5 ms·

You can read about PIER plan requirements here. [1] Archive since the page is already dead. Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I su

You can read about PIER plan requirements here. [1] Archive since the page is already dead. Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I suspect there was alot of desire to get rid of all this stuff before, but people were unable to do so. Anyhow it had nothing to do with the merit of the project or the team which were obviously already being evaluated. It was nothing but an unrelated ideological conformity test added as a requirement. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230104150813/https://science.osti.gov/grants/Applicant-and-Awardee-Resources/PIER-Plans https://web.archive.org/web/20230104150813/https://science.o...

themgt 2y ago
Great resource. imo Trump is jerking the wheel too hard in the other direction but some of this stuff was legitimately crazy. FAQ: Q: I am only requesting support for one graduate student; do I still need to submit a PIER Plan? A: Yes, all applications for funding to the Office of Science, with the exception of supplemental proposals, conference proposals, and proposals to the SBIR/STTR Programs (at this time), require a PIER Plan. All applicants are encouraged to consider what contributions they can make to creating more equitable and inclusive research environments. It is expected that the complexity and detail of a PIER Plan for a smaller research project and fewer project personnel would be less than that for a larger research project. [and no we won't provide you an example, it needs to be from your heart] When you're requiring the greengrocer to submit a personalized statement justifying how each single apple he sells contributes to the project of worldwide socialism you might be risking provoking a reactionary counterrevolution. Americans need to just chill with trying to enforce micromanaged ideological conformity on a continent-sized country of 350 million people. And avoid winding up in a place "eroded by the ideological rituals that the entire power structure depend on, 'that are ever less credible, exactly because they are untested by public discussion and controversy'".
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  I applied for and won a small NASA ROSES citizen science seed funding grant ($80K). The call focused on outreach and equity in a way that encouraged me come up with a plan to get underprivileged high school students involved. This improved my results and made a difference in their lives.
  - rafram 2y ago
    And now even involving underprivileged high school students voluntarily, without being asked, could get your grant revoked.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  The pendulum went from "DEI totally just means learning about slavery in school, everything else you're noticing is just in your head" to "everything bad is caused by DEI". I hope once this runs its course we can find a middleground between the extremes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    I think the groups saying each of those things are the same groups that have been saying those same things for quite a while already.
  - intended 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but this hope needs to be put to rest. This political reality has been under construction since Watergate. The winner take all, take no prisoners approach worked. Its counteracted evolution, climate science, even reality. Creating your own media outlet, ditching bi-partishanship, has only helped the Republicans. People here are talking about how MAGA is not the conservative voter. This is a distinction without a purpose, because Maga and the Tea Party movements won elections. The left and dems must and will follow suit. You will only see more extreme points, and frankly outright violence. This is only the first 11 days. The impacts of removing fact checkers and the new free speech moderation stance is going to result in a direct uptick of hate speech. As things get worse, theres going to be even more incitement with utterly fabricated content. This is going to only further entrench the dominance of the media powerhouse that exists. The greater the animosity, the easier people are going to respond to the perceived threats - and since being disconnected from reality works, it will not matter if its true or not. All that matters now is winning elections.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      >As things get worse, theres going to be even more incitement with utterly fabricated content. Speaking of fabricated content, are you describing the actual future or a simulation of it?
- causal 2y ago
  Ah yes asking people to consider how they can be inclusive. Such unabashed hate for merit. Literally 1984. Definitely deserves all the vitriole and backlash we're seeing. /s
- garden_hermit 2y ago
  You are interpreting this through a really uncharitable lens. That statement is not about ideology, the whole premise is stewardship of taxpayer funds. If a grad student is funded on the project but gets pushed out because of toxic culture, discrimination, or some other kind of marginalization, then that is a waste of research funds and slows down research. Successful teams need to be able to work together effectively and mitigate conflicts. People are diverse, and conflicts are likely to arise because of this: anyone running a research team needs a plan to manage their team, just as they need a plan to manage their data. Its boring HR stuff that is necessary in a diverse society.
  - physicsguy 2y ago
    And of course writing such a statement will prevent any of that from happening… When these things are performative they’re worthless. People who are going to do those things are going to write the statement just the same. Even easier now with ChatGPT.
- creer 2y ago
  It's worse than "micromanaged" for that matter. PIER plans (nominally) required the applicant to do the work to become competent at this themselves, to develop and present a creative plan themselves, to implement that plan and conduct their entire project according to that plan. All this INSTEAD of doing their science job. All the while hoping that some perfect candidate will show up that will fit all the crazy requirements. Meanwhile remaining aware of illegal HR practices even when they could have sped up the process. So they had to become amateur sociologists and HR specialists. At least in a micromanagement situation, the PI might have submitted 3 candidates to a reviewer who would have picked one for them. But no. Now to be fair, the project leads - I expect - usually have no appetite for all this nonsense and try to cut corners everywhere possible (most likely copy/pasting generic stuff for a start and justifying decisions rather then making the "wrong" ones since they still had an interest in the project achieving its goals) but this was still a waste of time and energy from a point of view of science achieved. When I say "was", it probably still is because most of this current emergency change will be challenged in court and will need to be redone a couple times. So for now, this is MORE waste of time rather than less.
rafram 2y ago
> Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I suspect there was alot of desire to get rid of all this stuff before, but people were unable to do so. No, Trump brought in a bunch of veterans of Elon’s takeover of Twitter to do the same thing to the federal government. The people at the top have been replaced, and the new agency leaders are focusing on implementing this anti-DEI agenda at the expense of pretty much everything else right now. The sense I get from friends who work for the federal government is that this really feels like a hostile takeover. These are not changes that people welcome but have been too scared to ask for.
intended 2y ago
> Anyhow it had nothing to do with the merit of the project or the team which were obviously already being evaluated Oh thats an interesting point to make. Were you part of these things? I really like unbiased merit based societies, so I was wondering what your experience was.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sseagull 2y ago
  > I really like unbiased merit based societies Just thought I would recommend some reading about this: "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?" by Michael Sandel. Basically, think about what the longer-term, overarching effects on society would be in a perfectly-meritocratic society. It likely wouldn't be all unicorns and rainbows. Here's a review about it: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/montage-michael-sandel-against-meritocracy https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/montage-michael-sand... May not change your mind, but we should always try to expand it :)
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    Merit is somewhat paradoxically only partially about ability. If it turns out the most testably intelligent person chooses to spend his life flipping burgers and smoking weed then he has no more merit than the most testably dumb person who chose similarly. In other words a perfect meritocracy isn't Gattaca. It's just a place where your rise isn't going to be directly constrained by things outside of your control, like in Gattaca - being directly rejected because of one's DNA. In a meritocracy a fool who finds and excels at a niche can thrive, while a genius who doesn't exert himself can languish.
  - intended 2y ago
    Do note that I was instigating a point. (is it instigating?) The point of my question to the poster was whether they had been part of any such processes. I do appreciate the point on merit, and have a richer view of it than I may have let on.
bookaway 2y ago
Here's a take that I came across which I'd like your views on if possible: When the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act were created, people asked the government to enforces these acts. Whatever you think of merits of DEI, the government decided to create DEI in order to enforce the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities act. The problem is because they decided that DEI would be the mechanism to do this with, once DEI is rescinded the question is: If you're not going to enforce the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act through DEI, which mechanism do you plan to use to enforce them? According to this take, once DEI is rescinded there is no mechanism to enforce the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act anymore. I'm pretty sure that most leftwing and rightwing people will agree that out of 3 millions government workers it's not entirely unlikely that there would be some some valid cases of discrimination against minorities and those with disabilities. The claim is that, whether DEI sucks or not, there is no avenue to contest racism and discrimination in government hiring anymore.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  > Whatever you think of merits of DEI, the government decided to create DEI in order to enforce the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities act. This part is foundational to the rest, and it's straightforwardly untrue. The government agency which most often enforces these two laws is called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which remains active under the new administration; the new acting chair has given no indication that she intends to stop enforcing the Civil Rights Act or the ADA.
  - bookaway 2y ago
    Thanks for the info. Doesn't "revoking the Equal Employment Opportunity executive order" entail that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will be affected? [0] EDIT: Trump also fired the EEOC chair it seems. Can the commision work with just two commisioners if he doesn't hire a replacement? “These removals leave the E.E.O.C. without a quorum, which hobbles the agency’s ability to protect workers from unlawful discrimination,” [1][2] [0] https://archive.is/QHQJD https://archive.is/QHQJD [1] https://archive.is/C1voe https://archive.is/C1voe [2] https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/01/eeoc-like-nlrb-lacks-quorum-stalling-rulemaking-under-new-administration/ https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/01/eeoc-like-nlrb-la...
citruspi 2y ago
> Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I suspect there was alot of desire to get rid of all this stuff before, but people were unable to do so. Assuming "was alot of desire" is meant as "widespread support," not just "the President really desired it," that is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. Fast does not mean strong consensus. The government has also moved _ridiculously fast_ to - pardon/commute the vast majority of J6 defendants including those convicted of violence towards law enforcement - freeze federal aid across the board - blame the recent aviation crash on DEI - rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America - revoke birthright citizenship Does that mean that there "was alot of desire" to do those things? Absolutely not. It just means that those are things that the President has done unilaterally via executive orders or press release. To be clear I'm not advocating for or against the govt. But the idea that the government moving "ridiculously fast" is because there "was alot of desire" is a massive stretch. They are moving fast because they are steamrolling everyone in their path (allies included), and in their desire to "get shit done" they are implementing changes that are riddled with errors, and in some cases, even flat out illegal.
intended 2y ago
If your goal is to break things, then yes, you can move fast.

themgt 2y ago

Great resource. imo Trump is jerking the wheel too hard in the other direction but some of this stuff was legitimately crazy. FAQ: Q: I am only requesting support for one graduate student; do I still need to submit a PIER Plan? A: Yes, all applications for funding to the Office of Science, with the exception of supplemental proposals, conference proposals, and proposals to the SBIR/STTR Programs (at this time), require a PIER Plan. All applicants are encouraged to consider what contributions they can make to creating more equitable and inclusive research environments. It is expected that the complexity and detail of a PIER Plan for a smaller research project and fewer project personnel would be less than that for a larger research project. [and no we won't provide you an example, it needs to be from your heart] When you're requiring the greengrocer to submit a personalized statement justifying how each single apple he sells contributes to the project of worldwide socialism you might be risking provoking a reactionary counterrevolution. Americans need to just chill with trying to enforce micromanaged ideological conformity on a continent-sized country of 350 million people. And avoid winding up in a place "eroded by the ideological rituals that the entire power structure depend on, 'that are ever less credible, exactly because they are untested by public discussion and controversy'".

foobarbecue 2y ago
I applied for and won a small NASA ROSES citizen science seed funding grant ($80K). The call focused on outreach and equity in a way that encouraged me come up with a plan to get underprivileged high school students involved. This improved my results and made a difference in their lives.
- rafram 2y ago
  And now even involving underprivileged high school students voluntarily, without being asked, could get your grant revoked.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
The pendulum went from "DEI totally just means learning about slavery in school, everything else you're noticing is just in your head" to "everything bad is caused by DEI". I hope once this runs its course we can find a middleground between the extremes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  I think the groups saying each of those things are the same groups that have been saying those same things for quite a while already.
- intended 2y ago
  I'm sorry, but this hope needs to be put to rest. This political reality has been under construction since Watergate. The winner take all, take no prisoners approach worked. Its counteracted evolution, climate science, even reality. Creating your own media outlet, ditching bi-partishanship, has only helped the Republicans. People here are talking about how MAGA is not the conservative voter. This is a distinction without a purpose, because Maga and the Tea Party movements won elections. The left and dems must and will follow suit. You will only see more extreme points, and frankly outright violence. This is only the first 11 days. The impacts of removing fact checkers and the new free speech moderation stance is going to result in a direct uptick of hate speech. As things get worse, theres going to be even more incitement with utterly fabricated content. This is going to only further entrench the dominance of the media powerhouse that exists. The greater the animosity, the easier people are going to respond to the perceived threats - and since being disconnected from reality works, it will not matter if its true or not. All that matters now is winning elections.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    >As things get worse, theres going to be even more incitement with utterly fabricated content. Speaking of fabricated content, are you describing the actual future or a simulation of it?
causal 2y ago
Ah yes asking people to consider how they can be inclusive. Such unabashed hate for merit. Literally 1984. Definitely deserves all the vitriole and backlash we're seeing. /s
garden_hermit 2y ago
You are interpreting this through a really uncharitable lens. That statement is not about ideology, the whole premise is stewardship of taxpayer funds. If a grad student is funded on the project but gets pushed out because of toxic culture, discrimination, or some other kind of marginalization, then that is a waste of research funds and slows down research. Successful teams need to be able to work together effectively and mitigate conflicts. People are diverse, and conflicts are likely to arise because of this: anyone running a research team needs a plan to manage their team, just as they need a plan to manage their data. Its boring HR stuff that is necessary in a diverse society.
- physicsguy 2y ago
  And of course writing such a statement will prevent any of that from happening… When these things are performative they’re worthless. People who are going to do those things are going to write the statement just the same. Even easier now with ChatGPT.
creer 2y ago
It's worse than "micromanaged" for that matter. PIER plans (nominally) required the applicant to do the work to become competent at this themselves, to develop and present a creative plan themselves, to implement that plan and conduct their entire project according to that plan. All this INSTEAD of doing their science job. All the while hoping that some perfect candidate will show up that will fit all the crazy requirements. Meanwhile remaining aware of illegal HR practices even when they could have sped up the process. So they had to become amateur sociologists and HR specialists. At least in a micromanagement situation, the PI might have submitted 3 candidates to a reviewer who would have picked one for them. But no. Now to be fair, the project leads - I expect - usually have no appetite for all this nonsense and try to cut corners everywhere possible (most likely copy/pasting generic stuff for a start and justifying decisions rather then making the "wrong" ones since they still had an interest in the project achieving its goals) but this was still a waste of time and energy from a point of view of science achieved. When I say "was", it probably still is because most of this current emergency change will be challenged in court and will need to be redone a couple times. So for now, this is MORE waste of time rather than less.

rafram 2y ago

> Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I suspect there was alot of desire to get rid of all this stuff before, but people were unable to do so. No, Trump brought in a bunch of veterans of Elon’s takeover of Twitter to do the same thing to the federal government. The people at the top have been replaced, and the new agency leaders are focusing on implementing this anti-DEI agenda at the expense of pretty much everything else right now. The sense I get from friends who work for the federal government is that this really feels like a hostile takeover. These are not changes that people welcome but have been too scared to ask for.

intended 2y ago

> Anyhow it had nothing to do with the merit of the project or the team which were obviously already being evaluated Oh thats an interesting point to make. Were you part of these things? I really like unbiased merit based societies, so I was wondering what your experience was.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sseagull 2y ago
> I really like unbiased merit based societies Just thought I would recommend some reading about this: "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?" by Michael Sandel. Basically, think about what the longer-term, overarching effects on society would be in a perfectly-meritocratic society. It likely wouldn't be all unicorns and rainbows. Here's a review about it: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/montage-michael-sandel-against-meritocracy https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/montage-michael-sand... May not change your mind, but we should always try to expand it :)
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Merit is somewhat paradoxically only partially about ability. If it turns out the most testably intelligent person chooses to spend his life flipping burgers and smoking weed then he has no more merit than the most testably dumb person who chose similarly. In other words a perfect meritocracy isn't Gattaca. It's just a place where your rise isn't going to be directly constrained by things outside of your control, like in Gattaca - being directly rejected because of one's DNA. In a meritocracy a fool who finds and excels at a niche can thrive, while a genius who doesn't exert himself can languish.
- intended 2y ago
  Do note that I was instigating a point. (is it instigating?) The point of my question to the poster was whether they had been part of any such processes. I do appreciate the point on merit, and have a richer view of it than I may have let on.

bookaway 2y ago

Here's a take that I came across which I'd like your views on if possible: When the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act were created, people asked the government to enforces these acts. Whatever you think of merits of DEI, the government decided to create DEI in order to enforce the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities act. The problem is because they decided that DEI would be the mechanism to do this with, once DEI is rescinded the question is: If you're not going to enforce the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act through DEI, which mechanism do you plan to use to enforce them? According to this take, once DEI is rescinded there is no mechanism to enforce the Civil Right Act and Americans with Disabilities Act anymore. I'm pretty sure that most leftwing and rightwing people will agree that out of 3 millions government workers it's not entirely unlikely that there would be some some valid cases of discrimination against minorities and those with disabilities. The claim is that, whether DEI sucks or not, there is no avenue to contest racism and discrimination in government hiring anymore.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
> Whatever you think of merits of DEI, the government decided to create DEI in order to enforce the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities act. This part is foundational to the rest, and it's straightforwardly untrue. The government agency which most often enforces these two laws is called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which remains active under the new administration; the new acting chair has given no indication that she intends to stop enforcing the Civil Rights Act or the ADA.
- bookaway 2y ago
  Thanks for the info. Doesn't "revoking the Equal Employment Opportunity executive order" entail that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will be affected? [0] EDIT: Trump also fired the EEOC chair it seems. Can the commision work with just two commisioners if he doesn't hire a replacement? “These removals leave the E.E.O.C. without a quorum, which hobbles the agency’s ability to protect workers from unlawful discrimination,” [1][2] [0] https://archive.is/QHQJD https://archive.is/QHQJD [1] https://archive.is/C1voe https://archive.is/C1voe [2] https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/01/eeoc-like-nlrb-lacks-quorum-stalling-rulemaking-under-new-administration/ https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/01/eeoc-like-nlrb-la...

citruspi 2y ago

> Things are moving ridiculously fast for government to the point I suspect there was alot of desire to get rid of all this stuff before, but people were unable to do so. Assuming "was alot of desire" is meant as "widespread support," not just "the President really desired it," that is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. Fast does not mean strong consensus. The government has also moved _ridiculously fast_ to - pardon/commute the vast majority of J6 defendants including those convicted of violence towards law enforcement - freeze federal aid across the board - blame the recent aviation crash on DEI - rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America - revoke birthright citizenship Does that mean that there "was alot of desire" to do those things? Absolutely not. It just means that those are things that the President has done unilaterally via executive orders or press release. To be clear I'm not advocating for or against the govt. But the idea that the government moving "ridiculously fast" is because there "was alot of desire" is a massive stretch. They are moving fast because they are steamrolling everyone in their path (allies included), and in their desire to "get shit done" they are implementing changes that are riddled with errors, and in some cases, even flat out illegal.

intended 2y ago

If your goal is to break things, then yes, you can move fast.