SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205). Senior political appointees, rather than career scientists or program officers, would now be required to conduct a "pre-issuance review" of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.
2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding The rule explicitly states that peer review recommendations "remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding."
3. "Gold Standard Science" as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205) without defining it in any concrete or measurable way.
4. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340). The rule codifies and expands the authority to terminate active grants mid-award simply because they are "inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities."
5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)
6. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)
7. "Domestic-First" Framework for Research Awards (§200.202(e))
8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational "Affiliations" (§200.206)
9. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients (§200.303)
10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies
There's 19 total, some might have merit with a bit of tweaking but the majority of this is flat out anti-science garbage.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31, @11:22PM (12 children)
Did you ever learn about this one in school?
https://hmh.org/event/the-burning-the-tulsa-race-massacre-of-1921/ [hmh.org]
That's where we were before civil rights reforms got serious. Myself, I'd rather not go back there. I would rather live in a world that tells the truth about its past instead of denying that it happened.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 31, @11:55PM (4 children)
As long as you're focusing on race, you're focusing on the difference.
How many Jews can you identify? What's the last Jew joke that you heard? when was it? How are jews fairing in modern society?
If you want racial inter-mixing, treat them the same. As long as you treat them different, ... you're being racist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 01, @01:50AM
Keep in mind that there was a difference in the Tulsa massacre between the 300 or so people who were killed and the people doing the killing.
How does studying real ethnic conflicts from the 1920s not treat people the same?
(Score: -1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, @10:31AM
With a side of gaza strips. The jokes are actually kind of funny. But yea, the story is the same. Jews, like "whites" are persona non grata so their discrimination politically doesn't matter.
They don't care about racism, not in reality; the current thing is what sets the zeitgeist. It's how you can define racism as prejudice + power, have all the power and still not call it racism.
If you study the thinking of any time where "bad" things happened, it was always similarly justified by contemporaries and usually "legal". The very same "experts" we should trust usually supported and rationalized it. Then, maybe later, in hindsight...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, @04:54PM (1 child)
If you know you're supporting a system that consistently treats non-caucasians worse than caucasians, despite claims that it is indifferent to race, and you don't do something about it, you're racist. Until the system is fixed, justice necessarily involves treating certain racial groups differently explicitly, because the implicit system treats them unfairly.
Fighting against this means you're a racist. Does that offend you? being called racist because you support a system that is racist? Well shut the fuck up, nobody is apologizing because you have Big Feelings about being an asshole.
There's a reason 'woke' is a word with an exact, academic meaning and there's a reason racists have been working really fucking hard to obscure that. Racism depends on lies and unclear thinking.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, @05:56PM
What if I just don't care? Call me whatever you want. It's your religion and performative morality, not mine.
>nobody is apologizing because you have Big Feelings
Same. If you don't like ThE SySTeM, move to another country that you think is oh so much better and experience how they treat you. Might come to find out that in group preference is a human condition. Take your suicidal empathy friends with you.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, @10:17AM (6 children)
What does science or history have to do with grievance politics of DEI?
Have you heard of the Holodomor or the Rwandan genocide? Pogroms? The My Lai massacre was well into the civil rights era. Sounds like this is a thing we do as a species and you're kidding yourself.
Let's jump to 1960s Angola or the Congo. Hundreds of white settlers lynched, their property razed. Do you think they deserved it? Or was the same mechanism at play. This world doesn't tell the truth, it hyper focuses on one part of history to set an agenda.
And you know what? It's going to happen again in either direction or a new one. It's probably happening as we speak in some part of the world.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday June 01, @05:51PM (5 children)
The primary responsibility of the US government is supposed to be the safety and general welfare of all US citizens. The people living in Tulsa OK when it was destroyed were US citizens. So why would the US government want to both know about the historical incident and use that as hints to prevent a repeat?
Oh, I know: Because even now, in 2026, a lot of Americans look at the kind of citizens that lived in Tulsa at the time, or more recently Compton, or Harlem in NY, or Detroit, or eastern Cleveland, or lots of other places and think they aren't real citizens, they're people who escaped off the plantation and should be put back there by whatever force necessary. And those aren't exactly fringe views, seeing as how the current presidential administration is arguing, publicly, in court, that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say what it says in no uncertain terms about who is a citizen of the USA.
I'm also pretty sure you wouldn't have the same kind of "ho-hum, another genocide, whatevs" attitude if you knew anyone who was a victim of one. Because you are right that this stuff has happened very recently too: Just ask a Bosnian, Rwandan, Ukrainian, or Gazan. Why you think that somehow makes it OK because it's common, though, I really don't follow.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, @06:27PM (4 children)
" they're people who escaped off the plantation and should be put back there by whatever force necessary"
Sounds like a strawman. The complaints I actually see are mostly about crime and violence. If your exposure to minorities is only in that light, you might defer to pattern recognition rather than academic drivel. It becomes a cycle, poor reputation causes stereotyping, stereotyping leads to lost opportunity and poverty. Official consensus is to blame it on external factors giving people an easy psychological out to never take accountability for their actions when they're pinched between prejudice and the bigotry of low expectations.
"So why would the US government want to both know about the historical incident and use that as hints to prevent a repeat?"
Yea, that's exactly what's been happening. Not hyper focus on race and trying to score revenge points. I definitely want to hear from people who's mantra is "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination". Can't see how that could end badly or make things worse, not like there's a good 10-20 years of examples.
"Why you think that somehow makes it OK because it's common, though, I really don't follow."
Try harder. It's not OK but it's a part of the human condition and not something exclusive to certain groups or the west, as much as your kind tries to paint it that way.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 02, @02:08AM (3 children)
So here's the thing about that: Crime and violence is, by all available measurements, declining rapidly [nypost.com]. And yes, that includes among the people you're thinking do most of the crime.
But also, I know for a fact that discrimination is not about crime. As in, I have been in rooms where a candidate for a job, with no criminal record of any kind, was rejected solely because of their race and where people were passed over for promotions solely because of their race, completely illegally but they weren't caught. I know other people who have been in rooms where that has happened. I also have noticed numerous cases where people who were the same racial or nationality background as the boss got promoted much faster than everybody else. And I can tell you that the businesses that I've been in that pushed against those kinds of stereotypes got more talented people working for them and promoted in them as well - it turns out that racial discrimination is bad for business, but people do it anyways.
I've also been told I lived in a "bad neighborhood" despite crime being extremely low and the area being neatly mown lawns and successful local businesses and kids playing games outside, solely because a lot of my neighbors were black.
And the stats back me up too: For example, lots of studies have determined that a white guy with a felony conviction has better employment prospects than a black guy with no record. So don't tell me this is about crime, that's BS and you know it.
You can look at all of that and say "ho hum, that's just the way the world is", probably because you're a white guy who is quite confident you will never be on the receiving end of that sort of thing. Or you can say "that's morally wrong and factually stupid, and we should fix it".
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03, @08:40AM (2 children)
In a subset of cases, sure. Sometimes the discrimination is based on a person's race and sex, like being a white male. [latimes.com] Other times the discrimination is based on a person's sexuality, like being a heterosexual. [usatoday.com]
It is no sillier to assert that it is always about crime than it is to assert that it is never about crime. Like all things it is nuanced and there are plenty of examples to refute either blanket statement.
That's terrible. How did the internal corporate whistleblowing channel respond when you reported this incident? And how did the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division - or equivalent if in another country - respond to your report of this incident? Did they blatantly ignore or dismiss the evidence you provided to them?
Likewise. How did the internal whistleblowing channel and federal civil rights division respond to their reports of such incidents?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 03, @11:30AM (1 child)
It was a small company. The person doing the racism was one of the owners. There was no "internal corporate whistleblowing channel".
The agency that handles these kinds of complaints is the EEOC. They get approximately 80,000 reports annually. They take legal action on about 100. So to nobody's surprise, they did not respond at all to a relatively minor case. My state's agencies are even less funded and care even less.
The main mechanism for any enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws is that the wronged employee or candidate could file suit, but then the burden of proof is on them to prove that they have been discriminated against because of a protected factor, and proving that is extremely difficult most of the time. In the most blatant case I witnessed, I wasn't directly part of the interview process and could not get hold of the candidate's contact information to inform him of the opportunity to sue (and I did try). The person doing it was so bold as to announce his decision and his reason for it to the entire cube farm, he wasn't trying to be quiet about it in the slightest.
Usually, the people doing the racism don't say "We aren't hiring/promoting this person because they're $RACE". They say "We don't think this person is a good cultural fit for our organization" or "We don't see strong leadership potential in this person". Or in a recent application I heard of, it was "We think this person is too passive for this position" rather than "We think this person is too female for this position". The know that blatant racism is illegal, so they try to hide behind plausible-sounding excuses, and then just do it.
As for the discrimination I've faced personally, I've been penalized far more for being older than I ever was for being white and male and cisgender and straight.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05, @09:39AM
How long ago had this occurred? It doesn't sound even remotely within the last decade given the massive exposure to personal and financial liability such a blatant admission would entail in the current legal environment. Not that any such event occurring in the distant past makes it acceptable... But to point out that in the interim the pendulum has swung so far into the opposite direction where today there are a significant number of people who openly advocate for the exact same kind of discrimination but with the roles reversed.
Fair enough. But it would be rather naive to presume that only those in favor of discriminating against racial minorities or women would employ such pretenses. With the rise of DEI and mainstream culture rationalizing that it is okay to discriminate against certain scapegoated "oppressor" demographics this type of malfeasance cuts both ways.
How do you know you were penalized more by age than the other characteristics? Did they send you a rejection letter stating that as the reason and open themselves up to a massive lawsuit? Or perhaps the company was IBM?
Your anecdote of not knowingly experiencing discrimination according to those factors is all well and good. But that still does not justify perpetuating the exact same kind of discrimination according to those factors against groups you personally consider to be acceptable targets. And those who were actively discriminated against for such reasons are no less wronged regardless of whatever demographic they happen to be.