PSF has withdrawn $1.5M proposal to US Government grant program

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

PSF’s Decision and Immediate Reactions

  • Many commenters praise the PSF for refusing the $1.5M NSF grant, seeing it as protecting its mission and independence despite major financial need (only ~$5M annual budget, ~6 months runway).
  • Several readers donated or became PSF members; some criticize the use of PayPal as a high-friction payment channel.
  • A minority argue rejecting the grant was “stupid” given PSF’s budget shortfall and security work that now goes unfunded.

The DEI Clause and Clawback Risk

  • Core clause: recipients must affirm they “do not, and will not … operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws,” with NSF allowed to terminate and claw back all funds.
  • One camp says this is effectively redundant with existing anti-discrimination law, just giving NSF a contractual enforcement hook; they see PSF’s refusal as ideological posturing.
  • Others argue the language is ambiguous, deliberately politicized (“discriminatory equity ideology”), and clearly intended to chill or criminalize DEI; they stress that the clause applies to all PSF activities, not just the grant work.
  • The clawback is widely viewed as the real existential risk: for a small nonprofit, having to repay already‑spent funds—based on a contested interpretation—could destroy the foundation.

Legal and Political Context

  • Commenters note extensive recent grant cancellations (especially DEI-related) and at least one high‑profile EPA case where funds were frozen and recovered without clear wrongdoing findings.
  • Several emphasize that even if PSF would “eventually win” in court, the cost and time make litigation unrealistic.
  • There is strong skepticism that the current administration respects rule of law; many argue you must assume bad‑faith, arbitrary enforcement, not neutral adjudication.

Broader Debate on DEI and Merit

  • Thread contains intense disagreement:
    • Critics label DEI “racist,” quota‑driven, and anti‑merit, citing anecdotes and lawsuits about race‑conscious hiring and promotion.
    • Supporters describe DEI mainly as outreach, pipeline building, and inclusion (e.g., PyCon’s blinded talk review with strong gains in women speakers), arguing that “merit” is not evaluated in a vacuum and that homogeneous communities persist absent proactive work.
  • Meta‑discussion notes that both prior “pro‑DEI” grant regimes and current “anti‑DEI” rules are politicizing science and infrastructure funding.

Open Source Sustainability and Who Should Pay

  • Many highlight the mismatch between Python/PyPI’s critical economic role and PSF’s tiny budget and staff.
  • Corporate “open source funds” are described as tokenistic; businesses have little incentive to contribute meaningfully when they can free‑ride.
  • Ideas raised: industry pledges, tax‑advantaged mechanisms, multi‑government support, and more serious corporate sponsorship, rather than dependence on volatile U.S. federal grants.