To the Editor:

Re “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Sept. 14):

I find the tone of Mr. Kristof’s column to be patronizing and sexist.

He suggests that a solution to the high prevalence of poverty in single-mother households is to lift the earnings of low-education men, rendering these men more “marriageable.” This implies that the only way a single mother can rise above the poverty level is to find a man to lift her.

Why not explore these obvious solutions: universal access to reproductive health, allowing women to control when and if they have a child; universal access to health care that is not tied to employment; universal free early childhood education so working women do not have to commit a large portion of their earnings to child care; and pay parity for women, who currently earn 82 percent of what men do for the same jobs?

Kathleen Wynn
Brookline, Mass.

To the Editor:

Thanks for Nicholas Kristof’s cogent column on the importance of two-parent families. Raising children is an emotionally and physically taxing job, one that occupies a significant fraction of your entire life. The value of a partner who shares the burdens, as well as the joys and the love, cannot be overemphasized.

Michael Sobel
Brooklyn

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof’s arguments for his view that parental marriage drives better outcomes for children are flawed. Mr. Kristof assumes that correlation implies causation. Children of married parents do better, therefore marriage is why they do better.

For Mr. Kristof’s argument to be effective, he needs both to look into counterfactual examples, and, most important, to inquire as to whether there might be other explanations.

Would marrying someone who has put your child in danger be an improvement over staying single? How about marrying someone with other sociopathic tendencies? Or really bad hygiene? Or just someone with whom you are absolutely incompatible? I would suggest that all other things being equal, the answer to each is no.

It might well be that the reason that children of married parents do better is that loving, financially well-resourced and responsible couples tend to choose marriage, and it is those traits, not marriage itself, that makes the difference.

I think Mr. Kristof was edging toward that idea by suggesting that helping men become more “marriageable” might be a good idea. But encouraging other couples to marry may actually make things worse for their kids.

Richard Gordon
Bethany, Conn.

To the Editor:

I agree with Nicholas Kristof about the devastating impact of poverty on child development, especially in single-parent families. In the history of the breakdown of the family, particularly in low-income communities, Mr. Kristof fails to note the role of the inhumane “man in the house rule” that existed in some states as a qualification for families to receive Aid for Families With Dependent Children (A.F.D.C.).

The rule said that no family could receive A.F.D.C. with a healthy, able-bodied male living in the household. Men were forced out of their homes so that their families could survive on A.F.D.C. It is not surprising that the family structure tended to deteriorate as a consequence of this.

Robert Hiatt
Minneapolis

Trump’s Appeal Is ‘Aspirational’

To the Editor:

Re “Ruling Against Ex-President Cuts to the Heart of His Identity,” by Maggie Haberman and Alan Feuer (news analysis, Sept. 28):

Contrary to what your news analysis suggests, the fraud ruling does not undermine Donald Trump’s narrative; it strengthens it.

Mr. Trump portrays himself as the quintessential outsider and victim, bending or breaking the rules established by the “elites.” Remember when he was accused of not paying his taxes? He immediately responded, “That makes me smart!”

His appeal is aspirational; his followers would love to be able to get away with and do what he does, whether it’s cheating on taxes, grabbing women or sitting on gold-plated toilets. This is what liberals don’t understand: Mr. Trump’s moral and ethical failings are a feature, not a bug.

Chris Protopapas
New York

Diversity Statements

To the Editor:

As researchers who study racial equity on college campuses, we find fault with the argument presented in “Is ‘Peak Woke’ Behind Us?,” by Ross Douthat (column, Sept. 17).

Diversity statements are not to enforce “progressive orthodoxies.” They are like cover letters, which are ubiquitous in job hiring, to allow a person to define how they fit with the values of a workplace.

Colleges and universities have the choice to define what those values are. When they choose to make diversity a core value, it is based on academic research that shows how diversity programs enhance campus life for students, staff and faculty.

To the Editor:

Re “Tech Titans Visit the Hill to Talk A.I.” (Business, Sept. 14):

Kudos to The New York Times for its extensive coverage of important recent steps to identify legislative options to address grave potential harms that can emanate from an onslaught of wholly deregulated artificial intelligence.

One morally imperative legal reform warranting immediate adoption is to require that A.I. content be labeled or disclosed as being A.I. so that recipients of A.I. content at least know when content is not from a real human being.

Such a disclosure requirement is needed not merely for the useful purpose of giving readers and audiences notice that they are receiving A.I., but is also essential for compelling spiritual and cultural reasons.

One of the highest and most important purposes of human communication is to connect humans to one another through what we still recognize and value as the priceless and unique murmurings of the human mind and the underpinnings of true “heart and soul.”

By definition, A.I. lacks any real heart and soul, as it is ultimately computer-talk. There is a fraud on all of us when we allow computer-generated A.I. to be conveyed as being human, unless there is an honest and reasonable disclosure/labeling of the artificial nature of the communications and content.

Now is the time to recognize and establish a right of the people to know whether content is H.I. (human intelligence) or A.I.

William August
Cambridge, Mass.