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?
Python Foundation rejects $1.5M grant with no-DEI strings
Submitted 6 months ago by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/27/python_foundation_abandons_15m_nsf/
Comments
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
deathbird@mander.xyz 6 months 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”.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 6 months 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.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
They would be required to comply with the current administration’s extremely biased and borderline illiterate interpretation of those laws.
tja@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
You are misreading. These new obligations would require the PSF to violate those laws
cardfire@sh.itjust.works 6 months 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.
db2@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Trump’s bullshit already violated those laws though. Repeatedly.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Fuck yes, Python.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Who is the person downvoting the two comments in here???
NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I mean, votes are public in the fediverse. I wouldn’t try to read into the reasoning from a single downvoter too much though.
One downvote could be accidental. 2 downvotes in the same thread makes that seem less likely.
Downvoting/Upvoting doesn’t mean the same thing that it does for everyone. Some use it as an agree/disagree. Some use it for whether a comment is productive and adds to the conversation or not. Some use it as a visibility score whether they think a comment should be seen by others first or whether there are other comments that are better. Some may agree with most everything in a comment except for one part and then downvote because of that.
Cybersteel@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I thought the point of the system is to mark down out of context comments that doesn’t contribute to the post and not a I disagree button or super upvote.
Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Probably someone on the White House’s payroll who has a micropenis.
tfm@piefed.europe.pub 6 months ago
tetris11@feddit.uk 6 months ago
Checks his comment history
Seems like an okay dude. Might even be one of my alts gone rogue. Dunno why the downvote
henfredemars@infosec.pub 6 months ago
I’m deeply proud of Python for standing by its community and making the right decision.
oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
Hey look someone with integrity, morals, principles and balls. Sadly all four of those seem to be highly endangered traits.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Likely why it was not accepted
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Yeah, even if they weren’t willing to take a principled stance, that’s really dangerous. Especially with how temperamental these fascists are.
bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 6 months ago
It’s not even on principle. From a pure business perspective, giving a funder the right to claw back money you previously spent is insanity.