[flagged]
"How do you figure? If they simply changed the grant writing process back to what it was before Biden, that argument would make sense."
FWIW, I agree with you other than placing the blame. It was a ridiculous policy, it cost the Democrats the election, but they don’t get blamed for the further poor choices Trumps regime is making.
And, again, it is not one I am making.
I blame Biden and Harris for being so awful that the American people decided Trump was a better choice and elected him.
That is on them.
And for forcing irrelevant DEI language into grants.
That is on them.
What? Can you show any examples of this?
- Forcing this irrelevant nonsense into maths grant applications.
- Cancelling the grant applications because they contain this nonsense.
And science is the loser.
.
One example:
This grant was for $500,000:
" Elliptic and Parabolic Partial Differential Equations
ABSTRACT Partial differential equations (PDE) are mathematical tools that are used to model natural phenomena like electromagnetism, astronomy, and fluid dynamics, for example. This project is concerned with understanding how the solutions to such equations behave. The Laplace equation
[...] Motivated by the goal of increasing participation from underrepresented groups [...]
The Laplace equation is a PDE that models steady-state phenomena in a truly uniform environment. Since the world that we live in is not an isotropic vacuum, the mathematical equations that govern many natural phenomena are often more complicated than Laplace’s equation. For example, the Schrodinger equation [...] "
1) This is "forced" due to any government policy.
2) Any such policies could be attributed only to the Biden administration, or even any single administration.
I was curious so I stalked the PI in the linked grant, who happens to be female. Here is a relevant link, 3rd or so on Google: https://www.montana.edu/news/22806/montana-state-mathematics...
Burroughs said Davey stands out not just for her mathematical prowess but also for her commitment to students in all levels of study. Davey is co-director of the department’s Directed Reading Program, which pairs undergraduate students with graduate student mentors to read and discuss books on mutual subjects of interest over the course of a semester.
“It’s a way for us to connect graduate student mentors with undergraduates, who then see what math can look like outside the classroom,” Davey said.
...
A portion of the funding from the CAREER grant will enable Davey to extend her support to young mathematicians across the country. She will organize and conduct a summer workshop in Bozeman open to 40 upper-level graduate students and post-doctoral researchers from around the nation, particularly those from underrepresented groups. Cherry noted the outreach effort coincides with the college’s long-term goal of better serving underrepresented communities in the state.
So:
1. From that it does seem she is personally invested in making her subject more approachable.
2. The college itself has a goal of encouraging such outreach.
3. In case you think the university itself was influenced by the government policies, here's a "DEI" program from its website that started in 2016: https://www.montana.edu/provost/d_i.html -- if you browse around the site there are even more programs going farther back.
Additionally, I'm personally aware of "DEI" policies in universities going back more than two decades now, long before the term "DEI" was even coined.
Seems highly likely that the language in the grant was more due to the researcher's personal preferences and the institution's policies than anything any government policies.
But yes it wasn't just top-down. The diversity statements in faculty hiring started about ten years ago and started becoming mandatory and used for screening at many places about five years ago.
Great way to lose again. The "sane center" is 3rd-way '90s dems, and their shit only worked because Republicans agreed with them on unpopular neoliberal economic policy, so there was no way for voters to avoid it.
There is no compromise that can be made here. The Democrats spent this past election cycle trying to appeal to 'undecided' 'independent' voters by shitting all over their actual base and presenting policies that appealed to about exactly zero people.
Take immigration, for example. There is no way in hell the Democrats could have ever beaten the Regime on this issue. So what did they do? They still tried to compete by hardening their views to appeal to 'undecided' 'independent' voters who then all promptly headed to cast off their votes for the Messiah. All they managed to achieve was to piss off their base and anybody who'd considered voting for them.
What 'moderate' (which is really just an euphemism for cowardly) Democrats don't understand is that you are in the opening stages of a war, and the last thing you ever want to do is purposefully disarm yourself because of 'decorum' and 'acceptability' and other such nonsense.
You can never make compromises with those who want you dead no matter what. Hopefully the Democrats learn that before everyone in the world has to pay the price.
And the way to get more votes is to be more extreme ?
There's the problem, right there.
You're doing an awful lot of stuff along the lines of "so you're saying BAD is actually good?" in this thread (not just with me), and it's not really a good way to have a discussion. It's good for arguing over, essentially, nothing.
That is a perfectly normal way to discuss something.
Going meta is not.
This subthread turned out to be generic political flamewar, just the kind of thing we don't want on HN, and several of your comments fanned the flames.
If you could please have a read of the guidelines and take care to observe them in future we'd be appreciative: