Hacker News Reader

Comment by takluyver | Hacker News Reader

The requirements the GP is describing are to avoid using certain words. It's not fraudulent to describe the same work without using the banned words.

View on HN

That's definitely not the requirement! The requirement is to avoid doing certain kinds of "research" that the government disagrees is valid research to fund, characterized by the principles underlying it.

They may have started by using certain keywords to find examples of such grants to terminate, but the requirement itself has nothing to do with words and everything to do with the intentions.

I know someone whose grant was cancelled for studying genetic diversity in animal populations.

And maybe they'll get that back eventually, but academia can't complain about rough handling when it steadfastly refused as a bloc to fix its own ways for so long. Outsiders trying to fix them will always create a lot more collateral damage than insiders fixing the problems, but when insiders refuse, outsiders will take over.

Also, frankly, I heard a bunch of such stories and very often the grantees were misrepresenting their work. It actually did have DEI content in it and they were pretending it didn't. You can see how many people in this thread are arguing that all you have to do to comply with the requirements are use a thesaurus or misrepresent their work and then continue anyway. For as long as academics insist on total warfare and malicious compliance, expect universities to be blowtorched.

I'd love to know what those stories are.

this and many other grants were singled out because of words used in their description. you seem quite certain that 'diversity' here isn't referring to the degree to which the genome of these animals is similar to different to other of their species, but instead a leftist dogwhistle hiding racist intent, and this researcher lost their position because they are really a secret racist and deserves to be 'blowtorched'.

you celebrate the ruin of the career of a highly trained person, frankly a national resource, because they used a word to describe their work that you think has evil connotations.

we are so screwed

The “requirements” are vague and still being litigated against congressional intent, but the problem is the scale: when you have so many complex things to review and only a few trusted political apparatchiks, they end up doing things like simple keyword searches for terms like “diversity” and “inclusion” blithely aware of those being used in fields such as geology.

I know this because I know people who’ve had to take time away from their research to keep their grants from being cancelled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com