Post #2357544

@mike@sauropods.win @mpe@hcommons.social That we know the given reason - and may reasonably assume that it was the actual reason - makes it actionable, i.e., it helps the evidence situation. It would of course also be unconstitutional if the violators hadn't been quite this candid, but good luck proving it then. Of course an administration has a legitimate interest in deciding which kinds of research subjects are deserving of public funding and which not: that is just formulating a science policy and ensuring that it is in the public interest as perceived by the administration. But this is not that, and not remotely legitimate.