4 ms·
So you don't think being forced to include a statement on diversity in every single grant request reviewed by the NIH was "injecting dumb politics" but you do t
by alaxhn 2y ago
So you don't think being forced to include a statement on diversity in every single grant request reviewed by the NIH was "injecting dumb politics" but you do think that being forced to NOT include a statement on diversity in every single grant request is?
- bloopernova 2y agoI think people are more concerned about the economic fallout and the illegality of what is being done.
- flocciput 2y ago> forced to NOT include == "not being allowed to include" i.e. a restriction on free speech with more worrying implications than "injecting dumb politics"
- tgma 2y agoReally? You see a narrow contextual restriction for irrelevant information in a grant/hiring packet to be worse than compelled speech?
- scarab92 2y agoDiversity statements were used to facilitate race-based grant approvals. They should never have been legal.
- magicink81 2y agoNever were legal.
- lnwlebjel 2y agoThis is false. The grants were not approved based on race. The grants were approved based on merit toward the goals of the field of science to which they were submitted. Showing how your work had broader impacts toward a more diverse, equitable and inclusive society was one part of a list of many criteria, recently updated here: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/merit-review#our-merit-review-criteria-f24 https://new.nsf.gov/funding/merit-review#our-merit-review-cr...
- nmz 2y agoI think a link to archive.org might be better here, the criteria changed and so must have the website as well no?
- anonylizard 2y agoCompelled speech is far, far, far worse than constricting speech by every conceivable dimension. Even in day to day interaction, forcing someone to be silent, is far more of a gentler 'social action' than forcing someone to speak.
- flocciput 2y agoI don't think I agree. What's your reasoning?
- stonogo 2y agoYou call it "injecting dumb politics," but I call it "explaining why I shouldn't believe you'll just hire your buddies." It's an attempt to prevent the grift everyone claims is in research, but it's been politicized by bad-faith non-participants.
- thatfrenchguy 2y agoThere’s a very big difference there between “including a statement in diversity” and “your funding gets pulled because you previously included a statement about diversity”. The new administration is essentially pulling funding from everyone who got grants previously based on those criteria. Who do you think benefits medium term from our best researchers getting less funding? The toll on our economy will only be visible in 15-20 years, and it will be massive.
- timacles 2y agoDestroying the economy IS the goal it seems like. These money shark guys that have got a hold of our government and economy since 2007 seem to have a long term plan that is specifically designed to destroy the US economy. Its counter intuitive, since their wealth is directly linked, but they have some kind of plan.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoIncluding statements on diversity, and defunding projects because they have diversity are two very different things. And yeah, as a white male who sees few women, and even fewer people from minorities other than Chinese and Indian, in the hard sciences (especially computer related), I definitely support efforts to try to include them more. It results in more diverse views of a problem, which often leads to better science.
- esalman 2y agoLet's not sugarcoat it. DEI is the new N-word. Only people who are covert racists would be bothered by a mere statement about inclusion.