Higher education still playing race video games, AI – Latest News
Campus beat: Still Playing Race Games
“Higher education institutions across the country,” word The Washington Examiner’s editors, “have continued racist [admissions] practices with creative workarounds” regardless of “the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision finding that race-based admissions standards violated the Civil Rights Act.” Notably, medical-school accreditation is still premised on “achieving mission-appropriate diversity outcomes,” resulting in overt discrimination in opposition to white males. The declare that a numerous “healthcare workforce improved health outcomes for black and Latino patients” has been debunked, however directors still “employ intimidation and shaming tactics” to stress employees to proceed utilizing “race unlawfully in admissions decisions.” The Trump administration has proven “dogged determination” in pursuing race-blind admissions, however “a return to blatant racism in the medical profession is just one election away.”
From the left: AI Sucks at Poetry
The Nation’s Katha Pollitt examined a number of AI packages’ capability to put in writing poetry in her voice. The ensuing poems have “all the tics of contemporary mediocre poetry,” with “nothing fresh or original” to them, no “wit or zing,” no “pressure on language or form or voice or thought.” The AI model of Katha Pollitt is the “uncanny-valley version of me, a Stepford writer.” Writers ought to take word that “AI can’t make you a better writer,” solely a “more conventional, lazy one.” Using AI might help a author keep away from “struggle and suffering and self-doubt,” but additionally “discovery and joy.”
Eye on NY: Preserve Fairness in NY Courts
The socialist ethos “has taken over New York’s federal appellate court,” observes Michael A. Fragoso at City Journal, the place a “divided panel” has “thrown a lifeline to Argentinian socialists” whereas undermining “the sanctity of New York’s envy-of-the-world capital markets.” After Argentina privatized its national oil and gasoline company in 1993 and listed it on the NYSE, it “provided strong guarantees against future nationalization” — which it then disregarded when it “re-nationalized” the company. New York’s “sophisticated commercial courts” ruled that New York judges had jurisdiction over a lawsuit by buyers, however then the Second Circuit overruled it, saying solely Argentina’s courts may attempt the swimsuit — regardless that they’d doubtless “be motivated primarily by whatever is good for Argentina.” Get this “perverse decision” reversed, or it “will undo global trust in the fairness of New York’s courts.”
More From Post Editorial Board
Democrat: More Unites Us Than We Think
“Our collective politics has the ability to improve when we loosen our grip on certainty,” argues Steve Israel at The Hill after lately interviewing authors Malcolm Gladwell and Dana Perino, who share “the same conclusion.” Most Americans “are not ideological absolutists, interested in permanent warfare”; certainly, “they hold conflicting views simultaneously.” They can “distrust institutions but still hope those institutions can work.” There’s no purple and blue America; it’s “a far more complicated shade in between.” The nation’s “Founders built a republic on disagreement managed through compromise,” one the place “no faction could permanently impose its will on everyone else.” To make it work, we should settle for “that people we disagree with may still possess valid experiences and pieces of truth we ourselves cannot see.” Maybe that’s how “the country begins to find its way back.”
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our each day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
Libertarian: Dems’ Newest SCOTUS ‘Fix’
James Thayer 140 years in the past “made a sweeping case for the doctrine of judicial deference,” arguing that the Supreme Court “was almost always out of bounds when it struck down an act of Congress for violating the Constitution,” observes Reason’s Damon Root, and that declare is profitable new followers as more liberals endorse “a version of Supreme Court ‘reform’ that has been called a ‘consensus requirement.’” This would “impose a supermajority requirement on SCOTUS” to overturn a congressional act, however leaves open the query of “judicial review of the executive.” Hmm: It “seems odd” to provide the Court “more power to check the constitutional missteps of one branch of government than it has to check the constitutional missteps of the other branch.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
