(Image Source: Gavin Allanwood, Unsplash) On September 2nd, two of the largest school districts banned generative AI, pulling it out of the hands of young students. While the subject converged in some ways, the application of the policy differs. It is yet to be seen which approach will prove to be more or less effective. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Public Schools Chancellor Kamar H. Samuels announced a new policy on AI in public schools. The policy is “a moratorium on student-facing generative artificial intelligence (AI) in grades 2K–8, with limited use in high schools…”. This means Large Language Models (LLMs), such as Claude or ChatGPT, are banned for student use up until 8th grade. The temporary ban will reach approximately 600,000 students, or about two-thirds of NYC public school enrollment. For high-school students and above, generative AI is allowed, but is subject to limitations and student completion of two 45-minute AI literacy modules. The one-year ban will be used to evaluate AI use in schools through five limited pilots that the city will run at the high school level. “The tech industry wants us to believe that A.I.-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary. We do not see it that way,” said NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a Wednesday statement, as reported by Anna Merod who reports on news at the K-12 Dive. Los Angeles On Wednesday, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) held its first meeting of the Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee. In this meeting, LAUSD announced a new policy, which is the banning of generative AI in public schools for all grade levels. Unlike the NYC ban, the scope of the Los Angeles policy is broader. The ban took effect when school opened and went largely unpublicized until the September 2nd meeting where it surprised board members and parents in attendance. Board member Kelly Gonez said that “I, even as a board member,” was “under the expectation that we were still operating under last year’s policy.” Apparently, senior administrators had implemented the policy de facto, which was brought to light in the committee meeting that happened on Wednesday. Unlike NYC’s more detailed roll-out, the application of this policy seems less coordinated. Another committee board member, Nick Melvoin, stated “if the policy is we’re not going to allow students [to] use generative AI for the meantime, then we should publicize that.” Similar to NYC’s ban, LAUSD will still allow non-generative AI. This means AI tools that do not generate new content or writing, such as those that help with reading and diction, or speech recognition. Going Forward Two of the largest school districts just banned generative AI use in schools. NYC is taking a more graduated approach, banning the tool for grades up to 8th grade, while LAUSD is banning it across all grades. Both districts are only using a temporary, one-year ban, meaning that the policy will be revisited next year. NYC has used a more detailed approach thus far because they have established pilot programs, albeit limited, for certain students to still use vetted generative AI tools. This collection of data could prove to be useful when analyzing future policy moves, either to argue for AI adoption or greater restrictions. LAUSD, on the other hand, has taken a less precise approach, but one that could be seen as stronger among anti-AI advocates. Given that NYC and LAUSD are the largest school districts in the country, their similar yet differing approaches may serve as a catalyst for other districts nationwide to follow. As national debates regarding the role of AI in society come to the fore, this development is one worth watching closely.
By Vaibhav Sinha
Twenty-five years after September 11, 2001, Americans face a different challenge: how do we ensure that a generation born after 9/11 understands the impact of what terrorism can do to a society? For millions of young Americans, September 11 is something learned in history, rather than a personal memory. They did not watch the Twin Towers’ collapse on live television. They did not experience the fear that followed, did not witness in real time the firefighters, police officers, journalists, and ordinary citizens as they risked their lives to save strangers. Forgetting the lessons of 9/11 would be a grave mistake. The attacks, carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, killed 2,977 people. The victims of the attack were not only Americans, they also came from countries and communities across the world. They were parents, children, coworkers, travelers, and first responders whose lives were impacted because a terrorist organization decided that political and ideological objectives justified mass murder. That is the first lesson the youth of America need to understand: Terrorism is never justified by ideology. America’s younger generations should also learn to distinguish between political activism and extremism. Americans have every right to criticize their government, oppose wars, protest foreign policy, and defend causes they believe in. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect dialogue and disagreement. The US should know that a group of people in Palestine annually celebrate the 9/11 anniversary. But there must be a moral boundary. Supporting the rights of Palestinian civilians, criticizing Israel, opposing U.S. military policy, or questioning the Iranian government does not automatically make someone a supporter of terrorism. At the same time, celebrating the mass murder of civilians, or glorifying organizations that deliberately target them, should not be dismissed as ordinary political expression. That distinction is becoming increasingly important in the new age of social media. Within seconds of going online, young people can encounter highly emotional videos and manipulated images containing selective historical narratives. Extremist organizations understand this environment; they can present violence as heroism, terrorists as revolutionaries, and victims as statistics. This is why media literacy is an essential part of the fight against extremism. Americans should thoroughly question what they see online: Who created this content? What facts are missing? Is the source credible? Is violence being justified simply because the victims belong to an opposing group? America also has the responsibility to teach history honestly. The rise of al-Qaeda emerged from a complicated geopolitical environment, including the Soviet-Afghan war and the international networks that developed around it. That history should be studied carefully—not reduced to simplistic claims such as the United States “created” al-Qaeda or directly funded Osama bin Laden. The lesson of 9/11 is not that Americans should fear Muslims, immigrants, or people from different countries. Terrorism has no ethnicity or religion, and extremism can emerge in many different ideological forms. The lesson is that democratic societies must remain vigilant against anyone who believes violence against innocent people is an acceptable political tool. The youth of America should question their leaders. They should protest. They should debate. They should demand accountability. However, they should prioritize protecting something more fundamental: the value of human life. Remembering 9/11 is not about living in fear. It is about refusing to become indifferent to terrorism. Twenty-five years later, that may be the most important lesson that Americans can pass onto the next generation.
By Suzzy Majumder
The government can not criminalize the private possession of child pornography, so long as it is AI-generated. That is the new precedent set after Steven Anderegg was dismissed of one of four charges after investigators found him in possession of hundreds of AI-generated sexually explicit images depicting children. Due to the decades-old Supreme Court ruling, which rejected restrictions on sexualized depictions of fictional children when real children were not involved, the court was forced to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child-sex abuse material. Despite Anderegg being charged with producing and distributing AI child porn, a federal court did dismiss the possession charge on First Amendment grounds. The Justice Department appealed the dismissal, but was unsuccessful, as the government cannot generally criminalize the private possession of obscene material inside someone’s home, unless it is sexual abuse material involving real children. However, as AI content has become more lifelike, real children and fake children can now be virtually indistinguishable from each other. As time goes on, more predators and pedophiles will likely use the excuse that their child pornography is AI-generated as a way to escape punishment, as certain child porn is now classified as free speech. This situation is abhorrent, as whether or not real children are being depicted and abused in this content, it is still seriously damaging to not only the children, but those watching and possessing it as well. AI cannot create anything original; it can only replicate what it sees online, meaning that any AI-generated content will be a replica of real videos of kids, whose likeness will be used to make sickening content. Moreover, if AI child porn is permissible, those that consume it will be less likely to be subject to punishment and more likely to perpetrate acts of sexual violence on real children in the real world. This whole case is abominable, and there is no reason why child sexual abuse should fall under the First Amendment, whether it be real kids or not.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us