To the Editor:
Re “Tech Giants Racing to Add A.I. to Schools Around the World” (Business, Jan. 5):
With the proliferation of A.I. tools and the push for their adoption in schools, there has never been a greater need to underscore the need for the “soft skills” of social and emotional learning, which is actually one of the hardest skills to teach.
Helping children understand how to be in a community, communicate across differences and discern human emotions through self-awareness and social awareness are the most critical skills we can equip students with to navigate and lead in the age of A.I.
We need to move away from binary thinking of A.I. as the golden opportunity versus A.I. as the existential threat, so that our children can step forward into the world with confidence, resilience and curiosity. Schools that understand this will thrive and serve our children with purpose and care.
Matt Levinson Seattle The writer, an education leader for more than 30 years, is the author of “From Fear to Facebook: One School’s Journey.”
To the Editor:
Your article describes the speed of A.I. adoption well. What it leaves unresolved is how judgment is taught once machines can produce fluent answers and interpretations.
After decades teaching English, I have learned that every new technology provokes the same fear: that students will stop thinking. In practice, thinking shifts. When A.I. generates language effortlessly, the educational task becomes evaluation rather than production.
In my classes, I use a method I call reading against the machine. Students interpret texts on their own before consulting A.I.-generated readings, which they then critique. Where the machine clarifies, it earns trust; where it flattens ambiguity or misses irony, students see what human judgment uniquely provides.
The real risk is not A.I., but adopting it without redesigning assignments and expectations. A.I. can extend speed and pattern recognition. Teachers and students must direct their own discernment and evaluation against it. A.I. cannot assume ethical responsibility for meaning that is unquestioned and unchecked by lived-in, humanly felt experience.
Carmine Giordano Lake Worth, Fla. The writer is an adjunct lecturer in English at Palm Beach State College.
Trump’s Board Is a Parody of Peace
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Puts Himself Atop Global Panel for Peace” (news article, Jan. 22):
President Trump’s “Board of Peace” is a grotesque parody of diplomacy. This is not an international body; it is a high-stakes protection racket in which a long-term seat costs a $1 billion buy-in.
By creating a group other than the United Nations in which he holds a personal veto, the president is attempting to privatize the global order.
The cynicism displayed here is boundless. President Trump’s recent text to the Norwegian prime minister — confessing that he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace” because he did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize — reveals a foreign policy dictated by the puerile whims of a slighted narcissist.
Every move this president makes — from the 200 percent tariff threats he’s leveled at allies to his bellicose posturing over Greenland — amounts to a transactional tantrum. If he cannot earn the world’s respect, he will simply buy prestige. Whether it is securing a “pity peace prize” from María Corina Machado or touting a fake FIFA trophy, he is now building the foundation for his own “Trump Peace Prize.” He will undoubtedly be its very first recipient.
None of this is about ending wars; it is about making faux peace pay a dividend to the chairman.
Brent Greene Woodbury, Minn.
An Anti-ICE Slogan
To the Editor:
Re “Democrats Fear Embrace of a Slogan Could Backfire” (news article, Jan. 20):
The fear of a backlash if Democrats use the slogan “Abolish ICE” as a rallying cry is well founded. Although not as cringe-worthy as “Defund the Police,” it is just as likely to turn off middle-of-the-road people who would otherwise decry the appalling behavior of ICE.
Like “Defund the Police,” “Abolish ICE” is both unrealistic and unwarranted; any government is entitled to enforce its immigration and customs laws, just not with the violence and disregard of constitutional rights that ICE displays.
“Abolish ICE” is emotionally satisfying as an expression of our horror at the bloated menace presented by ICE, but let’s adopt something more realistic and less offensive: “Stop ICE Abuse.”
Judith Farris Bowman Cambridge, Mass. The writer is a retired lawyer.
The post Teaching and Learning in the Age of A.I. appeared first on New York Times.
