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PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program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

501–510 of 886 posts

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#501

Post by FloorEgg »

epistasis wrote: post #484
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how DEI should work, and probably does in some, or maybe many, cases. In other cases, it boiled down to "this quarter, we only have headcount for 'diverse' candidates", metrics for DEI hiring that turn into goals, and e-mails stating "only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically underrepresented groups". I expect that I'll get accused of making this up, which is why the latter is an exact quote sh…

> "this quarter, we only have headcount for 'diverse' candidates", Such a statement from those with hiring authority is highly illegal. Any HR department that would let this message be delivered, either explicitly or implicitly, would open the company to massive lawsuits, such as the one you linked to. It's as bad as allowing sexual harassment. Linking the term DEI to illegal hiring practices is like linking having a…

I don't think that's quite fair, as in many cases there were federal regulations that pressured industries into behavior that was discriminatory to one group in order to favor others. In fact there was an accumulation of contradictory laws and regulations over 15+ years. In many cases regulations were set that had financial repercussions if hiring practices that were considered illegal weren't followed. There is a respectful interpretation of one of the conservative concerns during the election in that the accumulation of regulations made it impossible to conduct business legally and compliant with regulations in some industries.

Personally I'm very much for the goals of DEI and very much against some of the means that were being taken to reach those goals. It's an extremely difficult and complex problem.

I can't help but wonder if the movement had just focused on inclusion and primarily where there is leverage towards future prosperity, if there wouldn't have been such a backlash and the efforts would have been enduring and compounding.

Slipping that "equity" in there is a trap to confuse responsibility with privilege and cause a lot of trouble that is extremely hard to work through. It's the justification for representation-driven hiring and selection (affirmative action), and equity based hiring practices that were both federally mandated AND constitutionally illegal at the same time.

I can't help but suspect it's something like satisfaction, where if you pursue it directly it's fleeting and destructive but if you focus on the inputs you get more of it and it's enduring.

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

#502

Post by analog31 »

belorn wrote: post #397
jkelleyrtp wrote: post #320

In high school, I ran a robotics team that did lots of STEM outreach. We went to community centers, after school programs, and worked with other similar orgs like "girls who code." I think we played an important role in the community. In our mission we stated we wanted to help bring "equity to STEM education." In 2025, according to the current admin's stance on "DEI," my robotics team would not be able to receive gra…

Around 2019, Guido official stated that he would not longer mentor any white male, and that there was enough white males around that any white male who wanted to learn developing python would have to do it on their own. The community in general seemed to follow the same policy back then, but now seem to have relaxed a bit. Reducing complex individuals into two bits of information, skin and gender, will never be a sta…

>>> Reducing complex individuals into two bits of information, skin and gender, will never be a stable system for equity.

It's a remarkably stable system for inequity.

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

#503

Post by rlprlprlp »

klipt wrote: post #493
epistasis wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "this quarter, we only have headcount for 'diverse' candidates", Such a statement from those with hiring authority is highly illegal. Any HR department that would let this message be delivered, either explicitly or implicitly, would open the company to massive lawsuits, such as the one you linked to. It's as bad as allowing sexual harassment. Linking the term DEI to illegal hiring practices is like linking having a…

That's like saying "the Crusaders weren't real Christians because real Christianity is peaceful" See also: No True Scotsman Fallacy

Sure, but you’re god deciding who goes to hell.

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

#504

Post by mensetmanusman »

epistasis wrote: post #485
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sat in an all hands where the vice president of HR proudly crowed to the company that they had hired 75% non-whites that quarter.

Seems like a lawsuit right there... is this happened I sure hope that there was a lawsuit! Or at least HR implementing new hiring practices company wide afterwards...

No one is brave enough to start such lawsuits. Likelihood of winning too low, first mover disadvantage at play.

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

#506

Post by acdha »

gatvol wrote: post #451
__loam wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What is your evidence for this: "... because of structural problems that push them out, be that systemic misogyny in our educational systems ..." , "the toxicity present in the industry that pushes them out ... "? What alternative reasons have you explored?

They presumably didn’t write an entire literature survey in an HN comment because the CS pipeline problem has been written about so much in the past that it’s reasonable to assume basic familiarity:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/punch-cards-pipel...

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

#507

Post by polski-g »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #407
endomorphosis wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disparate treatment on the basis of protected and usually immutable characteristics, is literally illegal, all the sort of mental gymnastics do not matter, that's literally what the law is.

Encouraging specific people to submit applications is not illegal. Even based on those characteristics.

No that is also illegal. You can not target advertisements based on protected characteristics.

> the Justice Department secured a settlement agreement with Meta (formerly Facebook) in February 2025, alleging that Meta’s ad delivery system used machine-learning algorithms relying on Fair Housing Act (FHA)-protected characteristics such as race, national origin, and sex to determine who saw housing ads

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

#508

Post by eadmund »

aspir wrote: post #29

This isn't good for the PSF, but if these "poison pill" terms are a pattern that applies to all NSF and (presumably) other government research funding, the entire state of modern scientific research is at risk. Regardless of how you, as an individual, might feel about "DEI," imposing onerous political terms on scientific grants harms everyone in the long term.

Is the restriction on grantees not violating federal law a new one, or has it been around for ages?

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

#509

Post by FloorEgg »

epistasis wrote: post #497
klipt wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying "the Crusaders weren't real Christians because real Christianity is peaceful" See also: No True Scotsman Fallacy

No, that's not at all the case, the crusaders were acting under the blessing of the church. It still may not be "real" Christianity, but it's not like there were DEI advocates out there giving guides on how to break the law. I was at two companies promoting DEI that were explicit about non-discrimination and had extensive training on it to prevent the illegal actions linked in that lawsuit. There's no "this is DEI th…

> it's not like there were DEI advocates out there giving guides on how to break the law

I think you're very mistaken. Not only were their guides, but there were federal regulations mandating that the laws be broken. It is/was a mess.

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

#510

Post by fn-mote »

schemester wrote: post #486

[flagged]

Misunderstanding the GP. Possibly deliberately?

In the parent’s view, the top N% is fixed.

In the GP’s view, it’s the top N% of the applicant pool, so a more diverse applicant pool leads to more diverse talks.

Talk selection is blind (per GP), so the increasing % of female-led talks is evidence for the GP viewpoint. If the Parent view were correct, the same 98% male talks would be selected because they are “objectively better” than the lower-quality female-led talks that are bulking up the applicant pool.

I have not verified the claim about talk selection being blinded. A source (or contradicting source) would be welcome.

Post reply on HN