You’ve offered no evidence of “DEI in maths” or any of your other confidently unsubstantiated arguments. You’re just parroting talking points. Unserious takes deserve unserious responses.

> You’ve offered no evidence of “DEI in maths”

Compelling or not, they offered some. Now it's on you to move the goalpost or concede the challenge which you issued.

No they didn't. The grant application to study laplacian equations mentioned that they would use some of the funding to broaden the range of scholars who could participate.

You can't have DEI in math itself because it's fundamentally abstract. One might as well demand to know why there's any funding larger than that required to run a stationary cupboard because mathematicians famously only need pencil and paper (unlike disciplines such as physics which also require wastebaskets).

Math doesn't require complex equipment, exotic materials, or long0running experiments. The biggest resource need you could point to is compute power, but it's basically a people discipline, where math nerds need think time and the ability to lay out their ideas with other math nerds in faculties and conferences. And such people may be found anywhere, there's no guarantee that they're going to bubble up naturally through the academic selection system. Ramanujan is he canonical example.

"You can't have DEI in math itself"

Which is why I wrote "[...]DEI language in totally unrelated grants, even in areas such as maths." and showed a grant containing that language.

So: Yes, I did.

Quiet here, isn't it ?