Python Foundation Rejects Government Grant Over DEI Restrictions (theregister.com) 253
The Python Software Foundation rejected a $1.5 million U.S. government grant because it required them to renounce all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. "The non-profit would've used the funding to help prevent supply chain attacks; create a new automated, proactive review process for new PyPI packages; and make the project's work easily transferable to other open-source package managers," reports The Register. From the report: The programming non-profit's deputy executive director Loren Crary said in a blog post today that the National Science Founation (NSF) had offered $1.5 million to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI), but the Foundation quickly became dispirited with the terms (PDF) of the grant it would have to follow. "These terms included affirming the statement that we 'do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,'" Crary noted. "This restriction would apply not only to the security work directly funded by the grant, but to any and all activity of the PSF as a whole."
To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained. "This would create a situation where money we'd already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk," the PSF director added. The PSF's mission statement enshrines a commitment to supporting and growing "a diverse and international community of Python programmers," and the Foundation ultimately decided it wasn't willing to compromise on that position, even for what would have been a solid financial boost for the organization. "The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14," Crary added, noting that the $1.5 million would have been the largest grant the Foundation had ever received - but it wasn't worth it if the conditions were undermining the PSF's mission. The PSF board voted unanimously to withdraw its grant application.
To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained. "This would create a situation where money we'd already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk," the PSF director added. The PSF's mission statement enshrines a commitment to supporting and growing "a diverse and international community of Python programmers," and the Foundation ultimately decided it wasn't willing to compromise on that position, even for what would have been a solid financial boost for the organization. "The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14," Crary added, noting that the $1.5 million would have been the largest grant the Foundation had ever received - but it wasn't worth it if the conditions were undermining the PSF's mission. The PSF board voted unanimously to withdraw its grant application.
I don't understand what the issue is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand what the issue is. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't want to take money that can then be demanded to be returned after having spent it. It's quite simple. What constitutes discrimination is subjective - don't look at me, every nation has volumes of evolving laws and case law on trying to define discrimination, and in what cases it's legally permitted. Knowing this administration, the bar in the agreement probably isn't even legal - just, "When we say you're doing it, you're doing it." You'd be stupid to take money on those terms. They might as well take money that is only allowed to be spent on "super cool shit, although we can then decide later that something isn't as cool as we said it was the month before".
NSF reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of this award, operate any program in violation of Federal anti- discriminatory laws or engage in a prohibited boycott.
Hilarious. Hey, would you like to take on a massive economic liability? Take this money!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand what the issue is. (Score:4, Insightful)
It boggles my mind that somebody could write those words while presumably entertaining the thought that they were making a cogent point.
Re: (Score:2)
Listening to propaganda all day has that effect on a person.
Re: I don't understand what the issue is. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like someone giving you food, and then, after you've eaten it, them saying the want it back because you said someone they didn't agree with.
The shop analogy doesn't work well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really this stupid or do you just play it on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about Trump asserting power (Score:5, Insightful)
The attack on diversity and inclusiveness is about two things. The first is giving you something besides a good economy as a reason to vote for people who have been screwing you over your entire fucking life.
The second is a back door way to assert control over every aspect of your life and the lives of people around you. Do what we say or we take the money away.
Your granddad knew fascism was bad. Why don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is about Trump asserting power (Score:3)
It is not just about reversing or eliminating those rules. It's about forbidding them.
Many private organizations discovered the benefits of diversity long before it became enshrined into regulations or law. Some want to continue to practice it, and are now being targeted, for example, the org in TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
> Your granddad knew fascism was bad.
Quite a few granddads didn't know fascism was bad; that's why they live in Argentina.
Re:This is about Trump asserting power (Score:4, Informative)
I was working at a large company when the DEI wave hit. HR sent out documentation that said all white people were racist, that we needed to discuss our sex lives at work (that is sexual harassment), and that the three things we needed to purge from the workplace were racism (there wasn't any), sexism (there wasn't any), and Capitalism.
It was pretty clear what the real intent was. And then I got fired for complaining about being called a racist and saying that a company owned by the world's most famous capitalist (Buffett) shouldn't talk about purging it from the workplace.
And then it turned out the reason the company was inflicted with this policy was that, as we did business with the government, Biden required it.
Biden demanded companies create DEI policies and departments, and I lost my job. Trump demands those policies and departments go away, and instead of hiring more people, Python says, "sorry, we like the racism".
At least that's how I see it.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to mitigate the risk that a random political figure doesn't suddenly decide whatever they are doing is DEI and take the funding back and bankrupt them.
That is all. No one in their right mind would accept that risk, espeically in the complete utter randomness that we call a government today.
This has nothing to do about DEI and everything to do about reducing the risk that the government may randomly change the definition of DEI and claw back the money bankrupting you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, they may wish to target schools in economically-poor majority-white areas where boys are under-represented in statistics of who goes on to gain a higher education qualification in computer science. It's a good use for the money in giving chances to people who could become outstanding coders given a chance, but this would risk all of the funding being clawed back.
If you don't like the hand that feeds you. (Score:2, Informative)
TIL (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is filled with white-skinned hateful bigots and racists.
I honest thought geeks and nerds were better than this.
Today I'm truly disappointed to be a part of a community filled with "white people only" and "white people first" attitudes.
It's sickening I thought humanity had moved forward, I though we were better than this.
It's this the direction the world is now moving in -- pure racism disguised as "protecting against discrimination", because this so-called non-existent discrimination is "aimed at white people"?
FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
SCNR.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot needs a diversity program to bring in more non-white bigots.
Re: TIL (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, the people who argue against DEI are also those who argue against teaching Critical Race Theory.
I know I'm generalising, and my comments are based on that generalisation, but I think I'm fair in saying that most arguing against me would also argue against teaching CRT.
(Just taking CRT as a single example to cover a multitude of other things).
I'm an very much against discrimination. But the removal of DEI is being done by the very people who wish to discriminate, and DEI stands in their way.
DEI is not perfect. There are faults. There are bad implementations. But it was put in place for a reason, a good reason.
And its removal is for all of the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who oppose DEI the most are the mediocre ones who fear that they wouldn't do well on a level playing field.
Pray I do not alter the deal further (Score:2)
So, renounce them (Score:3)
Issue a statement that you will not give special consideration to orange people.
Good for them! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Warning (Score:2)
Another option. (Score:2)
In violation of "Federal anti-discrimination laws" seems to have been the key clause. It's unlikely you are in violation.
Why not have your lawyer list out all your DEI initiatives to the granting body and say "are you OK with this?". An OK by the granting makes it unlikely they can claw it back.
Re: (Score:3)
"Trump administration" is the key clause.
They have been using their 'interpretation' of anti-discrimination laws to extort law firms and universities; there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do something similar here.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p... [pbs.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Regardless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: pathetic (Score:2)
For many, that march is towards the South...
Re: (Score:3)
You don't think we would have killed white people that lived in tents and used bow and arrows for weapons for their land? It's wasn't racism it was just plain ordinary greed and might makes right. I seriously doubt being a white savage was going to save them versus being a light brown savage. The Europeans were not really all that nice.
Of course, neither were the Aztecs or the Romans or the Mongols. Humans be nasty to each other.
Re: pathetic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
> DEI is entirely and completely anti-American
In the sense that America is all about keeping the poors and the brown people down? Yes I agree, DEI is anti-that.
People that keep going on and on about "America" and "I'm an American" and "that's not American" are so bizarre. To you, America is an engine of hatred and discrimination, of war and destabilization, of manipulation and corruption, of inequality and intolerance. Your America, at its core, is about shitting on the little guy, not helping your neighbor, taking advantage everywhere you can. America's heart is contemptuous and vile.
So, yeah, you're American alright. Because your values are those great American values of ignorance, lack of empathy, lack of compassion, i'm-in-it-for-myself-and-nobody-else-ism. If you ever had a perspective other than your own it'd be shocking.
You seem to want there to be some entirely homogenous form of American, like we're all supposed to be the same. But not only is that impossible, it would suck balls. Diversity is the spice of life. Literally, food would taste blander without different things that *are different*, that stick out, that aren't exactly the same as you, what you like, how you live, think, act. In a country where people think differently, talk differently, have a different history and experience, we gain from that difference. People here are supposed to talk different, walk different, think different.
The whole "melting pot" idea you mention isn't a good thing either. Since the turn of the 20th century, it was used as a tool to try to hammer out the "impurity" of all the cultures that came to this country, and replace all their unique traits with some bland, monotonous, homogeneous "Americanism" - which of course must be white, british/germanic, protestant, and reject any foreign elements. There's a big difference between adopting a trait, and being forced to erase all your traits. That erasure is discrimination.
And you keep saying you don't like this or that. But you also, very clearly, don't understand *why* things are the way they are. You haven't educated yourself at all. Just the fact that you don't understand why some people call themselves African-American, is pretty chilling. But what's worse is, you also don't care about anyone but yourself. You don't care if someone wants to be called African-American. You don't care how they want to be treated. You only care what you want, and how you want to treat this person. You only care about yourself. You're probably threatened by the idea of ever having to care about anyone but yourself.
This is what you think being American is. A single-minded idea, that conveniently serves your own ignorance, selfishness, and hatred. And you know what? Apparently you're not wrong. This is what America seems to be now. Just one big stupid fucking ball of hate and ignorance. God bless this stupid fucking nation and all the stupid selfish hateful people in it.
Re: (Score:3)
1) African American was a term coined by black people, you moron. And yeah, you might be left-leaning too if conservatives enslaved you and shipped you overseas. (Sorry, I forgot it's racist to remind a white person about slavery. They're so sensitive!)
2) Every person can choose what they want to be called. If somebody doesn't want to be called African-American, all they have to do is tell me that, and I won't call them that. Other people do prefer the term.
3) "Americans, for the most part, try to be good p
Re: What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you even understand what DEI is about and its intent? Yes it’s a terrible acronym, but it isn’t about making sure you have an equal number of people of a given skin tone or gender, rather it’s about demonstrating you haven’t discriminated someone because of it.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where the definition of "discriminatory practices" is up to the NSF, subject to whatever day of the week it is, and the claw backs are retroactive to money already spent?
Independent of your (stupid in your case) politics, that's a poison pill. No rational actor should be expected to swallow that.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
We're not even talking having to do anything: one probably-justified comment about how many people are going to get ICEd on the way to PyCon US this year would, in theory, be readable as falling under Executive Order 2(viii) " the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory."
Or, on the even-harder-to-avoid and less inflammatory side; it could just be someone doing vibe statistics about PSF grant recipients (257 groups or individuals last year; so a decent sized sample if the coming year or two aren't wildly lower) and kicking up a fuss on twitter about how they don't seem perfectly demographically matched to the ideal techbro. Wouldn't even need to be terribly plausible or statistically significant, just enough to chum the water a little.
If this were actually just about who gets hired to execute the work specifically funded by the grant the risk would at least be manageable enough to actually treat it as a meaningful choice you are being asked to make, rather than just a sword of Damocles.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that easy.
Let's say this organization went to trade shows and academic conferences to present its research.
Let's say it turned out that in aggregate, the seminars it went to had an attendance that was skewed towards some minority group.
Let's say someone in the government got a bee in his bonnett about it and accused the Python Foundation of discriminating against white males in choosing what in-person events to present its research at.
Even if the Python Foundation eventually won, they would still have to spend a large amount of resourced defending themselves.
Now let's say this happened a dozen times, and the Foundation wasn't able to prove their innocence in one of the cases. Then the feds will start "clawback" procedures, which could become an existential threat to the organization.
The combination of the rules and the likelihood that the federal government will come after the Foundation for any perceived violations is just too much. The "other golden rule" says "them with the gold makes the rules." With the current administration, it's best to avoid taking federal government money if at all possible.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why organizations should strive to shun government contracts that bind you to anything. You want you buy stuff from us? You pick it off the shelf and stand in line at the cash register. Just like everyone else.
Grants are even worse. "You got this SNAP assistance from us. Remember which way to vote next time."
Re: What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the irony here is the trump administration is just as woke as any supposedly woke liberal group out there, just woke in a right-wing way. Anyone or any group who doesn't adhere to trump's idea of equality are canceled. Even under the wokest democrat administration the grants did not tie the hands of the recipients in quite the way the trump administration is doing now. It's truly fascinating (in a horrifying way) to see all this unfold.
Where did the moderate middle ground go in the US? Where are those that don't ascribe to the white fragility dogma, but truly believe that all are God's children and we should all treat each other as fellow human beings, brothers and sisters? I don't see it much in the woke far left, but I certainly don't see in supposedly Christian MAGA.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess a fraction more of us that could bother to show up to vote decided watching the country die fascist would be better then watching it die socialist. That's essentially how it's all portrayed in the media anyway.
If it makes you feel any better, most of the states didn't "count" in deciding the president anyway. What I mean is, 40 something states are "decided" so your vote doesn't really carry the same weight as a purple state. So most of us can just blame all this on the Midwest. Maybe the liberals s
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Didn't some politican comment that Jesus isn't Christian, or didn't have Christian values, or something...?
Re: What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are those that [...] truly believe that all are God's children and we should all treat each other as fellow human beings, brothers and sisters? I don't see it much in the woke far left [...]
Isn't this exactly the reason why the far left are objecting to the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza? Isn't this exactly why the far left are so vocal in their support for trans rights? Isn't this why the far left believes health care should be universal? Isn't this why the far left wants to use social workers instead of police for things like wellness checks?
Obviously, I can't speak for everyone who considers themselves on the left, and every group has its share of vocal idiots, but it seems to me that most policies that the left advocates for are motivated by wanting to treat all humans equally and fairly and well.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they cancelled those groups, it's not enough, because it's about proving innocence against the Trump regime, which reasons much like you do. They'll yell and squeal and squawk about "woke" until the cots come home no matter how little sense it makes. Except in their case, they have the force of law behind them and that's too risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as I, and only I, get to decide what's discriminatory.
When both sides mouth the same pious platitudes, and hate each other so much they want to light each other on fire, nobody is right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Parasites don't like being removed.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes life just works out in a way that appears discriminatory. This is a consequence of the clustering illusion [wikipedia.org]. I was on a very small team of developers. The team was all men. That was unsurprising, given the relative gender distributions in the field. My boss didn't like that look (which could affect his reputation) and had only bad options.
My point is that diversity is a radioactive topic. Sometimes you can't win. There is not an answer that will make everybody happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they arent......
And thats not what is being talked about here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spare me the "free speech, first amendment" bullshit.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from PRIVATE consequences. Not using the government to strongarm companies for whatever speech you deem appropriate by threatening to pull their FCC licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna play a little Devil's Advocate here.
Why should the FCC have this much power? I understand we need to regulate the airways, as there is only so much space and people need to respect the spectrum for their devices, etc. But licensed to use this space? Government really shouldn't get to decide who gets to speak on natural airwaves. It can definitely place regulations that benefit all users to avoid collisions, and can go after violators but the buck ought to stop there.
It's a great example of government
Jeffrey Epstein's best friend (Score:2, Troll)
Yet here you are doing your thing. Newsome really was right. Anti woke is just anti-black.
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It happens so easily to these snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Famous free speech advocate Donald Trump. *eyeroll*
You're literally responding to an article where the administration is putting speech constraints onto governmental grants as standard operating procedure. Which is utterly minor compared to what they're doing to free speech in other fields such as collages, or to law firms that take up cases they don't like, or FTC pushing broadcasters to cancel programs that criticize them, or arrests and deportations of legal immigrants who express views they don't like
Re: (Score:2)
I choose "red Kool-Aid and blue Kool-Aid both taste like bitter almonds."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: What's the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Horse shit, its literally the opposite.
Don't just make up definitions for things then get angry at other people who dont follow that definition.
Diversity Equity and Inclusion is exactly what it says on the label, its simply institutional practices designed to counteract institutional discrimination by putting in guidelines like "Dont just only hire white people, your criteria must be skill based, not race based". Or "Dont just employ men, if women can do the job too then include them in the hiring pool".
This whole backwards assed insistance that if someone has a black guy on staff it means a white guy didnt get the job is *inherently* racist, because its saying that no black guy is qualified. And THAT, boys and girls is ACTUALLY what racism is.
Re: (Score:2)
Diversity Equity and Inclusion is exactly what it says on the label, its simply institutional practices designed to counteract institutional discrimination by putting in guidelines like "Dont just only hire white people, your criteria must be skill based, not race based". Or "Dont just employ men, if women can do the job too then include them in the hiring pool".
It's not even that specific. It's analyse and document your processes while you think deeply about whether you are accidentally excluding or discouraging qualified candidates. You can phrase the same set of capabilities that you wish a candidate to have in different ways and cause a SIGNIFICANT shift in the gender balance of applicants. And most people don't know that they don't know that. The way you avoid never seeing some qualified candidates is through processes like DEI.
DEI is currently being used as a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the very DEI policy in question [python.org] in the article you're responding to, the one that caused them to have to miss out on a government grant, and go through it line by line. You tell me which part is racism and some horrific thing.
"he Python Software Foundation and the global Python community welcome and encourage participation by everyone." - Is this racism? Is this horrific?
"Our community is based on mutual respect, tolerance, and encouragement, and we are working to help each other live up to th
Re: What's the problem? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, not once throughout the day do thoughts of gay or trans people enter my mind. Why do conservatives constantly think about it?
Re: (Score:2)
This. It's just amazing how much they project. The one thing that drives me crazy is how they keep saying "Democrats keep taking about identity and 'social issues" (*cough* trans people *cough*) rather than things that matter like the economy and healthcare!". When the reality is that Democratic politicians keep trying like hell to not have to talk about identity and trans people, to talk ONLY about things like the economy and healthcare (and abortion, and other "strong suits"), but with conservatives cons
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully the US is now focused on a meritocratic system, with everything run by famously qualified people like Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., Linda McMahon, Steve Witkoff, the DOGE teenagers, and on and on and on, who certainly reached their positions due to their qualifications and nothing else and are eminently qualified for their positions, as are all of the minders who have been appointed to replace the mass numbers of purged career civil servants.
It's really a breath of fresh air to see the switch to a focus
Re: (Score:3)
DEI means inclusive of everyone.
Without DEI, colleges are inclusive of white people only.
So, are you for arguing for white people only? You really seem to be.
I'm arguing for everyone.
for me it's a matter of methods. i'm totally in favor of diversity, equity and inclusion. i live in a quite diverse society, i like it, and i'm well aware that exclusion, marginalization and privileges are still serious plagues, to various degrees. but i see several problems with the current efforts to erradicate them.
they're simplistic and superficial. the way you combat exclusion, marginalization and inequity is not with quotas: you ensure fair selection processes based strictly on merit or necessity (or
Re: What's the problem? (Score:2)
Concur.
Do you think that the white nationalists are going to get us there?
I see them dismantling the current system, while saying something about hiring on merit only. At the same time I see the current administration, and the sheer number of people who have been appointed to positions of power who were very clearly not qualified in any way for those positions, and understand that "merit" means something different to th
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm acknowledging that there have and are systemic biases is "hating men". You sound incredibly fragile if that's your bar for hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Woke is a contemporary dogwhistle [wikipedia.org] used by bigots to attempt to hide their hate. When pressed on how to define "woke", they all fail to give any meaningful definition [theguardian.com]. Example, an "expert" having written a book with a chapter about wokeness fails to define woke when asked about it in an interview [youtu.be].
So what about you dbialac, are you able to give a meaningful definition of "woke"? Despite me asking, I would appreciate even more if you spend some time on improving your life by looking into the links below rather
I want more than merit and skill (Score:4, Informative)
If I'm hiring or deciding who I want to be on a committee or board, I want more than individual merit and individual skill.
I also want a good, cohesive, intellectually diverse group.
This means I want
* people who can work with each other
* people who have diverse live experiences
* people who have different things to "bring to the table"
I'm fine if the entire group is "white men" (or any other "born the same" group) but I don't want them to be all "white men" (or whatever group) who grew up in the same neighborhood, traveled in the same circles, have the same attitudes, and who have the same skill set, even if they are the best in their field.
Likewise, I don't want a racial/ethnic/nationality/gender blend if everyone of them group up in the same neighborhood, traveled in the same circles, have the same attitudes, and have the same skill set, even if they are the best in their field.
If I'm hiring for a open slot in an organization, I'll be looking for what the organization needs in addition to what the specific slot needs. If the company is thinking about expanding to, say, Mexico and we have very few people who speak Spanish or who have knowledge of the culture, I'll hire someone who has the basic competiency for the current position who can speak Spanish and who has lived in Mexico for several years and who can bring that experience to the table in a way that is useful to the organization before I hire someone who is a better fit for the open position but who brings nothing else to the table. Why? Because I'm planning ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question: how much diversity do you think they have at TSMC?
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration is a great example of DEI based hiring. Not one of those people were hired on merit. Want to go down the line and discuss previous qualifications?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Merit... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the non-white person is better at the job, then the non-white person gets the job.
Without DEI, the non-white person doesn't even get called for an interview
So, which is it? The best person gets the job, or the white person gets the job?
Can you imagine mandatory corporate training (Score:3)
So if you want to know who you can spit on and who can spit on you an easy way to make that distinction is with skin color. Then there is absolutely no ambiguity over who's above yo
Re: (Score:2)
Well said
Re: Yeah also beware of right wing dipshit (Score:3)
One of my "favourite" new US laws is the one that defines a person's sex.
It defines it at "at conception", for a start. Some women have XY chromesomes (Swyer syndrome), as the default human form is female and only becomes male later in the embryo's development (through activation of the SRY gene). The signal to start developing as a male sometimes (though very rarely) fails.
That's why men have nipples, btw -- nipples form before the sex organs.
And defining sex as binary completely ignores the fact that In
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You keep telling yourself that anti-DEI is merely racism. Psychological projection
Re: Merit... (Score:4, Insightful)
“Not even called for an interview” is utter nonsense. I get the point you’re making. Look up “advocacy research”.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It says 'if you notice a statistical bias in outcomes, think about where that may be coming from and address it if needed/possible" - that's it.
The definition that you've given is the one circulated to make people angry, fearful, and pliable. Use that information to judge the person who gave you that definition however you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Without DEI, the non-white person doesn't even get called for an interview
No, it's: without DEI you DON'T KNOW whether your interview pool is all-white because they were the best candidates out there or all-white because you've accidentally excluded some groups in choosing how you write the job-spec, how you advertise it, etc. DEI is just being aware of what things you need to think about. People are being told that thinking about things too deeply is bad.
Re: Merit... (Score:2)
Without DEI, the non-white person doesn't even get the interview.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an argument against DEI, really... though I could probably raise significant questions if I tried.. but I could also argue for its need, I bet. But ultimately, not everyone is a bad actor, and treating everyone as if they were doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.
Re: Merit... (Score:2)
Yes, I am generalising. And with every generalisation there are always examples like yours that are missed.
Unfortunately I feel that the vast majority of those arguing against DEI fit that generalisation.
And that saddens me greatly. And worries me.
Re: Merit... (Score:2)
What you were initially doing is DEI done well.
And I'll agree that many DEI policies go too far. I still think, overall, DEI is needed. (And I agree it needs fixing).
It's removal, and the way the current Administration thinks about it, is not just a step backwards but turning around and sprinting for several minutes.
The issue with the current Administration's removal of DEI and of their enforcement of this is that now what you were initially doing well falls under their definition of DEI. So if your comp
Re: (Score:2)
So now its OK to discriminate against white people?
That is, literally, what he said. ". . . reversing the 250+ years of racism and bigotry." not ". . . mitigating the 250+ years of racism and bigotry." or ". . . undoing the 250+ years of racism and bigotry." Reversing, as in, making it the exact opposite.
Sometimes, they say what they actually mean.
Re: Merit... (Score:2)
As is "reversing the damage of", but go ahead and read into it whichever way makes you happy and feeds your personal narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is just class division but with race. The real issue is the billionaire telling the white folk that the brown folk want their stuff. It's all a distraction from the true robber barons that will glad take your last penny regardless of your race or religion or land of origin.
Like most of human history, the commoners are busy fighting over the scraps of the powerful.