In the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7665.jpg7231642Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-09 04:35:152025-03-09 04:35:15AI and the Dreaded College Essay
Following Indiana Governor Mike Braun’s lead, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin recently signed an executive order enabling state and local law enforcement agencies (and jails) to assist federal authorities, specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in detaining and extraditing undocumented immigrants. This policy is neither new nor effective—it has been tried with predictable consequences, including strained community relations, legal challenges, and misallocation of law enforcement resources.
Focusing on law enforcement agencies, if police departments effectively manage crime control, order maintenance, and prevention, they have little surplus capacity to devote to federal immigration enforcement. Under Youngkin’s order, local agencies would be required to inquire about immigration status during arrests and notify ICE of undocumented individuals in custody—tasks that require additional training, personnel hours, and administrative resources.
Most agencies already operate with limited resources, and any excess funding, personnel, or expertise should be reinvested in initiatives that foster community engagement and reduce crime.
Law enforcement should focus on proven programs that build trust and deter criminal activity at its roots rather than acting as an extension of ICE.
For example, law enforcement agencies could strengthen their community policing efforts by engaging more with local schools and neighborhoods. Programs like the discontinued Police Athletic League (PAL) centers in Baltimore once provided police led after-school supervision, organized sports, and academic support—initiatives that have been shown to steer young people away from crime.
Rather than enabling federal immigration enforcement, which stretches resources thin and weakens public trust, state and local law enforcement agencies should focus on strategies that improve safety. Investing in community policing, youth engagement, and crime prevention programs is a far more effective and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Governors, law enforcement agencies, and communities need to carefully think through whether assisting ICE makes sense to deal with crime and illegal immigration. While it may align with current federal immigration priorities, the evidence suggests it does more harm than good for local public safety.
Photo Credit:
HSI Special Response Team (SRT) members training using armored vehicle at Fort Benning, Georgia
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/ICE_HSI_Special_Response_Team_SRT_training_using_armored_vehicle.jpg482720Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-02 04:52:212025-03-02 13:18:10Why Virginia’s Cooperation with ICE is a Misguided Policy & Practice
This past week, Trump proposed an executive order aimed at increasing sentences for violent crimes (especially gun-related), quality-of-life offenses (e.g., public urination), the clearing of homeless encampments, and the removal of graffiti from national monuments in the District of Columbia.
Notwithstanding whether Trump has the legal authority to impose these sanctions, over the past century, a concerted effort by various political figures, political parties (especially Republicans directed against Democratically controlled cities), real estate developers, news media, popular culture industries, especially Hollywood has portrayed inner cities as entirely dangerous and rife with undesirable elements—ranging from poor and homeless people, immigrants, and criminals, to excessive garbage, graffiti, street art, and urban blight.
This narrative has not only shaped public perceptions but has also contributed to the growth of suburban and exurban areas, migration to these locations, and policies surrounding urban and regional development.
From political campaigns during the “War on Drugs” to crime-focused films, television series, and sensationalist news reports, these depictions have painted urban environments as a threat to the alleged safety and stability of suburban/exurban life. However, the impact of this narrative extends beyond migration trends—it has also led to policies that further entrenched inequality and stigmatized urban areas.
And the problem is too many people believe this shit.
This demonization has had tangible effects. Cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, once important centers of industry, commerce, and education, have experienced a significant decline. Their tax bases have eroded, forcing them to operate with fewer resources. As a result, public transportation systems, public housing, critical infrastructure, air quality, green spaces, neighborhoods, social and public health services, public safety, and retail and commercial areas have all suffered. In contrast, suburban areas have mostly flourished, benefiting from a growing tax base and better infrastructure, including highways that connect these communities to urban centers.
Media portrayals perpetuate the stereotype of the dangerous inner city. Popular nighttime television shows and films depict law enforcement combating street criminals in gritty, crime-ridden neighborhoods. These narratives have shaped the perceptions of many, particularly suburbanites, rural residents, and exurbanites, regularly exposed to these negative depictions.
Political figures, such as Donald Trump and right-wing pundits, have capitalized on this fear, tapping into the anxieties of the middle class. They have helped fuel a larger societal divide among urban, suburban, and rural America by framing the inner city as a place of chaos and danger.
However, it is essential to acknowledge that while certain parts of cities struggle with poverty, crime, etc., these issues are complex and multi-faceted. The notion that entire cities are dangerous oversimplifies the reality. Most cities are socio-economically, ethnically, and racially diverse, with many thriving neighborhoods and cultural hubs. Moreover, the focus on urban decay often ignores the challenges suburban and rural areas face. For example, these latter areas also have their own pockets of poverty and violence, which are frequently overlooked by the media and our politicians. Dangerous enclaves exist not only in cities but also in less densely populated regions.
While political and media forces have unfairly demonized inner cities, it is crucial to understand the full scope of urban, suburban, and rural challenges. Addressing urban decline requires a nuanced approach that considers the real struggles of city life and the broader political, social, and economic contexts in which these issues exist. The truth is that when it comes to cities, especially the inner city, not everything is broken. It’s time to drop the stereotypes and call out the tropes used and how false they are. These portrayals are too simplistic.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Rd Kohler
Title: Baltimore Row Houses Near Bond Street
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/5062751748_704f2b59ea_o-scaled.jpg15312560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-02-23 05:09:382025-02-23 05:09:38The Never-Ending Demonization of the American Inner City
AI and the Dreaded College Essay
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.
Why Virginia’s Cooperation with ICE is a Misguided Policy & Practice
/by Jeffrey Ian RossFollowing Indiana Governor Mike Braun’s lead, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin recently signed an executive order enabling state and local law enforcement agencies (and jails) to assist federal authorities, specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in detaining and extraditing undocumented immigrants. This policy is neither new nor effective—it has been tried with predictable consequences, including strained community relations, legal challenges, and misallocation of law enforcement resources.
Proponents of these efforts argue they enhance public safety by removing dangerous criminals and strengthening immigration enforcement. However, data from previous implementations challenges these claims. A 2019 study by the Cato Institute found no statistically significant impact on crime rates in jurisdictions that implemented similar cooperation agreements.
Focusing on law enforcement agencies, if police departments effectively manage crime control, order maintenance, and prevention, they have little surplus capacity to devote to federal immigration enforcement. Under Youngkin’s order, local agencies would be required to inquire about immigration status during arrests and notify ICE of undocumented individuals in custody—tasks that require additional training, personnel hours, and administrative resources.
Most agencies already operate with limited resources, and any excess funding, personnel, or expertise should be reinvested in initiatives that foster community engagement and reduce crime.
Law enforcement should focus on proven programs that build trust and deter criminal activity at its roots rather than acting as an extension of ICE.
For example, law enforcement agencies could strengthen their community policing efforts by engaging more with local schools and neighborhoods. Programs like the discontinued Police Athletic League (PAL) centers in Baltimore once provided police led after-school supervision, organized sports, and academic support—initiatives that have been shown to steer young people away from crime.
Similarly, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program (including a very successful one operating in Alexandria, VA) has demonstrated long-term success in reducing gang involvement and delinquency among high school students. A 2013 longitudinal study found participants were 39% less likely to join gangs than their non-participating peers. Instead of diverting resources to immigration enforcement, law enforcement agencies should expand these evidence-based programs that directly contribute to public safety.
Past collaborations between local police and ICE have not only failed to reduce crime but have also undermined trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. A 2020 study by University of California San Diego Professor Tom K. Wong found that 287(g) agreements reduced crime reporting in Latino communities by approximately 22%. When local officers are seen as immigration enforcers, undocumented residents become less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate in investigations, making communities less safe for everyone.
Rather than enabling federal immigration enforcement, which stretches resources thin and weakens public trust, state and local law enforcement agencies should focus on strategies that improve safety. Investing in community policing, youth engagement, and crime prevention programs is a far more effective and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Governors, law enforcement agencies, and communities need to carefully think through whether assisting ICE makes sense to deal with crime and illegal immigration. While it may align with current federal immigration priorities, the evidence suggests it does more harm than good for local public safety.
Photo Credit:
HSI Special Response Team (SRT) members training using armored vehicle at Fort Benning, Georgia
The Never-Ending Demonization of the American Inner City
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThis past week, Trump proposed an executive order aimed at increasing sentences for violent crimes (especially gun-related), quality-of-life offenses (e.g., public urination), the clearing of homeless encampments, and the removal of graffiti from national monuments in the District of Columbia.
Notwithstanding whether Trump has the legal authority to impose these sanctions, over the past century, a concerted effort by various political figures, political parties (especially Republicans directed against Democratically controlled cities), real estate developers, news media, popular culture industries, especially Hollywood has portrayed inner cities as entirely dangerous and rife with undesirable elements—ranging from poor and homeless people, immigrants, and criminals, to excessive garbage, graffiti, street art, and urban blight.
This narrative has not only shaped public perceptions but has also contributed to the growth of suburban and exurban areas, migration to these locations, and policies surrounding urban and regional development.
From political campaigns during the “War on Drugs” to crime-focused films, television series, and sensationalist news reports, these depictions have painted urban environments as a threat to the alleged safety and stability of suburban/exurban life. However, the impact of this narrative extends beyond migration trends—it has also led to policies that further entrenched inequality and stigmatized urban areas.
And the problem is too many people believe this shit.
This demonization has had tangible effects. Cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, once important centers of industry, commerce, and education, have experienced a significant decline. Their tax bases have eroded, forcing them to operate with fewer resources. As a result, public transportation systems, public housing, critical infrastructure, air quality, green spaces, neighborhoods, social and public health services, public safety, and retail and commercial areas have all suffered. In contrast, suburban areas have mostly flourished, benefiting from a growing tax base and better infrastructure, including highways that connect these communities to urban centers.
Media portrayals perpetuate the stereotype of the dangerous inner city. Popular nighttime television shows and films depict law enforcement combating street criminals in gritty, crime-ridden neighborhoods. These narratives have shaped the perceptions of many, particularly suburbanites, rural residents, and exurbanites, regularly exposed to these negative depictions.
Political figures, such as Donald Trump and right-wing pundits, have capitalized on this fear, tapping into the anxieties of the middle class. They have helped fuel a larger societal divide among urban, suburban, and rural America by framing the inner city as a place of chaos and danger.
However, it is essential to acknowledge that while certain parts of cities struggle with poverty, crime, etc., these issues are complex and multi-faceted. The notion that entire cities are dangerous oversimplifies the reality. Most cities are socio-economically, ethnically, and racially diverse, with many thriving neighborhoods and cultural hubs. Moreover, the focus on urban decay often ignores the challenges suburban and rural areas face. For example, these latter areas also have their own pockets of poverty and violence, which are frequently overlooked by the media and our politicians. Dangerous enclaves exist not only in cities but also in less densely populated regions.
While political and media forces have unfairly demonized inner cities, it is crucial to understand the full scope of urban, suburban, and rural challenges. Addressing urban decline requires a nuanced approach that considers the real struggles of city life and the broader political, social, and economic contexts in which these issues exist. The truth is that when it comes to cities, especially the inner city, not everything is broken. It’s time to drop the stereotypes and call out the tropes used and how false they are. These portrayals are too simplistic.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Rd Kohler
Title: Baltimore Row Houses Near Bond Street