Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it. Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
Comments
Wouldn't you if you were UC?
If they were willing to do the "dirty job" when protests against it were larger, they will probably continue to do so with a heavy heart and a thicker wallet.
UC has very little cost when it comes to the LLCs.
That said, the rumor I've heard over in UCOP is the Regents are not that happy with their decreased direct role in overseeing LANL and LLNL.
- They are questioning why UC needs to be involved at all with LANL since it appears to be moving more into a production site role.
- They don't see much value in Bechtel being involved in LLNL given its SNM has been removed and this lab is becoming more a science and think-tank site.
One Regent has floated the idea of UC pulling completely out of LANS, letting Bechtel take it over (similar to LM at SNL).
At the same time, Bechtel would pull out of LLNS, with UC taking it over (setting up a solely UC owned LLC with and partners in subcontracting roles - the way U of Chicago runs ANL).
The Regent seems to be more comfortable bring LLNL back into the UC system, especially if UC was able to keep more of the $40 million+ annual management fee.
Unless, maybe, just maybe, they are looking for a way to get more fee?