Dem
47
GOP
53
The question about decades and musicians (see below) was challenging.
If you are still working on the headline theme, the key is a particular rock band. And while we can't exactly give you their name, we can tell you, "The band is just fantastic, that is really what [we] think."
L.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: First, I do NOT stand with the Columbia University protesters. As a Jew, I also don't particularly mind the schadenfreude some of the protesters are now receiving.
However... while I can understand expelling a student at anytime before graduation, how can a university even possibly revoke a degree after it's been attained? Is this even legal? Would the tuition then be refunded? Isn't tuition a contract?(V) & (Z) answer: It is uncommon, but not unheard of, to revoke a student's degree. Historically, the circumstances under which it happens is that information comes to light that some portion of the student's work was fraudulent. In particular, this tends to mean people who plagiarized theses and dissertations.
For Columbia to revoke degrees of people for staging protests, even if those protests are deemed offensive, would be... unprecedented, as far as we know. That said, the university isn't actually revoking the degrees, by which we mean that they are not declaring the degrees to be no longer valid. What they are doing is "temporarily revoking the degrees." What that means, in practical terms, we do not know. For the next [X] years, a student can't put their Columbia degree on their résumés? How would the school even police that? The only real impact of such a ruling, we would guess, is that students won't be able to get transcripts until their "revocation" ends. Not a big deal for most people, but bad news for someone applying to some sort of postgraduate institution, or trying to join the military.
These students could very well sue, since university policies make very clear that cheating and plagiarism are offenses subject to academic sanctions, but do not likely say that protesting can lead to academic sanctions. That said, Columbia certainly has some highly paid lawyers that have looked over the whole thing and concluded that they have a chance at making it stick. There may also be a wink-wink agreement, behind closed doors, with the affected students.
Obviously, the whole thing is a sop to the Trump administration, meant to communicate "We're cracking down!" while actually doing mostly symbolic things. The university wants its $400 million in federal funding back, and will do whatever bootlicking is necessary to get it.
Y.H. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: Reading your post, in which you mention D.C. statehood at some point in the future, got me thinking about the pros and cons of giving the District only one Senator if and when it becomes a state. I have not fully through the ramifications of this, but somehow allowing a city to be a state somehow just feels odd. Of course, it would not be the smallest state by population, as Wyoming, though obviously physically bigger, has a smaller population. And the point of having two senators per state, I assume, is to counter the larger states' advantage in the House. But 101 Senators would result in the Senate having a built-in tiebreaker, where the vice president would not be required to break ties. Somehow having DC be a state with two senators DC be a state with only one Senator, both feel kind of wrong to me, but perhaps that's simply because it's not the status quo. If it does become a state, does the idea of its having only one Senator has any merit?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will give you three observations. First, you are solving a problem that does not exist. There is no reason the VP cannot be the tiebreaker, and even if there was an odd number of senators, the VP would be needed almost as often because of absences and deaths.
Second, this change would require massive rewriting of the Constitution, which specifies that states must have two senators. Statehood could be conferred with just a bill passed by Congress (and so, a majority of the House and 60 senators with the filibuster, or a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate without). Tinkering with the number of senators would require rewriting Article I of the Constitution, and thus would require two-thirds of both chambers plus three-quarters of state legislatures. There are plenty of small states that are not interested in this kind of tweaking, because even if they are not the target at present, they could be in the future.
Third, the District is majority-Black. The optics of a nation that once treated Black people as three-fifths of a white person turning around and giving the residents of DC 50% as much representation as any other state? Those optics would be very, very, very bad.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: You have written this week about the tough situation Democratic Senators are in. Do you think it is a coincidence, or has the GOP engaged in some 3-D chess? In other words, how much credit can we give the Republican Party on these budget antics?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think that is the correct way to think about things. Co-Presidents Donald Trump and Elon Musk have been ripping apart the government because it best suits their personal goals. They did not commence this political project with the idea that it would somehow affect this week's budget showdown. Similarly, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) just put forward the bill he could squeeze through the House. It just so happened that, with a shutdown being a feature and not a bug from the vantage point of the White House, (enough) Democrats felt compelled to swallow hard and accept it.
A.S. in Fairfax, VA, asks: What, if anything, could Donald Trump do that would either: (1) get Republicans to impeach and convict him, or (2) make him so unpopular that Democrats capture veto-proof majorities in both houses in 2026?
My thoughts were that if he actually invaded Canada or if he sent troops to Ukraine in support of Russia, that might be enough.(V) & (Z) answer: We are sure you understand that these are very unlikely outcomes. However, if we look back to past eras, for occasions when disdain for a president became strongly bipartisan, we see three basic situations where it happened: a massive corruption scandal (e.g., Richard Nixon), waging a bloody war with no clear purpose or endgame (e.g., Lyndon B. Johnson) and profound economic turmoil (e.g., Herbert Hoover).
Clearly, the Nixon precedent no longer applies. But a gross military misstep probably still does. And then, to your list, we would add a broad economic catastrophe, particularly if it appears to be the result of the administration's policies.
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, asks: In last week's Q&A, you wrote:
So, we know that—to take one example—that in the North there were near-constant editorials, and speeches, and public declarations during the Civil War that the war was surely lost, and the fighting should be ended immediately. And we all know how that turned out. We understand that it's not easy to sit back and watch things unfold in such a troubling fashion. But it is far, far, far too early to reach conclusions about how this story is going to end.In the scenario that our situation might yet turn out like the Civil War, what percent chance would you guess we have that a "Lincoln" will arise in our generation to provide the mighty determination needed to stay the course in fighting and defeating the forces attacking the Constitution and rule of law? And that our "Lincoln" will find the "Grant" (or "Grants") needed to do the day-to-day tactical work required to drive out the forces of anarchy, "money is speech," "government is the problem rather than potential solution," etc.?
(V) & (Z) answer: Assuming the U.S. government and the Constitution survive, it is nearly 100% that a Lincoln will come along eventually, aided by one or more Grants.
In general, we take the view that the situation makes the man, not that the man makes the situation. Lincoln did well, yes, but he could not have become a legend if he had not happened to come along when the nation was on the brink of civil war. Similarly, a number of presidents muddled along, trying to address the challenges of the late 19th century with varying levels of success, until Theodore Roosevelt finally took office and really broke the logjam.
So, again assuming that the Constitution is not torn asunder, there will be future presidents who try to fix what ails America. And one (or maybe two) of them will crack the code, and will become a Lincoln-type figure.
R.P. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: Imagine for a moment that Donald Trump never chose to get involved in politics. Once you have extricated your self from this reverie, do you think that another figure would have led the United States to this same place eventually, perhaps on a slower timeline? Or is there no one who could have managed what Trump has wrought?
(V) & (Z) answer: The observation from the previous question, "that the situation makes the man, not that the man makes the situation," applies to harmful figures as well as heroic ones. Trump is the logical culminations of trends that had been unfolding in the Republican Party for half a century, dating at least as far back as Barry Goldwater in 1964. If Trump was never born, or he never got into politics, someone like him would have eventually come along and had a presidency like his. Maybe Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), maybe Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), maybe J.D. Vance, or maybe someone else. Trump, who has been indecent for decades, managed to figure out that indecency is no obstacle to electoral success these days, at least not in one of the two major parties. Indeed, it's a selling point. Someone else would have eventually come to this realization.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: I have lamented for many years that Americans have disdained experts, i.e. those who have dedicated their lives to the expertise of a subject. As a consequence, there are far too many armchair quarterbacks in American politics. I'm not saying that Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer are beyond reproach. But is it possible that they know more/understand more about politics than 99% of their critics? I know it's a fine line. I know that even sometimes experts are wrong. I know hindsight is 100% accurate. But the sportification of politics really irks me. Am I missing something here?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no question that Jeffries and Schumer know more about politics than 99.99% of people. Not only do they have their professional experience to draw on, as folks who have been in politics for decades, they also know parliamentary procedure better than almost anyone, they can get personal and unfiltered views from their colleagues, and they have access to information that most people do not, including both polling and intelligence.
That said, one cannot assume they always make the best and wisest choices. First, politicians live in something of a bubble, and can become too removed from the experience of regular Americans. Second, they can become a little too invested in the status quo, since the status quo for them is "I'm in power." Third, they can be unduly influenced by lobbyists or other stakeholders.
D.R. in Massapequa Park, NY, asks: Maybe you can settle a debate between my friend and me. My friend thinks Donald Trump's popularity is genuine and will be used as a measuring stick for the GOP for years to come, like another Ronald Reagan or FDR. I am of the belief Trump's popularity is more a combination of Republicans following the mantra of "fall in line behind the party leader." Once he leaves office in January of 2029 (or Father Time decides to eject him sooner) this cult-like popularity will shift to J.D. Vance or whomever grabs the nomination for 2028. What are your thoughts?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think both of you are partly right.
First, there is no question that a lot of Republican voters, and a whole lot of Republican officeholders, don't like or respect Trump, and would be pleased to see him gone. However, they can't work for that openly or actively because of the potential political and personal consequences.
Second, Trump has a cult-like hold over some sizable segment of the electorate and, barring the unexpected, he will be those voters' model of the ideal president for many years. It is implausible that he'll be able to transfer his role as cult leader to anyone else (assuming he even wants to). However, for decades after Andrew Jackson left the presidency, every Democrat (and some Republicans) claimed to be the true inheritor of his legacy. We foresee that among Republican candidates for president (and other offices) for a long time.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: You wrote, "[Scott Brown] is unique since he is the only senator to have posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine. Surely you didn't expect us to run the photo. This is a family blog, after all." Can you recommend a site that replicates the work of Electoral-Vote.com, but does print the nude politician photos? I'm asking for a friend.
(V) & (Z) answer: European outlets can generally be counted on to be more... frank. For example, The Guardian (UK) covered the story about Brown being... well, uncovered.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Thank you for your recent coverage of the German elections; the differences between their system and ours are fascinating. I'm hoping you or your overseas readers can answer something about European politics that has always puzzled me. Why do so many European political parties have the word "Christian" in their names? Does this mean that people who don't identify as Christian (e.g., Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) are excluded from the party? Even if they are not excluded, are people in those groups less likely to vote for that party simply because of the name?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are hundreds of such parties across the various nations, and so this answer is meant to be generally true, not universally so. In most cases, "Christian" is/was a bit of branding that suggested or suggests a blend of right-leaning values, like being pro-nuclear-family and pro-tradition, but also left-leaning values along the lines of Jesus' ministry, like helping your fellow man and uplifting the poor. Most parties with Christian in their name include/included many members who were/are not adherents of Christianity and, quite often, were/are not adherents of any religion.
P.G. in Denver, CO, asks: You wrote about the electoral implications of Canadian statehood, and suggested Justin Trudeau could be president. But what about Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution? How does this work? For someone to be qualified to be president, did Canada have to be part of the U.S. when they were born? Has this ever been adjudicated?
(V) & (Z) answer: There's not a clear answer to this, because this specific situation has never come up. That said, there is a broad (albeit not universal) consensus that if the United States incorporates a particular piece of territory, people born in that territory retroactively become natural-born citizens.
If this ever went to court, the lawyers working for Trudeau (or anyone else making such a claim) would primarily point to two things. First, the Constitution granted U.S. citizenship to anyone who was already a citizen at the time the document was adopted. This was a logistical necessity, as people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could not have served as president, as they could not possibly have been born in a country that didn't exist at the time of their birth. Second, Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona, and was deemed a natural-born citizen when Arizona achieved statehood, and was thus eligible to be president.
Neither of these situations perfectly parallels the hypothetical Trudeau situation, but they are close enough to suggest that someone born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, even if the place they were born was only incorporated into the U.S. after they were born.
M.S. in Groton, MA, asks: I have a subscription to The Atlantic, as I imagine many of your readers do. The following main story struck me (I'm including a screenshot instead of a link because I feel the visual aspect is important):
We've seen this before. "Boy, howdy.. things sure do look dire for [Trump, or one of his MAGA associates]. He's on the ropes now. You should expect him to fail soon." This gives people like us a dose of dopamine, so we click on the article.
And then... MAGA wins, and everyone gets pissed that the Bad Thing didn't happen to the Bad Person.
I loathe Trump and Musk, but this journalistic approach isn't helping; it's just concerned with getting clicks. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.(V) & (Z) answer: This sort of muckraking-adjacent journalism is not helpful, but it's also not going away anytime soon. It's hard for a publication to survive on the Internet, and most of them believe they have to use every trick in the book, especially since they are competing against outlets who are also using every trick in the book.
We are particularly annoyed by sites that use clickbait headlines, and then change the headlines several times to OTHER clickbait headlines, trying to trick users into clicking on the same article multiple times (looking at you, Slate).
S.B. in North Liberty, IA, asks: You wrote: "Most students, except those with cars (and a drivers' license) have no ID other than their student ID..."
Do most college students really not have a drivers' license? When I was in college, everyone I knew had a license (and certainly some sort of government-issued ID), even if they didn't have a car at school. I'm not sure how you could get through without one, particularly when birthday #21 rolls around.(V) & (Z) answer: Most college students do have a drivers' license, which is enough to fulfill most needs (like getting liquor at bars). But unless they are from the same state as the one in which their university is located, or they have brought a vehicle with them from out of state, they do not generally have in-state drivers' licenses. And Indiana is one of the states (Florida, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin are the others) where the only acceptable forms of ID for voter registration/voting purposes are in-state ID or federally issued ID (like a passport).
S.S. in Kansas City, MO, asks: As a geographer and someone who has to repeatedly remind people that there is no clear advantage of either year-round standard time or DST in a country as expansive as the U.S., I thank you for your concise write-up of the issue. I will now just direct people to your piece and save ME some time! I do have one question that I have never found an answer to, though. Since there is fairly good evidence that the time change, especially in spring, does have some deleterious impacts on human health and safety for about for 2-3 days, why do we change times at 2:00 a.m. on Sunday morning? Why not change time on Saturday morning, thus giving students and anyone with a traditional work week an extra day to adjust?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two answers to your question. First, there are considerably more Americans who work Saturdays than who work Sundays.
Second, when the U.S. began figuring out how to implement DST (first during World War I, then during World War II, and then "for good" in the 1970s), there had not been any meaningful scientific studies demonstrating that the effects of the changeover last multiple days. By the time that was known, the Saturday night/Sunday morning switchover was set. And we all know how hard it is to get Americans to change their ways (see system, metric).
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: Why "personal check" (not "cheque"), but "Toyota marque" (not "mark")?
(V) & (Z) answer: "Cheque" entered the English language in the early 1700s. More than 100 years later, following the revolution, there was a conscious effort to distinguish British spelling from American spelling, with Noah Webster and his An American Dictionary of the English Language leading the way.
"Marque" did not enter the English language until the early 1900s (or, 200 or so years after "cheque"). By then, Webster was long dead, and there were no active efforts to de-Britishify American English. So, the spelling held.
J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: I don't know why I was wondering this while driving into work this week, but how common (or uncommon) is it for members of the House to stay in Congress after their speakership has ended? Of course we know Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stayed after the Republicans took the House, but has anyone else?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's not common, but it's also not unheard of for a speaker to hang on as a backbencher for at least some amount of time. Even if they are not holding the gavel anymore, the House is what they know, it's how they make their living, it's where their colleagues (and possibly friends) are, and it remains a source of prestige.
Here's a list of the last 15 people to vacate the speakership, along with how many years they lasted after stepping down, rounded to the nearest year:
- Kevin McCarthy: 0 years
- Nancy Pelosi: 2 years and counting
- Paul Ryan: 0 years
- John Boehner: 0 years
- Dennis Hastert: 1 year
- Newt Gingrich: 0 years
- Tom Foley: 0 years
- Jim Wright: 0 years
- Tip O'Neill: 0 years
- Carl Albert: 0 years
- John W. McCormack: 0 years
- Sam Rayburn: 0 years
- Joseph W. Martin Jr.: 12 years
- William B. Bankhead: 0 years
- Jo Byrns: 0 years
A fair number of the folks with 0 years did not face the choice that Pelosi did. That is to say, they did not choose between "I'm not speaker anymore, but I can still be a backbencher" and "I'm outta here." First of all, three of the 15 died while still in possession of the speaker's gavel (Rayburn, Bankhead and Byrns). Several others simply decided they'd had enough of Congress, and so they left both the speakership and their seat at the same time (O'Neill, Albert, Wright, etc.). One of them (Foley) had to leave due to losing a reelection campaign. Only about half a dozen were ejected from the speakership unwillingly, and had to choose whether to leave entirely, or to move to the backbenches. And about half of those six decided to stay on, at least for a while.
J.K. in Silverdale, WA, asks: When I see someone in a MAGA hat, I frequently wonder during what period they thought America was great previously. The 1980's? The 1950's? The irony to me is that back then, people expected presidents to obey norms and represent a standard of decency that would have prevented Donald Trump from being elected. This got me wondering: Was there any election in U.S. history prior to 2016 that you think Trump could have been elected? If so, was America great then?
(V) & (Z) answer: Donald Trump has made clear that the era in which America was last "great" was the 1950s. Of course, as is always the case when looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, this ignores some hard truths, like the fact that it wasn't so great for Black people, or immigrants, or LGBTQ people, or many women. It also wasn't great if you don't enjoy worrying about the possibility of a nuclear strike at any time. Or if you like modern medicine. Or if you prefer cars that are not necessarily lethal at 30 MPH.
There are periods where Trump might plausibly have been elected but they are, by definition, not periods of "greatness," whatever that might mean. They are periods of upheaval, when a lot of people were unhappy, and were looking for a president who would shake up the status quo. So, he might have been viable in the late 1820s and the 1830s, when the U.S. twice elected the Trump-like Andrew Jackson. Or, he might have been viable in the Gilded Age, when people were unhappy about all the problems in their world, and the government's seeming inability to do much about them.
There is also one other possibility. In the 1840s, and especially the 1850s, the Democrats got into the habit of nominating "doughfaces" to keep the Party together. These folks were Northern by birth, but shared the Southern outlook on matters of race, and of the proper place of non-white people in American society. Trump could probably have been a Democratic doughface candidate in 1848, or 1852, or 1856.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: By my count, we now have seven living vice presidents today: Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Kamala Harris, and now J.D. Vance. Is this the most we've had?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, though it's the third time it's happened (all of them recent):
- Jan. 20, 1993 - Apr. 22, 1994: Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Quayle, Gore
- Jan. 20, 2017 - Nov. 30, 2018: Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Biden, Pence
- Jan. 20, 2025 - present: Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Biden, Pence, Harris, Vance
The first septet ended with the death of Nixon, the second ended with the death of Bush.
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Who's the better documentary maker, Melania Trump or Leni Riefenstahl?
(V) & (Z) answer: While her subject matter was reprehensible, there is simply no question that Riefenstahl was a gifted filmmaker, and far superior to Trump (and scumbag director Brett Ratner).
Actually, now that we think about it, the subject of the Trump documentary is pretty reprehensible, too. So, Melania doesn't even have that angle going for her.
W.V. in Andover, MN, asks: I'm only a casual music listener, so I'd like to know better who or what were the most influential American (or American-based) contributors—across the major genres—in each of the decades from the 1910s through the 2010s.
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start with the caveat that decades are an arbitrary construct, and sometimes don't work for certain artists and careers. That said, here are our choices:
The 1910s
Al Jolson: It was in the 1910s that he was established as a superstar of recording, stage, and eventually screen. He was the preeminent interpreter of the American experience for decades, certainly up through 1931's "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?"
Runner-Up: Irving Berlin
The 1920s
Louis Armstrong: If jazz can be said to have a "father," it's him. He came to prominence in this decade, and had his first hits. If he does not appear somewhere on a list like this, we might just as well close up shop and go home.
Runner-Up: George Gershwin
The 1930s
Robert Johnson: If there is a more influential bluesman, we don't know who it might be. He only issued 12 recordings, but all of them were in the late 1930s.
Runner-Up: Bing Crosby
The 1940s
Glenn Miller: He only lived to 1944, dying suddenly and mysteriously. But he and his band defined the sound of the World War II era.
Runner-Up: Hank Williams Sr.
The 1950s
Chuck Berry: More than anyone else, even Ray Charles or Fats Domino, he invented rock and roll.
Runner-Up: Elvis Presley
The 1960s
Bob Dylan: When it comes to influence, it's not so easy to choose between Dylan and The Beatles; the latter had a broader influence (more people affected by their music), while the former probably had a deeper influence (a bigger effect on those who embraced his music). However, we don't have to choose, because you specified Americans. Dylan not only created the folk rock, he was THE music of protest for over a decade.
Runner-Up: Berry Gordy Jr.
The 1970s
Aretha Franklin: Of everyone on this list, she's the one that is made most difficult by the decades construct. We're putting the Queen of Soul in the 1970s, but recognize she could just as well fit in the 1960s.
Runner-Up: The Ramones
The 1980s
Michael Jackson: (Z) was there, and nobody was bigger in the 1980s than Jacko.
Runner-Up: Run-D.M.C.
The 1990s
Nirvana: (Z) was also there, and EVERYBODY had a copy of Nevermind.
Runner-Up: Garth Brooks
The 2000s
Eminem: It gets harder in the 21st century, because music became so fragmented. However, Eminem was everywhere for at least half the decade, and was responsible for probably 3 of the 20 songs most identified with the 2000s ("My Name Is," "Stan" and "Lose Yourself"). You could argue that he was appropriating a Black musical form, but keep in mind that his producer was often Dr. Dre.
Runner-Up: The Black Eyed Peas
The 2010s
Taylor Swift: If a person was born in 1965 or later, this is probably the closest they'll get to understanding Beatlemania.
Runner-Up: Beyoncé
We have no doubt that readers will have thoughts about some of our choices.
C.C. in Dallas, TX, asks: What musical album, of any genre/artist/era, best represents Electoral-Vote.com as a different form of your artistic expression?
(Z) answers: What's Going On, by Marvin Gaye.
(V) answers: Dust Bowl Ballads, by Woody Guthrie.
Readers can decide for themselves why we made those choices.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: I was surprised, and pleased, to see the staff mathematician's contribution to the site this week. Is this the first time he has been, um, capacitated to contribute, or has there been a prior contribution that I do not recall? Perhaps the staff archivist could check.
(V) & (Z) answer: Unfortunately, the staff mathematician and the staff archivist were out together last night, commemorating Pi Day by indulging in some apple pies. So, we were unable to get an answer to your question. Sorry!
P.D.N. in Boardman, OH , asks: Two good friends are professors at San Diego State in History and in Political Science (Human Rights). They're saying that the CSU system, from which I graduated with an MA in History, is now endorsing this use of AI throughout the system. According to the administration at San Diego State, 80% of students are already using AI. To my friends, it's the end of the university as they know it and to me, it's only going to make students even lazier and more incurious. Already, I have my doubts that many students anywhere are getting an adequate education in the liberal arts sense of that term: being able to read and write and think for yourself.
I wonder what (Z) thinks of this move as an educator. And are you hearing rumors that the UC system is going to follow the CSU?(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) teaches at both UCLA and in the Cal State system (at Cal Poly Pomona), and can tell you that the CSU is indeed embracing AI with a vengeance, and that UCLA has done the same. The other UCs don't appear to have followed suit—at least, not all of them—but it's presumably inevitable.
(Z) cannot speak for professors in, say, the sciences. But he, and the professors he knows in the humanities and social sciences, are universally aghast at the rapid, slipshod manner in which the universities have been promoting these tools. Obviously, they make it much easier to cheat and/or be lazy. And even for students who are interested in being honest and conscientious, there is virtually no instruction being provided on appropriate usage (e.g., check the spelling and grammar of essays) vs. probably legal but not too wise (e.g., use AI to develop an outline for your essays) vs. absolutely wrong (e.g., use AI to look up answers during an exam).
Since the university leadership has entirely abrogated its responsibilities here, (Z) now has to spend a LOT of time trying to educate students on good practices, and also on why it's a bad idea to use online tools to cheat.