Dear Commons Community,

Earlier this week, 2U announced it will buy the assets of the nonprofit MOOC company edX for $800 million.  This deal has ramifications in many directions. For starters, it will realign the commercial marketplace for online education, where colleges now pay billions annually to companies known as online-program managers, or OPMs, to help develop, market, and deliver online courses and degrees. The $800 million now headed to a successor nonprofit to edX could also have a huge impact on the future of open-source online options — and maybe breathe new life into the original mission of the nonprofit, which began in 2012 with the goal of democratizing education around the world.  Here is an analysis by Goldie Blumenstyk of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

“At this point, we know precious little about what the new nonprofit plans to do with this gargantuan infusion of cash. A joint news release says the money will be “dedicated to reimagining the future of learning for people at all stages of life, addressing educational inequalities, and continuing to advance next-generation learning experiences and platforms.” Lofty, ambitious language to be sure. But $800 million is a lotta clams, and I’m sure the hundreds of colleges and thousands of professors whose own financial and in-kind contributions over the last nine years have helped bring edX to this point would love to know some specifics.

For now, the interesting facets of the deal are many. Questions abound, as well. Here’s what struck me right off the bat.

• The shift to remote learning during the pandemic gave edX a big boost: It saw a tenfold increase in learners, or about 39 million people, using the site, according to Anant Agarwal, its founder and CEO. But edX hasn’t had the expertise to meet all the needs of its college partners, who often want more help developing courses and marketing them. Those are the services OPMs specialize in. Merging with 2U also lets edX partners tap into 2U offerings like its coding bootcamps, provided by Trilogy, and its shorter non-degree courses, via GetSmarter.

• While “business has never been stronger” at 2U, according to its CEO, Chip Paucek, the company saw opportunity in “really compelling” educational models edX had created. Take, for example, its innovative and low-cost micro-master’s and micro-bachelor’s pathways into higher ed — ideas that have also intrigued me — along with edX’s corporate offerings. Its extensive market reach didn’t hurt either. Now 2U will be better positioned to compete directly with Coursera, — which also started up in 2012 — the “year of the MOOC” — and today offers courses, degrees, and “specializations” through partnerships with hundreds of colleges.

• With so much of 2U’s financial success dependent on its ability to recruit students to its partners’ programs, gaining access to a vast database of potential learners is a huge plus for the company as well. Those contacts include not just the 39 million learners but, as Kevin Carey of New America noted on Twitter, maybe also the 120 million annual visitors to edX’s website. Talk about a marketing channel. Also interestingly, the deal could create new global opportunities for 2U: Nearly 80 percent of edX learners are outside the United States.

• In a call with reporters on Tuesday, 2U said it had pledged to preserve aspects of edX that made it unique in the market, including its “affordable” degrees, the “Open edX” platform now used by some 100 million learners, and its protection of the intellectual-property rights of professors and institutions putting courses on the platform. But although 2U said it would operate edX within the company as a “public-benefit entity,” I can’t tell you exactly what’s been promised because that isn’t public. A 2U spokeswoman said its commitments are “reflected in the press release,” but the last time I checked, those documents aren’t legally binding.

• It’s hard to even fathom the potential impact of an $800-million nonprofit devoted to the future of online learning and eliminating educational disparities around the world. Add to that the academic muscle undergirding the nonprofit, overseen by edX’s founders, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the societal, technological, and pedagogical potential here feels enormous. But what actually will be realized? Harvard and MIT promise that the new nonprofit’s mission, name, research, and other activities will be developed more fully in the coming months.

On the call with reporters, the two institutions’ provosts spoke generally about possible new projects, with Harvard’s Alan M. Garber highlighting the importance of delivering online education to new populations and equipping community colleges with more digital tools to help people retrain and reskill for new careers. MIT’s online-learning guru, Sanjay Sarma, promised attention to pedagogy and new modes of delivery, while his Harvard counterpart, Bharat Anand, touched on assessing learning outcomes and “last-mile challenges.”

I agree with Ms. Blumenstyk that this development can alter the landscape of online learning mainly because of the infusion of capital and also because of the merging of the expertise of the two partners (2u and edX) in this deal.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday gave states new latitude to impose restrictions on voting, using a ruling in a case from Arizona to signal that challenges to laws being passed by Republican legislatures that make it harder for minority groups to vote would face a hostile reception from a majority of the justices.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The decision was among the most consequential in decades on voting rights, and it was the first time the court had considered how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to restrictions that have a particular impact on people of color.  As reported by The New York Times.

The six conservative justices in the majority concluded that the relevant part of the act can be used to strike down voting restrictions only when they impose substantial and disproportionate burdens on minority voters, effectively blocking their ability to cast a ballot — a standard suggesting that the Supreme Court would not be inclined to overturn many of the measures Republicans have pursued or approved around the country.

“Where a state provides multiple ways to vote,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority, “any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had done violence to the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights landmark.

“Wherever it can, the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language,” she wrote. “And then it uses that reading to uphold two election laws from Arizona that discriminate against minority voters.”

Justice Kagan said the court’s action was a devastating blow to the nation’s ideals.

“What is tragic here,” she wrote, “is that the court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’”

Justice Kagan has it right!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The problem of bias in artificial intelligence is facing increasing scrutiny from regulators and is a growing business for new tech companies.

This month, Liz O’Sullivan was named chief executive of a new company, Parity, one of a dozen or more start-ups offering tools and services designed to identify and remove bias from A.I. systems.  As reported by The New York Times.

Soon, businesses may need that help. In April, the Federal Trade Commission warned against the sale of A.I. systems that were racially biased or could prevent individuals from receiving employment, housing, insurance or other benefits. A week later, the European Union unveiled draft regulations that could punish companies for offering such technology.

It is unclear how regulators might police bias. This past week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government research lab whose work often informs policy, released a proposal detailing how businesses can fight bias in A.I., including changes in the way technology is conceived and built.

Many in the tech industry believe businesses must start preparing for a crackdown. “Some sort of legislation or regulation is inevitable,” said Christian Troncoso, the senior director of legal policy for the Software Alliance, a trade group that represents some of the biggest and oldest software companies. “Every time there is one of these terrible stories about A.I., it chips away at public trust and faith.”

Over the past several years, studies have shown that facial recognition services, health care systems and even talking digital assistants can be biased against women, people of color and other marginalized groups. Amid a growing chorus of complaints over the issue, some local regulators have already taken action.

In late 2019, state regulators in New York opened an investigation of UnitedHealth Group after a study found that an algorithm used by a hospital prioritized care for white patients over Black patients, even when the white patients were healthier. Last year, the state investigated the Apple Card credit service after claims it was discriminating against women. Regulators ruled that Goldman Sachs, which operated the card, did not discriminate, while the status of the UnitedHealth investigation is unclear.

A spokesman for UnitedHealth, Tyler Mason, said the company’s algorithm had been misused by one of its partners and was not racially biased. Apple declined to comment.

More than $100 million has been invested over the past six months in companies exploring ethical issues involving artificial intelligence, after $186 million last year, according to PitchBook, a research firm that tracks financial activity.

But efforts to address the problem reached a tipping point this month when the Software Alliance offered a detailed framework for fighting bias in A.I., including the recognition that some automated technologies require regular oversight from humans. The trade group believes the document can help companies change their behavior and can show regulators and lawmakers how to control the problem.

Though they have been criticized for bias in their own systems, Amazon, IBM, Google and Microsoft also offer tools for fighting it.

This is an important issue as more A.I. applications are developed.  It will be a difficult problem to solve.

Tony

Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump

Dear Commons Community,

A Manhattan grand jury has indicted Donald J. Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, and one of its top executives in connection with a tax investigation into fringe benefits handed out at the company, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The specific charges against the company and its chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, were not immediately clear. The indictment was expected to be unsealed this afternoon after Mr. Weisselberg and lawyers for the Trump Organization appear in court. As reported by The New York Times.

But prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office have been examining bonuses and luxury perks that Mr. Weisselberg received — including an apartment in Manhattan, leased Mercedes-Benz cars and private school tuition for at least one of his grandchildren — and whether taxes should have been paid on those benefits.

The indictment is a major development in the investigation led by the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., who has been conducting a sweeping inquiry into Mr. Trump and his business dealings along with the New York State attorney general, Letitia James.

The charges will deal a blow to Mr. Trump, who has denounced the investigation as political persecution. Although he could rally supporters around the idea that he is the victim of what he has called a “witch hunt,” defending his company on criminal charges could be an expensive distraction as he considers another presidential run.

The indictment will also amplify the pressure that prosecutors have placed on Mr. Weisselberg for months to turn on Mr. Trump and cooperate with their ongoing investigation. In nearly a half-century of service to Mr. Trump’s family businesses, Mr. Weisselberg, 73, has survived — and thrived — by anticipating and carrying out his boss’s dictates in a zealous mission to protect the bottom line.

Interviews with 18 current and former associates of Mr. Weisselberg, as well as a review of legal filings, financial records and other documents, paint a portrait of a man whose unflinching devotion to Mr. Trump will now be put to the test.”

Put to the test indeed!

Tony