Cinemorphosis

Category: Education in the AI Age

  • Brains for Glory: How Football Became the Lottery of the Left Behind

    Brains for Glory: How Football Became the Lottery of the Left Behind

    In Alana Semuels’ “The White Flight from Football,” we meet Shantavia Jackson, a single mother working the night shift at Home Depot. With three sons—ages 11, 12, and 14—she turns to youth football not just for recreation but as a form of structure, mentorship, and protection. Coaches become surrogate father figures, teaching discipline and teamwork. For her son Qway, who lives with a mental disorder, football provides a stabilizing force: a team that functions as his support system.

    For Shantavia, football isn’t just a sport—it’s an escape hatch. She can’t afford to send her sons to college, and she sees football as the only viable route out of a life circumscribed by poverty. It’s a desperate gamble, but in communities like hers, desperate gambles are often the only kind available.

    Against this backdrop, research continues to pile up showing that tackle football can cause severe and irreversible brain trauma. In response, many parents—particularly white and affluent—are pulling their children out of youth leagues. The ability to make that choice is, at its core, an expression of privilege. While white participation in youth football declines, Black participation remains disproportionately high: 44 percent of Black boys play tackle football, compared to just 29 percent of their white peers. This racial divide plays out on the national stage: today, Black athletes make up nearly half of all Division I college football players, up from 39 percent in 2000, while white athletes have dropped from 51 percent to 37 percent.

    The implication is grim: Black children are more likely to accept long-term risks because they have fewer short-term options. White children, cushioned by economic security and broader educational opportunities, can afford to walk away. The more the science reveals about the dangers of early head trauma, the more it becomes clear who is left holding the risk.

    And the science is damning. A 2017 Boston University study found that athletes who began playing tackle football before age 12 were twice as likely to develop behavioral problems and three times as likely to suffer from clinical depression. A separate study by Wake Forest University revealed that boys who played just one season of tackle football between the ages of 8 and 13 showed diminished brain function. The greatest fear is CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated hits to the head, not just concussions. Even subconcussive blows can cause lasting damage. In 2017, researchers examined the brains of 111 deceased NFL players. They found CTE in 110 of them.

    In response, some former players and medical experts now advocate delaying tackle football until high school, when bodies are more physically mature and kids are better able to understand and implement safe tackling techniques. But the sport is growing, not shrinking, and its profitability only reinforces the risk. At Texas A&M University, football generates $148 million a year. That revenue stream depends on a constant influx of young talent—often from families like Shantavia’s—eager for a scholarship and a shot at something better.

    The decision to play football, or not to, has become yet another expression of America’s racial wealth divide. As of 2021, the median wealth of white households was $250,400—about 9.2 times that of Black households, which stood at just $27,100. Though there have been modest gains in Black wealth, the gap remains vast. In 2022, the median wealth for Black households rose to $44,890—still far behind the $285,000 median for white households. This disparity isn’t merely numerical; it’s structural, baked into the opportunities people can or cannot access.

    In this context, football becomes less a sport and more a bloodletting ritual—one that disproportionately brutalizes the bodies of those with the fewest alternatives. For children growing up in neighborhoods with failing schools, limited healthcare, and short life expectancies, football isn’t just a game. It’s a high-stakes wager: risk your brain for a future, or settle for no future at all.

  • Glory or Exploitation? The Ethics of Football in a Culture Addicted to Spectacle: A College Argumentative Writing Prompt

    Glory or Exploitation? The Ethics of Football in a Culture Addicted to Spectacle: A College Argumentative Writing Prompt

    Essay Prompt:

    Football is more than just a sport—it’s a cultural ritual defined by sacrifice, danger, and, increasingly, moral controversy. With mounting evidence linking the game to brain trauma, long-term disability, and early death, critics such as Malcolm Gladwell, Kathleen Bachynski, and Steve Almond argue that football is not only dangerous but exploitative: a spectacle built on the suffering of young men whose bodies and futures are traded for profit and entertainment. Others defend the sport, insisting that football—like MMA, gymnastics, or bodybuilding—simply demands extreme physical sacrifice, and that athletes like Ronnie Coleman embody the right to choose that pain in pursuit of greatness. Meanwhile, cases like Aaron Hernandez raise disturbing questions about whether teams prioritize talent and profit over the psychological well-being and humanity of their players.

    The central argument you will address is this: Is football an unethical and exploitative institution that sacrifices player welfare for public entertainment, or is it a legitimate arena of personal choice, physical excellence, and cultural tradition?

    In your essay, take a clear position on this question and support it with evidence from Concussion, Ronnie Coleman: The King, Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez, and at least three essays from our course materials. As you develop your claim, consider related issues such as:

    • Whether colleges and the NFL commodify athletes or empower them;
    • Whether spectators are morally complicit in the harm done;
    • Whether banning football would protect vulnerable individuals or create worse unintended consequences;
    • And whether the pursuit of greatness necessarily involves bodily sacrifice—and if so, whether that sacrifice is a noble choice or a form of exploitation.

    Use 4 or more of the following sources to construct a well-argued position:

    1. “Youth Football Is a Moral Abdication” by Kathleen Bachynski
    2. “The White Flight from Football” by Alana Semuels
    3. “American football is dangerous, and it should be abolished” by Dave Bry
    4. “Exactly How Dangerous Is Football?” by Ingfei Chen
    5. “Offensive Play” by Malcolm Gladwell
    6. “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” by Steve Almond
    7. “Diehard Fans Defend the Game” by Matt Vasilogambros
    8. “Is It Patronizing to Say Football Players Are Exploited?” by Chris Bodenner
    9. “Book review: ‘Why Football Matters,’ and ‘Against Football’” by James Trefil
    10. Concussion (2015 movie on Amazon Prime)
    11. The Cost of Winning (2020 documentary on HBO)
    12. Student Athlete (2018 documentary on HBO)
    13. Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez (2020 3-part series on Netflix)

    Sample 9-Paragraph Outline

    Title: Blood, Glory, and Profit: The Ethical Dilemma of American Football

    Paragraph 1: Introduction (Choose One)

    • Hook: Start with a vivid image—an NFL player lying motionless on the turf while the crowd cheers for the next play.
    • Context: Football’s status as a national ritual, its cultural significance, and the growing controversy surrounding its dangers.
    • Introduce the central debate: Is football exploitative, or is it a legitimate, even noble, pursuit of greatness?

    Paragraph 2: Thesis (Claim)

    • Example of thesis that opposes football: Football has become an ethically compromised institution that commodifies its players for entertainment and profit, often under the illusion of personal choice—making reform, not abolition, a moral imperative.
    • Example of a thesis that supports football: While football is a physically demanding sport, it is not an exploitative institution—it is a legitimate, voluntary arena where athletes exercise personal agency, pursue greatness, and knowingly accept risk. Far from being ethically compromised, football represents a cultural tradition that honors sacrifice, fosters opportunity, and should be preserved without further moral panic or unnecessary reform.

    Paragraph 3-6: Your supporting paragraphs that explain the reasons behind your thesis or argument. 

    Paragraphs 7 and 8: Your 2 counterarguments and 2 rebuttals to those counterarguments.

    Paragraph 9: Your conclusion, a dramatic restatement of your thesis.

    ***

    Unintended Consequences of Banning Football (to address in your counterargument-rebuttal section)

    Here is a full list of unintended consequences you may need to address to make your argument more persuasive:

    Banning football might sound like a bold ethical stance, but it would unleash a cascade of unintended consequences—cultural, economic, psychological, and even moral. Here’s a breakdown of what might happen if the most popular sport in America were outlawed:

    1. Loss of Opportunity for Marginalized Youth

    • Unintended Consequence: For many young men, especially from under-resourced communities, football is a rare (and sometimes only) path to higher education and upward mobility.
    • Result: Banning the sport could cut off scholarships and recruitment pipelines, exacerbating socioeconomic inequality rather than alleviating harm.

    2. Black Market Football

    • Unintended Consequence: If football goes underground, it doesn’t disappear—it just gets more dangerous.
    • Result: Unregulated leagues may spring up, especially in areas with strong football culture. Without safety oversight, proper coaching, or medical supervision, injury rates could worsen.

    3. Economic Collapse of Local Ecosystems

    • Unintended Consequence: Football is a multi-billion-dollar industry with deep ties to universities, cities, and small towns.
    • Result: A ban could devastate local economies dependent on Friday night lights or Saturday college games—hotels, restaurants, sports vendors, media jobs, and more would be gutted.

    4. Identity Crisis in American Masculinity

    • Unintended Consequence: Football, like it or not, is one of the last culturally sanctioned rituals of toughness, aggression, and team-based male bonding.
    • Result: Without football as a socially accepted outlet, young men may turn to other riskier or more alienating behaviors to express identity or test resilience.

    5. Decline in College Enrollment and Funding

    • Unintended Consequence: At many universities, football programs are major revenue engines—not just for athletics, but for branding and student recruitment.
    • Result: Removing football could lead to reduced enrollment, cutbacks in academic programs, and tuition hikes as schools scramble to replace lost revenue.

    6. Loss of Cultural Cohesion and Civic Ritual

    • Unintended Consequence: Football games are communal rituals—tailgates, traditions, and team pride bind communities together.
    • Result: Banning football could fracture local identity, particularly in the South and Midwest, where the sport acts as social glue.

    7. Displacement of Violence to Other Arenas

    • Unintended Consequence: Football channels aggression into rules, teams, and strategy.
    • Result: Without that structure, we might see more unchanneled aggression, risk-taking behavior, or violence manifesting in less regulated spaces (gangs, reckless driving, amateur fighting).

    8. Moral Hypocrisy and Slippery Slope Questions

    • Unintended Consequence: Singling out football raises the question: what about boxing, MMA, rugby, or even ballet and gymnastics?
    • Result: Banning football opens the door to more bans—or worse, selective enforcement that reeks of moral inconsistency and political backlash.

    9. Undermining of Bodily Autonomy

    • Unintended Consequence: While the intent is to protect, the act of banning a sport removes agency from individuals who knowingly choose risk.
    • Result: This could spark debates about freedom, personal sovereignty, and whether society has the right to intervene in personal decisions about pain and sacrifice.

    The Relevance of Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez:

    The documentary Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez is a chilling, necessary companion to any serious discussion of the moral crisis surrounding football. Hernandez, a star athlete groomed through the college football system and elevated to NFL glory, was both a product and a casualty of a sport that prized performance over personhood. The film exposes how institutions—from the University of Florida to the New England Patriots—enabled and ignored warning signs: violence, erratic behavior, and deep psychological instability. These weren’t just isolated red flags; they were systemic blind spots, fostered by a culture that commodifies players as disposable assets in a billion-dollar entertainment machine. Hernandez’s case forces students to confront the darker truth behind athletic excellence: when fame, concussions, and unchecked aggression intersect, the results can be lethal.

    Moreover, the documentary complicates the question of self-agency. Yes, Hernandez made choices—but were they truly free? Killer Inside makes a compelling case that chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), diagnosed in Hernandez posthumously, contributed to his instability. It raises hard questions about whether players fully understand the long-term cost of participation, and whether teams, coaches, and fans are complicit in a cycle that glamorizes sacrifice while suppressing inconvenient consequences. As students grapple with the ethics of spectatorship and institutional responsibility, this documentary offers a haunting portrait of how far a system will go to protect its profit, even if it means nurturing a time bomb in shoulder pads.

  • 3 College Essay Prompts That Address the Argument That Football Should be Banned (Brain vs. Game: Is Football Worth the Risk?)

    3 College Essay Prompts That Address the Argument That Football Should be Banned (Brain vs. Game: Is Football Worth the Risk?)

    Here are three argumentative essay prompts suitable for a 9-paragraph essay that ask college students to critically evaluate the claim that football is too dangerous to be allowed, while integrating multiple sources and perspectives:

    Prompt 1: “Freedom vs. Paternalism: Should Football Be Banned for Its Dangers?”

    Essay Prompt:
    Some argue that football should be banned due to its inherent risks—brain trauma, long-term disability, and early death—especially when these dangers are now well-documented through studies, documentaries like Concussion, and essays such as “Offensive Play” by Malcolm Gladwell and “Youth Football Is a Moral Abdication” by Kathleen Bachynski. Others argue that adults, like bodybuilder Ronnie Coleman in The King, have the right to punish their bodies for greatness. Should society protect athletes from themselves, or should personal freedom and the pursuit of glory override concerns about safety?

    Thesis Requirement:
    Take a position on whether football should be banned, regulated further, or left alone. Consider the ethical tension between protecting individuals and respecting their freedom to accept risk.

    Prompt 2: “Is Football Immoral Entertainment or Heroic Spectacle?”

    Essay Prompt:
    Critics like Steve Almond in “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” argue that football is exploitative, violent, and unethically consumed as entertainment by fans who ignore the human cost. Yet, defenders claim that physical sacrifice is the very essence of elite sports, citing Ronnie Coleman’s punishing regimen or the spectacle of NFL Sundays. Drawing from Concussion, Ronnie Coleman: The King, and at least three essays from the list above, argue whether watching and supporting football is morally indefensible—or a celebration of human extremes that demands respect, not condemnation.

    Thesis Requirement:
    Argue whether football spectatorship is morally wrong, or whether it reflects a deeper cultural valorization of sacrifice and spectacle that deserves to continue.

    Prompt 3: “A Necessary Risk? Comparing Football to Other High-Impact Sports”

    Essay Prompt:
    Football is often singled out for its violence and long-term damage to players, as shown in the essays by Dave Bry and Ingfei Chen. But many other sports—MMA, boxing, gymnastics, bodybuilding—also inflict harm in pursuit of greatness. Is it fair to hold football to a different standard? Using Concussion, Ronnie Coleman: The King, and at least three essays from the list, write an argumentative essay that addresses whether football is uniquely immoral—or simply another example of how society accepts risk in exchange for performance and entertainment.

    Thesis Requirement:
    Argue whether football should be abolished due to its extreme risks, or whether it should be viewed in the same ethical category as other dangerous yet glorified sports.

    ***

    Here are three 9-paragraph essay outlines, each corresponding to one of the prompts I gave you. These outlines are structured to guide students in developing strong thesis-driven arguments with counterargument and rebuttal sections.

    Prompt 1 Outline: “Freedom vs. Paternalism: Should Football Be Banned for Its Dangers?”

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Hook: Paint a vivid image of the risks of football (e.g., brain damage, CTE).
    • Context: Mention growing concern from scientists, journalists, and cultural critics.
    • Thesis: While football poses undeniable dangers, banning it would violate the principle of personal freedom; instead, informed adults should be allowed to take risks in pursuit of meaning, glory, and identity.

    Paragraph 2 – Background on Football’s Dangers

    • Use examples from Concussion, Gladwell’s “Offensive Play,” and Ingfei Chen’s article to detail the physical and neurological toll of the game.
    • Discuss youth football concerns using Bachynski’s critique.

    Paragraph 3 – The Paternalist Case for Banning Football

    • Lay out the moral argument that society has an obligation to protect players from harm—even from themselves.
    • Reference Steve Almond’s and Dave Bry’s essays.
    • Raise the point about fans being complicit in systemic exploitation.

    Paragraph 4 – The Freedom to Choose Dangerous Paths

    • Use Ronnie Coleman as a counterpoint: he knowingly destroyed his body in pursuit of greatness.
    • Argue that personal agency and risk are part of greatness in many sports.

    Paragraph 5 – Informed Consent and Regulation

    • Propose that the real solution is not banning but making sure players are fully informed and medically monitored.
    • Mention existing reforms in football and suggestions for further safety protocols.

    Paragraph 6 – Counterargument: The Problem of Informed Consent in Minors

    • Acknowledge that children and teenagers cannot truly give informed consent.
    • Revisit Bachynski’s argument about moral abdication in youth football.

    Paragraph 7 – Rebuttal: Ban Youth Football, Not the Whole Game

    • Suggest a middle-ground policy: ban tackle football for minors, regulate pro and college levels.
    • Emphasize adult autonomy and institutional responsibility.

    Paragraph 8 – Broader Implications: Personal Risk in a Free Society

    • Link to other professions and sports with risk (e.g., firefighting, racing).
    • Defend risk as a necessary ingredient in human excellence and personal identity.

    Paragraph 9 – Conclusion

    • Reaffirm thesis: Football is dangerous, but banning it would be paternalistic overreach.
    • End with a call for ethical regulation, informed choice, and cultural honesty.

    Prompt 2 Outline: “Is Football Immoral Entertainment or Heroic Spectacle?”

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Hook: Contrast images of Super Bowl Sunday parties with a football player in a wheelchair, suffering CTE.
    • Context: Critics argue football is a bloodsport; defenders see valor.
    • Thesis: While football’s dangers are real, condemning it as immoral entertainment ignores the deeper human drive toward spectacle, risk, and transcendent physical achievement.

    Paragraph 2 – The Moral Case Against Watching Football

    • Summarize Almond’s, Bry’s, and Gladwell’s critiques of football as exploitative.
    • Emphasize the consumer’s moral responsibility.

    Paragraph 3 – The Physical Toll of Greatness

    • Compare football players to Ronnie Coleman: both destroy their bodies to reach the top.
    • Use Ronnie Coleman: The King as evidence of informed sacrifice.

    Paragraph 4 – The Heroic Spectacle Argument

    • Argue that what we celebrate in sports is the extreme: speed, pain tolerance, power.
    • Football is thrilling precisely because it pushes limits.

    Paragraph 5 – Football and Consent

    • Highlight that football players, unlike gladiators, choose their path.
    • Many see it as a path to identity, meaning, and upward mobility.

    Paragraph 6 – Counterargument: Viewers Are Still Morally Complicit

    • Acknowledge Almond’s point that fans create the demand.
    • Point out that cheering injuries is a moral low point.

    Paragraph 7 – Rebuttal: Admiration Is Not Exploitation

    • Make the case that admiration and exploitation are not the same.
    • Use examples from Concussion and Vasilogambros’ essay showing many players don’t see themselves as victims.

    Paragraph 8 – The Cultural Importance of Football

    • Explore football’s symbolic value in American identity and tradition.
    • Mention Concussion to show that reform, not erasure, may be the better path.

    Paragraph 9 – Conclusion

    • Restate thesis: Football’s violence is part of its mythic power, not its moral failure.
    • Leave reader with a question: Do we truly want to live in a world without high-stakes heroism?

    Prompt 3 Outline: “A Necessary Risk? Comparing Football to Other High-Impact Sports”

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Hook: Imagine a risk-free Olympics—no broken bones, no injuries, no edge. Would anyone watch?
    • Context: Football is under fire, but risk is foundational to many beloved sports.
    • Thesis: Though football is dangerous, it should not be singled out for abolition when other high-risk sports continue with public admiration and participant consent.

    Paragraph 2 – The Case Against Football’s Danger

    • Outline the evidence from Concussion, Chen’s article, and Bry’s essay.
    • Include the cultural concern about long-term brain injuries.

    Paragraph 3 – Football’s Uniqueness (Critics’ View)

    • Present the argument that football is worse due to repeated head trauma.
    • Highlight Gladwell’s and Bachynski’s emphasis on sub-concussive hits.

    Paragraph 4 – But Other Sports Are Just as Brutal

    • Bring in MMA, boxing, gymnastics, bodybuilding.
    • Describe Ronnie Coleman’s spinal degeneration from lifting.

    Paragraph 5 – The Freedom to Risk and the Myth of the “Safe Sport”

    • Emphasize that even “safe” sports carry injury risks.
    • Athletes know the trade-off and often embrace it.

    Paragraph 6 – Counterargument: Kids Can’t Choose Risk Responsibly

    • Acknowledge the issue of youth sports, echoing Bachynski.
    • Minors can’t weigh long-term risk like adults.

    Paragraph 7 – Rebuttal: Reform, Not Abolition

    • Support banning tackle football for kids, but defend adult participation.
    • Cite reforms in helmets, rules, and concussion protocols.

    Paragraph 8 – Sports and the Human Drive for Glory

    • Revisit Ronnie Coleman: he knowingly embraced suffering for excellence.
    • Link this drive to the nature of sport and human aspiration.

    Paragraph 9 – Conclusion

    • Restate thesis: Football isn’t uniquely immoral—it’s one chapter in a larger story of human performance and risk.
    • Conclude with a call for honest conversations, not blanket bans.
  • The Salma Hayek-ification of Writing: A Love Letter to Our Slow-Motion Doom

    The Salma Hayek-ification of Writing: A Love Letter to Our Slow-Motion Doom

    I’ve done what the pedagogical experts say to do with ChatGPT: assume my students are using it and adjust accordingly. I’ve stopped trying to catch them red-handed and started handing them a red carpet. This isn’t about cracking down—it’s about leaning in. I’ve become the guy in 1975 who handed out TI calculators in Algebra II and said, “Go wild, kids.” And you know what? They did. Math got sexier, grades went up, and nobody looked back.

    Likewise, my students are now cranking out essays with the polish of junior copywriters at The Atlantic. I assign them harder prompts than I ever dared in the pre-AI era—ethical quandaries, media critiques, rhetorical dissections of war propaganda—and they deliver. Fast. Smooth. Professional. Too professional.

    You’d think I’d be ecstatic. The gap between my writing and theirs has narrowed to a hair’s width. But instead of feeling triumphant, I feel…weirdly hollow. Something’s off.

    Reading these AI-enhanced essays is like watching Mr. Olympia contestants on stage—hyper-muscular, surgically vascular, preposterously sculpted. At first, it’s impressive. Then it’s monotonous. Then it’s grotesque. The very thing that was once jaw-dropping becomes oddly numbing.

    That’s where we are with writing. With art. With beauty.

    There’s a creeping sameness to the brilliance, a too-perfect sheen that repels the eye the way flawless skin in a poorly-lit Instagram filter repels real emotion. Everyone’s beautiful now. Everyone’s eloquent. And like the cruelest of paradoxes, if everyone looks like Salma Hayek, then no one really does.

    AI content has the razzle-dazzle of a Vegas revue. It’s slick, it’s dazzling, and it empties your soul faster than a bottomless mimosa brunch. The quirk, the voice, the twitchy little neurosis that makes human writing feel alive? That’s been sanded down into a high-gloss IKEA finish.

    What we’re living through is the Salma Hayek-ification of modern life: a technologically induced flattening of difference, surprise, and delight.

    We are being beautified into oblivion.

    And deep inside, where the soul used to spark when a student wrote a weird, lumpy, incandescent sentence—one they bled for, sweated over—I feel the faint echo of that spark flicker.

    I’m not ready to say the machines have killed art. But they’ve definitely made it harder to tell the difference between greatness and a decent algorithm with good taste.

  • The Salma-Hayek-ification of Beauty and the Algorithmic Flattening of Everything (And Why Your Weirdness Is Now Sacred)

    The Salma-Hayek-ification of Beauty and the Algorithmic Flattening of Everything (And Why Your Weirdness Is Now Sacred)

    If technology can make us all look like Salma Hayek, then congratulations—we’ve successfully killed beauty by cloning it into oblivion. Perfection loses its punch when everyone has it on tap. The same goes for writing: if every bored intern with a Wi-Fi connection can crank out Nabokovian prose with the help of ChatGPT, then those dazzling turns of phrase lose their mystique. What once shimmered now just… scrolls.

    Yes, technology improves us—but it also sandblasts the edges off everything, leaving behind a polished sameness. The danger isn’t just in becoming artificial; it’s in becoming indistinguishable. The real challenge in this age of frictionless upgrades is to retain your signature glitch—that weird, unruly fingerprint of a soul that no algorithm can replicate without screwing it up in glorious, human ways.

    If technology can make us all look like Brad Pitt and Selma Hayak, then none of us will be beautiful. Likewise, if we can all use ChatGPT to write like Vladimir Nabokov, then florid prose will no longer have the wow factor. Technology improves us, yes, but it also makes everything the same. Retaining your individual fingerprint of a soul is the challenge in this new age. 

  • Teaching Writing in the Age of the Machine: Why I Grade the Voice, Not the Tool

    Teaching Writing in the Age of the Machine: Why I Grade the Voice, Not the Tool

    I assume most of my college writing students are already using AI—whether as a brainstorming partner, a sentence-polisher, or, in some cases, a full-blown ghostwriter. I don’t waste time pretending otherwise. But I also make one thing very clear: I will never accuse anyone of plagiarism. What I will do is grade the work on its quality—and if the writing has that all-too-familiar AI aroma—smooth, generic, cliché-ridden, and devoid of voice—I’m giving it a low grade.

    Not because it was written with AI.
    Because it’s bad writing.

    What I encourage, instead, is intentional AI use—students learning how to talk to ChatGPT with precision and personality, shaping it to match their own style, rather than outsourcing their voice entirely. AI is a tool, just like Word, Windows, or PowerPoint. It’s a new common currency in the information age, and we’d be foolish not to teach students how to spend it wisely.

    A short video that supports this view—“Lovely Take on Students Cheating with ChatGPT” by TheCodeWork—compares the rise of AI in writing to the arrival of calculators in 1970s math classrooms. Calculators didn’t destroy mathematical thinking—they freed students from rote drudgery and pushed them into more conceptual terrain. Likewise, AI can make writing better—but only if students know what good writing looks like.

    The challenge for instructors now is to change the assignments, as the video suggests. Students should be analyzing AI-generated drafts, critiquing them, improving them, and understanding why some outputs succeed while others fall flat. The writing process is no longer confined to a blank Word doc—it now includes the strategic prompting of large language models and the thoughtful revision of what they produce.

    But the devil, as always, is in the details.

    How will students know what a “desired result” is unless they’ve read widely, written deeply, and built a literary compass? Prompting ChatGPT is only as useful as the student’s ability to recognize quality when they see it. That’s where we come in—as instructors, our job is to show them side-by-side examples of AI-generated writing and guide them through what makes one version stronger, sharper, more human.

    Looking forward, I suspect composition courses will move toward multimodal assignments—writing paired with video, audio, visual art, or even music. AI won’t just change the process—it will expand the format. The essay will survive, yes, but it may arrive with a podcast trailer or a hand-drawn infographic in tow.

    There’s no going back. AI has changed the game, and pretending otherwise is educational malpractice. But we’re not here to fight the future. We’re here to teach students how to shape it with a voice that’s unmistakably their own.

  • 12 Essential Lexicon Terms for Understanding Social Media-Spawned Pathologies

    12 Essential Lexicon Terms for Understanding Social Media-Spawned Pathologies

    #1: Doppelganger Effect

    When your online double becomes hotter, louder, meaner—and more successful than you.

    #2 Likelepsy

    A convulsive need for validation triggered by spikes in engagement and followed by a crushing dopamine crash.

    #3 Privacide

    The voluntary and cheerful execution of your privacy in exchange for predictive weather, curated playlists, and targeted ads for pants you only thought about.

    #4 TMI-rrhea

    An unstoppable stream of personal disclosures that nobody asked for and everyone wishes they could unsee.

    #5 Confessistan

    A nation where every citizen is legally required to document their feelings, bowel movements, and brunch choices for public consumption.

    #6 Cringe Fatigue

    A pang of cringe, sadness, and vicarious embarrassment experienced mid-scroll as you witness your friend’s dignity dissolve into hashtags and hot takes.

    #7 Narrativitis

    The chronic compulsion to turn real life into a curated, melodramatic storyline, complete with mood lighting and sad indie music.

    #8 FOMOblivion

    A cognitive blackout where the fear of missing out completely eclipses the joy of being present, addressing your real needs, and the real needs of others because you’re constantly seething in envy and anxiety over hyped-up trifles.

    #9 Scrolloticism

    The act of finding emotional pleasure in self-inflicted torment via outrage consumption and doomscrolling and compensatory self-aggrandizing content posing.

    #10 The Narrative Trap

    When your life becomes a story written by everyone else, and the only thing you can’t do is rewrite your part.

    #11 Feedgret

    A soul-curdling regret triggered by the realization that you’ve been publicly cosplaying as your best self while quietly decaying inside.

    #12 InstaShame Spiral

    A violent emotional plunge brought on by rereading your old captions and realizing you’ve been subtweeting your own dignity for years.

  • Case Studies in Performatosis: Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” and “Nosedive”

    Case Studies in Performatosis: Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” and “Nosedive”

    In the grand medical theater of Black Mirror, few disorders are as virulent and tragically funny as Performatosis—the compulsive need to live life as if constantly auditioning for an invisible panel of social media judges. Two episodes in particular, “Joan Is Awful” and “Nosedive,” offer prime case studies in this terminal condition. Both protagonists—Joan and Lacie—aren’t just victims of technological dystopia; they’re emotionally exhausted performers collapsing under the weight of their own curated identities. And like all great tragicomedies, they bring it on themselves with a smile, a filter, and a legally binding Terms of Service they definitely didn’t read.

    “Joan Is Awful” is what happens when you outsource your entire identity to an algorithm and then act surprised when it turns on you. Joan, a blandly competent tech middle-manager with questionable morals and a perpetual expression of secondhand guilt, becomes a literal character in a TV show about her own life. But this isn’t just surveillance—it’s a forced performance, one she never auditioned for but can’t stop starring in. Her daily decisions are reinterpreted, exaggerated, and broadcast to a global audience craving content, not character. The real tragedy? Joan begins modifying her behavior to match the awful version of herself the algorithm is producing, proving that once Performatosis sets in, the line between self and spectacle evaporates faster than a TikTok trend.

    Meanwhile, in “Nosedive,” Lacie lives in a pastel-colored prison of positivity, where smiles are currency and emotional repression is a public service. Her entire life is a performance designed to earn ratings—every cup of overpriced coffee, every chirpy interaction, every dead-eyed compliment is another step up the social ladder. But like all performances, hers eventually cracks, and when it does, it’s not just a fall—it’s a nosedive into social exile. Her descent is more than a narrative arc; it’s a diagnosis. She’s suffering from terminal Performatosis, unable to stop performing even as her audience turns on her. The episode’s final, cathartic scream-off in jail is less an act of rebellion and more a final gasp of unscripted truth.

    What links Joan and Lacie is not just the technology that invades their lives, but the deep, internalized need to be seen—and more dangerously, to be liked. They are not characters living in dystopias; they are mirrors of us, the perfectly average user who has confused validation with identity. The systems they’re trapped in are just more honest versions of the ones we already use—systems that reward curated personas, punish messiness, and encourage self-policing with a faux-empowering smile. In both cases, the platforms don’t just reflect reality; they rewrite it, edit it, and package it for mass consumption—leaving the person behind feeling like a glitch in their own story.

    Performatosis, as diagnosed through these episodes, is not about ego. It’s about survival in a world where being real is risky, but being performative is profitable. Joan and Lacie suffer not just because they’re being watched, but because they’ve handed over their stories to people—and systems—that care more about ratings than reality. Their eventual breakdowns are not mental collapses; they’re acts of resistance. Unscripted, unbeautiful, and gloriously human. And if we’re smart, we’ll take the hint: stop performing before you forget the script was never yours to begin with.

  • Ozempification and DeBrandification in Black Mirror

    Ozempification and DeBrandification in Black Mirror

    In the dystopian funhouse mirror that is Black Mirror, two episodes—”Joan Is Awful” and “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too”—serve as cautionary tales about the perils of Ozempification and the arduous journey toward DeBrandification. These narratives dissect how individuals relinquish their identities to external forces, only to embark on a tumultuous quest to reclaim them.

    Ozempification, much like the quick-fix weight loss drug it’s named after, represents the seductive allure of outsourcing personal agency for immediate gratification. In “Joan Is Awful,” Joan’s passive acceptance of Streamberry’s invasive terms leads to her life being broadcasted without consent, morphing her into a grotesque caricature for public consumption. Similarly, in “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too,” Ashley O’s acquiescence to her aunt’s overbearing control transforms her into a commodified pop puppet, her authentic self suppressed beneath layers of marketable artifice.

    The consequences of Ozempification are stark. Joan becomes a prisoner of her own life, scrutinized and vilified by an audience oblivious to her reality. Ashley O’s existence is hijacked, her consciousness commodified into AI dolls like Ashley Too, symbolizing the extreme exploitation of her identity. Both women find themselves trapped in narratives dictated by others, their true selves obscured by the demands of an insatiable audience.

    Enter DeBrandification: the messy, rebellious process of dismantling the curated personas imposed upon them. Joan’s revolt against Streamberry’s AI-driven exploitation and Ashley O’s defiance against her aunt’s manipulative machinations epitomize this struggle. Their battles underscore the difficulty of reclaiming authenticity in a world that thrives on manufactured images.

    However, DeBrandification is not a seamless endeavor. Joan’s attempt to obliterate the quantum computer orchestrating her televised torment results in legal repercussions, highlighting the societal resistance to such acts of defiance. Ashley O’s liberation, while cathartic, leaves her navigating an industry that may still view her as a product rather than a person. Their stories illuminate the complexities and potential fallout of shedding a commodified identity.

    Black Mirror masterfully illustrates that while Ozempification offers the tantalizing ease of relinquishing control, it leads to an existence dictated by external forces. Conversely, DeBrandification, though fraught with challenges, paves the path toward genuine selfhood. Joan and Ashley O’s journeys serve as stark reminders that in the age of digital commodification, reclaiming one’s identity is not just an act of rebellion, but a necessary step toward true autonomy.

  • The Algorithm Always Wins: How Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” Turns Self-Reinvention Into Self-Erasure: A College Essay Prompt

    The Algorithm Always Wins: How Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” Turns Self-Reinvention Into Self-Erasure: A College Essay Prompt

    Here’s a complete essay assignment with a title, a precise prompt, a forceful sample thesis, and a clear 9-paragraph outline that invites students to think critically about Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” as a cautionary tale about the illusion of self-reinvention in the age of algorithmic control.

    Essay Prompt:

    In Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful,” the protagonist believes she is taking control of her life—switching therapists, reconsidering her career, changing her relationship—but these gestures of so-called self-improvement unravel into a deeper entrapment. Write an essay in which you argue that Joan is not reinventing herself, but rather surrendering her privacy, dreams, and identity to a machine that thrives on mimicry, commodification, and total surveillance. How does the episode reveal the illusion of agency in digital spaces that promise self-empowerment? In your response, consider how algorithmic platforms blur the line between self-expression and self-abnegation.

    Sample Thesis Statement:

    In Joan Is Awful, Joan believes she is taking control of her life through self-reinvention, but she is actually submitting to an algorithmic system that harvests her identity and turns it into exploitable content. The episode exposes how digital platforms market the fantasy of personal transformation while quietly demanding the user’s total surrender—of privacy, agency, and individuality—in what amounts to a bleak act of self-erasure disguised as empowerment.

    9-Paragraph Outline:

    I. Introduction

    • Hook: In today’s digital economy, the idea of “reinventing yourself” is everywhere—but what if that reinvention is a trap?
    • Introduce Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” as a satirical take on algorithmic surveillance and performative identity.
    • Contextualize the illusion of self-improvement through apps, platforms, and AI.
    • Thesis: Joan’s journey is not one of self-reinvention but of self-abnegation, as she becomes raw material for a system that rewards data extraction over authenticity.

    II. The Setup: Joan’s Belief in Reinvention

    • Joan wants to change: new therapist, new boundaries, hints of dissatisfaction with her job and relationship.
    • Her attempts reflect a desire to reshape her identity—to be “better.”
    • But these changes are shallow and reactive, already shaped by her algorithmic footprint.

    III. The Trap is Already Set

    • Joan’s reinvention is instantly co-opted by the Streamberry algorithm.
    • The content isn’t about who Joan is—it’s about how she can be used.
    • Her life becomes a simulation because she surrendered her terms of use.

    IV. Privacy as the First Casualty

    • Streamberry’s access to her phone, apps, and data is total.
    • The idea of “opting in” is meaningless—Joan already did, like most of us, without reading the fine print.
    • The show critiques how we confuse visibility with empowerment while forfeiting privacy.

    V. Identity as Content

    • Joan becomes a character in her own life, performed by Salma Hayek, whose image has also been commodified.
    • Her decisions no longer matter—the machine has already decided who she is.
    • The algorithm doesn’t just reflect her—it distorts her into something more “engaging.”

    VI. The Illusion of Agency

    • Even when Joan rebels (e.g., the church debacle), she is still playing into the show’s logic.
    • Her outrage is pre-scripted by the simulation—nothing she does escapes the feedback loop.
    • The more she tries to assert control, the deeper she gets embedded in the system.

    VII. The Machine’s Appetite: Dreams, Desires, and Human Complexity

    • Joan’s dreams (a career with purpose, an authentic relationship) are trivialized.
    • Her emotional interiority is flattened into entertainment.
    • The episode suggests that the machine doesn’t care who you are—only what you can generate.

    VIII. Counterargument and Rebuttal

    • Counter: Joan destroys the quantum computer and reclaims her autonomy.
    • Rebuttal: The ending is recursive and ambiguous—she is still inside another simulation.
    • The illusion of victory masks the fact that she never really escaped. The algorithm simply adjusted.

    IX. Conclusion

    • Restate the central idea: Joan’s self-reinvention is a mirage engineered by the system that consumes her.
    • “Joan Is Awful” isn’t just a tech horror story—it’s a warning about how we confuse algorithmic participation with self-determination.
    • Final thought: The real horror isn’t that Joan is being watched. It’s that she thinks she’s in control while being completely devoured.