I don't see a problem with this, especially if part of the mission of the folks giving the grant is to create opportunities for under-represented people.
"If I want to focus on merit, fairness and equality, then you get called out as racist or sexist."
I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor. Humans are most comfortable with people that think, look, and act like them. No matter how hard they try, it skews their thinking at times.
>I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor
And the pendulum has swung so far back I can recall reading "diversity" advocates trying to remove them in the last few years for being insufficiently equitable.
Yep. Toronto eliminated all skill-based admission requirements for specialized arts, athletics, science and math programs and turned them into a lottery process for admission because it's more equitable.
> A typical orchestral audition might end up attracting dozens of people who are essentially indistinguishable in their musicianship and technique.
Then raise the bar. Why are we content that more people can achieve the top tier of any field? If leaders of a field cannot find ways to evaluate newcomers, then replace them with new leaders and techniques that can. What a lazy excuse.
"If I want to focus on merit, fairness and equality, then you get called out as racist or sexist."
I'm still waiting for an example where someone can actually vet people based on merit, fairness and equality without any of their own unconscious biases being a factor. Humans are most comfortable with people that think, look, and act like them. No matter how hard they try, it skews their thinking at times.