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PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program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

551–560 of 886 posts

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#551

Post by renlo »

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…

Most eye opening experience in my personal development was attending HR conferences (we sold an HR product but I am an engineer), where speakers were openly saying this out loud. I know you won’t believe me given your statement, but using codewords they said they were trying to hire “diverse candidates”, retain “diverse candidates”, explicitly mark “non-diverse candidates” leaving as non-regrettable churn, filtering and searching for diverse employees within the company to fast track for promotion, etc. I was in shock how brazenly they were saying the quiet part out loud, and breaking the law. This was 10 years ago, there were no repercussions for it, in fact they were all lauded.

Re: PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

#552

Post by KPGv2 »

klipt wrote: post #476
th wrote: post #341

It seems like a number of the "DEI is anti-merit discrimination" messages in this thread are overlooking how DEI work usually works. A relevant tweet from 2016 ( https://x.com/jessicamckellar/status/737299461563502595 ): > Hello from your @PyCon Diversity Chair. % PyCon talks by women: (2011: 1%), (2012: 7%), (2013: 15%), (2014/15: 33%), (2016: 40%). #pycon2016 Increased diversity in communities usually comes from ac…

[flagged]

This seems like a disingenuous link to me. It's not a research paper, it's weakly sourced (and many citations are to non-academic outlets such as Quillette. And the author is highly incestuous, linking to her own casual articles (not academic, peer-reviewed papers) as evidence for her secondary claims. At one point, her "proof" that anti-male bias is accumulating is a City Journal article by John Tierney, who is employed by the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank. In this article he makes such bold claims as

"Women aren’t discriminated against in twenty-first-century America"

"“Toxic masculinity” and “testosterone poisoning” are widely blamed for many problems, but you don’t hear much about “toxic femininity” or “estrogen poisoning.”" "Who criticizes “femsplaining” or pretends to “believe all men”?"

Well, "femsplaining" has historically just called "being a bitch," and "believe all men" seems to be the default position of most people considering how rarely sexual assault victims are, historically, taken seriously.

(Also, not for nothing, the slogan he's alluding to is "believe women" not "believe all women." And the thrust of the catchphrase is not that we should automatically believe every claim out of a woman's mouth, but that we should believe rather than dismiss-by-default women when they say something. So, on the matter of getting basic facts about the subject matter correct, he's already getting off on the wrong foot, being propagandistically wrong here.

I'm actually shocked at how terrible your link is. I really had a higher opinion of HN users (although lately it's felt like all anyone wants to talk about is AI slop).

I recommend you read things more closely before linking them. Your reputation is at stake.

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

#553

Post by rayiner »

KPGv2 wrote: post #546
rayiner wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You’re correct about the law, and the EEOC interpretation has been consistent for decades: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-15-race-and-color... . But in practice, in many…

> I suspect what happened is that a generation of professionals went through university systems where racial preferences were practiced openly I feel like you're ignoring that racial preferences were practiced openly for the entirety of the existence of the university systems in the US. It's just that for almost all of time, the preference was for "white non-Jews" (where "white" was historically malleable: Benjamin F…

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned that and it was awhile before the discrimination was rebooted to run in the opposite direction.

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

#554

Post by rayiner »

renlo wrote: post #551
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…

Most eye opening experience in my personal development was attending HR conferences (we sold an HR product but I am an engineer), where speakers were openly saying this out loud. I know you won’t believe me given your statement, but using codewords they said they were trying to hire “diverse candidates”, retain “diverse candidates”, explicitly mark “non-diverse candidates” leaving as non-regrettable churn, filtering…

It wasn’t even coded in many cases. I’ve had pitch meetings where I had to explain how I was brown as part of an express consideration of the business decision. White people talked about my race to my face more in 2020-2021 than during seven years in the south starting right after 9/11.

Some “DEI” was high level measures like recruiting at a broader set of universities. But in the last 5 years it routinely got down to discussing the race of specific individuals in the context of whether to hire them or enter into business relationships.

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

#555

Post by jonway »

zb3 wrote: post #526
array_key_first wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't want "coding for white guys", if I could decide, I'd want for example "coding for people who work manual labor jobs living in rural America" (I live in Poland so it's not directly about me). It seems you're also making a false assumption that since "white guys" make the majority of the industry that means all kinds of "white guys" are properly represented there. But I don't see colors or genders like that.

It’s very frustrating when non-residents or citizens have such strong opinions on US policy like this.

We do have those programs ("coding for people who work manual labor jobs living in rural America") already and we have for quite a long time.

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

#556

Post by KPGv2 »

polski-g wrote: post #507
Dylan16807 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would take a lengthy essay to explain all the ways you've misunderstood how the law works in the United States, but in summary FHA rules only apply to FHA cases,

Furthermore, you seem to be conflating different meanings of the word "advertisement" where the one you've chosen to support your point is a broad meaning that would seem to make Barbie commercials that feature only girls illegal (which is obviously not the case).

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

#557

Post by KPGv2 »

rayiner wrote: post #553
KPGv2 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect what happened is that a generation of professionals went through university systems where racial preferences were practiced openly I feel like you're ignoring that racial preferences were practiced openly for the entirety of the existence of the university systems in the US. It's just that for almost all of time, the preference was for "white non-Jews" (where "white" was historically malleable: Benjamin F…

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned that and it was awhile before the discrimination was rebooted to run in the opposite direction.

So in other words, it went on for a few centuries like I said.

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

#558

Post by FloorEgg »

judahmeek wrote: post #548
FloorEgg wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal regulations... It's not hard to find if you go looking...

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to say something other than 'do your own research'

I became aware of the legal contradictions last summer and spent a few hours doing searches and reading through the relevant regulatory language for a few industries. I don't have all the references handy.

I don't work for you. It's not my job to do research for you. If you're genuinely curious and interested in the truth it won't be hard for you to find. Literally go search and read the regulatory language in a few major industries. Start with the department of education. It doesn't seem like you're curious though, it seems like you're combative.

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

#559

Post by rayiner »

KPGv2 wrote: post #557
rayiner wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned that and it was awhile before the discrimination was rebooted to run in the opposite direction.

So in other words, it went on for a few centuries like I said.

Correct. Then we made it illegal, but universities started doing it in the other direction. That’s the timeframe relevant to my point, which is about the people who made the illegal hiring decisions in 2020. They went to universities in the 21st century, not in 1945.

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

#560

Post by silexia »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #214
silexia wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI programs are fundamentally racist. You don't fix racism with more racism.

How do you fix racism?

Not by continuing to use racism, just flipped the other way. That just created more resentment and anger, and eventually hate.
Post reply on HN