Keep On Keeping On

What giving a student a zero for plagiarism feels like.

Yes, Haraway, it is blasphemy! We cannot possibly be cyborgs or hybrids part human part machine. We are created in God’s image. And Hayles, we do not embody technology beings. We are human. These two really ticked me off, primarily because of my religious views that I do not intend on imposing on anyone, but if I may speak freely, -religious alert- I feel that this contradicts everything that I stand for. Sure we have come a long way in technological advances but we are by no means cyborgs nor have we abandoned our humanity not even when it comes to social-feminism. We are not a myth nor a cyborg of a monster. According to the bible, we are formed in God’s image and are a product of his very hands and Haraway rightfully calls this a blasphemy because that is exactly what it is. And Hayles, no we are not beings waiting to be “seemingly articulated with intelligent machines” we are intelligent individuals ourselves without the need for technology. Sure we may need to readjust and discover ourselves as beings, but we are not made incomplete waiting to be merged with technology. We are still human. What really upset me was Hayles definition that “[T]he posthuman view thinks of the body as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate, so that extending or replacing the body with other prostheses becomes a continuation of a process that began before we were born. Fourth, and most important, by these and other means, the posthuman view configures human being so that it can be seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines. In the posthuman, there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biological organism, robot teleology and human goals.” How can there be no difference? Robots are not beings, they are just machines that can be disconnected, abandoned destroy and they would not suffer emotional or physical distress. Machines are machines, but humans have the essence of life. We can think for ourselves, make decisions-good ones and bad ones, heck we are the creators of the machines. Now, if Haraway means that we are cyborgs when it comes to politics, this metaphor is quite precise. She says, “By the late twentieth century, our time, a mythic time, we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism. In short, we are cyborgs. The cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics.” This I agree with, metaphorically speaking. She is saying that our politics come from virtual spaces, from endless social interaction that happens in cyberspaces that it seems like it is an organism all on its own. In this sense, Hayles also adds to that saying our ideals come that come from virtual spaces are “seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines” However, the machines are not the intelligent beings but rather the humans who manipulate such machines. Our dependency on such machines is dangerously evident that we cripple our humanity, but it is not enough to make us cyborgs.

My first impression of these articles were Wow! For one, the thought had never crossed my mind to make things accessible to individuals with disabilities as far as the digital realm is concerned. Although I work with students with 504 plans and special education plans, modification in the classroom is different than online accessibility. It is sad that not enough is being said, challenged to make resources available for all individuals. Sure, we call for differentiated instruction but do all educators understand the extent to which we must go. The way I see it, if a teacher meets the "modifications" on an educational plan set forth by the 504 plan they are in compliance with the law and they can move on, but are these plans really meeting the needs of students? Are they being served appropriately? If not, should they be self contained? Slatin points out "Section 504 and the ADA require that students with disabilities have equal access to information and to the avenues of communication, including Web sites operated by colleges, other Internet resources, distance education programs, and the like. When the educational institution involved is a government entity, the ADA requires that the students with disabilities are to be provided communication "as effective as" that provided to nondisabled students. "Communication" has been defined as the "transfer of information." However in reality, this "equal access to information" comes down to a few instructional modifications such as extended time, preferential seating, oral assessment and other generic set of mods that fail to service all students with need. As much as we want to say every student has an individual educational plan IEP they are mostly generic because students and their parents do not want for the student to be signaled out in the classroom. Which makes modifications difficult to perform as an educator. What's to be done then? As Melanie Y. points out if we make information available and train others, students as well as educators about the importance of accessibility we can make an meaningful impact in the lives of students with disability. Awareness is key. She says " Students who have taken disability studies courses frequently relate that it is hard to unsee disability, in the world writ large, after they’ve taken such a class. Attention to disability, whether in a class exercise or major assignment, has tremendous potential to reshape the ways in which students come to understand themselves and the world around them. In this regard, representation often holds a dual meaning in disability-oriented pedagogy." So what are we waiting for? Let's spread the word and make a change!

I found Landow’s observation of hypertext very profound when it comes to the interaction between reader and writer. He says, “Hypertext blurs the boundaries between reader and writer and therefore instantiates another quality of Barthes's ideal text”  by blurring the lines between the reader and writer, hypertext makes them co-writers since one sets up the options while the other determines the outcome.  I was amazed by the idea of “afternoon” although, I wan’t able to work it properly, I can see what Landow might be referring to in blurring those boundaries. He continues, “The goal of literary work (of literature as work) [which] is to make the reader no longer a consumer, but a producer of the text”  Through this medium, the reader can become the writer and determine the order in which to acquire knowledge as well as the amount of knowledge to be acquired, decided on, or completely ignored through a series of clicks of the mouse.  The hypertext gives the reader options in which a print text cannot, making the experience interactive thus engaging the reader in new ways.  Therefore,a new audience is formed, one that is superior to that of printed technologies which leaves the reader “idle” with limited options as Landow points out,“instead of gaining access to the magic of the signifier, to the pleasure of writing, he is left with no more than the poor freedom either to accept or reject the text: reading is nothing more than a referendum.”

Hello there, you can call me Zuri, I’m a high school teacher and this is my second to last semester (God willing) I plan to graduate in the summer if time allows. I’m majoring in Rhetoric and Composition with an emphasis in teaching. I had mixed feelings about the course because I’m usually lazy at technology. I admit it. I like technology but posting on so many forums can be a bit overwhelming for me because I’m always pressed for time. However, after reading this week’s readings, I’m hooked. Rip Manifesto opened my eyes to a new world that we often ignore. It is ironic that the same laws the were meant to help our creativity have now set limitations on just that. How else are we to learn if not by imitation? When we imitate greatness we become greatness, even if it means that we begin by humbling imitations. For example, look at the way we learn language. When language learners write in English, at first many borrow words and sentence structure and imitate texts in their writing. Is that plagiarism? Or simply imitation? Where do we draw the line? Don't most artist start copying their idols? Like the manifesto says, culture builds on the past. Therefore, it is necessary to back away from the law suits and let creativity, imagination and genuine learning flow. If only we could convince the rest of society, wouldn't that be nice. First of all, wow! So ahead of his time, Forster never seizes to amaze. The Machine Stops got me thinking that we are so dependent on technology that in some way it has handicapped us. As a teacher, I fight my students' urges to google everything! What ever happened to thinking about something and figuring it out all by yourself. I applaud my own generation and older generations that got a diploma without search engines. I applaud those generations that talked to each other face to face, that lived in the moment and whose technological advances did not get in the way of humanity. The good old days, sigh. The Machine Stops, is a cautionary tale like a gift from the past to the future. Could we ever get to that point? We already hide behind our screens to talk to each other. Can we ever find a healthy balance without letting technology take over? something to think about. Anyway, I’m excited about learning more in depth and the application of digital rhetoric.