3 ms·

If I'm reading that right, it looks like "do not and will not ... operate any programs... in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws" Did your lawyer say

If I'm reading that right, it looks like "do not and will not ... operate any programs... in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws" Did your lawyer say otherwise? Interested to understand > We were forced to withdraw our application and turn down the funding, thanks to new language that was added to the agreement requiring us to affirm that 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." > Our legal advisors confirmed that this would not just apply to security work covered by the grant - this would apply to all of the PSF's activities.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ihaveajob 1y ago
The core sentence has an OR clause, which means if any of the 2 conditions happens (DEI promotion; violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws), then they're in violation. Their stated mission is directly in contradiction with the first part. Even if it wasn't, I'd probably vote in the same direction, given the (let's call it) volatility we are seeing with capricious interpretation of executive privilege.
nicole_express 1y ago
The current administration has taken, shall we say, a broad approach to what they consider "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws", this clause is suddenly interpreted very differently than in past administrations despite the laws in question not changing. Therefore, I can definitely see why the PSF's lawyers encouraged giving this clause an extremely wide berth and pulling the grant entirely.
- paulsutter 1y ago
  Then the brave thing is you accept the grant and let them take it to court. Get a court ruling against them, which in our common law system establishes case law The administration can try to press charges, but they don’t control the courts
  - LauraMedia 1y ago
    According to recent events of this US administration, there are two things that could follow after a court decides in favor of the PSF: * They will ignore it and still claw back the money, with force if needed * They go higher and higher through the courts until it lands on the table of the supreme court that conveniently sides with the administration. You can't win a fight in the system. Law is broken and not reliable anymore.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ihaveajob 1y ago

The core sentence has an OR clause, which means if any of the 2 conditions happens (DEI promotion; violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws), then they're in violation. Their stated mission is directly in contradiction with the first part. Even if it wasn't, I'd probably vote in the same direction, given the (let's call it) volatility we are seeing with capricious interpretation of executive privilege.

nicole_express 1y ago

The current administration has taken, shall we say, a broad approach to what they consider "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws", this clause is suddenly interpreted very differently than in past administrations despite the laws in question not changing. Therefore, I can definitely see why the PSF's lawyers encouraged giving this clause an extremely wide berth and pulling the grant entirely.

paulsutter 1y ago
Then the brave thing is you accept the grant and let them take it to court. Get a court ruling against them, which in our common law system establishes case law The administration can try to press charges, but they don’t control the courts
- LauraMedia 1y ago
  According to recent events of this US administration, there are two things that could follow after a court decides in favor of the PSF: * They will ignore it and still claw back the money, with force if needed * They go higher and higher through the courts until it lands on the table of the supreme court that conveniently sides with the administration. You can't win a fight in the system. Law is broken and not reliable anymore.