Just to clarify: the NSF grant was refused because it required the PSF to abandon all DEI efforts, not just that the grant itself couldn't be used for DEI. Accepting the NSF grant would have required the PSF to forgo one of its core principles. It was the right decision, not bad management.

Perhaps you should do some research before judging the decision making of the PSF.

I don't agree that it was a "bad management decision". The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will play dirty with grants if they perceive that the receiving organization is not towing their political line as closely as they want.

Not only will they not grant future funds, but they have shown that they will not pay out previously agreed monies, and will even try (with government layers) to pull back funds from groups they have decided "do not align with the governments interests", for however they define that at that moment. There are a long list of court findings that these have been arbitrary and capricious, but every one of those findings (wins) cost the grant receivers a lot of money in court and later fees.

So any money taken from them is incurring a risk. You can disagree with the Python Foundation's calculus on this (saying it was not that large a risk), but please don't pretend that it was not an actual risk.

> I believe a condition of the money was it couldn't be used for DEI

This is a morally depraved condition, kudos on them for turning it down