Efforts in Congress to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training in medical school curriculums have come under scrutiny. The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, signed by President Biden, is being criticized for its connection to DEI initiatives that some argue contradict the law’s objectives. The legislation, aimed at strengthening U.S. semiconductor supply chains, includes $52.7 billion for the CHIPS for America Fund, which supports domestic research and manufacturing. However, federal filings reveal that funding is contingent on meeting DEI requirements. Critics argue that these requirements pose significant roadblocks for funding recipients.
The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently issued its first funding opportunity for semiconductor projects under the CHIPS and Science Act. However, the funding opportunity includes a lengthy list of DEI requirements, such as developing an equity strategy and promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. These requirements have drawn criticism from Rep. Jim Banks, who chairs the House Anti-Woke Caucus. Banks argues that prioritizing DEI discourages foreign investment and has already caused project delays. He believes that a “woker America is a weaker America.”
Some of the DEI requirements for CHIPS for America funding include plans to employ ex-convicts, expand employment opportunities for people with limited English proficiency, hire more women for construction jobs, and contract with diverse suppliers. Additionally, large grant applicants must provide affordable, accessible, reliable, and high-quality child care for workers, including construction workers. The funding notice also mandates the submission of a climate and environmental justice plan, giving preference to operations powered by 100% green energy.
Critics argue that these requirements are significant roadblocks to funding and have already caused delays in semiconductor projects nationwide. The hiring of diverse suppliers and the use of union labor are expected to add considerable costs to manufacturers. Concerns have also been raised by foreign investors, with South Korea’s former minister of trade expressing reservations about the act’s conditions, particularly the child care requirements. These conditions are making investing in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain less appealing.
The White House has pushed back against the criticism, stating that the CHIPS and Science Act is attracting new investment and creating jobs. They argue that companies from around the world are investing billions of dollars in building factories and training workers. The administration insists that the act is helping to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Since the signing of the legislation, the federal government has announced multiple nonbinding preliminary agreements with semiconductor industry players worth billions of dollars. However, some ambitious plans to build semiconductor production in the U.S. have faced significant delays. Intel recently halted construction of its $20 billion Ohio plant, and five suppliers have delayed construction in Arizona. While Intel declined to comment on whether the Biden administration’s requirements were causing delays, they expressed a commitment to meeting their obligations.
Semiconductors play a crucial role in various technologies, but China currently dominates the global supply chain. The CHIPS and Science Act aims to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor industry and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers. However, the DEI requirements tied to the funding have raised concerns about their impact on project timelines and costs.
In conclusion, the CHIPS and Science Act’s connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives has sparked criticism. Critics argue that the requirements pose significant roadblocks to funding and have already caused delays in semiconductor projects. The Biden administration defends the act, stating that it is attracting investment and creating jobs. However, concerns remain about the impact of these requirements on the industry’s competitiveness and the ability to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers.
