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.”
Congratulations for having a real spine and showing the world that money isn’t everything
Thank you python team
NSF: “We’ll give you money as long as you don’t hire minorities”.
Python: “Get fucked.”
Chad shit
Besides the anti-woke bullshit, it’s just a bad idea to accept. It is absolutely not normal for a grant to have stipulations that if you violate some vaguely defined criteria somewhere in your organization, it can be clawed back at a later time. That’s a huge liability for an organization to take on that they may suddenly owe a million dollars some time in the future.
The text actually required them to not violate anti-discrimination laws.
In 2 days the White House will order every companie to stop using python because of woke or something
Imagining all the llm dorks suddenly trying to learn typescript over the weekend
Or trying to control their mice population. Wait what?
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?
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”.
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.
That’s right. Fuck anti-DEI. DEI is the future and good.
I get that hiring practices should not discriminate, but in practice, what I have seen is the opposite of meritocracy. My company had many DEI hires, and they were the first to go when the money got tight.
I feel like you may not understand what DEI actually is. What, precisely, do you think a “DEI hire” is?
“DEI hire” has a different definition depending on whether you’re talking about design or implementation.
Design: Non-discriminatory hiring practices where race, gender, age, religion and disabilities are overlooked. You get hired purely on your ability to do the job. Appropriate disability supports are given if required.
Implementation: Cheap foreign labour obscured by marketing spin and a calendar of wokewashing. Applicants are hired based on a quota that in no way reflects the talent pool.
Neither of those are DEI.
Good for them. It is good to see people do something right for once.
“… do not ,and will not … operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology…”
Aren’t these contradictory? 🤔
Eh, some DEI programs were discriminatory by having quotas, most were not. The one at my company was great, which was basically minorities giving talks about difficulties getting hired, promotions, etc. We didn’t have quotas, just reports.
This exemplifies why the provision is so bad. DEI is a term of art, not a specific thing. Everyone is proud of PyPI for standing up for whatever they think DEI means, but they don’t define or explain it so it doesn’t actually mean anything. Or rather it can mean anything at all. That’s the danger to the organization.
Yeah, I 100% respect Python for standing up to this nonsense. DEI should mean teaching people about their biases so we can do a better job of goving opportunities to those best able to do the job, instead of whoever is liked by the hiring team.
Grants like this shouldn’t have stipulations about how the project is run, only about the priorities, if any.
My point is merely that DEI programs can be discriminatory, not that they are.
To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have voilated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained.
Likely why it was not accepted
Yeah, even if they weren’t willing to take a principled stance, that’s really dangerous. Especially with how temperamental these fascists are.
