10 ms·

I will not miss the “DEI” components of NSF proposals (or the PIER part of the DOE ones), especially having been on the review panel side about 5 times now. It

I will not miss the “DEI” components of NSF proposals (or the PIER part of the DOE ones), especially having been on the review panel side about 5 times now. It’s not that I disagree with their intent, but the fact that after you’ve read a few you realize that proposers know exactly what they are expected to write there, so they write that there. Those sections are basically a useless going-through-the-motions exercise, and everyone knows it. I’ve never seen a proposal win or lose, or even change positions in a tie break, based on that content. More or less we just look to see that it exists, indicate that existence in the review form, and concentrate on the actual content. It’s a performative waste of everyone’s time.

floor2 2y ago
> I’ve never seen a proposal win or lose, or even change positions in a tie break, based on that content This is an absolutely wild statement, because my experience has been the complete opposite. I've seen a zillion times where a straight white guy was passed over specifically to achieve DEI goals. I don't think the pro-DEI crowd understands how discriminatory DEI initiatives became in many institutions and how that's the root of the anti-DEI backlash. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the best X (candidate, project, company, whatever) get rejected because they were unacceptably white and male, so that the job/grant/contract could go to a DEI candidate instead. Heck, I was on an interview committee where the recruiters and hiring manager openly admitted they weren't interviewing male candidates, and we spent 3 months interviewing 100% of female candidates who applied while hundreds of male applicants got ghosted. That one was more explicit than most, but the same phenomenon has been happening for years at every layer of academia, business and government.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - vkou 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      [flagged]
- advisedwang 2y ago
  The post your are talking about is specifically about NSF proposals. Your experience with interviewing, project choice, contracting or whatever you are referring to is a different thing. It's not so wild to imagine that a different thing has different practices.
- squigz 2y ago
  I've never found this argument of the anti-DEI crowd to be very convincing, because it inherently implies that without DEI measures, such decisions would be entirely meritocratic.
  - prepend 2y ago
    I think the argument is that while there was suspicion and implicit lack of meritocratic procedures before the initiatives, after doubt was removed. For example, I just started in the 90s and worked in tech but I never heard an HR person or hiring manager say “we’re only going to interview applicants of a majority race” but after initiatives, it became common to hear this toward an underrepresented race or gender. I want a diverse workforce. But explicitly discriminating to attempt to fix the problem is a bad way that makes people angry. I think it’s better to work on systemic fixes (more graduates, more training programs, etc).
    - squigz 2y ago
      > after doubt was removed. This really isn't quite the universal experience many in this crowd seem to make it out to be.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      You're making a case against racism happening in the 90s, but you also think that if racism was happening in the nineties then the people doing it would have announced in public "FYI everyone I'm doing the racism now" which makes you seem somewhat detached from reality.
      - prepend 2y ago
        That’s not what I’m saying. Racism happened in the 90s, but it wasn’t explicit discrimination. Explicitly discriminating against certain races now is something new. Two things can be bad at the same time: implicit racism then and now; explicit racism just now.
    - eli_gottlieb 2y ago
- maxlybbert 2y ago
  I think you’re talking about something different. Regardless of which ethnic group, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I belong to, if I want to get an NSF grant, I have to fill out certain paperwork. And, apparently, it’s expected that I would write how my proposal will make the world a better place based on how it impacts DEI factors. The comment is that it doesn’t actually matter what I say there, since everybody says the same thing. There’s never a case where the NSF isn’t sure about whether to grant funds, and then decides that the way one project impacts DEI makes it better than another project.
strangeloops85 2y ago
This is disingenuous: there is no "DEI" component of NSF proposals. There is a Broader Impacts section which is mandated by law - the America Competes Act of 2010, which congress passed. https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.p... It states that: GOALS.—The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals: (1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States. (2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce. (3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM. (4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry. (5) Improved pre-K–12 STEM education and teacher development. (6) Improved undergraduate STEM education. (7) Increased public scientific literacy. (8) Increased national security. That's it. I've won many NSF proposals and have never talked about DEI. Instead we talk about outreach work we do with local schools, our involving undergraduate students in research who would not otherwise be able to volunteer their time, and of course the economic impacts of working on these topics. An executive order cannot override the law authorizing the National Science Foundation and its activities. We are, for now, a country of laws.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  Is the item (3) what the parent comment refers to?
  - strangeloops85 2y ago
    Who knows? The executive orders read like they were written by children and don't clearly define what they mean by "DEIA". But NSF's authorization is from Congress. Unless congress passes a law rescinding this as a part of what counts as broader impacts, or the Supreme Court rules that increasing participation of underrepresented groups is unconstitutional (by precedent it is certainly not!), then NSF cannot simply change the definition of broader impacts.
    - nickff 2y ago
      NSF is an independent agency, and the degree of control over it which a President can legitimately exercise is disputed, but presidents from both parties have treated the independent agencies as being subject to executive orders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

floor2 2y ago

> I’ve never seen a proposal win or lose, or even change positions in a tie break, based on that content This is an absolutely wild statement, because my experience has been the complete opposite. I've seen a zillion times where a straight white guy was passed over specifically to achieve DEI goals. I don't think the pro-DEI crowd understands how discriminatory DEI initiatives became in many institutions and how that's the root of the anti-DEI backlash. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the best X (candidate, project, company, whatever) get rejected because they were unacceptably white and male, so that the job/grant/contract could go to a DEI candidate instead. Heck, I was on an interview committee where the recruiters and hiring manager openly admitted they weren't interviewing male candidates, and we spent 3 months interviewing 100% of female candidates who applied while hundreds of male applicants got ghosted. That one was more explicit than most, but the same phenomenon has been happening for years at every layer of academia, business and government.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    [flagged]
advisedwang 2y ago
The post your are talking about is specifically about NSF proposals. Your experience with interviewing, project choice, contracting or whatever you are referring to is a different thing. It's not so wild to imagine that a different thing has different practices.
squigz 2y ago
I've never found this argument of the anti-DEI crowd to be very convincing, because it inherently implies that without DEI measures, such decisions would be entirely meritocratic.
- prepend 2y ago
  I think the argument is that while there was suspicion and implicit lack of meritocratic procedures before the initiatives, after doubt was removed. For example, I just started in the 90s and worked in tech but I never heard an HR person or hiring manager say “we’re only going to interview applicants of a majority race” but after initiatives, it became common to hear this toward an underrepresented race or gender. I want a diverse workforce. But explicitly discriminating to attempt to fix the problem is a bad way that makes people angry. I think it’s better to work on systemic fixes (more graduates, more training programs, etc).
  - squigz 2y ago
    > after doubt was removed. This really isn't quite the universal experience many in this crowd seem to make it out to be.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    You're making a case against racism happening in the 90s, but you also think that if racism was happening in the nineties then the people doing it would have announced in public "FYI everyone I'm doing the racism now" which makes you seem somewhat detached from reality.
    - prepend 2y ago
      That’s not what I’m saying. Racism happened in the 90s, but it wasn’t explicit discrimination. Explicitly discriminating against certain races now is something new. Two things can be bad at the same time: implicit racism then and now; explicit racism just now.
  - eli_gottlieb 2y ago
maxlybbert 2y ago
I think you’re talking about something different. Regardless of which ethnic group, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I belong to, if I want to get an NSF grant, I have to fill out certain paperwork. And, apparently, it’s expected that I would write how my proposal will make the world a better place based on how it impacts DEI factors. The comment is that it doesn’t actually matter what I say there, since everybody says the same thing. There’s never a case where the NSF isn’t sure about whether to grant funds, and then decides that the way one project impacts DEI makes it better than another project.

strangeloops85 2y ago

This is disingenuous: there is no "DEI" component of NSF proposals. There is a Broader Impacts section which is mandated by law - the America Competes Act of 2010, which congress passed. https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.p... It states that: GOALS.—The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals: (1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States. (2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce. (3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM. (4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry. (5) Improved pre-K–12 STEM education and teacher development. (6) Improved undergraduate STEM education. (7) Increased public scientific literacy. (8) Increased national security. That's it. I've won many NSF proposals and have never talked about DEI. Instead we talk about outreach work we do with local schools, our involving undergraduate students in research who would not otherwise be able to volunteer their time, and of course the economic impacts of working on these topics. An executive order cannot override the law authorizing the National Science Foundation and its activities. We are, for now, a country of laws.

jjtheblunt 2y ago
Is the item (3) what the parent comment refers to?
- strangeloops85 2y ago
  Who knows? The executive orders read like they were written by children and don't clearly define what they mean by "DEIA". But NSF's authorization is from Congress. Unless congress passes a law rescinding this as a part of what counts as broader impacts, or the Supreme Court rules that increasing participation of underrepresented groups is unconstitutional (by precedent it is certainly not!), then NSF cannot simply change the definition of broader impacts.
  - nickff 2y ago
    NSF is an independent agency, and the degree of control over it which a President can legitimately exercise is disputed, but presidents from both parties have treated the independent agencies as being subject to executive orders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...