The power of education: An interview with Anna Markowitz

Education cannot exist independently from matters of freedom. Education empowers individuals with the freedom to pursue knowledge, to express oneself, to liberate oneself and to liberate others. In December of 2025, I sat down with Professor Anna Markowitz to learn how she defines the purposes of education and social transformation. As an Education & Social Transformation major and one of her students, I felt that she could absolutely be deemed an expert in this field. Throughout her career, Markowitz has been a middle school teacher in California, supervised student teachers in Boston and taught at multiple universities. She currently teaches in the UCLA Department of Education and serves as the President of the Executive Board of the UCLA Faculty Association. As we begin the New Year, I am excited to present my interview with Professor Anna Markowitz: a discussion about the power of education, the UCLA Faculty Association’s advocacy work, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and the preservation of dignity.

…

At the start of our interview, Markowitz defined the purpose of education as the expansion of “our capacity to think about and react to the world.” It “allow[s] individuals to make choices… and fundamentally build[s] a better world.” I then asked how she would define the purpose of social transformation. 

Anna Markowitz: That’s a hard one… What’s hard is people are always gonna be different… [and] with lack of consensus, comes conflict. Social transformation has the potential for building a more inclusive and harmonious society that really prioritizes dignity, and honors our differences, and doesn’t seek to control others… A lot of the distress and anger that we’re seeing now comes from control and attempts to control people…. Education really is a force that can push back against that… [it] gives you the capacity to think critically, to empathize, understand what contributes to different people’s perspectives… It also helps us to solve problems that we all agree on — or solve problems in a way that honors what most people want — but also thinks about how to safeguard the dignity of those who do not agree with you. 

…

In a time of rampant misinformation and propaganda, these sentiments are especially significant; education should not be passive. It should transform the individual: by expanding their knowledge, increasing their understanding and sensitivity. It should also be used to transform others — not through shame, but by providing people the autonomy to shift their choices. 

When it comes to higher education, Markowitz felt that “we’ve failed to articulate our value outside of getting a job and making money.” She asserted that education should function to prepare students to deal with hard questions, feel confident in their analytical ability and know how to raise questions in a respectful way. At this point, I described how many of my peers have expressed that they believe education is pursued in order to attain a well-paying job.

AM:  That’s not unreasonable. Jobs still matter. And obviously you want to get a good job… I just think, how are we not articulating benefits outside of getting a job… and not shaping a world where it seems like you could not have a BA and still have a good job and be happy. Minimum wage jobs deserve the same level of dignity… I want people to do jobs that make them happy… Education is more than being worried about having a good job. (pauses) We can [use education to] shape a world where you don’t have to be so worried.

…

Later on in the interview, we discussed Markowitz’s role within the UCLA Faculty Association (UCLA-FA). At the beginning of the Fall 2025 quarter, Professor Markowitz gave my EDUC 150 lecture an update on President Trump demanding $1.2 billion from UCLA. She had told our class that UCLA was suing the President. The UCLA-FA is continuously advocating for academic freedom and fairness within the public higher education system in California. I was very interested in Markowitz’s work in this sphere. 

Carina Moser: (reading from notes) As I understand, the UCLA Faculty Association has taken part in suing President Trump et al. to block the administration from using financial coercion, and have also sued the UC Regents — and won — to disclose Trump’s $1.2 billion “demand letter” to the public. The letter was made public, and its contents included disturbing infringements upon diversity and free expression. The UC Regents also recently approved a renewed policy of annual tuition hikes. 

The UC Regents are a powerful corporation that establishes educational and university policy. They’re supposed to act on behalf of the public, and so is the Presidential administration. When there is this disparity between policymakers and educators, what do you feel is the scope of responsibility for teachers? How much do they owe their superiors, employers, policymakers? And then how much do they owe themselves and their students? 

AM: I don’t know. It starts, every day, with just how to divide tasks. Like right now, it’s letters of recommendation season… that takes a lot of time… I also have interviews with reporters… There is a day to day reality of finding a balance and deciding which things to prioritize. Being an educator is a multidimensional job… In the classroom, I start from the bottom up. [I’m] teaching content, discussing futures, grad school —

CM: Being a resource for students?

AM: Yes. But I’d be remiss if I only [teach] and ignore the current tearing of the social contract [that] impacts our futures… Nobody has a good answer of how to balance things. Every professor would answer differently. 

AM: If you think about the concentration of power in the U.S., in part by concentrating wealth… we should respond by emphasizing that the only one true power is people power. It’s labor, the work that people do, the way we treat each other. To emphasize that, you have to put in the time and make it true and raise your voice. So much is designed around fear… We have a responsibility to the public supersedes that fear.

Markowitz went on to explain that the UCLA-FA’s responsibility to the public was the reason why they took legal action. In regards to President Trump’s attempts at financial coercion, Markowitz discussed an interview that UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk gave to the LA Times. Chancellor Frenk stated that the university will be “fully compliant” with the law and any “valid” concerns of the Trump administration. 

CM: From what I read of the letter, I don’t think any of the demands are valid. 

AM: And then, what does “valid” mean? Valid in his mind? Legally valid? Now that everyone has seen the letter… What does he expect people to do? The public needs to have a voice in that… [We] need to say “this isn’t right” even though it’s scary — teaching people to not be afraid to use their power… [If not] that’s how bad things happen, and win, and continue. 

…

We should feel scared when we think about the concentration of power in our country. But we cannot let that fear breed apathy. I wholeheartedly agree with Markowitz’s words on taking action in spite of fear. I am not only inspired, but comforted, by the UCLA-FA’s efforts to organize their power and act on behalf of the public. It feels so important to witness tangible victories over oppressive higher forces. When I was preparing for this interview with Professor Markowitz, I knew I wanted to obtain answers about her advocacy work with the UCLA-FA, as well as her personal stance on generative AI. Although seemingly unrelated, I felt that these were two very relevant issues in the field of education. To me, President Trump’s agenda and the growing prevalence of AI are both looming threats to my future and my autonomy as a free-thinker. As her student, I already knew that Markowitz is emphatically against the use of generative AI, both for her students’ work and for herself. In the final portion of our interview, we discussed the growing ramifications of generative AI in regards to learning, agency and the futures of all students. 

…

CM: Another prominent issue regarding social transformation in education is the use of generative AI. What is your stance on the pros and cons of generative AI, like ChatGPT, in teaching and learning? What are your thoughts on the notions of AI eventually replacing the roles of educators? 

AM: Something that has always been true about education is that human development is expensive. You know, we learn best through interacting, and having relationships with students… Learning has always been relational, there’s decades of research to back that up… AI is just a new version of trying to replace labor with tech. Firms are always trying to replace labor with tech because it’s cheaper. You buy it once… But AI also undermines how learning happens. You learn by thinking. By memorizing and holding facts and thoughts in your head, and then recalling them… [by] having deep and interesting thoughts because you deeply understand what things mean. AI says it can “think for you.” People then aren’t thinking for themselves. People who use these AI[s] are missing out on steps and actions that help you learn… When I read students’ writing, you can tell when AI has been used. The quality… it’s obvious. And there is a correlation with grades… It is such a loss because you didn’t think about things. 

CM: A lot of my professors are really open about using ChatGPT for things. I’ve had some of them use it in class, like as a part of what we’re doing or for an example. And some will say “Don’t use it all,” [or] “You can use it for this.” 

AM: Yeah, for sure. For professors, they might see it as a tool… And they’ve already done the work of learning… It would be so much easier to use AI for writing emails, grading… Instead of taking time to write a bunch of practice questions I could just ask ChatGPT, “Give me 20 practice problems with a sample size, mean difference, and p-value”… but it is hypocritical, if you don’t want your students to use it. And it’s giving up your intellect to AI… it’s re-tooling. And there’s also the ethical concerns of a world in which we replace a lot of labor with AI. Those jobs don’t have a place to go. People who worked those jobs would go into canonically low paying fields, like childcare and eldercare…  fields that are minimum wage… and we historically haven’t cared about. 

AM: There are also the environmental effects. It spends so much energy. And, you know, they say that it’s comparable to sending an email. But sending an email is like boiling a cup of water, and think about the millions — or more — emails that are sent a day… We’re not making decisions thinking about the totality. [AI] is useful, and it makes things easier, but I should do that labor rather than push those costs out to the environment…

AM: I think that people who use AI for menial tasks are influenced by a broader culture of work, that has tried to trade labor for tech… And we’re expected to do more with less… So yeah, if you can use AI to get something done and move on to something else, I can see how that is seductive… But the solution is not to create a tool with dangerous externalities and then use that to be increasingly productive. The goal should be to hire more people. And if the UC says we don’t have the money, I say… we’re [California] the 4th largest economy. We have several multi-billionaires… And the council of UC Faculty Association has had a tax blueprint plan called the $66 fix… Basically, if the median tax payer paid $66 a year — so, less if you’re below, more if you’re above — it would fully fund the UCs back to the levels of the 2000s and, this is gonna kill you, tuition would be free.

CM: Oh my god. 

AM: Yeah! Wouldn’t you rather pay $66 a year instead of… whatever the fuck you’re paying? …But we don’t talk about it that way, because that would be acknowledging a certain way of public life… We could push for investments in people and labor and the world as it is, instead of saying we have to be more productive with less… AI is a beacon for that, but we need to reject that pressure.

CM: I took a class on AI, and it was mostly about the digital systems and the ways that it works. But it was so shocking to hear about how much energy goes into, like, ChatGPT. Because it’s a large language model, and every single word that is entered into it has to go through so many systems to reach the output. And then I see other people saying they have to “thank” ChatGPT. Like they think it’ll save them if the robots turn evil, or something, or they just want to be “polite” to the bot. But they’re wasting so much on just the words “thank” and “you.”

…

AM: This is an instance where government regulation could be really useful. Because AI can be useful to doctors for making diagnoses, it can be used to analyze traffic patterns to reduce pollution… Why are we using it to write emails? …And one thing that can be done is to make it expensive. If it cost $100 for every 10 words you submit to ChatGPT, you wouldn’t be using it to write essays… The confusion of not helping students think through this [issue] is really hard… especially when your professors have different positions… The role of education is to teach you to think through things, have opinions and learn that life is interesting. You are happier if you engage in thinking… I wonder what your generation will be like when you move into the workforce, because you’ll have to deal with things you’ve never encountered before. Things that are deeply contextually dependent… ChatGPT can’t answer those things for you.  

CM: Do you think any level of educator is at risk of being replaced — or, who do you think would be the first to be replaced with AI? 

AM: TA’s. Yeah. They’ll be the first to go… Because what do you think [a] TA’s doing? Grading—

CM: Grading, answering questions…

AM: Yeah, and you can imagine just setting up a bot that can grade instantly, answer any question… [but] having their voices in the classroom is important. It’s having more people to interact with in class, and the sections and discussions with a TA create smaller communities… But you have to be in education to understand those emotional and social losses. 

…

I then asked what educational roles would be next in line for AI replacement. Markowitz thought that other teachers’ aides would be next, and the chopping block would move down by age range. I was surprised to hear that she thought early childcare educators’ labor is the most protected. While working in preschool classes, I have had other teachers warn me about the fragility of the profession. But Markowitz framed it as the “how many kids can you save in a fire” issue. Essentially, toddlers are very dependent and have a lot of safety concerns. “As you get older,” Markowitz mused, “you can just have humans to monitor things, and make learning more individualized and digital.” But parents of toddlers would not want to leave their young child in a room alone with a screen. In an early childhood classroom, the teacher functions as a potentially life-saving agent.

I wonder how long it will be until we do not need a human to save kids in a fire. 

Since conducting this interview, I have only become more against the casual use of AI. It is hard for me to grasp how the general population has access to AI generators for not only language, but now highly realistic video content as well. Following Trump’s recent invasion of Venezuela and removal of leader Nicolás Maduro, AI-generated videos depicting citizens crying and thanking President Trump for their liberation received millions of views. I can no longer perceive generative AI as a justifiable tool — for coding, analysis, or whatever task is deemed too difficult — when our society is nearing the point of false digital content that is indistinguishable from reality. As we blindly surrender our thinking and creativity to AI, we are leading ourselves further away from what makes us human. Renowned educator Paulo Freire claims that in traditional pedagogy, “the teacher… justifies his own existence” by constructing his students as ignorant and himself as their “necessary opposite”. This fabricated relationship is similar to that of an AI and its user. As the user is driven to be more productive and reliant on its seemingly endless capabilities and stores of knowledge, the bot justifies its existence. 

Professor Markowitz concluded our interview by telling me about Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s novel “Player Piano.” She explained the titular metaphor as a pianist’s physical motions being used to train player pianos, who then replace him; this premise is illustrated in the novel with a man who drives a machine at a factory. The world of “Player Piano” is that of near-total automation, which has eliminated the need for human labor. Markowitz remarked that this road does not lead to happiness, because humans derive satisfaction from the process of creation and the fulfillment of seeing results. She encourages people to reject the way the world appears to be, and to take the initiative of improving oneself. 

I walked away from this interview reflecting on what aspects of my life are truly contributing to my education and future. It is a comfort to witness UCLA faculty using their power and time to advocate for public education and students’ wellbeing, even in spite of their higher-ups. This work upholds Markowitz’s definition of education: to prioritize autonomy and the creation of a better world. I encourage my fellow students to use their power — whether it be in unity with the UCLA-FA, student organizations, or other means — and take action on current issues of justice and equity. I also encourage you to be critical of supplementing your education with artificial intelligence. I do not say this from atop a high horse, but rather because I believe in preserving the power of our human creativity and thinking. I sincerely thank Professor Markowitz for discussing the power of education with me, and I thank all of you for taking the time to read this work.