Scott analyzes Ted Cruz's database of 'woke' NSF grants and finds that only 40% were actually woke, with many regular science grants included simply for having a mandatory diversity statement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes Ted Cruz's database of supposedly 'woke' NSF grants, sampling 100 grants at random. He finds that only 40% were actually woke, with another 20% borderline cases, and 40% completely unrelated to wokeness. Most non-woke grants appeared in the database because they included a seemingly mandatory sentence about helping minorities or women, likely added to satisfy grant requirements. Of the genuinely woke grants, only 10-20% were egregiously bad, while others were mostly benign STEM outreach programs. Scott argues that sorting genuine woke grants from regular science would be easy, taking only a week of work, and criticizes both the Biden administration for requiring diversity statements and Republicans for targeting legitimate research. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes media tendencies to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements, arguing we should focus more on their stated positions and actions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media's tendency to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements or 'dog whistles'. He argues this often ignores the politicians' actual stated beliefs and policies in favor of overanalyzing gaffes or interpreting statements as secret codes. The post examines three cases: Ted Cruz being called anti-Semitic for saying 'New York values', Ken Livingstone being labeled anti-Semitic for comments about Hitler and Zionism, and Donald Trump being called openly sexist despite his pro-women hiring record. Scott suggests we should be more skeptical of media claims to have special insight into politicians' true beliefs and instead focus on their stated positions and past actions. Shorter summary