Python Foundation goes ride or DEI, rejects government grant with strings attached

[Nod]

Source: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/27/python_foundation_abandons_15m_nsf/

The Python Software Foundation (PSF) has walked away from a $1.5 million government grant and you can blame the Trump administration's war on woke for effectively weakening some open source security.

The programming non-profit's deputy executive director Loren Crary said in a blog post today that the 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."

To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have violated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained.

The PSF's mission statement enshrines a commitment to supporting and growing "a diverse and international community of Python programmers," and the Foundation ultimately decided it wasn't willing to compromise on that position, even for what would have been a solid financial boost for the organization.

"The PSF is a relatively small organization, operating with an annual budget of around $5 million per year, with a staff of just 14," Crary added, noting that the $1.5 million would have been the largest grant the Foundation had ever received - but it wasn't worth it if the conditions were undermining the PSF's mission.

 

[Mariner]

TLDR version?

 

[rh1]

TLDR version?

They dont want to be forced to hire employees on merit, but on want to hire base on DEI. And they clapping themselves on the back for denying government for trying to force them to be fair to all job applicants.

 

[LCBXX]

TLDR version?

Stay woke, stay broke.

 

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

They dont want to be forced to hire employees on merit, but on want to hire base on DEI. And they clapping themselves on the back for denying government for trying to force them to be fair to all job applicants.

Hiring on merit means you would include all the clever people with disabilities and issues not so?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Good on them for sticking to their guns. Would have been easy to just take the money and bend over.

 

[LCBXX]

Hiring on merit means you would include all the clever people with disabilities and issues not so?

Haters would say this is exactly the reason why there are currently numerous critical vulnerabilities with PyPI.

 

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Haters would say this is exactly the reason why there are currently numerous critical vulnerabilities with PyPI.

I don’t see how policies around hiring have affected product defects and vulnerabilities

 

[LCBXX]

I don’t see how policies around hiring have affected product defects and vulnerabilities

Spotting a rogue ';' when you are sight-challenged is, well, challenging.

 

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

So

Spotting a rogue ';' when you are sight-challenged is, well, challenging.

So you’re saying people with disabilities are less deserving of doing coding than normal people

 

[LCBXX]

So you’re saying people with disabilities are less deserving of doing coding than normal people

Not at all.

Coding is difficult as it stands. Not being able to see or missing a hand, for example, makes the task more difficult. Capitalism is hardly tolerant for delays in app-delivery and intolerant to bugs.

 

[rh1]

Hiring on merit means you would include all the clever people with disabilities and issues not so?

If they meet the job requirements. DEI is stupid, as USA already have unfair discrimination legislation. So long as each candidate has a fair shot at the job.

DEI basically says screw everyone getting a fair shot, if you are insert made up disability (such as skin colour), because of your disability you need to be appointed over someone else who is better qualified.

 

[Johnatan56]

They dont want to be forced to hire employees on merit, but on want to hire base on DEI. And they clapping themselves on the back for denying government for trying to force them to be fair to all job applicants.

That's a bit misleading, and it's another case of people not understanding that DEI is not the same as BEE.
The more important bit is:

To make matters worse, the terms included a provision that if the PSF was found to have violated that anti-DEI diktat, the NSF reserved the right to claw back any previously disbursed funds, Crary explained.

"This would create a situation where money we'd already spent could be taken back, which would be an enormous, open-ended financial risk," the PSF director added.

And there is no time limit to the claw-back period.

You can dictate that the funding is used for a non-DEI purpose specifically, but you can't just say entire organization, and then also no time limits if found in breach. Current Trump admin has clawed back funding for lots of projects already without valid reasons.

 

[rh1]

That's a bit misleading, and it's another case of people not understanding that DEI is not the same as BEE.
The more important bit is:

And there is no time limit to the claw-back period.

You can dictate that the funding is used for a non-DEI purpose specifically, but you can't just say entire organization, and then also no time limits if found in breach. Current Trump admin has clawed back funding for lots of projects already without valid reasons.

You countering my argument with a different albeit valid point. Yes denying because of other risks is valid.

My point on DEI still stands.