Surprise: Basing College Admissions On Merit Instead Of Skin Is Good For Everyone
New evidence shows that the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action is not a setback; instead, it facilitates improved outcomes for all.New evidence shows that the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action is not a setback; instead, it facilitates improved outcomes for all.MIT professor’s 4 critical steps to stop AI from hijacking humanity
Artificial superintelligence is still a hypothetical, but we’re inching closer every day. What happens when we finally create a digital beast that vastly surpasses human intellect in all domains?
MIT physics professor Max Tegmark warns that if that day comes, we’ll be in deeper trouble than we can imagine.
Despite the evident dangers and widespread hesitation, people like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, a leading figure in the AI boom, are determined to see it happen at any cost.
“Sam Alman believes he’s creating God. ... There’s a lot of people in Silicon Valley that want to meet God of their creation,” says Glenn Beck, who’s been warning for years about the dangers of an artificial intelligence takeover.
Tegmark is equally disturbed by Altman’s dystopian tech dreams, which go even beyond creating artificial superintelligence. In his 2017 essay "The Merge," Altman describes the fusing of man and machine as a necessary step to keep up with superhuman AI. He even suggests that we will be able to “design our own descendants.”
Most people, however, want nothing to do with this transhumanist, cyborg future, but it’s looking like Altman and other tech billionaires are set on pushing humanity in that direction anyway.
“So how do you stop it?” Glenn asks.
On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Tegmark outlined four ways we can push back against the AI revolution.
1. Reject the ‘inevitable’ AI myth
“Lobbyists from these companies keep trying to convince us that it's unstoppable,” Tegmark says. “That's the number one psy-op trick in the book.”
Just because a technological advancement is possible doesn’t mean it will come to fruition, he explains. He gives the example of human cloning, which is technically feasible today but not practiced due to ethical, legal, and practical obstacles.
“The consensus around the world was we could lose control over our species if we start messing with ourselves in that way, and it became so stigmatized it just didn’t happen,” he says. There’s a chance ASI and cyborgs will be viewed similarly — technically possible but too risky to try, especially if people at large start rejecting the notion that these advancements are inevitable.
2. Control > chaos
Some will argue that the United States has to trudge forward in the AI race because we’re competing against China, but Tegmark reminds that ASI is a “suicide race” because once we reach superintelligence heights, humans will become slaves to a digital master.
But China values only one thing more than technological dominance: control.
The United States, finally back on top as a global superpower thanks to President Trump, isn’t interested in losing control either. “The way the U.S. or China will compete for dominance is not by doing something that’s going to take away the power from both countries,” Tegmark says.
3. Call for government regulations
Glenn is still concerned about people like Sam Altman, who have unlimited money and resources, continuing to push AI to new heights, but Tegmark says they’re biding their time as unrestricted tech pioneers.
“Once upon a time, there were no regulations on biotech. They could sell any medicine they wanted in the supermarket, and sometimes this caused tragedies,” Tegmark says.
He points to the 1950s and ’60s sedative thalidomide, which was prescribed to pregnant women to treat morning sickness. The medication proved so harmful — over 100,000 severe birth defects — that the drug was not only banned, but the government began regulating the biotech industry as a whole to prevent future devastations.
“We’ve done the same thing with every other industry,” Tegmark says.
“So saying that AI companies should be the only companies in America that don’t have to meet any safety standards is really just asking for corporate welfare for AI companies,” he adds.
4. Amplify the public voice
Many people don’t voice their opposition to the AI race because they think either they’re powerless to stop it or that they’ll be condemned as Luddites. But Tegmark says neither is true.
“Less than 5% of Americans actually want a race to superintelligence,” he says.
And now our voices can be heard. Through his Future of Life Institute, Tegmark has created a petition aimed at holding AI developers accountable for the risks of advanced AI. Many high-profile people from both sides of the political spectrum have already signed it, including Glenn.
I urge you to sign this,” Glenn says.
“This is the end of humanity if we lose control of our technology,” he adds.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The left’s ‘immigration hero’ exposed: Ian Roberts’ false credentials unravel
The left’s latest immigration martyr, former Des Moines superintendent Ian Roberts, was lauded as a hero — but just like many left-wing heroes before him, Roberts isn’t the man he was sold to be.
Several dozen students even gathered at the state capitol calling for Roberts’ release from the Sioux City jail where he’s currently being held, holding signs reading, “Radical empathy,” which is a tagline he supposedly used frequently.
A group of his supporters even hung a banner from a bridge above the interstate that read, “Free Dr. Roberts,” while cars honked in support.
Roberts, a native of Guyana, with an existing weapons charge from 2020, is facing deportation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“Innocent man, never did a thing wrong,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says sarcastically. “Just the tyranny of the Trump administration is what you should take from this. ... This is the poster boy of the left. If his story falls apart, then maybe the whole immigration case falls apart.”
“This is a little bit you need to know about our Dr. Ian Roberts, the poster boy of immigration for the left. Ian Roberts, who immigration authorities say was living and working in the U.S. illegally ... claimed in his 2023 application that he received a doctorate in urban educational leadership from Morgan State University in 2007, according to documents the Associated Press obtained through a public records request,” Burguiere explains.
“Although Roberts was enrolled in that doctorate program from 2002 to 2007, the school’s public relations office confirmed in an email that he didn’t receive that degree,” he continues.
Roberts also has MIT Sloan School of Management listed among the schools where he studied, but a university spokesperson claimed there are no records of Roberts attending.
But that’s not all.
The director of human resources for the Millcreek Township School District, Melody Ellington, “claimed that she faced unspecified unlawful treatment after she was hired and worked for Roberts from July 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022.”
According to a settlement agreement, Ellington claimed “that she was unfairly pushed out of her job and that she had ‘threatened litigation,’ while district administrators denied wrongdoing.”
The district later agreed to pay her $250,000.
Then when Roberts was approached by ICE in late September, he sped away in his vehicle.
“Now, that’s not the normal behavior of a person who’s the superintendent of a large city’s school district, but okay,” Burguiere says, noting that Roberts’ car was later discovered abandoned.
“Again, you don’t typically speed away from cops and abandon your vehicle, not normally,” he adds.
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
As DEI collapses, billionaires fund radical woke math
Jim Simons’ mathematical skills helped transform him from a prize-winning academic at Harvard and MIT into a legendary financier whose algorithmic models made Renaissance Technologies one of the most successful hedge funds in history. After his death last year, one of his consequential bequests went to his daughter, Liz, who oversees the Heising-Simons Foundation and its nearly billion-dollar endowment.
What Liz Simons has chosen to do with that inheritance might have surprised her father. Jim Simons devoted much of his charitable giving to basic research in mathematics and science, but his daughter’s foundation is moving in a very different direction. The Heising-Simons Foundation and similar organizations are supercharging a movement to remake K-12 mathematics education according to social justice principles.
Students are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical theory.
The revamp is profound. They reject well-established practices of math instruction while infusing lessons with racial and gender themes. The goal is to motivate disadvantaged students while dispensing with the traditional features of math — like numerical computation, which they struggle with on standardized tests — considered an oppressive feature of white supremacist culture.
Philanthropy-funded ‘anti-racist’ math
In many quarters, including corporations and universities, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are in retreat due to pressure from the Trump administration and the courts. Not so in public education, with curricula that are locally controlled and largely insulated from the dictates of Washington.
That allows progressive foundations and like-minded charitable trusts to continue to pour millions of dollars into reshaping math education for black and Latino kids — including an $800,000 grant this year from the Heising-Simons Foundation — even though no credible research exists showing that the social justice approach improves their performance.
“Politicians and legislatures, even school boards,” are often too “hamstrung” to get things done, Bob Hughes, the director of K-12 education at the Gates Foundation, said at an online symposium on the need for racial equity policies in America's classrooms. Philanthropy, he added, faces fewer barriers in making rapid changes.
The Gates Foundation has been a leader in the promotion of anti-racist math instruction. It supported a project called “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” The project discards basic tenets of learning, like asking students to “show their work” and find the “right” answer as vestiges of “white supremacy culture.” The pathway is promoted by EdTrust West, which also receives support from the Spencer Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, and other major donors.
The Gates and Heising-Simons foundations have both supported TODOS Mathematics for All, an Arizona-based organization that calls for elevating diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and anti-racist activism into all math instruction, with over $553,750 in grants in recent years. “We can no longer believe that a focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment alone will be enough to prepare our children for survival in the world. We need anti-racist conversations for ourselves and for our children,” TODOS President Linda Fulmore announced in 2020.
Last year, the group hosted an hour-long webinar on “2SLGBTQIA+ identity in mathematics education.” During the event, a speaker expounded at length on various queer and indigenous identity groups while spending virtually no time on math-related curriculum or instruction.
At one point, the presenter erroneously claimed that there are “15.3 billion students in U.S. high schools” — a figure that would require the entire global population to be enrolled in American secondary education twice over. The speaker likely meant to say million.
‘Race-centered’ math
The foundations similarly fund practical lessons that put race at the center of math instruction. In Alexandria, Virginia, for example, the Heising-Simons Foundation supported a public-school program that encouraged kindergartners through second-graders to count the characters in picture books by race. At the end of each session, teachers guided students in creating racial scorecards for each book, then voting to select those with the fewest white characters. The exercise was presented as mathematics education.
Jo Boaler, a controversial professor of education at Stanford University who championed the push to remove eighth-grade algebra from San Francisco’s public schools in the name of equity, traces her support to this network of foundations. The Gates Foundation and Valhalla Foundation, which was founded by Scott Cook, the co-founder of tech firm Intuit, have long funded her math education project called YouCubed.
These deep-pocket donors also fund Danny Bernard Martin, a professor of math education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a leading voice of what critics call “woke math.”
Over the past six years, the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project, which Martin co-leads at the Erikson Institute in Chicago, has received nearly $2.5 million from the Heising-Simons Foundation. This year, the foundation announced an additional $800,000 grant to help the project develop tool kits for wider implementation among teachers, administrators, and researchers.
Martin’s views extend far beyond typical calls for educational equity. He regards mathematics instruction as fundamentally a “white supremacist construct” that inflicts “epistemological violence” on black students. In his estimation, even DEI programs are too conservative — mere accommodations “rooted in the fictions of white imaginaries” and designed to appease “white logics and sensibilities.”
The solution Martin proposes is radical: Black students should seek instruction exclusively from black teachers at “independent black institutions.” They should resist the temptation of “advanced coursework and mathematics-related employment” and instead engage in “walkouts and boycotts” to protest against mathematics education as it currently exists.
The very structure of math instruction, Martin contends, has dehumanized black students through low test scores and failing grades.
The ideas of the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project and its leaders have reverberated through America’s classrooms. California’s new mathematics curriculum framework, which guides K-12 education statewide, repeatedly cites Martin.
Educators have sharply criticized the framework for leaning heavily on politicized concepts of math. The document suggests, for instance, that teachers “take a justice-oriented perspective” when providing instruction and discourages the use of “tracking” — or the practice of separating students into different classrooms based on their abilities.
Educators push back
Williamson Evers, a former assistant secretary of education and a fellow at the conservative-leaning Independent Institute, has been monitoring what he calls the “woke math” movement for years. “It’s very important to have math skills,” he told RealClearInvestigations.
Evers rejects the identity-based claims made by Martin and others who have called for minority students to abandon math education over alleged racism. “There are mathematicians and scientists on every continent from every background, and this idea of boycotting education would harm black schoolchildren.”
Elizabeth Statmore, a math teacher at the elite Lowell High School in San Francisco and a critic of social justice math, says the way to improve the performance of black and Latino students lies in the nitty-gritty, such as better teaching, holding students accountable, and providing them with more academic and emotional support.
Critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.
“But it’s not sexy; they’re not on the keynote circuit like Danny Bernard Martin and Jo Boaler,” Statmore said. “They’re building a brand, not doing the kind of math education research that is helping to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children.”
Representatives of the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Erikson Institute, and Martin did not respond to requests for comment.
The Heising-Simons Foundation’s focus on racializing math education reflects its broader ideological commitments. Like many progressive foundations, it uses its significant funds to advance a range of left-wing policies that might have a hard time establishing themselves without billionaire support.
The foundation has also donated to PolicyLink, the organization behind DefundPolice.org, and to the Anti-Police Terror Project, which advocates for abolishing police departments in high-crime cities like Oakland, California. Liz Simons was also among a small clique of California megadonors behind the push to elect progressive prosecutors such as George Gascón in Los Angeles and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. They declined to pursue felony charges against a range of violent offenders over concerns about racial equity.
The attempt to reimagine mathematics through the lens of critical race theory isn’t new — scholars have been working along these lines since the 1980s. They argue that historical racial oppression continues to influence everything from geometry curricula to standardized testing. Traditional emphases on objectivity, rigorous standards, and subject-matter mastery should be replaced, the scholars argue, with ideological exercises designed to promote racial and social consciousness.
What is new is the scale and speed of adoption. As America has grappled with questions of racial justice in recent years, billionaire foundations have provided the resources to implement these ideas widely in both public and private schools.
The donors appear motivated by a deep sense of ideological commitment to righting past wrongs related to racial injustice.
At the 2020 education donor symposium, Liz Simons recalled her experience working briefly as a Spanish bilingual teacher in an impoverished community in Oakland. “The much larger systemic problems,” she witnessed, Simons said, guided her to the goal of shaping early childhood education.
Na’ilah Suad Nasir, president of the Spencer Foundation, noted that she previously worked as the vice chancellor of “equity and inclusion” at the University of California, Berkeley. Expanding racial equity in education, she said, has been her “life’s work.”
Widening disparities
When it comes to math instruction, social justice means stripping it of basic features like numbers. In workshops hosted by the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project in 2023, the group promoted “numberless word problems” — mathematical exercises stripped of numerical computation. The method, instructors explain, is designed to counter “European ways of knowing and doing.”
Sisa Pon Renie, one presenter, spoke of wanting to challenge the “persistent myth that math is just abstract and without any cultural relevance.” The project champions this numberless approach as essential for “helping children understand how mathematics might be an important tool to understand social issues and promote justice.”
But critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.
“Imagine you’re a Cambodian refugee, and you get some math problem that’s loaded with prose,” Evers, of the Independent Institute, said. “Maybe you’re very good at the figures part, the calculating part, the mathematical part.”
Such students, he argued, are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical-theory frameworks and dense with English text. “They unnecessarily load these things down, make it harder, and it’s not even math. It’s an inadequate mode of teaching.”
The real-world consequences of these approaches have played out most dramatically in San Francisco. A decade ago, officials removed Algebra 1 from middle schools, arguing that the change would give black and Latino students, who were underrepresented in the math class, more time to prepare while avoiding placing them in lower-level tracks.
David Margulies, a parent involved with the San Francisco community, observed that families wanting their children to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade shifted away from public to private schools, online learning, and homeschooling. Students who don’t take the math class in middle school find it more difficult to take calculus in high school.
RELATED: Major university caught in new DEI cover-up
“Families figured out how important this is, and they are looking elsewhere,” he noted.
A 2023 Stanford study found that San Francisco’s Algebra 1 experiment did little to close racial achievement gaps. Black enrollment in Advanced Placement math classes remained unchanged, while Latino participation increased by 1%.
Meanwhile, education systems that have increased rather than decreased academic rigor have seen notable improvements in black student performance. In 2019, Dallas public schools began automatically enrolling students who performed well on state exams in middle-school algebra. The program increased black participation in advanced mathematics from 17% in 2018 to 43% in 2023.
Walking it back
Last year, during a Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project webinar titled “Who Is Labeled Smart?” Martin addressed the backlash against San Francisco’s push for educational equity. He toned down his scathing critique of merit-based advanced education programs that he believes harm black and Latino students and made a surprising statement about his own son’s schooling.
“I’m guilty, I’m guilty,” Martin said, almost sheepishly. “My son is, quote unquote, in one of those tracks.”
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.
Epstein-funded MIT lab hosted panel that discussed 'child-size sex robots'
A lengthy MIT Media Lab panel on "Forbidden Research" featured a segment on studying pedophiles and whether or not "child-size sex robots" should be provided to them.
The discussion lasted about nine hours when it was webcast in 2016, with the after-lunch portion of the event dedicated to a discussion on the study of pedophilia.
The discussion was uncovered as the saga surrounding deceased child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is ongoing, with the public clamoring for more information about the shadowy elite financier's life. The topic of the panel was revealed to be even more disturbing considering the lab's financial ties to Epstein.
'Courts don't know what to do with these because no child has been harmed in making them.'
Around the five-hour mark of the event, Dr. Kate Darling took the stage to start the off-putting discussion.
"Once child-size sex robots hit the market, which they will, is the use of these robots going to be a healthy outlet for people to express these sexual urges and thus protect children and reduce child abuse? Or is the use of these robots going to encourage, normalize, propagate that behavior and endanger children in these people’s environments?" Darling asked.
The Swiss doctor works in robotics and is a research scientist at MIT. She also holds the position of lead for ethics and society at the Boston Dynamics AI Institute, per her website.
Darling went on to say that "we just don't know the answer" to whether or not to let pedophiles use the "sex robots," mostly due to the restrictions around what that research might look like.
BREAKING: The Epstein-tied MIT Media Lab hosted a discussion on supplying pedophiles with “child-sized sex robots” at conference on research without “moral boundaries,” saying such urges are not a “moral failing.”
Previously unreported evidence indicates Epstein was directly… pic.twitter.com/UzTnPQEDcy
— Emily Kopp (@emilyakopp) July 16, 2025
"I understand why people want reporting requirements," Darling continued. "But I do wonder whether they're doing more harm than good in these cases. Because as much as people want these sexual urges — the urges, not the act — to be a moral failing, they are a psychological issue, and if we really care about helping children, we might need to be a little bit more pre-emptive about this."
While the panel seemed to recognize the discomfort their discussion would cause, it cannot be ignored that the MIT lab had received funding from Epstein during the same years it took place.
In 2019, Joi Ito, former director of the MIT Media Lab, admitted that the lab had "received money through some of the foundations" that Epstein controlled.
Ito resigned following a blockbuster New Yorker report detailing internal evidence that Ito and staff members accepted Epstein's funds and worked to hide their source even though Epstein had been blacklisted by MIT. Epstein was also alleged to have been consulted about the use of funds and utilized as an intermediary between the lab and other wealthy donors.
Ito said he had taken $525,000 in funding from Epstein for the media lab, with MIT receiving $800,000 in total from Epstein over a period of 20 years.
"I vow to raise an amount equivalent to the donations the Media Lab received from Epstein and will direct those funds to nonprofits that focus on supporting survivors of trafficking," Ito added at the time.
RELATED: Wikipedia co-founder: Epstein, elite rings, and occult portals — what they don’t want you to know
MIT responded to a request for comment from the Daily Caller and said it did not wish to comment on "the individually held and freely expressed views of any particular community member. The views of any individual community member are their own."
The school said it has also taken a "number of steps" to change its gift acceptance and donation processes and has been donating to "four nonprofits supporting survivors of sexual abuse."
Dr. Darling did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again
The Trump administration is preparing to launch a sweeping series of executive orders aimed at securing America’s position as the world’s leader in artificial intelligence. If carried out properly, these efforts could help spark a new era of economic prosperity and technological dominance.
The forthcoming executive actions would radically streamline federal approvals for AI-related infrastructure, vastly expand energy resources devoted to artificial intelligence development, and prioritize the construction of new transmission and data projects critical to powering America’s AI future.
Artificial intelligence could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.
It is a remarkable development — and one desperately needed.
Trump’s AI infrastructure revolution
The expected executive orders outline sweeping changes. One key measure would create a national Clean Water Act permit tailored to speed up environmental approvals for AI-related infrastructure — especially energy and data facilities.
Another directive would push the federal government to prioritize “shovel-ready” transmission projects, helping the electric grid expand quickly enough to meet the demands of AI growth.
The orders would also unlock federally managed land for rapid development of the infrastructure needed to power and support artificial intelligence operations.
Finally, the administration plans to increase dramatically the energy resources dedicated to AI development, treating the technology as a national priority.
These changes aim to eliminate major regulatory and logistical obstacles slowing AI advancement. By streamlining permitting, securing energy access, and opening federal land, the orders would lay the groundwork for building and deploying large-scale AI systems nationwide.
A critical change
Each of these reforms matters. The numbers make that clear.
An article published earlier this year in MIT Technology Review summarized estimates from multiple researchers analyzing AI’s future impact. One study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projected that by 2028, powering AI in the U.S. could require between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours of electricity annually.
RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
That would exceed the total power consumption of all U.S. data centers today. It’s enough to supply more than 20% of American households.
Put another way, the article noted that AI’s energy demand could create emissions equivalent to driving 300 billion miles — roughly 1,600 round trips between Earth and the sun.
This isn’t a modest technological shift. It’s an industrial revolution, and it’s already under way.
The global AI race
China’s leaders understand the potential benefits and costs of artificial intelligence, too, which is why they have approved dramatic increases in energy development in recent years.
In May, the Chinese government approved a plan to build 10 new nuclear reactors at a cost of $27.7 billion. If implemented, it would make China the planet’s largest generator of nuclear power by 2030.
China also invested more than $900 billion in renewable energy sources in 2024, nearly matching global investment in fossil fuels.
China is taking its energy needs seriously, and the Trump administration appears committed to ensuring that the United States doesn’t fall behind.
AI’s $13 trillion opportunity
Artificial intelligence is not just a futuristic novelty. It is the key to unlocking one of the greatest economic booms in modern history.
The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that AI could generate as much as $13 trillion in additional global economic productivity by 2030. That is the equivalent of adding three new economies the size of India’s. Nations that lead in AI development will enjoy a productivity surge, revolutionizing manufacturing, logistics, transportation, health care, finance, and nearly every other sector.
For the United States, this means the potential to revitalize American industry, re-shore critical supply chains, and create millions of high-wage jobs. AI could supercharge small business growth, empower entrepreneurs, and streamline government services. It could give America the edge in military technology, scientific research, and global competitiveness.
In short, it could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.
But to get there, America needs to act quickly. Building the infrastructure necessary to power AI’s massive growth, both physically and digitally, will require bold and aggressive leadership. That is exactly what Trump’s new executive orders represent.
Protecting liberty
Artificial intelligence will transform nearly every part of American life — our economy, schools, military, and medical system.
The upside is immense. With the right leadership, AI could spark a new American golden age, driving productivity and innovation beyond anything in living memory. That’s the future President Trump aims to deliver. If his initiative succeeds, it could define America’s 21st-century revival.
But the risks are real.
So far, Congress and most state legislatures have done practically nothing to safeguard Americans’ basic freedoms in the age of AI. No national guardrails exist to stop this technology from being used to suppress free speech, erode religious liberty, or undermine economic independence.
Without decisive action, the very tools that promise prosperity could become the greatest threat to liberty in American history.
That’s why the Trump administration and Congress should tie any pro-AI legislation to strong protections for individual rights. If America plans to lead the world into the AI future, it must lead with freedom front and center.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com