Ted Cruz targets ‘woke DEI’ science grants at Georgia universities

More than a dozen Georgia universities are named, recipients of nearly $72 million in what the committee referred to as “woke DEI grants” awarded during former President Joe Biden’s administration. Some of the Georgia projects include a grant bolstering research capabilities at Atlanta’s historically Black colleges, a center developing technology for adults with brain injuries, a program teaching robots to walk on rough terrain and an oceanography project measuring zooplankton communities.

Cruz commended the “sledgehammer to the radical left’s woke nonsense” President Donald Trump’s administration has taken since his inauguration in January, referring in a press release to the administration’s scrutiny and freezing of certain federal grants. “Congress must end the politicization of NSF funding and restore integrity to scientific research,” said Cruz.

Credit: AP

Credit: AP

But some Georgia researchers say Cruz’s database is not about defending scientific integrity. Instead, they view it as a scare tactic that risks the significant funding, jobs, innovation and economic benefits the NSF grants bring to Georgia, arguing Cruz and the Senate committee have misrepresented their work for political gain. Cruz did not respond to a request for comment.

“They’re not reading these grants, they’re not looking at our research, they’re not reading our papers,” said Georgia Tech associate professor of digital media Yanni Loukissas, stressing he was not speaking for the school. “They’re not making an effort to really understand what we’ve done or not done. They are just looking for these key words.”

Loukissas was referring to the roughly 700 terms and phrases that the investigation used to identify the grants. Any project description that included multiple key words — such as “inequity,” “clean energy,” “Hispanic culture,” “discriminate,” “polarize” and “disability” — was added to the list. According to the methodology, the committee efforted to remove projects where terms were used, “in a scientific way, such as the study of the diversity of biomes.”

It’s not clear if any of the projects are in immediate jeopardy. The list includes grants from 2021 to 2024, and many of the funds have already been dispersed. But there was enough concern that a Georgia Tech administrator asked some of the project leaders to summarize their research into a few bullet points tailored for legislators.

“In order to successfully advocate for your important work, I write to ask that you distill your major research thrusts into three concise and impactful bullet points,” Saeedah Hickman wrote in a Feb. 18 email, its authenticity verified by the school.

Another Georgia Tech faculty member, who spoke anonymously for fear of losing future funding, believes the database is an attempt to influence the country’s scientific research agenda. Many universities rely on federal funding, and the threat of losing it could dissuade them from conducting certain research.

“It’s fear of retaliation from the federal government, which is basically giving the federal government sort of the power of censorship over what science is done in this country,” she said.

Georgia Tech is featured most prominently on the list, with the University of Georgia not far behind. “An overwhelming majority of research done at Georgia Tech is associated with manufacturing, artificial intelligence and national security — protecting our nation, our warfighters and the American way of life,” Tech spokesperson Blair Meeks said in an email. “We continue to be committed to doing research that will make life better.”

Loukissas was part of a project that helped young students in parts of Coastal Georgia study and mitigate the effects of natural disasters in their coastal community. The grant description was flagged for including terms like “environmental justice,” “climate change” and “people of color.” He said the description was intended to make sure no groups were left behind, adding that participating students came from all races and economic levels and arguing the project benefited all Georgians.

“Everyone faces risks from things like hurricanes,” Loukissas said. “This is not some eccentric personal project that somebody is doing to spread some woke ideology.”

The NSF judges grant proposals based on two criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Its website offers potential examples of the latter, such as inclusion, economic competitiveness and national security. The Georgia Tech faculty member said researchers have abided by these criteria for more than a decade, including during Trump’s first term, to show the NSF how taxpayers will benefit from the research. Her own flagged project was STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education research.

Critics of recent funding cuts, including the 30 or so people who attended a “Fund Don’t Freeze” rally in downtown Atlanta on Feb. 19, argue the federally supported science saves lives and boosts the economy.

Loukissas worries about the potential chilling effect the list could have on young people interested in science, who may turn away from the field after seeing more cuts and fewer job prospects.

One such person could be Olivia Asher, a grad student in UGA’s Institute of Bioinformatics. She drove from Athens for the protest and ultimately hopes to work for a national laboratory.

“I want to do something that will protect national security and help the lives of average everyday people in the U.S.,” Asher said. “I’m worried I won’t be able to do that if the funding is cut to national research programs.”