* An email I sent to a Christian Professors Group I am part of--talking about some of recent reading I've done.
It's almost time for the new semester to start! Who's ready?!
I hope your summer is going well. I've been able to read a number of good books and articles. Here are some interesting items of note:
1. An interview from The Chronicle of Higher Education--"These Scholarly Topics Are Hotly Debated. So Why Don't Syllabi Reflect That?" (July 22, 2025). The interview is with the authors of the working paper, "Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues." The authors examined the syllabi of courses on controversial topics such as (1) racial bias in the American criminal justice system, (2) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (3) the ethics of abortion. The authors are interested "in whether students are exposed to a broad spectrum of the most reputable and informed thinkers, which includes professors and, in some cases, well-regarded intellectuals and writers outside of academia." They examined key thinkers in the above areas--often from a more left-leaning perspective--and noticed that when these thinkers were used in various classes they were very often not paired with responsible counter-voices to balance the teaching perspective. They write:
To varying degrees, we found strong asymmetery: While some of the most important voices like Alexander's, Said's and Thomson's are routinely taught, their critics are not generally assigned along with them. And when we flip the analysis to see how often the critics are assigned along with the canonical texts, we find that they generally are taught together. In other words, in the compartively rare cases when these critics are assigned, they are apparently taught to widen the conversation, not cement a different orthodoxy. That suggests a minority of professors do teach these intellectual controversies.
On the whole, though, it seems that professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies. That is the academic norm. This is a problem we must collectively remedy."
I took a special interest in this article since I do teach on the ethics of abortion and I do teach both sides. I have my students read the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson essay in defense of abortion and I pair it with pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith's article critiquing Thomson's argument. Although in the minority, it felt good to be among the forces in higher education promoting critical thinking!
2. A recent article over at Mind Matters (a good website I encourage you to check out!), Jeffrey Funk has a link-filled article entitled, "AI in Education: Is the System Being Gamed--or the Student?" (July 30, 2025). Here is just one set of comments relevant to what is happening to our students:
Using generative AI as a friend or therapist is also becoming popular across all ages. A survey of 1,060 teens aged 13 to 17 across the US ‘found that around three in four kids have used AI companions,” “with over half of surveyed teens qualifying as regular users of AI companions, meaning they log on to talk to the bots at least a few times per month.” (Futurism)
The results are not good. “A troubling number of ChatGPT users, both young and old, are falling into states of delusion and paranoia following extensive use of the OpenAI bot.” Perhaps they are driven by the tech’s sycophantic behavior or its penchant for being flattering, agreeable, and obsequious to users. These chats can “culminate in breaks with reality and significant real-world consequences, which include the dissolution of marriages and families, job loss, homelessness, voluntary and involuntary stays in mental health facilities,” and death. (Futurism)
More serious uses of large-language model (LLMs) also have their dark side. Writing articles for the Internet with them has produced what some people call the “enshittification” of the Internet or “slopaganda.” The Financial Times says: from enshittification to slop and slopaganda, many people are claiming that the internet is on the decline, and generative AI is contributing to that decline. “The last bits of fellowship and ingenuity on the web are being swept away by a tide of so-called artificial intelligence.” Some are also worried that bad actors can use ChatGPT to produce mass postings on almost any topic and any political persuasion to foment dissent in America. (Wall Street Journal)
3. Lastly, I'm currently reading (re-reading, really, since I read it over 30 years ago!) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I'm only about a third into it but it is fascinating to see the pride and hubris of Dr. Victor Frankenstein--a trait not unknown to some of our contemporary scientists who work in Artificial Intelligence!
So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein, more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.
Here the quest takes him to consider the resurrection of dead bodies and immortality through science: (transhumanism, anybody?)
Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.
These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour.
What have you been reading? Let us all know--remember to "reply all."
