6 ms·
On the one hand, the plain text of the language is not against DEI practices in general -- only DEI practices that are "in violation of Federal anti-discriminat
by elicash 1y ago
On the one hand, the plain text of the language is not against DEI practices in general -- only DEI practices that are "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws."
On the other hand, the federal government has gone after law firms that are not actually in violation of law and forced settlements due to their DEI programs, so you can't actually trust that you won't be hassled. Additionally, that you won't at minimum have the money clawed back, even if the claims are meritless, as the administration has done on Congressionally appropriated funds repeatedly as part of DOGE efforts.
- adastra22 1y agoThe conjunction used is "or". It could mean either.
- elicash 1y agoMy reading in context is different: https://www.governmentcontractorcomplianceupdate.com/2025/08/11/attorney-general-pam-bondi-issues-dei-guidance-to-recipients-of-federal-funds/ https://www.governmentcontractorcomplianceupdate.com/2025/08...
- adastra22 1y agoThat's a different, non-governmental website?
- pseudalopex 1y agoThat was labor lawyers interpreting a governmental memorandum about the same issue substantially or precisely.
- alfalfasprout 1y agoReality: the trump admin has shown that the law doesn't matter in the short term. If they think it's "DEI" they'll find a way to yank funding/make an example out of an organization agreeing to this. Even if they're legally in the wrong. Years later courts may agree no federal anti discrimination laws were violated but it's too late-- the damage has been done.
- ModernMech 1y agoIf it’s not “DEI” then it’s “waste fraud and abuse”. And if it’s not that then it’s “terrorism” or “treason”.
- Forgeties79 1y ago“Anti-semitism” if it involves colleges in any way, don’t forget that!
- dragonwriter 1y ago> On the one hand, the plain text of the language is not against DEI practices in general -- only DEI practices that are "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws." EO 14151—the policy of which the rewriting of the standard anti-discrimination clause in this way is a part of the implementation—characterizes DEI entirely as illegal discrimination (but the new backformation “discriminatory equity ideology” is not found in the EO, that’s apparently a newer invention to avoid the dissonance of using the actual expansion of the initialism while characterizing it as directly the opposite of what it is.
- bo1024 1y agoSure, but the executive order is not a law.
- dragonwriter 1y agoThe executive order is direction to executive branch officials, including the ones who are responsible for applying the cancellation and clawback terms in the agreement at issue, as to how they are to perform their duties. It is certainly relevsant to evaluating whether or not it is worthwhile to apply for the grant. That sufficient litigation might reverse an application of the policy in the EO that the agreement text clearly highlights the intent to enforce as inconsistent with the underlying law isn’t worth much unless the cost of expected litigation would be dwarfed by the size of the contract award, and for a $1.5 million grant application, that’s...not very much litigation.
- josefritzishere 1y agoYou say that confidently like that's an obstacle to executive power in 2025.
- IshKebab 1y agoDoes it define what DEI is? It seems very loosely defined to me so it seems a bit crazy to talk about it in contact terms without defining it more precisely.
- 1y ago
- AlSweigart 1y agoWho, in 2025, is still giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the rule of law?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gcanyon 1y agoAs I’ve said in the past: they need the benefit of the doubt on everything; they deserve the benefit of the doubt on nothing.
- lenerdenator 1y agoRoughly half of the country, give or take.
- daveguy 1y ago*Roughly 40% of the country, give or take. Don't be complacent.
- dragonwriter 1y agoRoughly 40% supports Trump, but they are often quite loud about putting other things above the rule of law. Not sure why you think roughly 50% give him the benefit of the doubt on dedication to the rule of law.
- ThrowawayR2 1y agoFrom Democratic analyst David Shor back in March ( https://archive.is/kbwom https://archive.is/kbwom ) : "The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points]." So, not that it brings me any joy to say it but it would seem more like 55%? If anyone has any polling data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
- jcranmer 1y agoThe text is: > we "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." There's some ambiguity in syntax as to whether or not "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws" attaches to "discriminatory equity ideology" or "any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology." Given the (improper) comma before the 'or', I'm inclined to lean towards an intended interpretation of the former. That is to say, the government intends to read the statement as affirming no advancement or promotion of DEI, regardless of whether or not they violate any US laws. (The current administration also advances the proposition that advancing or promoting DEI itself is a violation of US laws, so it's a rather academic question.)
- ModernMech 1y agoThe best and brightest are not working on these matters.They put out work product with misspellings, misstatements, outright lies, and ChatGPT hallucinations. We have to assume any mistakes are unintentional. Maybe if you’re sued, the mistake gets you off the hook in front of a judge, but you should expect to be hassled no matter what the actual text says.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago> We have to assume any mistakes are unintentional. I assume they are intentional. The whole point is to make society less integrity based and more pay to play based. If you’re sufficiently influential, then it’s a mistake that is forgiven. If you aren’t, then you suffer the consequences. It’s how it works in low trust societies. You haggle for everything, from produce to traffic tickets to building permits to criminal charges. Everything.
- usefulcat 1y ago"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law"
- endomorphosis 1y ago
- cls59 1y agoAgreed. I think the buried lede here is actually the clawback clause. With that in the contract, this isn't a $1.5 million dollar grant, it's a $1.5 million dollar liability. If you take the money and spend it on research and development and then get hit by a clawback, whether due to "DEI" or some other reason, that is a financially ruinous event to somehow come up with $1.5 million dollars that was already spent. A shame and a waste as it sounds like the project would have been beneficial outside of the Python ecosystem, had it been funded.
- sho_hn 1y agoAs treasurer of a similar FOSS org, this is the correct take. An important responsibility of the people running a FOSS community's backing non-profit is to keep the org safe and stable, as the community relies on it for vital services and legal representation. A risk like that is unacceptable, even more than in commercial business.
- echelon 1y agoCould the foundation take the money and sit on it in bonds or some other safe instrument? Call it an "endowment"? $1.5M at 4% is nice. But I suppose the "proposal" means these funds come with a distribution plan attached?
- sho_hn 1y agoTypically in grant work you submit a complete proposal with milestones and roles defined, and receive payout over time to cover the costs in the plan, or some part of them. It's earmarked money. In more established non-profit areas there's usually also quite some compliance overhead and audits to be passed, so this can be someone's fulltime job on the org side. FOSS backing orgs are typically smaller and less experienced, so donors have so far found ways to make things easier for them and give more leeway.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1y ago
- kube-system 1y agoThe opinion of the current administration is that DEI is illegal, the language is intentionally implying that DEI is illegal discrimination, because that is the view they are trying to advance. Grants are even being terminated for being related to any sort of diversity topic.
- actionfromafar 1y agoGrants are terminated based on keyword matches.
- bcherry 1y agothey'd have to be extra careful with cpython, it's got a lot of include