5 ms·

If this were the case then they would be replacing the ideological conformity sections with different ideological conformity requirements. Instead they are simp

If this were the case then they would be replacing the ideological conformity sections with different ideological conformity requirements. Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. Whatever a scientist happens to believe in, these changes would not imperil his ability to receive government funding. But in the previous system, if one felt that unconditional merit was the most fundamental factor in science (and refused to simply lie) he would have been found it much more difficult to secure funding.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. This is the significant part. Woke ideology was always unpopular when put to the test in the court of public opinion and sometimes even law. Whether it's entertainment products that got reviewbombed for incorporating "diversity", illegal hiring/enrollment quotas that once existed to enforce "inclusion", or the replacing of the word "equality" with "equity" because people started catching on that what was touted as equality actually wasn't. Now that we have a President (and by extension a party) who was elected to get rid of all that, promises to do so are being kept. As a Japanese-American, I 300% voted for and support this. Everyone should be judged on merit and merit alone, not whether they have the right skin color, sex organs/preferences, disabilities, or illnesses.
- pjc50 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I've been called several dozen kinds of labels to try and get me to be a nice and cooperative victim. I've also found myself labeled as the oppressor, as Asians are(were) often found too successful unlike other minorities. Sincerely screw all that racist noise with extreme prejudice. In this regard, the Left did more work than anyone to get me to vote Trump.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      You must be aware the US operated concentration camps for US citizens of Japanese origins during WWII, right?
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Absolutely; that's one of the reasons why I applaud this. Those internments were based on race, including to the exclusion of considering American citizenship as you've mentioned. That's not how things should operate, and Trump's EOs legally mandate that people be judged equally and fairly without regard to things like race.
        gtirloni 2y ago
        > Trump's EOs legally mandate that people be judged equally and fairly without regard to things like race. Well, racism is fixed. Finally!
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Considering discriminatory bullshit like DEI is finally illegal (again) at least in the public sector, it's a good start back to equality again.
        talldayo 2y ago
        If you've faced discrimination from DEI then I regret to inform you that you are being judged on merit and talent, relative to a sample of your ethnic cohorts. You might qualify for the job, but you still have to compete for it. You should talk to more Americans that were involved in the corporate structure of the 1950-1990s. Old money ruled the place and white, protestant men filled every seat in the office. It was a caste system, and worst of all it was protected by the Civil Rights Act which did not demand equal opportunity when hiring. This was destructive to talented minorities, protective of untalented executives and ultimately wasteful to everyone that wasn't on "the inside" of the administrative structure. Something had to be done, these businesses weren't going to stop themselves from becoming insular and hostile boy's clubs. Regan had the right idea; keep affirmative action, but axe or soften the numerical requirements. Trump had the wrong idea, but went with it anyways because he knows that today's neocons are hungry for some good, old-fashioned, government-sanctioned racism. You should be careful to not let your insecurities choose who you think is right, especially in pissing contests where you're liable to get wet.
- Moomoomoo309 2y ago
  The problem with this idea is that "woke" is a moving target that its enemies are defining. Will they change the definition to include things you don't want? Moreover, does it currently actually have the goal to make meritocracy? For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring, for example, so that does not bode well for the idea of being judged on merit alone. Explicitly, they are now allowed to judge on race where they were not before. Read through project 2025 - is that what you actually want, because that's what he's gonna implement.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring ... Read through project 2025 I advise you read through the actual Executive Orders than some false propaganda material of at best questionable value. What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Here are the EOs with regards to the subject matter at hand: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/refo... >Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great. >Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements. ---- >This Federal Hiring Plan shall: ... prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;
    - bumby 2y ago
      >prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals Did you know the EO that was rescinded had similar verbiage too?[1] [1] https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...
- therouwboat 2y ago
  Im sure guys that think foreigners are dog eating criminals judge everyone based on merit now. We have a doctor with asian sounding name and people at work were wondering if they need translator when they visit.
amiga386 2y ago
> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. It does not sound like that. At least, not at the NSF, which is freezing funds until it's had an ideologically-driven purge. The Office of Science seems to have a better approach, removing the need for the previous administration's PIER plan and ignoring any already submitted
gtirloni 2y ago
> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period This is not true. If I submit a project to study the large-scale effect of DEI policies in institutions, that will get rejected because "anti-DEI" is in the current government's idelogy, as written down in presidential orders. They are not simply removing the previous ideology and leaving a void in place. There are no voids in power structures.
4ndrewl 2y ago
You mean they're idealogically stripping idealogical requirements...
ajross 2y ago
> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. That is literally the opposite of what the linked article claims. They aren't "stripping requirements" placed on funding, they're stripping the actual funds from existing grants, based on new requirements that just happen to be phrased along the lines of the ruling regime's political rhetoric. Your Orwellian version only makes sense if you assume a priori that the funds were granted incorrectly, which again is sort of the opposite of what science is.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. This is the significant part. Woke ideology was always unpopular when put to the test in the court of public opinion and sometimes even law. Whether it's entertainment products that got reviewbombed for incorporating "diversity", illegal hiring/enrollment quotas that once existed to enforce "inclusion", or the replacing of the word "equality" with "equity" because people started catching on that what was touted as equality actually wasn't. Now that we have a President (and by extension a party) who was elected to get rid of all that, promises to do so are being kept. As a Japanese-American, I 300% voted for and support this. Everyone should be judged on merit and merit alone, not whether they have the right skin color, sex organs/preferences, disabilities, or illnesses.

pjc50 2y ago
[flagged]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I've been called several dozen kinds of labels to try and get me to be a nice and cooperative victim. I've also found myself labeled as the oppressor, as Asians are(were) often found too successful unlike other minorities. Sincerely screw all that racist noise with extreme prejudice. In this regard, the Left did more work than anyone to get me to vote Trump.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    You must be aware the US operated concentration camps for US citizens of Japanese origins during WWII, right?
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Absolutely; that's one of the reasons why I applaud this. Those internments were based on race, including to the exclusion of considering American citizenship as you've mentioned. That's not how things should operate, and Trump's EOs legally mandate that people be judged equally and fairly without regard to things like race.
      - gtirloni 2y ago
        > Trump's EOs legally mandate that people be judged equally and fairly without regard to things like race. Well, racism is fixed. Finally!
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Considering discriminatory bullshit like DEI is finally illegal (again) at least in the public sector, it's a good start back to equality again.
        talldayo 2y ago
        If you've faced discrimination from DEI then I regret to inform you that you are being judged on merit and talent, relative to a sample of your ethnic cohorts. You might qualify for the job, but you still have to compete for it. You should talk to more Americans that were involved in the corporate structure of the 1950-1990s. Old money ruled the place and white, protestant men filled every seat in the office. It was a caste system, and worst of all it was protected by the Civil Rights Act which did not demand equal opportunity when hiring. This was destructive to talented minorities, protective of untalented executives and ultimately wasteful to everyone that wasn't on "the inside" of the administrative structure. Something had to be done, these businesses weren't going to stop themselves from becoming insular and hostile boy's clubs. Regan had the right idea; keep affirmative action, but axe or soften the numerical requirements. Trump had the wrong idea, but went with it anyways because he knows that today's neocons are hungry for some good, old-fashioned, government-sanctioned racism. You should be careful to not let your insecurities choose who you think is right, especially in pissing contests where you're liable to get wet.
Moomoomoo309 2y ago
The problem with this idea is that "woke" is a moving target that its enemies are defining. Will they change the definition to include things you don't want? Moreover, does it currently actually have the goal to make meritocracy? For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring, for example, so that does not bode well for the idea of being judged on merit alone. Explicitly, they are now allowed to judge on race where they were not before. Read through project 2025 - is that what you actually want, because that's what he's gonna implement.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >For example, they've allowed discrimination based on race in government hiring ... Read through project 2025 I advise you read through the actual Executive Orders than some false propaganda material of at best questionable value. What Trump is mandating with his EOs are a move back to judging people strictly by their merit, by their character. We are once again on the path to making Martin Luther King's dream a reality. Here are the EOs with regards to the subject matter at hand: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/refo... >Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great. >Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements. ---- >This Federal Hiring Plan shall: ... prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch;
  - bumby 2y ago
    >prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion, and prevent the hiring of individuals Did you know the EO that was rescinded had similar verbiage too?[1] [1] https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/12315-12325.pdf https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1965/9/28/1...
therouwboat 2y ago
Im sure guys that think foreigners are dog eating criminals judge everyone based on merit now. We have a doctor with asian sounding name and people at work were wondering if they need translator when they visit.

amiga386 2y ago

> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. It does not sound like that. At least, not at the NSF, which is freezing funds until it's had an ideologically-driven purge. The Office of Science seems to have a better approach, removing the need for the previous administration's PIER plan and ignoring any already submitted

gtirloni 2y ago

> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period This is not true. If I submit a project to study the large-scale effect of DEI policies in institutions, that will get rejected because "anti-DEI" is in the current government's idelogy, as written down in presidential orders. They are not simply removing the previous ideology and leaving a void in place. There are no voids in power structures.

4ndrewl 2y ago

You mean they're idealogically stripping idealogical requirements...

ajross 2y ago

> Instead they are simply stripping ideological requirements, period. That is literally the opposite of what the linked article claims. They aren't "stripping requirements" placed on funding, they're stripping the actual funds from existing grants, based on new requirements that just happen to be phrased along the lines of the ruling regime's political rhetoric. Your Orwellian version only makes sense if you assume a priori that the funds were granted incorrectly, which again is sort of the opposite of what science is.