4 ms·
This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ? > “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, o
by bilekas 1y ago
This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ?
> “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant?
I applaud them for taking a stand, it seems to be more and more rare these days.
- dboreham 1y agoThe fascist language is a no-op because it optimizes to: "don't violate federal laws" which presumably is reasonable.
- takluyver 1y agoI would imagine it is much easier to enforce as part of a grant agreement that organisations have signed. Especially if the law is either not really a law (yet), or it might be invalidated by a court on free speech grounds. There's probably a reason someone wrote it into the grant agreement, and that they're declaring DEI stands for something other than the familiar Diversity, Equity & Inclusion.
- __alexs 1y ago> discriminatory equity ideology Isn't that when you let your mates buy into your corrupt private investment vehicles for cheap?
- lingrush4 1y agoI have no idea what point you think you're making, but this happens all the time. Do you really think you should be obligated to let strangers buy into your private business?
- bakugo 1y ago> The government dictating how you run your business ? Yes, these terms are usually called "laws", you might've heard of them.
- politician 1y agoCould you clarify that you're suggesting that "it's un-American" for the government to require that the grantee not violate any of its anti-discrimination laws?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mc32 1y agoI think people defend anti discrimination or are against it depending on how the anti discrimination policy discriminates discrimination. We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.
- rectang 1y agoI agree that humans discriminate inherently, although I would argue that what differentiates us is whether we struggle against that impulse. On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify. I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.
- justin66 1y agoI understand what you're driving at but at this stage of the game it's quite American.
- ponow 1y agoFederal funding of research is un-American.
- georgemcbay 1y ago> Federal funding of research is un-American. Federal funding of research created the Internet that you are posting this idiocy on.
- ipaddr 1y agoBefore you attack the last poster, he does have a point. Federal funding of powers that belong to states is unamerican.
- ericfr11 1y agoI agree. The gvt should not care if DEI is used, or if someone is gay or transgender m
- drstewart 1y agoOh really? So what pro-DEI requirements did the federal funding for that grant require?
- collingreen 1y agoWhat does this even mean? Are you trying to imply that funding for research that lead to the various tech powering the modern internet was done only by organizations that never before or since considered trying to source candidates from a variety of places because they believe different viewpoints have value? Or are you trying to hang this entire thing on a definition of DEI that somehow always and exclusively means illegal race or gender based discrimination (I assume against white men)? These conversations are so absurd sometimes. I'm baffled by how spitting mad people can decide they are to fight these straw men. Then I'm annoyed by (and suspicious of) the overwhelming silence from most of these sources when it comes to other obvious examples of racial discrimination or things like the government trying to remove history books that mention slavery. These things don't look like good faith to me.
- rectang 1y agoAnti-DEI forces, once in power, turn out not to favor putative “diversity of opinion” after all.
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- aaronbrethorst 1y agoAhem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- zo1 1y ago[flagged]
- etchalon 1y agopro-skin-diversity is a real weird way to say "against racism."
- ipaddr 1y agoThey are for racism. Treat one group different from others based on race. We can debate whether doing this rights historical wrongs but we can't pretend it is not racist to treat different people of different skin colors differently.
- etchalon 1y agoWe don't have to pretend it's not racist when it's factually not racist. And there's not really a debate about whether it rights historic wrong. There is a debate about whether righting historic wrongs is even possible. The debate is whether we can/should counterbalance existing wrongs in society. And I have hard time taking anyone seriously who says we shouldn't.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 1y ago> "[yadda yadda yadda] in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws." Should not be a new or surprising statement at all in this type of thing, let alone a question of if it's un-American.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant? On the surface, it is simply a requirement that the grantee comply with existing non-discrimination laws coupled with a completely fictional example of a potential violation (“discriminatory equity ideology”) provided as an example that happens to have an initialism collision with a real thing. This is legal and (but for the propaganda example) routine. But... the text viewed in isolation is not the issue.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AlSweigart 1y agoAgreed. And it is... quite revealing that many people in these comments are so insistent to view the text in isolation.
- ksynwa 1y ago> Is that even legal to Does it matter for the Trump administration what is legal and what isn't?
- prasadjoglekar 1y agoThe "in violation of Federal Law" is crucial. You can argue it's only there to cover the admin's ass, but Federal Law (the actual statues) already prohibits any favoritism or discrimination on the basis of skin color etc. The prior admin made it so that their chosen DEI programs fit "Federal Law". This admin has done a complete 180. Courts haven't tested any of this yet. It's all a hammer being wielded by the side in power.
- pbronez 1y agoFederal money always has lots of strings attached. The specific rules differ by the specific funding vehicle. The main vehicle is the Federal Acquisitions Regulation (FAR); you can review their rule here: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52 This is basically the US Federal Government’s standard Master Services Agreement (MSA).
- JuniperMesos 1y ago> This seems very un-American. The government dictating how you run your business ? Yes, and anyone who takes the Barry Goldwater libertarian position that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constituted an un-American government dictate about how you can run your business with respect to discrimination based on demographic categories probably agrees with you. There's a real sense in which this administration is invoking the formally-neutral legal infrastructure that has been built up over many years by liberals with the intention of securing the civil rights of various marginalized groups, and ostentatiously using it as a weapon against groups that are discriminating against white people or white men in particular and feel like they are acting righteously in doing so. More generally, there's all sorts of laws in every country including America that involve the government dictating how you run your business, or how you run your business if you want to be eligible for government grants. No one actually thinks that a law becomes illegitimate if it dictates how a person can run their business, unless they are such a radical anarchist that they entirely reject the legitimacy of any kind of government or law at all.