The National Science Foundation and the fine line between anti-discrimination and flat-out racism
By now, most are familiar with the term “People of Color,” but “Geoscientists of Color” was a new one to me—and deeply concerning. As someone skeptical of identity politics, the idea of dividing an already small field (just 24,620 employed in the U.S. as of May 2023, per BLS) by skin color is troubling. However, given the limited pipeline of geoscientists, it’s understandable why the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the “Geoscience Opportunities for Leadership in Diversity”1 (GOLD) program in 2016, aiming to expand the field through outreach and other lawful means. But just like many of the zealous “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts that have morphed into outright unlawful discrimination, the GOLD program’s days are numbered.
The original mission of the GOLD program was “to achieve greater and more systemic diversity by creating a network of diversity and inclusion ‘champions’ who can generate greater implementation of evidence-based best practices and resources.” Reading this mission statement in 2025 certainly triggers a warning that discriminatory “DEI” styled as new-age “antiracism” could be at work. But in 2016, America had not yet seen the avalanche of race-based preferences we have recently witnessed– and certainly not at the hands of Federal agencies.
Indeed, it seems the GOLD program was founded with pure intentions. But as we have seen all too often lately, when individuals have intentionally or unintentionally blurred the line that separates true diversity and inclusion from outright race-based discrimination, the Federal government has not only turned a blind eye to it but thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars at it. But if you’re up to speed on President Trump’s Executive Orders, you know that those days are over.
Consider an incident reported to FAIR about a March 2023 summit organized by the University of San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The event promised an excellent opportunity to participate in a multi-day summit to plan a future professional conference, with housing, meals, travel, and a $500 stipend included. The catch? Only “Geoscientists of Color” were invited. The organizer openly embraced this exclusionary approach, even boasting on X (formerly Twitter): “I want to create a conference for only Geoscientists of Color. If you are a Geoscientist of Color, I invite you to join us.”
At FAIR, we immediately recognized this as illegal under Civil Rights laws and sought to address it. Our investigation uncovered the grant application for the summit, titled “Proposal for a SUMMIT to Plan a Conference Workshop for Minoritized Geoscientists.” The application made clear that participation would be restricted by skin color, yet the NSF’s GOLD program awarded over $90,000 in federal funds without objection. This negligence likely led the organizer to believe no laws were being broken (not that it would have saved UC San Diego from legal liability if they’d gone through with it as planned).
When FAIR alerted Scripps to the issue, they took swift corrective action, removing the discriminatory eligibility criteria and extending the application deadline so that all geoscientists would have ample opportunity to apply. While this outcome was positive, it highlights a broader problem: many federally funded DEI initiatives have been implemented without oversight or accountability, often violating civil rights laws.
The Scripps story is just one of many similar incidents in recent years, but most neo-DEI projects have gone unchecked, with little accountability. While Federal funds have been allocated for legitimate, non-discriminatory diversity efforts, a significant portion has likely been used in ways that violate civil rights laws. The idea of reducing federal waste is admirable, and it seems like the White House plans to kick-start the process by first eliminating funding for blatant race-based discrimination. It’s about time.
If you come across grants or other opportunities offered by public universities or institutions that received Federal-funding and limit eligibility or participation based on immutable traits like race, skin color, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, there’s a good chance a legal violation is underway. Our nonprofit’s mission is to assist individuals when their civil rights are threatened, so we encourage you to reach out to FAIR by filing a report at FAIR Transparency if you face a situation like this.
Leigh Ann O’Neill is the Director of Legal Advocacy, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism
Here is the internet archive version of the GOLD program in case NSF takes it off its website.
 | A guest post by
|
I first encountered these sorts of attitudes and efforts some years ago in the EOS newsletter. It mainly covers topics of interest to geophysicists.
Three young graduate students wrote an article demanding that Geophysics be "decolonized". I gathered that they wanted all white people out of the field. What struck me as interesting was that one or two of the authors of this piece were actually foreign graduate students, studying in the US on visas. At least one was from China.
It takes a certain amount of temerity to be admitted to a graduate program in a foreign country, and supported there out of the generosity of the citizens of this foreign country. And then openly publish an article condemning your hosts.
I and other senior scientists discussed this. The way to get diversity in STEM is to prepare all students better so they can compete in a world market. If we do this, it will happen naturally.
This has the added advantage of improving our standards and the quality of our work.
Thank you. Even before DEI swept through academia, applications to government (=taxpayer)-funded agencies (including NSF) had to mention that the students for the project will be preferred if they came from minority backgrounds (geosciences, of course, are at the forefront of “troubling trends” based on metrics irrelevant to merit). The fact that the applicant is from a large urban university would imply that preference would be given to first-generation students. Not sure if this was checked by NSF when reporting progress, but the language had to be there to improve chances of funding (I felt like back in the USSR).
It is difficult to comprehend why anything but merit matters in field-based STEM research. Because mentioning students was mandatory, I wrote that I would select the best candidate for that project. What a novel concept! Hopefully, it is here to stay.