Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

[stub for offtopicness / flamewarness / guideline-breakingness]

(this is a rough cut - I know there are other posts left in the thread that arguably belong here, but this time I'm in a bit of a rush)

(please, everyone, you can make substantive points thoughtfully but do so within the guardrails at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - avoid the generic-indignant-flamey-snarky-namecalley-hardcore-battley sectors of internet discourse - we're trying for something different here and we need everyone to help with that)

View on HN

This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ?

> “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.”

Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant?

I applaud them for taking a stand, it seems to be more and more rare these days.

> discriminatory equity ideology

Isn't that when you let your mates buy into your corrupt private investment vehicles for cheap?

I have no idea what point you think you're making, but this happens all the time. Do you really think you should be obligated to let strangers buy into your private business?

And do really think they think that?

Ah yeah you're right. What they actually mean is that DEI is when you build so many equity preference multiples into your term sheets the employee option pool becomes entirely worthless.

> The government dictating how you run your business ?

Yes, these terms are usually called "laws", you might've heard of them.

The fascist language is a no-op because it optimizes to: "don't violate federal laws" which presumably is reasonable.

I would imagine it is much easier to enforce as part of a grant agreement that organisations have signed. Especially if the law is either not really a law (yet), or it might be invalidated by a court on free speech grounds. There's probably a reason someone wrote it into the grant agreement, and that they're declaring DEI stands for something other than the familiar Diversity, Equity & Inclusion.

Could you clarify that you're suggesting that "it's un-American" for the government to require that the grantee not violate any of its anti-discrimination laws?

I think people defend anti discrimination or are against it depending on how the anti discrimination policy discriminates discrimination.

We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.

I agree that humans discriminate inherently, although I would argue that what differentiates us is whether we struggle against that impulse.

On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify.

I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.

I understand what you're driving at but at this stage of the game it's quite American.

Federal funding of research is un-American.

> Federal funding of research is un-American.

Federal funding of research created the Internet that you are posting this idiocy on.

Before you attack the last poster, he does have a point. Federal funding of powers that belong to states is unamerican.

I agree. The gvt should not care if DEI is used, or if someone is gay or transgender m

Oh really? So what pro-DEI requirements did the federal funding for that grant require?

What does this even mean? Are you trying to imply that funding for research that lead to the various tech powering the modern internet was done only by organizations that never before or since considered trying to source candidates from a variety of places because they believe different viewpoints have value?

Or are you trying to hang this entire thing on a definition of DEI that somehow always and exclusively means illegal race or gender based discrimination (I assume against white men)?

These conversations are so absurd sometimes. I'm baffled by how spitting mad people can decide they are to fight these straw men. Then I'm annoyed by (and suspicious of) the overwhelming silence from most of these sources when it comes to other obvious examples of racial discrimination or things like the government trying to remove history books that mention slavery.

These things don't look like good faith to me.

Anti-DEI forces, once in power, turn out not to favor putative “diversity of opinion” after all.

No one takes them to jail; companies and organizations can run however they want, unless they break laws. It doesn't mean that the government that runs and wins on an anti-DEI agenda should give them money.

Spelling things out helps with the euphemisms.

Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion forces turn out to be (gasp) against all of diversity, and equity, and inclusion.

> "[yadda yadda yadda] in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws."

Should not be a new or surprising statement at all in this type of thing, let alone a question of if it's un-American.

> Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant?

On the surface, it is simply a requirement that the grantee comply with existing non-discrimination laws coupled with a completely fictional example of a potential violation (“discriminatory equity ideology”) provided as an example that happens to have an initialism collision with a real thing. This is legal and (but for the propaganda example) routine.

But... the text viewed in isolation is not the issue.

Agreed. And it is... quite revealing that many people in these comments are so insistent to view the text in isolation.

> Is that even legal to

Does it matter for the Trump administration what is legal and what isn't?

The "in violation of Federal Law" is crucial. You can argue it's only there to cover the admin's ass, but Federal Law (the actual statues) already prohibits any favoritism or discrimination on the basis of skin color etc.

The prior admin made it so that their chosen DEI programs fit "Federal Law". This admin has done a complete 180. Courts haven't tested any of this yet. It's all a hammer being wielded by the side in power.

Federal money always has lots of strings attached. The specific rules differ by the specific funding vehicle. The main vehicle is the Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR); you can review their rule here:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52

This is basically the US Federal Government’s standard Master Services Agreement (MSA).

> This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ?

Yes, and anyone who takes the Barry Goldwater libertarian position that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constituted an un-American government dictate about how you can run your business with respect to discrimination based on demographic categories probably agrees with you. There's a real sense in which this administration is invoking the formally-neutral legal infrastructure that has been built up over many years by liberals with the intention of securing the civil rights of various marginalized groups, and ostentatiously using it as a weapon against groups that are discriminating against white people or white men in particular and feel like they are acting righteously in doing so.

More generally, there's all sorts of laws in every country including America that involve the government dictating how you run your business, or how you run your business if you want to be eligible for government grants. No one actually thinks that a law becomes illegitimate if it dictates how a person can run their business, unless they are such a radical anarchist that they entirely reject the legitimacy of any kind of government or law at all.

the original idea of DEI "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" is good but it got twisted. it became the rally crying for the other side.

God, it is so humiliating to be an American these days. :(

I'm not sure that the USA has ever been in such a low standing with the rest of the 'democratic world' in the last 100 years. That's not saying the rest of the world has their stuff together, but it seems that fundamentally un-American ethos is the new nationalist American one that a 1/3 of the country wants.

What's happening guys?

About 50 years of slow deliberate destruction of the country's trust in institutions and trustworthy media and communications systems and culture.

This, and most people still don't realize it. It goes back to Nixon and Roger Ailes.

Yes, that is 100% the moment I had in mind when I said 50 years.

I think people were worn down over many years by traditional politicians and just wanted something different

And then someone came in and took advantage of that

> What's happening guys?

The people who benefited from those who sacrificed for rights and equality over the past century got complacent and lazy.

The current rhetoric is exactly the same as was used to discriminate against my ancestors 100 years ago. The only substitutions are the different slurs. Everyone who wants to talks about race and immigrants should be required to listen to 8 hours of radio programs from the early 1900s saying the exact same thing about them and their ancestors.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran, 1790

You fight or you lose. Every time; all the time. Politics is a contact sport and you don't get to opt out.

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.

Wow. What luxury some people have to reject $1.5 million.

For that kind of money, I would put a large national flag in the banner of the socketcluster.io website, I would relocate HQ to whatever country and state they want. I would never utter the word 'diversity' for the rest of my life and upon receiving the money, I would take a screenshot, frame it, put it up on the back wall of my new office and I would pray to it every morning to give thanks.

> What luxury some people have to reject $1.5 million.

For a non-profit backing a community, an important goal is to ensure the long-term sustainability and viability of the org, because the community relies on it to keep infra working, legal representation in place, and other vital needs.

Accepting those $1.5mio would have come with significant "we want that money back" risk, as the post explains. At a $5mio annual budget that could seriously destabilize a small org like this, from the money shortfall to community unrest. Taking this money would be irresponsible.

My two cents, as treasurer of another large FOSS non-profit.

You either think DEI is about taking jobs from white people and giving them to undeserving others, or that the deserving are spread across different races and genders etc. and we should capture that better.

If you're in the former group just man up and say it, don't waste our time with the equivocating, "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???"

Uh, what?

There's no contradiction, or even tension, between these three positions:

1. "DEI is about taking jobs from white people and giving them to undeserving others"

2. "the deserving are spread across different races and genders etc. and we should capture that better"

3. "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???"

so what exactly are you trying to say?

How is there not a contradiction between 1 and 2? If 1 is true then the jobs are offered to non-white candidates who are undeserving. If 2 is true then the jobs are offered to non-white candidates who are deserving.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's obviously possible for the extremely weak claim made by statement 2 to be true (i.e. for some non-zero number of "deserving" nonwhites to exist and for existing hiring to not be a perfect meritocracy) in the same universe where the sort of programs typically labelled "DEI" tend to have anti-meritocratic effects. You seem to be suggesting that if competent nonwhites exist, then anything labelled DEI will automatically have the effect of causing orgs to hire more competent people, but... why? There's zero reason that should logically follow.

> 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com