CSU system using equity to justify AI access is deeply troubling | Opinion

Challenging CSU’s equity argument

“Why the CSU treats access to AI for students, staff as an equity issue | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, July 7)

Ed Clark, chief information officer for the California State University system, rehashes the discredited “equity” argument that tech companies have used for decades to justify pushing unnecessary commercial products onto students. Decades of research confirms that these products have had few beneficial effects on student learning and actually exacerbate inequalities among students.

There is something particularly troubling about using the language of “equity” to push a degraded educational experience onto lower-income students. Not only does it condescend to their abilities and potential, but it reinforces the attitude that a college degree is merely workforce preparation and that all technology — regardless of its quality or intended use — is de facto “innovative” merely because it is new.

If Clark wants students to have AI literacy, then they can learn these skills as part of a broader media literacy class.

Vincent Meserko

Lecturer, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Needed explanation from Natomas Unified

“Grand jury flags disparities for Black students with disabilities in Natomas,” (sacbee.com, July 1)

The Sacramento County Grand Jury identified serious concerns regarding Natomas Unified School District’s special education program, including Individualized Education Program implementation, family engagement, accountability, staffing shortages and disparities affecting African American students with disabilities. As the district prepares its required response, meaningful public participation is essential.

The district should publicly announce all meetings, workshops and listening sessions with sufficient notice to allow parents, educators, students, concerned citizens and community organizations to participate.

What is the district’s process for identifying students as emotionally disturbed, and how are those determinations reviewed? Why was the district’s special education suspension rate 10.9%, nearly double the state average? What factors contributed to higher absenteeism and harsher discipline for Black students with disabilities? What specific corrective actions will be implemented?

Tim Cunningham

Sacramento

Broken promise

“State workers face new normal with four days in office,” (sacbee.com, July 2)

Missing from public discourse around the return to office mandate (RTO) is the fact that many state workers accepted or continued in their positions on the promise of teleworking three to five days a week as a tradeoff for lower pay. It meant lower out-of-pocket commuting and childcare costs, and was itself a form of compensation.

We’ve heard a lot about “entitled” state workers, but it’s incredibly entitled to underpay them, rescind promised compensation and then expect them to continue providing the same level of service. It’s also entitled to expect them to subsidize downtown businesses, many of which opened their current locations with full knowledge of post-pandemic changes to the area.

C.L. Aguilera

Sacramento

Exploitation

“She called Sacramento firefighters for help. They flipped her home for profit,” (sacbee.com, July 8)

According to the Municipal Resources Group, a third-party investigations firm, the actions by these firefighters “met the definition of fraud and abuse for the city of Sacramento.”

A person whose circumstances are dire should not be an opportunity for exploitation by city employees.

Bill Motmans

Sacramento

Fixing Social Security

“Commentary: Social Security and Medicare’s insolvency dates don’t matter. Insolvency does,” (sacbee.com, June 29)

The exact date the Social Security trust fund runs dry matters way less than the fact that it will in a few years unless there’s significant change in the system. But the three solutions author Charles Blahous proposes — cutting benefits, increasing the payroll tax rate and raising the benefits eligibility age — are all highly unpopular.

He fails to mention the most popular and effective solution: Significantly raise or even eliminate the cap on income that is subject to the tax.

Today, a person making millions of dollars annually pays the same amount as a person making $184,500 — or possibly even less, as there are many shelters and loopholes to hide rich people’s income.

Eliminating shelters and loopholes, and scaling the rate up for higher incomes, would be even better. We could then raise benefit amounts as more people than ever depend on Social Security with the demise of defined benefit pension plans.

David L. Mandel

Sacramento