[1]: https://openssf.org/blog/2025/09/23/open-infrastructure-is-n...
I can't find a date on this letter - is it recent?
September 2025.
> “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
Is that even legal to add such an arbitrary and opinionated reason to a government grant?
I applaud them for taking a stand, it seems to be more and more rare these days.
Isn't that when you let your mates buy into your corrupt private investment vehicles for cheap?
Yes, these terms are usually called "laws", you might've heard of them.
We always discriminate. We have to. But only some discrimination is allowed and some are not allowed. The difference is what kind of discrimination people feel is fair and unfair.
On some level, the idea that we all discriminate has the potential to help us move beyond the "racist/not-racist" dichotomy. (I prefer the formulation "we all discriminate" over the dubious alternative "we're all racist".) But I'm not sure it will ever achieve mass acceptance, because it activates the human impulse to self-justify.
I dream that one day someone will come up with version of this idea that is universally acceptable.
Federal funding of research created the Internet that you are posting this idiocy on.
Should not be a new or surprising statement at all in this type of thing, let alone a question of if it's un-American.
On the surface, it is simply a requirement that the grantee comply with existing non-discrimination laws coupled with a completely fictional example of a potential violation (“discriminatory equity ideology”) provided as an example that happens to have an initialism collision with a real thing. This is legal and (but for the propaganda example) routine.
But... the text viewed in isolation is not the issue.
Does it matter for the Trump administration what is legal and what isn't?
The prior admin made it so that their chosen DEI programs fit "Federal Law". This admin has done a complete 180. Courts haven't tested any of this yet. It's all a hammer being wielded by the side in power.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52
This is basically the US Federal Government’s standard Master Services Agreement (MSA).
If you're in the former group just man up and say it, don't waste our time with the equivocating, "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???"
There's no contradiction, or even tension, between these three positions:
1. "DEI is about taking jobs from white people and giving them to undeserving others"
2. "the deserving are spread across different races and genders etc. and we should capture that better"
3. "so the government just doesn't want people to discriminate and that's a problem???"
so what exactly are you trying to say?
(Emphasis mine)
I'm curious if any lawyer folks could weigh in as to whether this language means that the entire sentence requires the mentioned programs to be "in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws." If so, one might argue that a "DEI program" was not in violation of a Federal anti-discrimination law.
Obviously no one would want to have to go to court and this likely would be an unacceptable risk.
The Executive branch can make any claim it wants, but the Judiciary branch has the authority to decide what a reviewable claim means.
In the absence of such a statement, the first claim would need to be "the DEI program your company runs is against federal law", which could then be tested in the courts.
Understood; while I disagree with the GP's point, I do appreciate your response.
I don't believe such example clauses raise the threshold for the defense against a claim given that there could be practically unlimited number of such examples. I don't believe that any such example so highlighted creates an effective higher priority than any other possible example under 14th amendment equal protection grounds.
Statements about not breaking specific existing laws are common in government contracts in the US (at all levels), functionally, they make violating the law a breach of contract. This enables the government to declare a breach and cancel the contract without the litigation that would be required for even a civil penalty for breaking the law, forcing the contractor to litigate for breach of contract (claiming that they did not breach the contract so that the government cancellation was itself a breach) instead.
Using a fantasy (“discriminatory equity ideology”) with an initialism collision with a common inclusivity practice (DEI), combined with recent practice by the same Administration, is clearly a signal of where the government intends to apply the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach in this case.
> NSF reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of this award, operate any program in violation of Federal antidiscriminatory laws or engage in a prohibited boycott.
A "prohibited boycott" is apparently a legal term aimed specifically at boycotting Israel/Israeli companies, so unless PSF intended to violate federal law or do an Israel boycott, they probably weren't at risk. They mention they talked to other nonprofits, but don't mention talking to their lawyers. I would hope they did consult counsel, because it would be a shame to turn down that much money solely on the basis of word of mouth from non-attorneys.
Regardless of how you, as an individual, might feel about "DEI," imposing onerous political terms on scientific grants harms everyone in the long term.
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.
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.
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.
This will eventually escalate to large scale prosecutions of academics. And, they will lose, because they are very openly boasting about how they are ignoring the law and even court orders. It was recently discovered that one college had claimed they'd shut down their DEI office but had actually just moved it to a restricted area. This kind of blatant lying is biting the hand that feeds them and will have severe consequences.
I would humbly suggest that it mentions this particular example because the NSF administrator serves under the pleasure of the Executive and they have been tasked to demonstrate that they are following the orders of the Executive branch.
However, the inclusion of this specific example confers no higher priority than any other possible example. It has no weight; it is inoperative.
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.
No it doesn't harm everyone in the long term. Elimination of DEI makes the world a better place. DEI is an immoral, hate based and anti-truth ideology. Requiring the PSF to dump DEI if they want the money is good for everyone, because DEI is bad for people. The PSF should not have DEI programmes in the first place, but if they are so fanatical they cannot stop themselves being racist and sexist - the part that actually violates federal law - then preventing public money going to them is a good thing.
This sort of thing has another upside. It's a signal to investigate such orgs to see if they're illegally discriminating against white males. They just announced they'd rather give up millions of dollars than not discriminate, and there have been dramas around DEI and the PSF before, which is a good sign they might be breaking the law.
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-...
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.
DEI was weaponized in the USA, where in quite a few instances, people couldn't get promoted or hired because of their race (typically white or asian). It was about preferential treatment, where you would get hired because of your race, and not merit.
I am all for diversity, I am all for fairness, and I don't think we should exclude people based on the color of their skin or their socioeconomic status. Yet, that is exactly what DEI did, and I have seen it firsthand many, many times.
PSF is just being stupid (or pragmatic) about it.
Are we reading the same thing? You are quoting something that says that the PSF's standard DEI policies are a violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws, which the PSF does not agree with, and likely no court would ever agree with.
Compliance with law is always mandatory, but by signing a contract that misstates the law and in fact endorses a particular and incorrect interperation of the law, means that actually litigating the law correctly lately in the courts is harder.
Further, by carrying out the PSF's existing policies, the PSF is carrying ou their principles, rather than your derisive and inaccurate characterization of that as mere "optics."
> I am all for diversity, I am all for fairness,
If you were actually for those things, you'd be for what the PSF does! That's what they do! Instead you are supporting the oppression of those things with your comment.
Making the talk proposal process blind seems more like meritocracy than DEI. The people opposing DEI [claim to] want qualifications to matter and race/gender/whatever issues not to.
> support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers
as a racist statement, you need to step back and re-evaluate things.
You can either look into why that is and attempt to address underlying issues, or you can pretend people are sexist for doing something that doesn't directly benefit you.
However, there is racism and sexism in the world (it's systemic, in a sense it's not about one person not liking another personally, but biases propagated throughout the society). To counter that, you need to recognize it, and it will be necessary to treat some people differently.
For example, women may not feel safe being a small minority at a gathering full of men. If you do nothing, many potentially interested women will not show up. You could conclude that it's just the way things are and women are simply not interested enough in the topic, or you could acknowledge the gender-specific issue and do something about it. But this isn't a problem affecting everyone equally, so it would require treating women specially.
Was PSF acting in a discriminatory manner by supporting the tenth conference?
Kevin McCarthy, former GOP House leader and Speak of the House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/30/mccarthy-...
It's shocking how fast this administration has gotten institutions to abandon their beliefs, and ones that don't should be rewarded.
So they signed the amendments and spent the money...
> It was the PSF’s first time applying for government funding.
It doesn't seem to be a renewal, and they seem to have applied before the clauses were added.
- - -
Additionally, on September 29, 2025, the NSF posted
> The U.S. National Science Foundation announced the first-ever Safety, Security, and Privacy of Open-Source Ecosystems (NSF Safe-OSE) investment in an inaugural cohort of 8 teams
Implying that until that point, there was no distribution of funds as part of Safe-OSE, so no prior years of funding existed
https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&...
If you want to buy cyber security, just do that. Linking cybersecurity payments to social issues reduces how much cybersecurity you can get. Sometimes you can find win-win-win scenarios. There are values that are worth enforcing as a baseline. But you always pay a price somewhere.
Anyway, I signed up to be a PSF member.
The DoJ should open an investigation into them immediately.
- Further, violation of this term gave the NSF the right to “claw back” previously approved and transferred funds. This would create a situation where money we’d already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk.
They're saying the terms give the Trump administration what's essentially a "kill the PSF" button. Which they may want to use for any number of arbitrary reasons. Maybe the PSF runs a conference with a trans speaker, or someone has to be ousted for being openly racist. If it gets the attention of right wing media that's the end.
The "just comply with the law" people are being extremely naive. There can be no assumption of good faith here.
> NSF reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of this award, operate any program in violation of Federal antidiscriminatory laws or engage in a prohibited boycott.
So there's no plausible way that agreeing to these terms would have contractually bound PSF in any way that they were not already bound by statute. Completely silly ideological posturing to turn down the money.
Someone wrote it into the grant agreement. It's a fair bet that they think that has some effect beyond what the law already achieves.
theschmed•2h ago
danbrooks•1h ago