Hacker News Reader

Comment by bakugo | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

So basically, the PSF wants to discriminate, the government doesn't want them to do so, and that's a problem? Am I reading this correctly?

View on HN

No you are not reading this correctly, but I suspect that was willful

> No you are not reading this correctly

Okay, so can you help me interpret that correctly, then? What other conclusion should I draw from this?

"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 "follows federal anti discrimination laws" which are quite stringent.

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.

You're free to disagree with anyone here, but playing stupid is only a waste of time. It's not a difficult topic to understand both sides of, regardless of where you come down.

No, the PSF doesn't want to expose its finances to special risk from the Trump Administration’s attempts to paint inclusion as discrimination as a pretext for exerting control that the law itself does not justify over institutions receiving federal funding, finding the risk:reward ratio unjustified for a $1.5M grant. (Note that the actual term purports to prohibit only what the law already prohibits, which is a clue that a naive reading cannot reveal their motive, since under a naive reading they would be equally risk for the behavior that would violate the terms whether or not ot agrees to them or received the grant. So you have to look beyond the agreement to the context of the behavior of the Trump Administration in regards to the issue addressed in the terms and federal funding.)

Oh come on.

The language means that if PSF at any point, maybe years from now, at some conference or wherever maybe somehow supports or hosts a panel about diversity and inclusion, the NSF can force them to pay the money back, even though it's already spent. That's not "wanting to discriminate", it's a free ticket for a rogue government to bully the PSF without a good argument, if it ever sees fit.

Even if I were an angry right wing DEI-hater I wouldn't accept the grant under these terms. If the government can just grab it back whatever under vague accusations, the money is just a liability.

Small correction: the restriction would only affect the PSF for the 2 years the grant runs. That's still more than bad enough when 'diverse' is in the mission statement, and of course they might well apply for other grants, but in principle it can't be applied 'at any point'.

Appreciate it. I still wouldn't take the risk tbh, not with the current administration's terrible track record on stuff like this.

Anyone that signs something like this either can't read or hired lawyers that can't read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com