Tag Archives: politics

This is Naïve

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps it’s even disingenuous. Roland Fryer, of Harvard University, wants to bring algorithms into college/university admissions offices under the claim that it would help reduce endless, unproductive battles over race- and class-based affirmative action.

Of course, they would do no such thing. Algorithms are nothing more than software packages written by humans as tools to speed decision-making in narrowly defined areas in accordance with equally narrowly defined criteria. Inescapably, though, those decision-making software packages and their defined criteria have embedded within them the personal biases and world views of those human programmers, software testers, and their supervisors. The databases on which those algorithms are trained also are written by humans and so themselves contain human biases and world views. On a (slightly) higher level, there’s another layer of human bias and world view: it’s humans who select the databases to be used for algorithm training.

The presence of these biases and world views is inescapable and wholly independent of the intentions of the humans involved. Even those with the purest of intentions and the strongest efforts to control the impact of their biases and world views will have those leak into their algorithms and training databases. Even efforts to balance to net zero those biases and world views by using a political and social cross-section of humans in those production efforts are subject to the same shortcomings via the selection of those humans and the definitions of what constitutes a suitable cross-section.

That all of this still could lead to strong bias in the algorithms, despite the best of intentions, is amply demonstrated by Alphabet’s overtly racist Google Gemini AI package (which Alphabet claims has been corrected, but only after the fact, not before the AI was released and in use), Robby Starbuck’s suit against Meta over that company’s AI smearing him as involved with the J6 riot and an extremist organization, and Mark Walter’s suit against OpenAI over its ChatGPT smear accusing him of embezzlement.

Colleges and universities, despite Supreme Court rulings banning consideration of race in their admissions decisions, still do that under other names and rationalizations. Using these human-written and so too-likely biased algorithms in their admissions decisions would merely give those institutions another way to disguise their admissions misbehaviors.

Blue Slips

Posted on by
Reply

Blue slips are a Senate piece of paper the withholding of which enables a single Senator to block a nominee from the Senator’s State or for a position in the Senator’s State from Senate consideration for confirmation. The blue slip process is not binding on anything; it has only the force of Senate custom.

Senate Minority Leader and Progressive-Democrat Chuck Schumer (NY) has withheld his blue slips for two nominees for US Attorneys for New York’s Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Chuck Grassley (R, IA), Judiciary Committee Chairman, says he’ll honor Schumer’s blue slips.

Why?

On what basis should a single Senator preempt and wholly block from exercise the will and judgment of 22 Senators on the Judiciary Committee? Why should a single Senator be allowed to preempt and wholly block from exercise the will and judgment of 99 other Senators in the Senate as a whole?

Because the Senator whose State the nominee is from knows that nominee best? Because the Senator for whose State position a nominee is proposed knows his State best?

Maybe that close personal knowledge springloads the particular Senator to a biased position against that nominee, whereas the Senators of a committee or the other 99 Senators as a whole are better disposed to an objective, or a more balanced political, assessment of the nominee.

It’s long past time to get rid of this archaic blue slip tool of obstruction, one abused by both parties with equal abandon.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has signed an Executive Order that sets up a mechanism for the US to mine and harvest minerals and metals from the ocean floor under international waters. It’s for more than just international waters, but this is the part of importance to me.

Environmentalists and legalists don’t like it, the former because they don’t want the pristine sea floors disturbed at all. It seems unimportant to them that the metals and minerals are critical to our nation’s economy and our defense establishment and that without them, we’d be unable to provide any sort of environment within which environmentalists could environmental.

The latter don’t like it because there’s no international law that regulates or even permits such mining. It’s apparently lost on these that the lack of regulation or permission means that the mining and harvesting is entirely legitimate to do.

At least one mining enterprise, The Metals Co, a Canadian firm that’s still interested in doing business with the US, has said that given the EO and a 40-ish year old American law, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, it can start mining in a year or so.

Given that, the first mines should be set up in the Gulf of America, and done so promptly. The second mines should be set up in the South China Sea, and done so just as promptly.

Merit-Based to Depoliticize

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving to consolidate Federal employment/termination decisions in the OMB and out of the several separate Departments and agencies.

[DOGE personnel embedded in OMB began issuing] orders that have weakened other agencies’ control over their own workforce, in many cases bringing hiring, firing, and performance evaluation—which for some employees, will soon be based primarily on execution of the president’s agenda—under the purview of OPM.

Previously,

Most of the government is made up of mid- and low-level civil servants whose jobs have historically been sheltered from political hiring decisions.

That’s the problem that badly wants fixing.

Government hiring and firing, at any level of government, needs to be politicized to an extent in order to maximize the likelihood that government employees work to carry out the policies of the incumbent President, Department Secretaries, and agency heads. This does not require a return to full-up patronage, but it does require that what constitutes an assessment of merit include how hard and how effectively that employee works to execute those policies and how well a prospective employee can be expected to do so.

My Irony Meter…

Posted on by
Reply

…is pegged. In their letter published in The Wall Street Journal‘s Friday Letters section, David Wippman and Glenn Altschuler of Hamilton College and Cornell University, respectively, object to comparisons of Harvard to Hillsdale College, even as they misleadingly mischaracterize the latter’s relationship with Federal dollars (writing that Hillsdale has for decades refused federal funding, when the fact is Hillsdale has never taken Federal dollars at any time in its 180 years of existence).

The letter writers acknowledge that Harvard’s taking Federal dollars makes it “vulnerable” to Federal pressure, citing supposed risks to Harvard’s research capacity. In truth, Harvard still could conduct effective research, were it to get serious about the bigots and terrorist supporters entrenched in its student and faculty and staff populations.

That brings me to the irony of their letter.

[I]t is absurd to compare this Christian college with 1,700 students and 170 faculty with Harvard, one of the leading research universities in the world with almost 25,000 students and more than 20,000 faculty and staff.

Actually, two: Wippman and Altschuler call out Hillsdale as an explicitly Christian college as though that were somehow important to their discussion, while ignoring Harvard’s more religiously and areligiously ecumenical bent—as though that does not matter at all.

The real irony though is that 1:10 faculty to student ratio at Hillsdale compared to that 8:10 ratio of faculty and staff to students at Harvard. Clearly one school is focused on actual teaching, while the other is focused on…nothing in particular, apparently, other than faculty and staff activism, antisemitic bigotry, terrorist support, and condoning when not actively encouraging the same in the student population. That only creates an environment where that vaunted research is merely an afterthought and a source of Federal largesse rather than a serious focal point for the institution.