You are misreading. These new obligations would require the PSF to violate those laws
Comment on Python Foundation rejects $1.5M grant with no-DEI strings
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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?
tja@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
cardfire@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
It normalizes the anti-equity principles of the grating party.
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.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
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.
deathbird@mander.xyz 1 day ago
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”.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
They would be required to comply with the current administration’s extremely biased and borderline illiterate interpretation of those laws.