The Right Thing

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Colleges Should Disclose Any AI Use in Admissions

Should colleges tell applicants when they use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process?

A reader we're calling Seshat wrote wondering whether colleges are wrong to use AI as part of the admissions process while forbidding applicants from using AI to write their application essays. If colleges expect students to submit work that reflects their own thinking and writing, Seshat asked, shouldn't colleges be expected to do the same? At the very least, Seshat wondered, shouldn't colleges disclose when they use AI in admissions?

Some colleges are increasingly using AI as part of the application process. Associated Press writer Jocelyn Gecker recently reported that colleges including Virginia Tech, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have used or plan to use artificial intelligence as part of their admissions process. Some colleges have disclosed AI's role. Others have not. Many colleges, however, explicitly prohibit applicants from using AI to produce their admissions essays.

After Alice Scott, a reporter for the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper at UNC Chapel Hill, reported that the university used AI to evaluate applicants' grammar and writing, applicants, students and parents were critical. The editorial board wondered if applicants could be confident in the process. Administrators later updated the admissions website to explain that while AI provided some data on essays and transcriptions, only human evaluators would make the admissions decisions.

Since some admissions offices review thousands of applications each year, AI can be useful to organize materials and note if applications are incomplete. That could give human beings more time to evaluate each application.

But such administrative uses are different from allowing AI to evaluate the quality of essays or predict an applicant’s likelihood of being a good fit. Relegating such judgments to AI undercuts the ability of a human being to capture the nuance of each application. If college administrators move in this direction, they should ask themselves what if any value they bring to the process. They also owe it to applicants to disclose if AI is being used to decide their admission rather than a human being.

Colleges expect applicants to be honest about any work they submit as part of their application. Many insist any essays are produced entirely by the applicant without AI help. That’s a reasonable expectation, but applicants should expect the same of the institutions to which they are applying. Colleges should explain whether AI is used, what role it plays, and whether human admissions officers have ultimate decision-making responsibility. They should also make clear the safeguards used to minimize errors.

Some institutions already do this. All of them should.

AI can make aspects of the admissions process more efficient. But applicants are right in wanting to know how AI is being used to determine their prospects.

Colleges aren’t obligated to admit every applicant. They should, however, be clear in how they are conducting evaluations of applicants. When AI is used to evaluate applicants, the right thing is to say so.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, August 09, 2026

Should you correct a friend who tells your story as his own?

When you catch an old friend telling a story that you know didn't happen the way he's telling it, should you correct him?

A reader we're calling Frank wrote that he has an old friend who regularly likes to spin yarns when they gather with other friends. The wrinkle is that the friend often tells stories that Frank suspects or knows not to be true. Typically, Frank lets these fabrications slide. But recently, his friend began telling a story about an incident from their high school days that Frank immediately recognized as one that had actually happened to him. The friend had nothing to do with the incident and wasn't around when it happened. Frank decided to chime in and correct his friend by telling the assembled listeners that the incident happened to him and not his friend. The others laughed, but Frank worries he offended his friend by pointing out his lie.

Was Frank wrong to correct his friend? Or should he have corrected him on earlier occasions when he knew that the friend had likely co-opted others' experiences?

Some people regularly embellish stories to make them funnier, more dramatic or more interesting. There's a difference, however, between bolstering a story and stealing someone else's life experience. If a friend claims your story as his own, he moves beyond exaggerating to taking credit for something that belongs to you.

Frank's decision to speak up makes sense. If he hadn’t, those listening would have believed the story belonged to his friend. There wasn’t anything hurtful about correcting the friend. Frank was telling the truth. That others laughed likely wasn’t to humiliate the storyteller and more a reflection of the awkwardness of the situation.

While Frank was in the right, there’s no guarantee that his public correction didn’t embarrass his friend. If Frank wanted to do more than set the record straight, he might consider talking to his friend in private to let him know he was uncomfortable having his experiences told as if they had happened to someone else. By stopping short of calling his friend a liar, they might end up having a good conversation about the incident.

Should Frank have corrected his friend on earlier occasions when his stories were suspect? If Frank simply thought the stories might be fabrications, holding back from making accusations made sense. Calling someone a liar based on a suspicion is not typically a good move. But once his friend took Frank’s story as his own, staying silent no longer was the best option.

Trust and honesty are needed for friendships to thrive. If Frank’s friend’s storytelling notoriously strayed from the truth, his friends might have trouble knowing when to believe him. If Frank can find a way to respectfully let his friend know this when he speaks to him, that’s great. But he should stop short of calling him out on stories he only finds suspicious rather than those he knows to be untrue.

Sometimes it’s OK to let a harmless exaggeration pass. But when someone tells your story as if it happened to him, it’s best to correct the record. If friendship is indeed built on trust and honesty, then being honest with his friend is the right thing to do.

Sunday, August 02, 2026

When a neighbor’s ivy crosses the property line

Once a neighbor's plantings cross into your yard, is it OK to trim them back?

That’s a question posed by a reader we’re calling Persephone. Her neighbor planted English ivy years ago and it has spread onto Persephone’s yard where it is strangling shrubs and climbing trees. Persephone has trimmed the ivy back several times, but it keeps returning. Her neighbor refuses to do anything to control the ivy’s spread and when asked responds: “It’s just a plant.”

Persephone would prefer her neighbor removed the encroaching ivy, but he seems disinclined. “Is it OK for me to remove all the ivy that crosses onto my property even if it risks damaging the plant in my neighbor’s yard?” Persephone asked.

It's not uncommon for neighbors with adjacent properties to wrestle with how to maintain their landscaping while respecting the people next door. Trees, shrubs and vines often cross into neighboring yards without regard for property lines or fences. That's part of living near others.

Unlike plants, however, neighbors have choices. Once they know their landscaping causes problems for someone else, they should address it rather than dismiss the concern. Persephone’s neighbor's English ivy doesn't recognize property lines, but he should.

Persephone has already tried to preserve a good relationship with her neighbor by mentioning the ivy encroachment before she decided to remove the ivy from her property herself. By responding that “it’s just a plant,” the neighbor was dismissive of Persephone’s wishes.

It is possible the neighbor sees English ivy as an attractive ground cover and doesn't realize how destructive it can become. Once Persephone explained that it was damaging shrubs and climbing trees on her property, however, he should have taken her concerns seriously, even if he disagreed with her solution.

I am not a lawyer, but regulations in many municipalities permit homeowners to trim branches, roots or vines that extend onto their property if they do so from their own yard. Questions about plants crossing property lines have come up before in my column, which suggests the issue is a perennial one for readers. Even if the law is on Persephone’s side, that doesn’t mean it’s best to remove the ivy without letting the neighbor know of her intentions.

Before cutting the ivy back, the right thing is for Persephone to tell her neighbor of her plans. She likely doesn’t need his permission to protect her yard from his plants, but it’s respectful for her to tell him. A short conversation or note might lessen the possibility of an escalated conflict. Once the neighbor knows her intentions, it might even result in him deciding to address the problem himself.

Living next to other people means accepting that our decisions sometimes affect those around us. Good neighbors don't have to agree about every landscaping choice, but they should listen when those choices risk harming someone else's property. Persephone can protect her yard while still treating her neighbor respectfully. She can’t control how her neighbor responds, but being respectful gives the relationship its best chance of surviving long after the ivy is gone.

Sunday, July 26, 2026

Should you keep responding when a recruiter won’t answer your questions?

Is it wrong to continue corresponding with someone whose solicitation doesn't seem legitimate?

A reader we're calling Leigh received an unsolicited email from someone identifying himself as an executive recruiter. The sender said he rarely contacted people he didn't know but believed Leigh's background made him a strong candidate for nonprofit board opportunities his firm was helping fill.

The email offered few specifics. Leigh wasn't sure whether it represented a legitimate recruiting effort or a phishing attempt. He replied that he couldn't evaluate the opportunity without more information.

The recruiter responded with broad descriptions of several possible board positions, still without identifying organizations or offering much detail.

A few days later, Leigh received what appeared to be the same solicitation from a different recruiter at the same firm. Aside from the signature, the email’s words were identical, including the claim that the sender rarely reached out to strangers.

Leigh wrote back to the second recruiter, pointing out that he had already received the exact email from someone else at his firm. He also contacted the first recruiter, asking whether someone had copied his message. The recruiter replied that sending identical emails was standard practice because the firm wanted consistent messaging.

Leigh found that explanation unconvincing. If two recruiters worked for the same firm, he wondered whether they should at least avoid contacting the same person twice with the exact same email after the first one had already been responded to.

Leigh repeatedly offered to schedule a conversation with the first emailer to learn more about the opportunities. The recruiter never acknowledged or accepted the invitation or provided additional details. Instead, the exchange eventually turned toward services his firm could provide to strengthen Leigh's résumé for nonprofit board positions.

Leigh suspects the board openings may simply have been a way to market résumé services, though he’s not certain.

"Was I wrong to keep responding after I had doubts?" he asks. "I never intended to buy any services, but I wanted to find out whether the solicitation was legitimate."

Leigh could have ignored the initial solicitation, but he wasn't wrong to respond. Who knows? It might have led to something worthwhile. He was right, however, to ask reasonable questions before sharing additional information.

He also wasn’t wrong to point out the two recruiters had sent identical messages. Rather than assume they were being deceptive, he gave them the chance to explain the inconsistency.

While the recruiter didn’t need to reveal confidential information about his client, he should have provided enough information so Leigh could decide whether he wanted to continue the email discussion. As the exchange seemed to lean toward aggressively marketing resume services, Leigh had little reason to continue the discussion since the emailer didn’t seem willing to provide any more information that would help him evaluate the opportunity.

When someone won't provide enough information to make an informed decision, it's OK to decline or stop responding. Sometimes the right thing is recognizing when you’ve learned enough to walk away and then to do so.

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Should riders keep their home address private?

Is it wrong to give an Uber, Lyft or taxi driver an address other than a home address for a drop-off if the rider is concerned about safety?

A reader we're calling Ellie asked that question, wondering whether exercising extreme caution is unfair if a driver has done nothing to warrant suspicion. She doesn't want to insult a driver who is doing his job, but she believes it’s safer to not let a stranger know where she lives. Ellie wonders if asking a driver to drop her off a short distance from her house is reasonable or is she wrong to pass judgments about a driver she doesn’t know.

Ellie’s concern about safety seems reasonable. But she also doesn’t want to be someone who makes assumptions about people based on little evidence. Is it possible for her to exercise caution while not unfairly judging someone’s intentions?

Being careful about safety suggests that Ellie is concerned about taking wise precautions rather than casting aspersions on her driver. When we lock the door to our house, we are not accusing our neighbors of being likely to break in. When companies insist we use two-factor authentication to log on to websites, it’s likely meant as a precaution rather than a suggestion that we can’t trust anyone on the internet. That Ellie doesn’t want to reveal her home address seems to fall more into the category of taking a precaution rather than making an indictment about the character of a driver she’s yet to meet.

If it gives Ellie any solace, ride-share drivers often take similar precautions before they pick up a fare they’ve never met. The ride-share app verifies the rider’s identity and some drivers use dashboard cameras to maintain a record should anything go awry. Those precautions don’t suggest anything untoward about a rider, but instead seem like reasonable efforts to reduce the likelihood that anything could go wrong in a job that involves driving strangers.

How Ellie asks her driver to drop her off is important. If she simply puts in a neutral destination or asks a driver to drop her off nearby, that’s a benign and reasonable request. If she says she’s doing so because she doesn’t trust the driver when the driver has done nothing to warrant suspicion, that seems accusatory and is likely to offend.

If it gives her comfort, Ellie might think of it this way: When we wear seatbelts we do so as a precaution rather than believing an accident will occur. Similarly, her precaution about where to ask to be dropped off doesn’t assume something bad will happen. It simply is a precautionary step just in case.

The right thing for Ellie and other riders is to treat drivers with respect, and not assume the worst of them. She has no obligation to disclose the location of her home if doing so would cause discomfort. It’s possible to take reasonable precautions while still treating everyone involved with respect.

Sunday, July 12, 2026

Why I buy books when I travel

Do we owe anything to the places we visit?

Last month, I spent some time in Savannah, Georgia, with family. Like many travelers, the woman I’d eat bees for and I often return home with a souvenir. But our souvenirs typically end up on our bookshelves.

For many years, we have tried to buy at least one book from a local independent bookstore whenever we travel. In Savannah, I walked a couple of miles to The Stacks Bookstore to buy a copy of Daniel Kraus’ novel, "Angel Down." The evening before, my wife purchased Alan Hollinghurst’s "Our Evenings" from E. Shaver Booksellers during a stroll.

We also try to support independent bookstores closer to home, whether it’s purchasing a copy of Beppe Fenoglio’s "A Private Affair" from I Am Books in Boston’s North End, Brian Goldstone’s "There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homelessness in America" from Eight Cousins in Falmouth, Massachusetts, or José Andrés’ cookbook "Zaytinya" from Just Book-ish in Dorchester, Massachusetts.

We buy books we likely would have purchased or borrowed from the library anyway. But buying them from local bookstores reminds us of the places we’ve been and the people who continue to try to help those places thrive. When I pick up my copy of Ned Blackhawk’s "The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History," I’m reminded of the patient booksellers at Maria’s Bookshop in Durango, Colorado, which is just steps from the Durango Diner which serves up some of the best green chile sauce.

While we support independent bookstores, other travelers might make a habit of engaging with locally owned restaurants, neighborhood coffee shops or small retailers as a way of supporting the local economies they visit. But do all travelers have an obligation to support the communities they visit, even if the visit is fleeting?

Few of us have unlimited budgets to support every local business. Neither do we have a moral obligation to buy books while traveling. There are several good reasons to order books online or to borrow them from libraries or friends. I’m not arguing that everyone should follow my lead and buy a book from an independent bookstore when they travel. Nevertheless, I like the idea of doing so.

When we spend money while traveling, we make choices about the kinds of places we value. Every purchase sends a small signal and ideally will help determine if local businesses will survive or disappear.

We know that a single book bought is unlikely to keep any bookstore alive. But making those purchases reflects our belief in the importance of reading and community. These are small gestures, but they acknowledge that independent bookstores can occupy a special place in any community by employing local residents, hosting author events and serving as places for residents to gather. We like to think that our purchases acknowledge that the places we visit are communities with institutions like bookstores that enrich local life.

These purchases feel like a modest way of saying “thank you.” Others may find different ways to do this. For us, choosing to support local independent bookstores whenever possible feels like the right thing to do.

If you send me the name of your nearby independent bookstore, I’ll try to pay them a visit if I should find myself in their neck of the woods.

Sunday, July 05, 2026

When birthday celebrations come with unexpected costs

Is it wrong for someone to regularly invite a friend to do things for the friend’s birthday such as have a meal or go to a spa weekend that always end up costing the friend money?

A reader we're calling Cybil wrote to pose such a question. She wondered if she should be upset that her friend suggests she wants to celebrate her birthday but often in a way that ends up costing her money.

It’s not wrong for the friend to propose activities that might involve shared expenses. While sometimes the person celebrating a birthday’s costs are covered by others involved, it’s not unusual for people to celebrate birthdays with dinners, trips, concerts, spa visits or other outings where everyone ends up paying their own way. What should be made clear from the outset, however, is what the expectations are for any costs involved.

If, for example, Cybil’s friend regularly suggests something that will be her treat for Cybil’s birthday, but Cybil ends up paying a significant amount, then Cybil might feel misled or pressured into spending money she wouldn’t have chosen to spend on her own. A spa weekend would be far more enjoyable if Cybil understood from the outset that costs would be shared. If the friend never makes that clear, then Cybil could end up feeling chagrined that she regularly ends up spending money on an activity she neither chose nor expected to pay for.

If Cybil’s friend called and said: “I'd love to celebrate your birthday with a spa weekend. Here's what it would cost, and please don't feel obligated if it's not in your budget,” that would be a straightforward invitation. Even if the friend didn’t intend to, if she presented the invitation as a special birthday experience and only later revealed significant costs, it could leave Cybil feeling manipulated.

Cybil’s friend may really believe these birthday outings are thoughtful since she is organizing them and making time to spend with Cybil. But if these celebrations stress Cybil out or leave her feeling like she’s spending more than she can afford, then clearly these are not the kinds of events that spark joy.

If, as Cybil suggests, these cost-producing celebrations are an annual occurrence, she could find time well ahead of her next birthday to try to change things up. She could tell her friend she appreciates her desire to celebrate her birthday with her, but she’s not comfortable spending a lot of money doing so. She could propose something simpler and less costly that would prove as meaningful to her. If Cybil’s friend is a true friend, she will listen to Cybil’s concern and embrace the chance to plan something less expensive or with no expense to Cybil.

The right thing, if she is not happy with the status quo, is for Cybil to say something. She should tell her friend what she’s comfortable with. If she says nothing, she ends up with another year of frustration rather than celebrating another year of life. A good friend will listen to Cybil and happily oblige.