Challenge6

Advocacy Challenge Reflection

Challenge Completed: Advocacy Challenge – Letter to the Editor
Date: December 2025
Location: University of Maryland, College Park
Title of Event: Letter to the Editor on AI Regulation
Confirmation: Screenshot of the submitted letter to Maryland Matters is included above.

Summary of the Event

For this challenge, I wrote and submitted a Letter to the Editor to Maryland Matters addressing the growing concerns around artificial intelligence regulation. In the letter, I argued that while public conversations often emphasize the benefits of AI—personalized education, improved safety, and efficiency—the regulatory side is being overlooked. I highlighted how current proposals at both state and federal levels tend to focus on innovation while leaving accountability mechanisms vague. I urged Maryland to adopt stronger transparency rules, clearer audit requirements, and more rigorous oversight before AI systems are used in high-stakes public decision-making.

Biggest Takeaway from the Event

My biggest takeaway is that regulation cannot come after deployment. AI systems are already influencing real decisions, and without meaningful oversight—audits, responsibility structures, and transparency—people can be harmed. Writing this letter made me realize how urgent it is to push for regulation rooted in substance, not slogans.

Reflection Prompts

1. What did you learn about your issue from this challenge?

I learned that the gap between AI innovation and AI regulation is wider than I expected. When I tried to articulate the problem in my letter, it became clear how many unanswered questions exist: Who audits algorithms? What happens when an AI system fails? Who is accountable for harm? The challenge helped me recognize that the regulatory framework for AI in Maryland is still underdeveloped, even though the technology is already affecting public policy, education, and resource allocation.

2. What was successful or least successful? Why?

The successful part was being able to express a complex issue in a way that is accessible to a general audience. The letter framed AI regulation using concrete analogies—like building a car without brakes—which made the argument more relatable. The least successful part is that letters to the editor do not guarantee publication or a direct response. Advocacy through public writing is powerful, but it lacks immediate feedback.

3. What might you do differently?

Next time, I would pair the letter with outreach to specific policymakers, such as members of the Maryland legislature involved in technology or privacy committees. I might also include references to existing Maryland bills or proposals to make my argument even more targeted. Additionally, gathering supporting quotes or data from Maryland residents could strengthen the community perspective.

4. How will this challenge help you moving forward?

This challenge helped me build confidence in speaking publicly about technology ethics. Writing the letter forced me to translate technical concerns into civic language—something essential for anyone who wants to contribute to policy conversations. Moving forward, I will feel more comfortable engaging with both policymakers and the public when AI issues arise, especially as my own research intersects with responsible AI development.

5. What questions do you have after completing this challenge?

I’m left wondering whether Maryland plans to build a statewide AI regulatory framework similar to those emerging in Europe. I also question what the process looks like for public involvement in AI oversight: Who gets a seat at the table? How can ordinary citizens understand and influence decisions about algorithmic accountability? And most importantly, how do we prevent AI regulation from becoming purely symbolic—something that sounds protective but isn’t enforceable?