Higher Learning: Who Really Benefits From Diversity Rules?

Colleges keep finding sneaky ways to keep race-based admission policies alive even after the Supreme Court said they were illegal. The twist? Medical schools now tie funding to reaching certain diversity targets – but studies show those targets don’t actually help patients. Schools push teachers to keep using race in decisions, sometimes bullying them into compliance. Meanwhile, politicians debate whether ending these rules would mean a return to old-style discrimination. One thing’s clear: the fight over fairness in education keeps changing shape, but hasn’t disappeared. AI poetry tools sound like weak imitations of real writers. Tests show they produce predictable, lifeless verses without originality or emotional depth. While some claim AI helps writers avoid hard work, others argue it removes the struggle that makes writing meaningful. Creativity requires doubt and discovery – qualities machines can’t replicate. Maybe the real lesson is that shortcuts don’t lead to real art.New York’s courts used to be the world’s gold standard for fair business rulings. But a recent case involving Argentina’s oil company shows how political forces can bend justice. When Argentina nationalized its own company after promising not to, investors expected New York’s system to protect them. Instead, a higher court handed the case back to Argentina’s courts – where decisions might favor the country over foreign business. If this stands, it could shake global trust in reliable legal systems. Politics today feels more divided than ever, but research suggests most Americans aren’t rigid extremists. Many hold nuanced views, distrust big institutions but still hope they’ll improve. This messy middle ground is actually how the Founders designed democracy – a system where compromise keeps power balanced. Maybe the key isn’t less disagreement, but learning to listen better to those with different experiences. Some now want to weaken the Supreme Court’s power by making it harder to overturn bad laws. A new idea would require supermajorities for such rulings, but oddly leaves executive overreach unchecked. If courts can’t challenge Congress easily but can’t challenge presidents at all, does this really make things fairer? The debate shows that even good intentions can create new problems.