Education
Saying No to AI in Education
American institutions are abuzz about AI and its potential. Universities, in particular, seem to be embracing AI without much question. The University of Texas at Austin is celebrating 2024 as “the Year of AI.” Arizona State University and Johns Hopkins University now offer undergraduate and graduate degrees in Artificial Intelligence. Multiple universities, including Penn State, Baylor, Oregon State, and the University of Michigan, among others, have hosted AI events where there seem to be very few questions about AI’s ethical ramifications or its effects on human flourishing. Instead, many professors understand AI as a tool that can enhance teaching and learning. In fact, instructors regularly receive advice on how they can incorporate AI into their classrooms to enrich student learning. Most seem to believe that professors have an obligation to teach students how to use AI responsibly because they will inevitably encounter it in their future workplace. This, I think, is the wrong approach.
My understanding of AI comes from a broader view of technology that has developed over the last ten years. Born in 1998, I grew up as technology advanced, smartphones proliferated, and everyone around me, especially adults, seemed to embrace a technocratic future. In middle school, my teachers installed smartboards in their classrooms. In high school, students received Chromebooks or iPads. At all times, everyone was on their smartphones. When I reflect on my encounters with these technologies from an early age, I cannot help but consider how adults’ ready embrace of technology shaped me in profoundly negative ways.
Constant engagement with technology at school meant that I was more likely to use it outside of the classroom. Because the adults I trusted quickly accepted and adopted new technologies in educational spaces, I figured those technologies were always acceptable. As a result, I was less likely to read, more likely to scroll, and highly likely to feel depressed. By age sixteen, I had developed an eating disorder, much to social media’s credit. Such experiences are not uncommon. My learning diminished, my relationships worsened, and I felt like I was slipping away from myself. Sometimes I would delete everything, try to unplug from all media, and find some semblance of peace, but then I’d go back to school. Screens were everywhere.
By the time I reached college, it was inescapable. Few classrooms were tech-free. Students interacted constantly on social media. On my smartphone alone, my screen time averaged anywhere from five to eight hours per day. There were few instances where some form of digital technology did not shape my day-to-day life. If I reaped any benefits from this embrace of technology, I have yet to discover what they are.
As I descended into a state of concern over my own sanity, everyone I talked to treated the expansion of these new technologies as inevitable. When I heard adults lament the loss of reading a physical book, playing outside, or speaking face-to-face, I also heard some kind of justification. “Well, that’s just how it goes.” “We have to adapt.” “This is the future.” Such responses left me feeling helpless. My future, it seemed, was to be miserable as technology engulfed me.
But this passive acceptance of a supposed inevitable technological change is the wrong response. And we are once again at a moment where we must refuse this mindset, particularly about AI.
AI’s negative effects have already begun to be documented. I’ll name just a few. First, AI blurs the real and imaginary. One teenager died by suicide after repeated interactions with an AI chatbot he had developed a relationship with. Second, AI steals from humans. It is no secret that AI companies exploit personal data and use individuals’ work without their permission. Third, AI destroys the planet. To keep AI up and running, companies need constant energy that results in unethical extraction of natural resources. And to top it all off, one AI researcher suggested that if the growth of AI continues without checks then “we are all going to die.” While some have rightfully suggested that we teach students responsible engagement with the digital world, this triad of abuses, and what’s seemingly at stake for humanity, leaves me wondering how we can teach responsible use of AI—a system that is innately irresponsible.
Paul Kingsnorth suggests that we interrogate the consequences of a particular technology and draw lines. For now, I think the responsible action for educators is to draw an AI line. Teachers do not need to bring AI into the classroom. They do not need to encourage student interaction with ChatGPT. Professors do not need to teach students AI “skills.” And no educator needs to support the expansion of AI across their school’s campus. Instead, adults must ask more questions: Why would this technology be valuable for students? Will this help students flourish in my class and after? How will AI form those who rely on it? Answering these questions will take time. To rush AI into the classroom or into daily life is to put student well-being at stake. And as Kingsnorth reminds us, refusal to accept certain forms of technology can “enrich rather than impoverish.” By refusing AI in educational spaces, students may, in fact, come out better on the other side. In my own experience, the embrace of technology by trusted adults in a trusted place led to more excessive use of those technologies outside of it. Unbeknownst to them, the effects were detrimental.
AI developers, just like anyone else in marketing and advertising, want us to believe that denying ourselves AI would be to deny a rich future filled with possibilities. But as a student, I bore the brunt of unquestioning technological embrace by the adults around me. Only within the last few years have I discovered what a beautiful life exists offline. I spend more time outside, with friends, and reading books. My relationships with myself and with others have vastly improved. I regularly tell my husband that my newfound, healthy relationship with food is nothing short of a miracle. And to think that eight years before I was born, Wendell Berry had already provided an exhortation to limit involvement with harmful technology. Indeed, all of this has been possible because I try (and often fail) to abide Berry’s wisdom. I aim to constrain my interactions with the digital and increase my interactions with the real.
Now, in my role as a teacher, I feel a deep sense of responsibility to my students because I was like them not that long ago. My tech-free classroom, prohibitions of AI, and handwritten exams may seem old-fashioned to them at first. But I have had multiple students thank me for asking them to put their phones away, focus their attention, and embrace opportunities to learn. I can only hope that this approach to education leaks into their lives. They, too, might look up from the screen in front of them and wonder what all they have been missing.
To deny students AI, then, is not to deny them a future. Perhaps, in fact, it is a way to invite them to live fully into the one before them.
Image credit: Thomas Malton, “Cambridge University: Great Court And Chapel” (1789) via Wikimedia Commons
Education
In Peru, gangs target schools for extortion : NPR
Parents drop off their children at the private San Vicente School in Lima, Peru, which was targeted for extortion, in April.
Ernesto Benavides/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Ernesto Benavides/AFP via Getty Images
LIMA, Peru — At a Roman Catholic elementary school on the ramshackle outskirts of Lima, students are rambunctious and seemingly carefree. By contrast, school administrators are stressing out.
One tells NPR that gangsters are demanding that the school pay them between 50,000 and 100,000 Peruvians sols — between $14,000 and $28,000.
“They send us messages saying they know where we live,” says the administrator — who, for fear of retaliation from the gangs, does not want to reveal his identity or the name of the school. “They send us photos of grenades and pistols.”
These are not empty threats. A few weeks ago, he says, police arrested a 16-year-old in the pay of gangs as he planted a bomb at the entrance to the school. The teenager had not been a student or had other connections with the school.
Schools in Peru are easy targets for extortion. Due to the poor quality of public education, thousands of private schools have sprung up. Many are located in impoverished barrios dominated by criminals — who are now demanding a cut of their tuition fees.
Miriam Ramírez, president of one of Lima’s largest parent-teacher associations, says at least 1,000 schools in the Peruvian capital are being extorted and that most are caving into the demands of the gangs. To reduce the threat to students, some schools have switched to online classes. But she says at least five have closed down.
Miriam Ramírez is president of one of Lima’s largest parent-teacher associations and she says at least 1,000 schools in the Peruvian capital are being extorted and that most are caving into the demands of the gangs.
John Otis for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
John Otis for NPR
If this keeps up, Ramírez says, “The country is going to end up in total ignorance.”
Extortion is part of a broader crime wave in Peru that gained traction during the COVID pandemic. Peru also saw a huge influx of Venezuelan migrants, including members of the Tren de Aragua criminal group that specializes in extortion — though authorities concede it is hard to definitively connect Tren de Aragua members with these school extortions.
Francisco Rivadeneyra, a former Peruvian police commander, tells NPR that corrupt cops are part of the problem. In exchange for bribes, he says, officers tip off gangs about pending police raids. NPR reached out to the Peruvian police for comment but there was no response.
Political instability has made things worse. Due to corruption scandals, Peru has had six presidents in the past nine years. In March, current President Dina Boluarte declared a state of emergency in Lima and ordered the army into the streets to help fight crime.
But analysts say it’s made little difference. Extortionists now operate in the poorest patches of Lima, areas with little policing, targeting hole-in-the-wall bodegas, streetside empanada stands and even soup kitchens. Many of the gang members themselves are from poor or working class backgrounds, authorities say, so they are moving in an environment that they already know.
“We barely have enough money to buy food supplies,” says Genoveba Huatarongo, who helps prepare 100 meals per day at a soup kitchen in the squatter community of Villa María.
Even so, she says, thugs stabbed one of her workers and then left a note demanding weekly “protection” payments. Huatarongo reported the threats to the police. To avoid similar attacks, nearby soup kitchens now pay the gangsters $14 per week, she says.
But there is some pushback.
Carla Pacheco, who runs a tiny grocery in a working-class Lima neighborhood, is refusing to make the $280 weekly payments that local gangsters are demanding, pointing out that it takes her a full month to earn that amount.
Carla Pacheco runs a tiny grocery in Lima and she is refusing to make the $280 weekly payments that local gangsters are demanding.
John Otis for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
John Otis for NPR
She’s paid a heavy price. One morning she found her three cats decapitated, their heads hung in front of her store.
Though horrified, she’s holding out. To protect her kids, she changed her children’s schools to make it harder for gangsters to target them.
She rarely goes out and now dispenses groceries through her barred front door rather than allowing shoppers inside.
“I can’t support corruption because I am the daughter of policeman,” Pacheco explains. “If I pay the gangs, that would bring me down to their level.”
After a bomb was found at its front gate in March, the San Vicente School in north Lima hired private security guards and switched to online learning for several weeks. When normal classes resumed, San Vicente officials told students to wear street clothes rather than school uniforms to avoid being recognized by gang members.
“They could shoot the students in revenge,” explains Violeta Upangi, waiting outside the school to pick up her 13-year-old daughter.
Due to the threats, about 40 of San Vicente’s 1,000 students have left the school, says social studies teacher Julio León.
Rather than resist, many schools have buckled to extortion demands.
The administrator at the Catholic elementary school says his colleagues reported extortion threats to the police. But instead of going after the gangs, he says, the police recommended that the school pay them off for their own safety. As a result, the school ended up forking over the equivalent of $14,000. The school is now factoring extortion payments into its annual budgets, the administrator says.
“It was either that,” the administrator explains, “or close down the school.”
Education
Labour must keep EHCPs in Send system, says education committee chair | Special educational needs
Downing Street should commit to education, health and care plans (EHCPs) to keep the trust of families who have children with special educational needs, the Labour MP who chairs the education select committee has said.
A letter to the Guardian on Monday, signed by dozens of special needs and disability charities and campaigners, warned against government changes to the Send system that would restrict or abolish EHCPs. More than 600,000 children and young people rely on EHCPs for individual support in England.
Helen Hayes, who chairs the cross-party Commons education select committee, said mistrust among many families with Send children was so apparent that ministers should commit to keeping EHCPs.
“I think at this stage that would be the right thing to do,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “We have been looking, as the education select committee, at the Send system for the last several months. We have heard extensive evidence from parents, from organisations that represent parents, from professionals and from others who are deeply involved in the system, which is failing so many children and families at the moment.
“One of the consequences of that failure is that parents really have so little trust and confidence in the Send system at the moment. And the government should take that very seriously as it charts a way forward for reform.
“It must be undertaking reform and setting out new proposals in a way that helps to build the trust and confidence of parents and which doesn’t make parents feel even more fearful than they do already about their children’s future.”
She added: “At the moment, we have a system where all of the accountability is loaded on to the statutory part of the process, the EHCP system, and I think it is understandable that many parents would feel very, very fearful when the government won’t confirm absolutely that EHCPs and all of the accountabilities that surround them will remain in place.”
The letter published in the Guardian is evidence of growing public concern, despite reassurances from the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, that no decisions have yet been taken about the fate of EHCPs.
Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian are worried ministers are unable to explain key details of the special educational needs shake-up being considered in the schools white paper to be published in October.
Stephen Morgan, a junior education minister, reiterated Phillipson’s refusal to say whether the white paper would include plans to change or abolish EHCPs, telling Sky News he could not “get into the mechanics” of the changes for now.
However, he said change was needed: “We inherited a Send system which was broken. The previous government described it as lose, lose, lose, and I want to make sure that children get the right support where they need it, across the country.”
Hayes reiterated this wider point, saying: “It is absolutely clear to us on the select committee that we have a system which is broken. It is failing families, and the government will be wanting to look at how that system can be made to work better.
“But I think they have to take this issue of the lack of trust and confidence, the fear that parents have, and the impact that it has on the daily lives of families. This is an everyday lived reality if you are battling a system that is failing your child, and the EHCPs provide statutory certainty for some parents. It isn’t a perfect system … but it does provide important statutory protection and accountability.”
Education
The Trump administration pushed out a university president – its latest bid to close the American mind | Robert Reich
Under pressure from the Trump administration, the University of Virginia’s president of nearly seven years, James Ryan, stepped down on Friday, declaring that while he was committed to the university and inclined to fight, he could not in good conscience push back just to save his job.
The Department of Justice demanded that Ryan resign in order to resolve an investigation into whether UVA had sufficiently complied with Donald Trump’s orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion.
UVA dissolved its DEI office in March, though Trump’s lackeys claim the university didn’t go far enough in rooting out DEI.
This is the first time the Trump regime has pushed for the resignation of a university official. It’s unlikely to be the last.
On Monday, the Trump regime said Harvard University had violated federal civil rights law over the treatment of Jewish students on campus.
On Tuesday, the regime released $175m in previously frozen federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania, after the school agreed to bar transgender athletes from women’s teams and delete the swimmer Lia Thomas’s records.
Let’s be clear: DEI, antisemitism, and transgender athletes are not the real reasons for these attacks on higher education. They’re excuses to give the Trump regime power over America’s colleges and universities.
Why do Trump and his lackeys want this power?
They’re following Hungarian president Viktor Orbán’s playbook for creating an “illiberal democracy” – an authoritarian state masquerading as a democracy. The playbook goes like this:
First, take over military and intelligence operations by purging career officers and substituting ones personally loyal to you. Check.
Next, intimidate legislators by warning that if they don’t bend to your wishes, you’ll run loyalists against them. (Make sure they also worry about what your violent supporters could do to them and their families.) Check.
Next, subdue the courts by ignoring or threatening to ignore court rulings you disagree with. Check in process.
Then focus on independent sources of information. Sue media that publish critical stories and block their access to news conferences and interviews. Check.
Then go after the universities.
Crapping on higher education is also good politics, as demonstrated by the congresswoman Elise Stefanik (Harvard 2006) who browbeat the presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and MIT over their responses to student protests against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, leading to several of them being fired.
It’s good politics, because many of the 60% of adult Americans who lack college degrees are stuck in lousy jobs. Many resent the college-educated, who lord it over them economically and culturally.
But behind this cultural populism lies a deeper anti-intellectual, anti-Enlightenment ideology closer to fascism than authoritarianism.
JD Vance (Yale Law 2013) has called university professors “the enemy” and suggested using Orbán’s method for ending “leftwing domination” of universities. Vance laid it all out on CBS’s Face the Nation on 19 May 2024:
Universities are controlled by leftwing foundations. They’re not controlled by the American taxpayer and yet the American taxpayer is sending hundreds of billions of dollars to these universities every single year.
I’m not endorsing every single thing that Viktor Orbán has ever done [but] I do think that he’s made some smart decisions there that we could learn from.
His way has to be the model for us: not to eliminate universities, but to give them a choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching. [The government should be] aggressively reforming institutions … in a way to where they’re much more open to conservative ideas.”
Yet what, exactly, constitutes a “conservative idea?” That dictatorship is preferable to democracy? That white Christian nationalism is better than tolerance and openness? That social Darwinism is superior to human decency?
The claim that higher education must be more open to such “conservative ideas” is dangerous drivel.
So what’s the real, underlying reason for the Trump regime’s attack on education?
Not incidentally, that attack extends to grade school. Trump’s education department announced on Tuesday it’s withholding $6.8bn in funding for schools, and Trump has promised to dismantle the department.
Why? Because the greatest obstacle to dictatorship is an educated populace. Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.
That’s why enslavers prohibited enslaved people from learning to read. Fascists burn books. Tyrants close universities.
In their quest to destroy democracy, Trump, Vance and their cronies are intent on shutting the American mind.
-
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
Kayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions6 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
From chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Astrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
HOLY SMOKES! A new, 200% faster DeepSeek R1-0528 variant appears from German lab TNG Technology Consulting GmbH
-
Tools & Platforms6 days ago
Winning with AI – A Playbook for Pest Control Business Leaders to Drive Growth