Latest news with #JohnRawls
Forbes
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
You Must Build Workplace AI Behind A Veil Of Ignorance
In the era of artificial intelligence, leaders are making high-stakes decisions faster than ever—decisions like who gets hired, promoted, or flagged for performance issues. But as we embrace AI to optimize operations, the question of fairness is receiving insufficient attention: How do we guaranty the tools we increasingly trust to inform our actions have been built with proper attention to fairness? In his groundbreaking 1971 book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls introduced a thought experiment that we should make central to decisions about the design and use of AI today: the veil of ignorance. This idea offers a simple tool for understanding fairness and a blueprint for how leaders might leverage that understanding to fairly design and implement AI. Imagine you are creating rules for a new society. But there's a catch: you don't know in advance who you will be in that society. You might end up rich or poor, healthy or disabled, part of the majority or a marginalized minority. Operating behind this "veil of ignorance" would prevent rule makers from crafting decisions that would provide them personal benefit. Instead, people would be motivated to create fair rules that protect fundamental rights, ensure opportunities are open to all, and provide extra support to the disadvantaged. Rawls proposed that just systems are those people would agree to without knowing how they offered them advantages or disadvantages. The idea is that fairness is about building structures that everyone - the powerful and the powerless - would deem acceptable. Expecting people with personal benefits at stake to sublimate that self-interest is unreasonable. Hence, there is a need for a veil of ignorance. In traditional policymaking, Rawls' thought experiment has provided an important perspective in debates on issues such as healthcare design. Now, as AI begins to influence hiring, promotions, and countless other workplace personnel decisions, the veil of ignorance offers a critical guide: build AI systems as if you don't know whether you will be the one judged by them. Despite all its promise, AI does not naturally operate under Rawlsian principles. Instead, most AI systems today amplify historical inequalities rather than correct them. Why? Because AI learns from historical data — that data reflects the biases, blind spots, and injustices of the past. An AI trained on decades of corporate hiring decisions, for example, might 'learn' to favor resumes with elite university credentials, Western-sounding names, or traditional career paths — not because those qualities should be preferred today, but because historically they were favored. It doesn't help that most AI tools function as black boxes: their decision-making processes are opaque, and their biases are hard to detect until harm has already been done. Leaders must acknowledge that AI will not operate behind a veil of ignorance unless deliberately designed otherwise. It will reflect and reinforce existing social inequalities, not imagine a world where fairness matters. The good news is that businesses can design AI systems that approximate Rawls' fairness principles. However, this requires conscious choices at every stage: data curation, algorithm design, decision auditing, and human oversight. As mentioned, hiring is a common area where companies are eagerly looking to apply AI. It can be a mind-numbing task to plod through applications; fatigue or boredom can make errors likely, and many process elements are routine. It is easy to see how the potential of resume screening tools, video interview analyzers, and skill assessment algorithms to make hiring faster and smarter is so attractive. Yet, without considering the metaphor of the veil of ignorance, they can easily produce less fair outcomes. Consider a traditional AI hiring system. A company trains its model on historical hiring data, feeding it thousands of resumes and outcomes. If that data reflects a bias toward hiring white men from a few elite universities, the AI will "learn" those patterns — and perpetuate them. It will favor applicants who match the historical profile and penalize those who don't, regardless of their skills or potential. This is precisely the kind of unfairness Rawls would warn against – and it is easy to see who might and might not be troubled by this design. Embracing Rawlsian principles in AI is not just a matter of ethics — over the long run, it will undoubtedly become a matter of competitive advantage. Companies that design fair AI systems will tap into wider talent pools, build more interesting and innovative teams, strengthen their reputations in a world increasingly skeptical of corporate bias, and reduce legal and regulatory risks should governments scrutinize AI discrimination. John Rawls challenged us to imagine building societies from behind a veil of ignorance — crafting rules we could live with no matter our fate. As leaders deploy AI across critical areas of human life, the same challenge stands before them. AI cannot naturally embody fairness. It must be taught and trained to do so. Only when those entrusted with the power to build AI systems controlling the destinies of so many embrace Rawls' insights do we have the chance to avoid the past's mistakes and create a more just, dynamic, and prosperous future. The veil of ignorance is not just philosophy. It is an essential perspective for building and deploying AI worthy of human trust.
Express Tribune
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Judicial reforms and CJP
The writer is a former Secretary to Government, Home & Tribal Affairs Department and a retired IG. He can be reached at aashah77@ Listen to article Hope is a powerful force, driving people toward a better future. One such hope is the swift dispensation of justice, as delays in justice are often equated with its denial. Currently, around 57,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, with an additional 2.4 million awaiting resolution in other courts across the country. According to the office of the registrar, 27,312 cases were fixed and 12,109 disposed of between 28 Oct 2024 and 7 March 2025 while 7,370 new cases were instituted in the same period. Given this backlog, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi's commitment to judicial reforms has rekindled hope. His vision focuses on modernising the judiciary to uphold fairness, transparency and accessibility - ensuring that the justice system remains citizen-centric and responsive to litigants' needs. As part of these reforms, advanced information technology has reportedly been integrated to enhance judicial efficiency. Initiatives such as e-Affidavit system is meant to streamline filing processes, reduce delays and improve transparency, while a Case Management System allows litigants and lawyers to access certified copies instantly, eliminating human interference. To further public trust, feedback mechanisms involving legal practitioners, litigants and civil society have also been introduced. However, despite these pronounced reforms, the harsh reality remains unchanged - justice is still delayed. Cases continue to languish in courts for years, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) on identical charges are often registered against individuals in different jurisdictions, undermining fundamental rights. In his effort to reform the judiciary, the Chief Justice has engaged with key stakeholders, including the Prime Minister, Bar Councils, Bar Associations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a delegation from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Discussions have revolved around critical issues such as the implementation of court orders, abuse of legal processes, human rights violations and concerns over the 26th Constitutional Amendment's adverse impact. Key topics also included: military trials of civilians, non-implementation of production orders regarding missing persons, threats received by PTI lawyers, controversial role of intelligence agencies, judicial transfers affecting the independence of the courts, etc. Despite previous Chief Justices expressing similar commitments to reducing case delays - through utilising technology to link branch registries with the Principal Seat for real-time hearings - the situation remains largely unchanged. The implementation gap continues to frustrate litigants and legal practitioners alike. At the core of justice lies the principle of the Rule of Law, which is inseparable from an independent judiciary. John Rawls, a renowned Harvard philosopher, described justice as "the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." Today, justice and the Rule of Law are synonymous, as fundamental rights are meaningless without strict legal enforcement. However, in Pakistan, scant respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law is evident. Over the past two years, Supreme Court judgments have often gone unenforced, and citizens have been deprived of their liberty without due process. This failure not only exposes the inefficiency of the judicial system but also raises broader concerns about governance. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, once stated: "The very essence of civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection." Unfortunately, in Pakistan, this fundamental principle is frequently violated. Judicial orders remain unimplemented, and legal protections are selectively applied. As a result, people continue to look toward the Supreme Court for justice under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which allows the Court to take suo motu notice of fundamental rights violations. One of the most pressing concerns affecting judicial independence is the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which has significantly altered the balance of power in judicial appointments. This amendment has given the executive branch greater influence over judicial postings and transfers, undermining the separation of powers. The transfer of judges from one High Court to another now acts as a Sword of Damocles, threatening judicial independence. Judges who rule against the interests of the powerful risk being transferred as a punitive measure, discouraging bold and impartial decision-making Judicial reforms cannot succeed unless the negative impacts of the 26th Amendment are reviewed. A truly independent judiciary requires a clear separation from the executive branch. Without this, reforms will remain mere rhetoric. The real test of any Supreme Court lies in its ability to enforce fundamental rights. If the judiciary cannot protect citizens from injustice, no amount of technological advancements or procedural improvements will restore public trust. Therefore, for judicial reforms to be meaningful, they must begin with strengthening judicial independence and the Rule of Law.
Technical.ly
23-02-2025
- Business
- Technical.ly
The reversible power test: Free speech and the DEI backlash
An investor I saw often once teased me for wearing a suit. It was the mid-2010s, a time when Silicon Valley chic was reshaping business attire. He was proudly casual — another bicoastal jet-setter whose formal wear consisted of a blue blazer over dark jeans and fresh sneakers. More often I remember him in a lot of zip-up sweaters. He knew me as an adherent of the startup uniform: a graphic t-shirt under a zip-up hoodie. (Incidentally, that look is still in my closet, like this aging millennial startuper's answer to my grandparent's shag carpets.) To him, spotting me in a shirt, tie, and jacket — even if I had snagged it in a buy-one-get-one deal at a faded discount retailer — signaled that I had submitted to a system that optimistic startup life back then was committed to disrupting. I pushed back. Trading one required uniform for another isn't freedom; it's just oppression by another fabric. This, I submit, is a main takeaway from the current Trump-led backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs: Effectively forcing firms to scrap their diversity pledges is no different than requiring them. Political theorist John Rawls posited in the 1970s that the best way to organize society is through a 'veil of ignorance,' in which no one would know which position they'd be granted. The corresponding democratic principle could be called the 'reversible power test': Don't wield power you wouldn't want your political opponent to have. Don't confuse me for a strident partisan. I think it's a mistake for universities — our laboratories of wide-ranging thought — to require faculty to sign politically charged pledges, as several had begun to do. Research has long shown that mandatory diversity training is counterproductive, repelling could-be champions. Likewise, as one PhD science executive told me, as the COVID pandemic wore on, masks worked better than mask mandates. Don't wield power you wouldn't want your political opponent to have. Within reason, I believe most people should be left alone to make their own decisions. In 2021, I wrote with ambivalence that ' Tech CEOs have nowhere to hide anymore.' Regardless of my personal beliefs, bending someone to your political will can demonstrate short-term gain but seems to always swing back. Yet, I also take very seriously the reality that race-based economic disparities remain abhorrent. Every mandate reads to me as in-group signaling, rather than serious policy reform. Culture change lasts longer, but it requires slower, coalition-driven progress. It should not be lost on anyone that the Civil Rights victories of the 1960s required both historic grassroots organizing and the improbable White House pairing of a New England liberal with a reluctant Southern Senate machinist. Dogged advocacy — not impatient executive mandates — won the day. If I was skeptical of the effectiveness of mandates from the left, I am chilled by the Trump administration's anti-DEI mandates from the right. They have already shaken local economic development and ecosystem organizing. The DEI backlash was already in full-swing last year, well represented by crusader Edward Blum's lawsuit against the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund's grant program for Black women entrepreneurs. Back in September, the Fearless Fund agreed to end the program. Corporate backers of inclusive entrepreneurship and workforce development programs were retreating by 2023, per a special report. A federally-funded EDA Tech Hubs leader told me this month that most of their peers were walking back language in their proposals that included a focus on diversity metrics — a priority under the Biden administration that's now seen as a vulnerability under Trump. Prominent Baltimore 'equitech'-focused nonprofit UpSurge was folded into the Greater Baltimore Committee, that region's largest business group. Now the Trump administration is cheerily cutting any programs, personnel and policies that sound too 'woke.' The unorthodox Department of Government Efficiency (or, you know, DOGE, like the crypto meme), a presidential advisory group led by iconaclastic and chainsaw-wielding entrepreneur and troll-in-chief Elon Musk, is slashing budgets with an eye toward politics. Fresh Pew Research polling suggests most Americans disapprove of Musk's approach, though opinion is predictably politically charged. This tone is flowing down to state, county and local governments and civic leadership. An ecosystem organizer asked me for suggestions of what local leaders around the country were championing the necessary good of economic representation. For now, I said, most I talk to are cautious, quiet and in retreat. Social scientists call it ' anticipatory compliance.' Choosing one conformity over another is no victory. Give more people more freedom, more often — and then fight the battle in the public discourse. Short-term expediency backfires. Free speech and diversity can coexist, but only if we resist the urge to trade one mandated worldview for another.
