The question the episode doesn’t address is “why now?”. Why hadn’t the status of Data’s sentience been settled before we got to this point? Or if it had, why was this time different?

It strains credulity to think that Data would have been allowed to enroll at the academy, graduate, and be given a commission if Starfleet hadn’t already accepted that he was fully self-actualized and capable of understanding the rights and responsibilities that come with being an officer and performing his duties to the fullest. Starfleet would not administer an oath to a being if it had doubts that they can stay true to it.

The episode doesn’t address this though, instead presenting the situation as though it’s the first time anyone has thought about it, like this issue has never come up during Data’s career. It even goes so far as to make up a hand-wavy legal precedent to place Data into jeopardy.

How many instructors at academy would have balked at having to teach a walking computer, or students protested when he got better scores, if it weren’t already established that Data had a right to be there? Throughout his career, how many officers would have raised challenges when they were expected to follow orders from, or were passed over for promotions in favor of this automaton, this glorified adding machine. And can you imagine Picard and Starfleet Command saying "Geez, we don’t know if this android fella has free will or not, but let’s make him a department head and third in command of the flagship."

We're repeatedly told that Data is for all intents unique. Admitting the first manmade intelligent machine that seems to demonstrate free will – exerting agency upon the world, being able to learn right from wrong, and taking responsibility for its own actions – into the service wouldn’t have been the result of a paperwork snafu; it would have been notable and precedent setting.

"Measure of a Man" was purely speculative 35 years ago. But it takes on some new relevance as our society starts to tackle some of the issues of how intelligent machines interface with the law. The line from ChatGPT to Data could be quite long, but we're already grappling with questions of how to govern the behavior of machine intelligence, who is responsible for the actions of the machine, whether machines can be held accountable for their own mistakes, and how do we define personhood?

The episode's portrayal of Data's sentience as a novel concept is not only implausible but also undermines the show's own established character development. Throughout his career, Data has demonstrated remarkable emotional intelligence, creativity, and capacity for self-awareness. It's clear that he was always more than just a machine, and it's surprising that no one had raised these questions before.

In reality, Starfleet should have taken steps to establish Data's rights and personhood long before he became a key member of the crew. This would have involved more than just a simple court case or bureaucratic hurdle. It would have required a fundamental shift in how to think about artificial intelligence and its place in society.

If we accept the episode at face value, it's astonishing that the episode relies on an impromptu hearing by a frontier JAG officer to settle these questions, when they should have been addressed by Federation law or Starfleet's own policies and procedures. It's both unrealistic in that a believably competent society would let Data get as far as he had if his rights had not be affirmed, and problematic in that it suggests was willing to accept the legal grey area where Data existed.

"Measure of a Man" is phenomenally well executed and a high water mark in the Star Trek canon, even if we have to accept its somewhat flawed premise. But it's those flaws that allow us to examine our own ongoing and evolving relationships with artificial intelligence.

Thank you for attending my Trek Talk.