Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Through the generations

Through the generations
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

A lot of folks have deeply held opinions about Gen Z. Some say they lack initiative—how else could they spend that much time on TikTok? Some question their maturity—it’s not possible to be independent while still being on your parents’ phone plan, right? A lot like judges at the Westminster Dog Show, these folks tend to look for flaws rather than opportunities to tap into potential.


I’m about two months in as an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University, and in the short time I’ve spent with students in my Civil Procedure class, it has become clear that Gen Z—like every generation before it—defies generalizations and stereotypes.

Leaders for life. That’s the mission at STU—a small Catholic school in Miami Gardens, Florida. The students who come here do so because they know that the scale, scope, and significance of contemporary social ills mean that no one can sit on the sidelines. That’s why, STU students are proactively seeking the skills that will allow them to contribute to problem solving today and for decades to come.

Of course, I can’t speak to the habits and motivations of every student but I can share a few short stories that contest the conception of Gen Z as a bunch of wannabe social media influencers.

At 9am on the first day I held office hours, two students were outside my door. We’d only covered the syllabus and the timeline of litigation at that point, so I had no clue what they planned to discuss. Both quickly filled in the blanks for me — they were building a relationship and demonstrating their commitment to making the most of every educational resource at their disposal.

On the second day of class, I looked at the clock—class didn’t start for another five minutes but nearly every student was in their seat, at attention, waiting to learn the skills they plan to use to lead for life.

At the end of the third class, a line of ten students formed to ask follow up questions. These weren’t simple “yes or no” inquiries indicative of a student napping rather than note taking—they were thoughtful comments that showed a strong desire to not only understand the material but master it.

You’re thinking…so what? That happened when I went to school, too.

That’s exactly the point. There’s no Sorting Hat placing us in the “right” generation; demographers draw lines in the chronological sand and hope for the best. Every generation has members who struggle, who languish, and who “partake” more than they participate. Focusing on those few distracts us—members of older generations—from the more important task: providing younger individuals with “future proof” skills and inspiring them to tackle challenges rather than cower before them.

Gen Z and every generation that follows will face more perils that require worldwide coordination, collaboration, and communication than any prior generation. Take AI, for example—it presents the perfect storm of risks. Absent the sort of problem solving I mentioned, AI may undermine governments, cause widespread skill atrophy, and unleash a kind of war that not even Hollywood can imagine. Climate change, pandemics, and income inequality carry similar risk profiles.

If you find even one of those risks compelling, then you have a motive for investing in Gen Z rather than interrogating their social media habits and their love of vintage shirts and baggy clothes.

You may have already known all this about many members of Gen Z—that young person down the street perhaps…the one with a drive to learn, a desire to make an impact, and devotion to readying for society in advance of the dire threats looming on the horizon. Let’s talk more about that person and the many members of Gen Z just like them. There’s not much value in tearing down the generation we need to build up institutions that crumbled on our watch.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less