[aspir]

This isn't good for the PSF, but if these "poison pill" terms are a pattern that applies to all NSF and (presumably) other government research funding, the entire state of modern scientific research is at risk.

Regardless of how you, as an individual, might feel about "DEI," imposing onerous political terms on scientific grants harms everyone in the long term.

[numbsafari]

The direction of political winds shift over time. An organization like the PSF cannot assume an open-ended liability like that. DEI today, but what tomorrow? As we have seen, political leadership in the US has shown itself to be unreliable, pernicious, and vindictive.

US leadership is undermined by the politicization of these grants. That is something that members of this community, largely a US-based, VC-oriented audience, should be deeply, deeply troubled by.

[xeonmc]

I wonder, how likely do you think there would be a retaliatory threat of revoking PSF’s nonprofit status for a perceived snub in rejecting the offer?

[zitterbewegung]

Also, I don't get that an Organization such as the PSF operates at a $5 million dollar budget which quite arguably provides Billions or even Trillions in revenue across the Tech sector.

[aspir]

This is an unfortunate state of all open source. The entire economic model is broken, but PSF is one of the better operationalized groups out there.

Not to completely change the topic, but to add context, the Ruby Central drama that has unfolded over the past few weeks originally began as a brainstorm to raise ~$250k in annual funds.

[chermi]

I'm not taking a stance, I just want to point out that the previous grant system (the "dei" one) could very easily and justifiably be seen as "imposing onerous political terms" on funding as well. You could say the pendulum motion has too large an amplitude.

[insane_dreamer]

it never had a claw back clause -- that is the real problem here. And we've seen that the Trump admin is willing to actually claw back granted funds.

not at all the same

[GemesAS]

Prior to the current administration there's been a ratcheting up of political influence / social engineering on science grants as well. The last DoE Office of Science grant I applied to had a DEI requirement that was also used during screening. My preference would all this political influence be dialed down.

[insane_dreamer]

Did it have a claw back clause? If not, then it's quite different than the current situation?

Also, DEI in recruitment / screening can be important to ensure that the results of the study apply not just to the majority demographic. It's just common sense.

[rs186]

Seems you comment agrees with the parent.

[flufluflufluffy]

They do apply, also for NIH funded research. I work in healthcare research and all the investigators I know have had to go to great lengths to whitewash their grant proposals (you can’t use the word “gender” for example, you must say “difference” instead of “disparity”, etc etc…)

It’s absolutely bonkers. However most of the researchers I work with are operating under a “appease the NIH to obtain the grant, but the just do the research as it was originally intended” approach. It not like the federal government has the ability (or staffing - hah!) to ensure every single awardee is complying with these dystopian requirements.

[nxobject]

> However most of the researchers I work with are operating under a “appease the NIH to obtain the grant, but the just do the research as it was originally intended” approach. It not like the federal government has the ability (or staffing - hah!) to ensure every single awardee is complying with these dystopian requirements.

It's also the same program officers stewarding grant administration after administration, anyway. I don't mean this negatively: they're broad but still subject matter experts, parachuting in new people would be administrative malpractice, and they know just as much what conclusions can and can't be drawn from an analysis plan.

[eadmund]

Is the restriction on grantees not violating federal law a new one, or has it been around for ages?

[philipallstar]

> I am going to add my own stronger language than yours: if you don’t feel positively about diversity, equity, and inclusion, then you are sending a message that you instead support homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion.

This "if you're not for us you're against us" is a very broken way of thinking.

It excludes the many, many more people just don't care about diversity and want the best people in a role regardless of ethnicity or sex or anything else. That's not "pro homogeneity" - only someone whose perspective is entirely warped by this one factor would think that way.

[jl6]

> if you don’t feel positively about diversity, equity, and inclusion, then you are sending a message that you instead support homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion

No, because we are not talking about Boolean variables where you can discover the logical opposite by negation. These are words with deeply fuzzy meanings. Supporters can support the best possible meanings, and opposers can oppose the worst possible meanings, and be closer to consensus than this binary, polarized, with-us-or-against-us rhetoric might imply.

[k1rd]

Isn't the opposite of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion by de Morgan law homogeneity or inequity or exclusion?

[drstewart]

I am going to going even further than you and suggest if you are an American do not support America First, that means you instead support America Last.

If you believe that, you should think about what other countries and groups support those kinds of things, and what kind of company supporting terrorist groups puts you in.

No, there isn't a legitimate reason not to want America First.

Yes, it's important we call out anyone and stand against people who want to tear down America and fully pursue all applicable laws that apply to this destructive behavior.

[AlSweigart]

I am going add more on top of that: we should automatically assume bad faith of anyone still willing, in 2025, to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt.

[japhyr]

> DEI is an immoral, hate based and anti-truth ideology.

Much of the DEI work stems from people looking around a decade or so ago at tech conferences, and noticing that they were almost entirely comprised of men.

There's way too much to address in a single comment, so I'll share one specific thing the Python community has done over the past ten+ years that's made a world of difference: The talk proposal process has been standardized so identifying information is hidden in the first round of reviews.

That one change helped shift the dial from almost entirely male speaker lineups to a much more balanced speaker lineup. As a result, we get a much broader range of talks.

There is nothing "immoral, hate based, and anti-truth" about efforts like this.

[charlescearl]

On the ending of “DEI” (itself an eviscerated approach to addressing the minimal demands to address over two centuries of american slavery, indigenous genocide, patriarchal violence, anti-trans, anti-queer violence) as targeted death making. The list of the scientific establishment’s participation, complicity, neglect is long. Some programs called immediately to mind include:

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-shocking-hazards-of-lo...

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/education-and-awaren...

https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/infant-health-and-mortality-a...

[epistasis]

> DEI is an immoral, hate based and anti-truth ideology.

This is called getting high on your own supply. It was never any of those things, but lies like the ones you are spreading were perpetuated to push back against the idea of equal fairness for all.

As proof that you are spreading further lies, one only has to look at the long string of court filings that shows that the administrations' policies fighting DEI are outright racism, words that are coming from conservative judges appointed long ago that operate based on truth rather than whatever misinformation cult has taken over so much of politics these days. Here's just one of many many many instances of blatant racism being perpetrated through Trump's politicization of science funding.

> ‘My duty is to call it out’: Judge accuses Trump administration of discrimination against minorities—The Reagan-appointed judge ordered the NIH to restore funds for research related to racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/16/judge-rebuke-trump-...

[JPKab]

The "poison pill" terms are not at all a new thing. They have existed for a long time, and were one of the main drivers of the highly aggressive "guilty until proven innocent" cancel culture within academia, where a PhD gets accused non-credibly, is blackballed from NSF funding, exiled from academia, and years later it's discovered they were innocent of the charges.

[philipallstar]

It would be very good for the PSF if it can get grant money without DEI things. Before you needed to have them to get much of a look-in.

Now it can spend the money on important stuff like packaging. uv is amazing, but also a symptom of the wrong people stewarding that money.

[politician]

The requirement that grantees not violate existing laws is common in Federal grants. Taking umbrage with the DEI coloration on this entirely reasonable and standard requirement is absurd. There could be a long laundry list of such clauses that all have equally zero weight ("don't promote illegal drug trafficking", "don't promote illegal insider trading", ...).

[takluyver]

If it has zero weight, why would the grant agreement specifically highlight it? I would guess it's much easier to enforce a particular interpretation of the law via a grant agreement than having to argue it in court.