By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details how two unqualified individuals, Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh, terminated hundreds of humanities grants by using ChatGPT with a vague prompt about DEI. Depositions revealed their inability to define DEI and the arbitrary nature of their decisions, which included canceling grants for documentaries on Black civil rights and the Holocaust. Following public scrutiny and the release of their deposition videos, the government attempted to have them removed from the internet, only to trigger the Streisand Effect and draw further attention to the matter.
Read the original article here
It’s truly fascinating, and frankly, a little bit disheartening, to observe how certain individuals, particularly those associated with the DOGE phenomenon, react when their actions, specifically the drastic cuts to humanities grants, are brought under scrutiny. You’d think that after making such significant decisions, impacting entire fields of study and the livelihoods of many, they’d be prepared for some level of pushback or criticism. Instead, the evidence suggests a surprising degree of sensitivity, a stark contrast to the seemingly ruthless decision-making process.
The sheer lack of self-awareness displayed by some of these figures is quite remarkable, almost to a staggering degree. Take, for instance, the individual who, despite lacking any discernible background in the humanities or even a completed college education, found himself in a position to terminate these very grants. His attempt to define Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as simply “decisions on the basis of something other than merit” while simultaneously holding multiple senior government positions for which he was demonstrably unqualified, is a textbook example of this profound disconnect. It’s like a cat chasing a laser pointer, utterly fixated on something while missing the much larger picture.
This pattern of behavior, this inability to confront or even acknowledge the perceived immorality of their beliefs, seems to be a recurring theme. The deposition transcripts, when read, are described as absolutely head-spinning, filled with individuals struggling to articulate basic concepts, particularly when discussing DEI, without relying on prepared notes or devices. It paints a picture of individuals who are either genuinely bewildered by the principles they are dismantling or perhaps more accurately, are deeply uncomfortable with the very idea of being held accountable for their actions.
The argument that these individuals are not merely sensitive but perhaps sociopathic, lacking empathy or shame, is a strong one. They seem to perceive any form of accountability as an unfair attack, likely because they have grown accustomed to a life where consequences have been minimal or nonexistent. The idea of pointing out their failures, especially when those failures have had such devastating real-world impacts, is apparently too much for their delicate sensibilities to bear. It’s the classic “fuck your feelings” crowd suddenly finding their own feelings in need of serious consideration.
The selective application of principles is also incredibly telling. The way certain documentaries, like those focusing on anti-Black violence during Reconstruction or Jewish women’s slave labor during the Holocaust, are summarily dismissed as “not for the benefit of humankind” or “inherently DEI” due to their focus on specific demographics, while simultaneously excluding terms like “white,” “Caucasian,” or “heterosexual” from their grant-scanning keywords, is a clear indication of a deeply biased and ultimately discriminatory agenda. The defense that these terms “could have been included” but weren’t is as laughable as it is infuriating.
It’s truly one of the more embarrassing periods to be an American, witnessing these actions unfold. The casual disregard for the potential ramifications, the almost gleeful destruction of initiatives designed to foster a more inclusive and understanding society, is deeply troubling. The notion that these individuals, who have potentially caused immense harm and ruined countless lives, are now exhibiting an almost childlike sensitivity when their actions are highlighted, is a bitter irony.
The comparison to historical movements, like the “know-nothings” of the 1850s, is not entirely out of place. This ingrained resistance to questioning, this reliance on a rigid and often ignorant worldview, seems to be a persistent strain in certain segments of society. When challenged, the response is often a defensive posture, a refusal to engage with the substance of criticism, and a deep-seated insecurity about the moral underpinnings of their own beliefs.
Ultimately, what emerges from the commentary is a picture of individuals who, despite wielding significant power and enacting drastic policies, are surprisingly fragile when faced with the consequences of their decisions. The very people who advocate for a ruthless, merit-based system seem to be the first to wilt under any perceived slight or criticism, revealing a level of immaturity and emotional fragility that is as incongruous as it is deeply concerning. The desire for power, it seems, does not always come with the fortitude to withstand its examination.