In his March 8 op-ed, “The key group missing from the halls of power,” Aaron M. Renn argued for “increasing the evangelical presence in boardrooms, elite universities and high courts.” Hmm, Mr. Renn, that sounds a lot like DEI to me.
Dotty Williams, Gregory, Michigan
Aaron M. Renn wrote that “evangelicals are 23 percent of U.S. adults.” That number comes from the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study, which reports that 29 percent of U.S. adults identify as “religiously unaffiliated.” Even setting aside the dubious proposition that religion should be one of the characteristics used to determine the representativeness of our important institutions, would Renn argue for more of the country’s self-described “religiously unaffiliated” in the seats of power? I figure he shies away from that as much as those of us who prefer competence to dogma shy away from the suggestion of more evangelicals at the controls.
Barbara Meierhoefer, Arlington
Would Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, really extend the territorial boundaries of that nation to the gerrymander carved out by the God of the Old Testament? If this is what evangelical governance looks like, no thanks.
Bruce Mathews, Catonsville, Maryland
The Feb. 21 online news article “Tucker Carlson, Mike Huckabee debate Israel’s right to land in Middle East,” examining Mike Huckabee’s suggestion that the Bible gives the Jewish state the right to much of the Middle East, noted that “Abraham is considered the father of the Jewish people.” Not noted was that he is considered the father of the Arab people as well. This fact might have aided readers trying to determine how much weight they should give an ancient religious covenant at odds with modern geopolitics. A question raised for this reader is to what extent the world would be required to accommodate the wishes of a religious leader from today’s Iraq, Abraham’s ancestral homeland, who believed God gave Israel to him and his descendants.
Gregory Adams, Washington
Interfaith connection in a wild world
As Easter approaches, I want to say thanks to Zeyneb Sayilgan for her Feb. 17 online op-ed, “Cat Stevens in my house means one thing,” about her Ramadan playlist. I read and reread Shadi Hamid’s March 24, 2025, op-ed, “What is the point of Ramadan?,” as I prepared myself for Easter last year, and I’m doing the same now.
It is always good for me to hear that those of us who spend time thinking about our own faith ask many of the same questions as those with different faith cultures — but a shared faith in knowing we are part of a larger knowing. Thank you for articulating your thoughts.
Mary Carol Dragoo, Silver Spring
I hate being a hater
What surprised me in reading the March 7 Politics & The Nation article “U.S. is lone nation in worldwide poll to say most of its fellow citizens are bad” was that it contained no mention of the main person responsible for the phenomenon. Donald Trump has created a climate of us against them. He spews vitriol about women, African Americans, immigrants, transgender people, Gold Star mothers, the list goes on.
It’s no secret that Trump is nasty, but, upon reflection, how often have I personally said of him, “I hate him”? How often have I said of relatives who have voted for him, “You just can’t talk to those people”? Many of us have fallen prey to this climate of hate, thinking we are on the good side of it.
Hate has no good side. And, as we can see from the survey reported in the article, hate hurts us all.
Diane B. Norton, Fairfax
Regulate the algorithm
Regarding Brett Guthrie’s March 9 online op-ed, “Congress is done waiting for Big Tech to protect kids online”:
Guthrie, a Republican U.S. House member from Kentucky, is right that Congress cannot keep outsourcing children’s safety to the same platforms that profit from their attention. If Congress really wants to fix the problem, it should not force families into invasive identity checks or biometric data collection. Instead, it should govern the algorithms that govern us.
I study how online platforms assemble personalized content, and I have watched the same invisible mechanics play out again and again. Today’s platforms no longer simply host speech. They amplify it through hyper-personalized feeds powered by artificial intelligence. When a user lingers on something provocative, the system learns. It finds similar content and serves more of it, narrowing the range of voices, tones and ideas that are shown. Over time, people are nudged from curiosity to fixation, from disagreement to disgust. As a result, each user experiences a slightly different internet — a slightly different reality — tailored to maximize their attention.
Yet Guthrie’s proposed fixes would require families to hand over even more personal data to systems powered by personal data in the first place. Instead, algorithms should be required to serve groups large enough so that variety itself becomes a safeguard. The same logic that once made television and radio broadly centrist (because programs had to appeal to millions, not individuals) could restore balance to digital media.
There is precedent for this kind of approach. The European Union’s Digital Services Act already requires large platforms to give users non-personalized feed options and explain how their recommender systems work. The answer is not more data collection from children, but less power for algorithms to exploit it.
Tim Weninger, South Bend, Indiana
The writer is an associate professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame.
I have an advantage: I grew up before computers. Not literally before computers, but when I was growing up, the only one in the house was our father’s work computer, which was difficult to use and had little attraction for me or my sister. We did our schoolwork by reading books, completing assignments with pen and paper, and visiting the library when we needed information or inspiration. I loved to wander in the stacks of Harvard’s libraries before universities began to lock knowledge away.
Knowing what the world was like before computers is a gift, like seeing behind the curtain of the wayang, the Indonesian shadow play. Without computers, it is easier, not harder, to learn. Without computers, it is easier, not harder, to find human connection. I enjoyed Dana Milbank’s Jan. 12 Health column, “Team of tech titans makes bet that AI can be good for the soul,” about a social media company “for people who hate social media.” If apps like this can help society, more power to them, but we really do not need these computer programs. All we need is to turn to those around us, and they will show us what to do.
Stuart Gallant, Belmont, Massachusetts
Post Opinions wants to know: How soon do you bring up politics when getting to know someone? Is a first date too soon? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/discuss_politics
The post Guess who’s asking for DEI now appeared first on Washington Post.
