refurb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying to get favors for own company or industry is not the same as fighting the administration. Why would a company "fight the administration"? That sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy.

Take it to the person who claimed their CEO is doing that fight. My argument was that their CEO is not fighting anything. > Why would a company "fight the administration"? That sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. Just for the record, I agree that this administration is abusing power right and left. And also that it reflects very badly on those who support it or defend it.

Post by square_usual » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 1:19 PM UTC

pdfernhout wrote: post #204

square_usual wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the one remaining possible check - a literal Supreme Court order - has also been ignored.

In theory, a general strike is always one more check on political power: "What would a general strike in the US actually look like?" https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/04/what-would-general-str... "Calls for a general strike in the US are growing. It's important to understand how to organize one, given their key role in overcoming tyrants around the world." Also from there: "Calls for mass disruptive action are comin…

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 1:58 PM UTC

ricksunny wrote: post #104

rahimnathwani wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The options you have: A) disagree and commit B) disagree and wait to be fired C) appear to commit, but secretly subvert your (elected) boss's plans/intentions I use the word 'boss' here because the president has the right to hire and fire for this role: SEC. 5. 42 U.S.C. 1864 (a) The Director of the Foundation (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Director’’) shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and…

Fun fact: Exactly the stipulation behind this excerpt, whether the President can hire/fire the head of the NSF, is exactly why Truman had vetoed an earlier version of the NSF bill written under the close influence of Vannevar Bush that actively avoided providing for this extent of executive ‘weighing of the scales’ of science. Source: Bush, V. “Pieces of the Action”, 1970