National Science Foundation (NSF) had offered $1.5 million to address structural vulnerabilities in Python and the Python Package Index (PyPI), but the Foundation quickly became dispirited with the terms of the grant it would have to follow.
“These terms included affirming the statement that we ‘do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,’” Crary noted. “This restriction would apply not only to the security work directly funded by the grant, but to any and all activity of the PSF as a whole.”
The PSF is (presumably) already required to comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws. Am I misreading the text or does it not actually create any new obligations for the PSF if they were to accept the grant?
a) the wording makes it legally ambiguous what exactly would constitute violating the text. If it just said “comply with anti-discrimination laws,” that would be one thing.
b) It applies to the whole organization, not just the group accepting and applying the grant, making it very challenging to meet the requirement.
c) Unlike just about any other grant, the funds can be clawed back in the future if something was violated. This is not normal for a grant, and puts the entire organization’s existence in jeopardy if they suddenly find themselves owing millions of dollars that had already been spent.
It’s very likely their legal council told them under no circumstances should they accept the terms.
If the article is to be believed there’s also a provision there saying that they cannot engage in any programs that advance or promote DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). That part’s new, and it’s honestly not well defined. What is DEI? Racial quotas and discrimination? Cultural acknowledgements? Anti-discrimination? All these things have been called DEI. Some of these things have been called the other. Without clarity, the likeliest definition is “whatever annoys the administration”.
They would be required to comply with the current administration’s extremely biased and borderline illiterate interpretation of those laws.
You are misreading. These new obligations would require the PSF to violate those laws
It normalizes the anti-equity principles of the granting party, which now occupies the US govt.
The benefactor had already shown exactly how they treat people that aren’t white Christian men, and it’s up to schools, businesses and organizations like the Foundation to show resistance and inclusivity.