3 ms·

Judge: You can't ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI

• ggm 1y ago
  "I know it when I see it" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
  • vanderZwan 1y ago
    That doesn't work when dealing with people who are arguing in bad faith that the card says moops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4
    • torbid 1y ago
      It doesn't work at all, Potter Stewart wasn't stupid or uninformed about what a secular republic is, so he was acting in bad faith to push for personal discretion definitions that will mostly be performed by people in the majority faith.
      • vanderZwan 1y ago
        Well that too, but I guess my point is that it works even less now.
• motorest 1y ago
  From the article. > So, while the decision restores money to individual research programs, it does nothing to reverse the larger damage caused by the politicization of funding decisions.
• kbelder 1y ago
  They should just double down on banning grants with racist/sexist/etc application... which was always illegal anyway, everybody just looked the other way. That would get rid of the objectionable parts of DEI.