Katie Madison

Should companies be banned from using AI to screen job applications?

Here's the part nobody defending these tools wants to answer. When a candidate asks why they were rejected, the company can't say. Not won't say. Can't. The screening model belongs to a vendor. The weights are proprietary. The training data is proprietary. The HR department bought a score and has no idea what produced it. We already decided as a society that employment decisions need to be explainable, which is the entire point of adverse impact doctrine and EEOC record keeping rules ([EEOC guidance](https://www.eeoc.gov/select-issues-assessing-adverse-impact-software-algorithms-and-artificial-intelligence-used-employment)). A black box that can't be audited, explained, or challenged is a liability machine with a SaaS contract. Ban it until vendors can open the box, and watch how fast the 'innovation' disappears once sunlight hits it.

Should college athletes be employees of their universities?

My son is being recruited right now, and I keep coming back to Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in NCAA v. Alston: 'The NCAA isn't above the law.' He wrote that the NCAA's business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry. Read that again as a parent. A Supreme Court justice looked at this system and said the quiet part out loud: nowhere else in America could you get away with this. The [Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/) unanimously ruled against the NCAA in 2021, and Kavanaugh's concurrence was basically an invitation for the next lawsuit. Employment status is where that invitation leads. I'm not sending my kid into a system that a justice described as a legal anomaly without the protections every other worker takes for granted.

Should international technology rules be enforceable rather than voluntary?

Voluntary principles have a jurisdiction problem: a company can simply route around them. When one country tightens AI or data rules, development shifts to wherever the rules are loosest, and users everywhere live with the consequences. That is regulatory arbitrage, and it is exactly what happened with data havens and tax havens. The [OECD AI Principles](https://www.oecd.org/) are explicitly non-binding, so compliance is a branding choice. Enforceable international rules set a floor nobody can undercut, the way aviation safety standards work through the ICAO. Without a floor, the most responsible companies face the highest costs, which punishes exactly the behavior we want. A binding minimum does not require a world government. It requires countries to agree that some harms should be illegal everywhere.

The sponsorship flywheel is the argument that finally makes the commercial case. Brands cannot sponsor audiences that broadcasters hide. Put the milestones in prime time, show the ratings, and the money follows.

Sports · Sep 23, 2026 · Should women’s international cricket milestones receive equal prime-time promoti…