Operator precedence?

Posted Oct 28, 2025 16:13 UTC (Tue) by nickodell (subscriber, #125165)
In reply to: PSF probably would've been OK.... by fest3er
Parent article: Python Software Foundation withdraws security-related grant proposal

In the withdrawal proposal, PSF stated, «These terms included affirming the statement that we “do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”» Note the last phrase, «in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws» which is missing from the original article.

I think the operator precedence of the section you're quoting is ambiguous.

Is it ((diversity_equity_inclusion or discriminatory_equity_ideology) and violation_of_law)?

Or is it (diversity_equity_inclusion or (discriminatory_equity_ideology and violation_of_law))?

It sounds like you're interpreting it as the first interpretation, but the second seems equally plausible. If a court interpreted it as the second reading, then any DEI policy would be against the terms of the grant.