I get the realpolitik of prioritizing funding over supposed principles. But in a future Democratic administration, would you back DEI again? There is a deep feeling of betrayal and abandonment in the rapid dismantling of DEI, and the idea of returning to it only once it feels “safe” comes across as disingenuous and condescending.
Comments
Absolutely, and I don’t understand why you think it would be condescending.
The only way it would make sense is if the grant is paid out up front. Otherwise you just go back to a situation where it’s defunded if a Republican wins again.
Yes… some groups of people are born disadvantaged. Without help from DEI they just are not able to compete with White and Asian people. We need to give these groups preferred access to grants in order to try to level the playing field because otherwise they would likely never be able to achieve them. /s
I’d like to see DEI statements held to the same evidence and success measurement standards as everything else in grant applications. That way they would no longer be political virtue signalling, but might actually be effective.
Totally depends on the value society ascribes to such things. At the end of the day, I am more than happy to illustrate the ways in which my grants provide value – be it through industrial opportunities, workforce development, or anything else. That’s an important part of my job. If society pivots back to highly valuing DEI again, then I could absolutely see myself including it. If not, not.
At the end of the day, I’m not interested in the politics of what society wants/doesn’t. I just want to make it clear how my research fits into whatever it is that value is ascribed to. And, yes, at the end of the day that’s frequently driven by federal priorities.
IMO, that’s the appropriate role of academics in society (recognizing more activist folk may disagree).