It could be considered the same. So lets consider that hypothetical.
Would people have a problem with a law that said that the government is not allowed to hire a private contractor repair company, that discriminates in hiring, based on race?
On its face, I would not find such a law to be unusual or outlandish, to say that the government can't hire a repair company that refuses to employ people of a certain race group, for example.
Would you find it unusual or outlandish for a law to place contractors employed by the government in the category of "entities receiving financial assistance from the government"?
The category isn't really the important part here. I don't care about definitions. Instead, I care about the actual real world effect. Th semantics is not important here.
So, no, I would not find it unusual for a law to have the real world effect of preventing the government from hiring a repair company that discriminates on the basis of race.
And whether or not those laws reflect the definitions of words, as defined by some webster dictionary here, is not the important part of the debate about whether we ought or ought not have certain laws.
Instead what matters is the actual effect of those laws.
It is not the wrong category though, because this is a well established definition within the law that everyone in that community understands.
Instead, the problem is that your intuition is different than the well established definition of these categories, as according to what the court system has established.
> to shoehorn them
It is not shoehorning though. It is an established and understood concept that courts understand. Instead, it is your personal intuition that is wrong regarding a law that is well understood by the court system.
1. When students borrow money from the federal government, whoever they pay that money to is "receiving federal financial assistance". This makes absolutely no sense.
2. When a government program intended to produce research does so by funding researchers, those researchers' employers are "receiving federal financial assistance".
The second one doesn't make sense either; it appears to be exactly analogous to saying that if the federal government engages private contractors to repair damage to the White House, those contractors are receiving federal financial assistance.