985
Python Foundation rejects $1.5M grant with no-DEI strings (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/opensource@programming.dev
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Foundation says it won't compromise policy of inclusivity even if that cash would've really helped

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

DEI is just the easiest way for the administration to be racist and commit hate based firings without repercussions.

Glad people are refusing to sign an agreement with the fascists as THEY WILL take money back at any moment in time. They are very fragile people trying to compensate for being cucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don't believe that NSF had any ability to fire people from PSF.

    Even if they will take the money back, isn't that just a interest-free loan? It doesn't seem like there is any drawback in your hypothetical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That assumes you have that kind of cash to pay them back when they come knocking...

    They're buying influence. Its pretty clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The US government needs to buy influence? And they are doing that by giving grants that organizations apply for?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Do you think this is an isolated instance? They're probably trying to do this a lot.

    And if course they're trying to influence other orgs to their will. Why else would you do this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you are severely underestimating the level of influence the US government already has. NIST is a US Agency. Much of research in the US is done at the behest of the government. My local university had to comply* with anti-DEI policy to continue receiving federal funds ( it's primary source of income).

    Influencing the foundation of a, quite frankly bad, programming language is not really that impactful, especially considering that the foundation apparently only has 14 employees.

    *In case you were wondering the only change they had to make was discontinuing LGBT work anniversaries. So you can probably see why I view this anti-anti-DEI fear mongering with some skepticism. The reality is that racial bias in an organization is very difficult to actually prove, regardless of whether it is pro or anti minority, so anti-DEI constraints simply prohibit explicit biasing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    What about the people who make DEI a condition of getting money? Im all for equality etc, but Im 100% against people getting preferential treatment/consideration because of what they look like, have between their legs, or who they love. More often than not, these programs are little more than boxticking to wash the public profile. See Activision for example.

    We keep on talking about racism in hiring, but never actually address the main issue in places like the US, which is that historic racism set black families back half a centaury in terms of wealth accumulation. This in turn has limited access to higher education, which limits the ability to compete in the market against an over whelming white population that has had access. The way forward seems to have been clear for a very long time, reparations. Any families that were held back through systemic racism, should be getting money from the banks and companies that discriminated against black families, causing multiple generations of inequality. Levelling up families allows them to send their kids to better schools, grow up in better areas, and compete in the work place at an equal level.

    This cherry picking, and surface level tokenism does not work. It has worked for the past 50 years, and a new approach is needed. One that isnt just "You need a random black face in your team.". Actual real, and lasting change, cant happen that way. The change needs to be at the roots of the issue. And that means money going to families, that gives their kids better access to education and to making friends too. As a lot of their future will also be "Not what you know, who you know.".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    DEI isn't preferential treatment. It's a methodology for correcting past, and preventing future preferential treatment.

    And yes, I read your entire comment. The last 2 paragraphs are fine, but your first paragraph misses the mark by miles. What you describe in the first paragraph isn't DEI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes it is. I know the culture war disagrees with anything and everything that pissing all over DEI, but thats exactly what it is. You cant correct past or future mistakes that way. You either hire/recruit based on merit, or you dont. Theres no in between.

    https://time.com/7291474/supreme-court-reverse-discrimination

    The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man.

    https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-plaintiff-white-straight-man-not-selected-job-prevails-discrimination-claim

    I’m sure readers saw the title of this article and thought “what!? White straight men are the most represented group in businesses!” Nonetheless, an employment tribunal in the United Kingdom recently held that a strong candidate was deliberately not hired because he was a white, heterosexual male. See Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police, Case No. 2405577/2018 (U.K.).

    It would be a mistake to conclude that discrimination based on sex, race, or sexual orientation only goes one way. I have loads of examples in the US and elsewhere, of "positive discrimination" by bad actors. And even more, where its clear as fuck, it was only something they were doing to wash their shitty reputations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It looks like in the US supreme court decision the justices clarified the law and kicked it back to the lower courts. The final case hasn't been ruled on yet. In the past, majority groups were expected to have stronger evidence for discrimination. This decision changes that. I don't think that's a great decision for minorities and I'm not sure using the current US Supreme court's motivations, which don't seem to be at all concerned with precedent, are a great basis for how we should frame our understanding of racial justice.

    The UK case seems to indicate a ruling on the narrow principle of 'positive action' which is fundamentally distinct from 'positive discrimination.' You seem to be mixing those two ideas up a bit.

    The judicial system is inherently conservative. It's designed to be that way. And just because a judge or group of judges decides something doesn't make it the right thing to do. This whole 'reverse discrimination' push is simply undoing the progress of the civil rights movement, unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Im not mixing anything up. Just because you call it a different name, doesnt change what it is. Racism.

    What seems to be happening is that a lot of people, yourself included, seem to think that the answer to past discrimination is more discrimination. And in case you all missed it, Trump has been voted in not once, but twice, because a very large group of people felt the deck being stacked against them.

    Outside of that, you look to things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings and other media franchises, were the mantra "Male and pale is stale" was openly said around their production over the past decade. The result is that young men and boys and all but abandoned those things. Because they are sick of being told that being straight, white and male is a bad thing. Its so bad, that Disney is now looking for another franchise to buy because they have no idea how to get genz and younger bums back on seats. And further to that, in social media world in general, the hate and generalisation of straight white males has gotten so bad that around the world young boys are increasingly being taken in by right wingers who dont treat them like rapists and abusers. Its almost like all this over correction has come back to bite everyone on the ass...

    Black, white, gay, straight, man, woman, and everyone in between should be judged on just one thing. Their ability to do that job. If your the best person for the job, you should get it. End of. Once you start making excuses, once you start excluding people, you start making enemies. The only way to make sure that black people have the same start in life, if to make sure there is money and access to education that allows them to take control of their own lives, and puts them on a level playfield. Then you dont need to lower standards, or make excuses, or discriminate at all. You just hire the best person for the job, and you go about your day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You are proposing a solution that has no real way to be implemented. How would you distribute the reparations? Would just having one ancestor who was a slave be enough? What if you also have an ancestor who was a wealthy merchant? What if your family immigrated after slaver, but before Jim Crow? Does having multiple ancestors stack? What if the company that took advantage of your ancestors doesn't exist anymore? There is no perfect system, but I think you're underestimating how many problems your system has.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure it does.

    Wells Fargo, Bank of America (then Bank of Italy and later Bank of America National Trust & Savings), J.P. Morgan / Chase Manhattan Bank, Prudential Insurance Company, FHA (Federal Housing Administration), all have details records showing their part in systemic racism that made sure the black families couldnt get a mortgage, even when they were on the same financial footing as white families.

    National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), Levitt & Sons (builder of Levittown, NY & PA), Chicago Real Estate Board, St. Louis Real Estate Exchange, Los Angeles Realty Board, enforced segregation through racial covenants, steering, and blockbusting.

    It wouldnt be until the Fair Housing Act(1968) that this practice was made illegal.

    Will be easy? No. Can it be done? Most likely, as long as you are OK with banks and real estate agencies and uber rich who profited getting fucked so hard they bounce. Should it be done? In my opinion, yes. America is race. And black families were held back on the starting line on purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It wasn't just banks.

    And black families were held back on the starting line on purpose.

    It wasn't just Black families either.

    You also didn't answer my question about how you handle families who came to America after slavery. You've made your answer simple by ignoring a lot of the issues I brought up. From a practical angle, it's far easier to implement DEI. It also wouldn't have to be implemented long term. It would only really be necessary for those with an unfair education. If you fix the public school system, you could retire DEI once those school kids enter the workforce.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago

    I didnt answer that because what Im saying has exactly nothing to do with slavery. Im talking about early 1900s, when the boom started.

    Let me be CRYSTAL fucking clear. FUCK DEI!!!! ITs a racist and sexist program that solves not a fucking thing. It just moves the goal posts of discrimination. I cant fucking fart loud enough to say how much I want that shit gone. Just because the Orange prick said the same thing, doesnt make it wrong. FUCK DEI!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent