Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • A College Professor in Search of Flexecutivewear

    A College Professor in Search of Flexecutivewear

    I, for one, am eternally grateful for the fashion revolution that finally told tight loafers and itchy tweed to take a long walk off a short runway. Gone are the days when professionalism meant strangling your thighs in wool trousers and embalming your torso in starched cotton. Now, thanks to society’s blessed surrender to performancewear, I can be a fully functioning member of the information economy without developing trench foot or sweating through my pancreas. At long last, it’s possible to look like I’m closing deals while feeling like I’m on my way to foam roll my glutes. So yes, it’s time for a wardrobe overhaul—one built not on thread count but on strategic stretch and moisture management. We’ll call this divine aesthetic what it truly is: Flexecutivewear—because nothing says power move like a blazer with hidden ventilation panels and joggers that whisper synergy.

    A definition is in order:

    Flexecutivewear (n.): A genre of athleisure engineered for men who want to appear as though they’ve just wrapped a high-stakes boardroom negotiation and a punishing HIIT session—without actually doing either. It’s business-casual for the delusional alpha male: moisture-wicking fabrics, tailored joggers, and compression hoodies that whisper “venture-backed” while screaming “please validate me.” Flexecutivewear exists at the tragic intersection of performance and performance art, where every outfit is a pitch deck and every stretch is a soft launch.

    No Flexecutivewear ensemble is complete without the obligatory diver watch on an orange strap—a bold timepiece that screams “I could be 200 meters underwater right now, but I’m actually just waiting for my cold brew.” The orange strap is crucial: it’s the high-visibility beacon of masculine daring, suggesting a rugged, adventurous spirit who might rappel down a cliff between Zoom calls. Never mind that the watch has never tasted saltwater and its nearest brush with danger was a CrossFit box opening. In the Flexecutive ecosystem, the diver watch is less tool and more talisman—a waterproof monument to imagined peril and aspirational virility.

  • Waiting for the Angels to Descend and Hand Me the Perfect Book Title on a Velvet Pillow

    Waiting for the Angels to Descend and Hand Me the Perfect Book Title on a Velvet Pillow

    After reading Emmanuel Carrère’s Yoga—a meandering, self-lacerating spiral of spiritual ambition, narcissism, and depressive collapse—I’ve found myself inspired, if not outright possessed, by the urge to write my own autobiographical novel. Not about yoga, of course. I have the flexibility of a rusted lawn chair. Mine would be about my lifelong addiction to exercise. Working title: Kettlebell.

    It has a certain Zen austerity to it. One word. Heavy. Spherical. Monastic. A blunt object and a metaphor all in one. A symbol of focus in a world engineered for entropy. While others turn to wine, weed, or weaponized mindfulness apps, I have turned to iron. Cold, unyielding, mildly concussive iron.

    Of course, I could flirt with cleverness—titles like The Church of Sweat or The Temple of Gains—but those reek of Instagram influencers and overpriced gym merch. Kettlebell is purer. But then again, Dumbbell tugs at me. It’s honest. It’s humiliating. It suggests what I secretly suspect: that I’ve spent a lifetime mistaking pain for virtue and resistance training for redemption. I am a Dumb Bell. A heavy object being swung around in circles, hoping to find peace through repetition.

    Still, perhaps I’m playing into the oldest self-help trap of them all—masquerading self-deprecation as enlightenment. Perhaps the search for the perfect title is simply a glorified avoidance ritual, a form of literary procrastination wrapped in velvet. Because deep down, I know the book isn’t just about fitness. It’s about how I’ve used discipline as anesthesia, reps as prayer beads, and physical exhaustion as a form of epistemology. I don’t know what God looks like, but I suspect He smells like workout chalk and vanilla protein shakes.

    Some mornings I feel like a garage-dwelling mystic, swinging kettlebells under flickering LED light, muttering mantras between sets. Other days I feel like an absurd parody of Sisyphus—except instead of rolling a boulder up a hill, I’m performing goblet squats in my tattered gym shorts, chasing transcendence in 30-second rest intervals.

    And now, on the brink of another workout, I’m wasting precious calories spiraling into a metaphysical title crisis. Maybe the perfect name will descend from the sky, borne aloft by angels in sweatbands and Lululemon, whispering, “This is it. This is your brand.” They will hand me the title on a velvet pillow. Or maybe I’ll figure it out in the middle of a brutal set, when my soul finally detaches from my body like a spent shell casing and whispers, “Just call it Garage Monk and be done with it.”

    One way or another, the iron awaits. And it does not care what the book is called.

  • The Church of Sweat: 50 Years in the Iron Cathedral

    The Church of Sweat: 50 Years in the Iron Cathedral

    By the time I hit fourteen, my sacred sanctuary was none other than Walt’s Gym in Hayward, California—a temple of iron that had started its inglorious life as a chicken coop in the 1950s. The place was a veritable swamp of fungus and bacteria, a thriving petri dish of maladies eager to latch onto the unsuspecting. Members whispered in hushed tones about incurable athlete’s foot, the kind that made dermatologists throw up their hands in defeat. Some swore that the strains of fungus and mold festering in the corners were so exotic they had yet to be classified by the most intrepid of mycologists. Roosting among the fungal shower stalls was an oversized frog that the pro wrestlers had affectionately named Charlie. I never saw Charlie myself, but I often wondered if he was a real creature or a figment of the wrestlers’ imagination, birthed by too many concussions and late-night benders.

    The locker room was perpetually occupied by a rotating cast of characters who looked like they’d been plucked straight out of a grimy noir film. There was always some bankrupt divorcee draped in a velour tracksuit and a gold chain thick enough to anchor a ship, hogging the payphone for marathon sessions with his attorney. He’d discuss his sordid life choices and the staggering attorney fees required to sweep his past under a rug large enough to cover the entire state of California.

    Out back, an unused swimming pool lurked, its water murky and black—a cauldron of plague, dead rats, and God knows what else. Walt, the gym’s owner and part-time crypt keeper, had a peculiar ritual. Every so often, he’d saunter outside, brandishing a pool net like a scepter, and scoop up some unfortunate deceased creature. He’d hold it aloft for all to see, like a demented priest presenting an unholy sacrament. This grim ceremony was invariably met with a thunderous round of applause from the gym-goers, who treated Walt’s rodent exorcisms like a halftime show. Walt would then toss the cadaver into a nearby dumpster with all the flourish of a Shakespearean actor delivering a monologue, bowing deeply as if he’d just conquered a dragon.

    Walt’s Gym showcased a walking fossil named Wally, an octogenarian who swore he was the original model for human anatomy textbooks—perhaps ones etched on cave walls. We all loved Wally. He was a beloved gym fixture even though he could be a pain in the butt. Wally’s routine was the stuff of myth: He’d righteously correct everyone’s form whether they asked for his advice or not. He’d monopolize the gym for hours, his workout punctuated by monologues worthy of an Oscar about his deadbeat relatives who “borrowed” money, his former lovers who once graced the silver screen, and his eternal battle with arthritis. 

    Between sets, he’d often deliver a Ted Talk on muscle inflammation and the sorry state of the national economy. He delivered these soliloquies with the gravitas of a news anchor, then spent an eternity in the sauna and shower, emerging like a phoenix from the ashes only to douse himself head-to-toe in talcum powder, turning into a spectral beacon of gym dedication. When Wally spoke, he was engulfed in such a thick talcum haze you’d swear a lighthouse was about to blare its foghorn warning.

    The radio played the same hits on a relentless loop, as if the DJ had been possessed by the spirit of a broken record. Elvin Bishop’s “Fooled Around and Fell in Love,” The Eagles’ “New Kid in Town,” and Norman Connors’ “You Are My Starship” echoed through the gym like a soundtrack to my personal purgatory. As a kid navigating this adult world, the gym was my barbershop, my public square, where I eavesdropped on conversations about divorces, hangovers, gambling addictions, financial ruin, the exorbitant costs of sending kids to college, and the soul-sucking burdens of caring for elderly parents.

    It dawned on me then that I was at fourteen the perfect age: old enough to start building biceps like bowling balls, yet young enough to be spared the drudgery and tedium of adult life. Being a teenage bodybuilder, I realized, was all about sidestepping the real world entirely. Why bother with mortgages and 401(k)s when I could disappear into my true paradise, the gym? As Arnold himself wrote in Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder, the gym was the ultimate Happy Place: “The weight lifters shone with sweat; they were powerful looking. Herculean. And there it was before me—my life, the answer I’d been seeking. It clicked. It was something I suddenly just seemed to reach out and find, as if I’d been crossing a suspended bridge and finally stepped off onto solid ground.”

    Half a century later, I still have my version of Walt’s Gym—but now it’s a dimly lit garage filled with kettlebells and echoes. For the last ten years, it’s been my sanctuary, my forge, my private dojo where I swing iron spheres like a monk practicing some ancient, sweat-soaked ritual. No mirrors, no peacocks, no pop music—just me, gravity, and the stubborn pulse of something that refuses to quit.

    At nearly 64, I still wake up with the twitchy vigor of a teenager mainlining pre-workout, though now it’s fueled by habit and existential resolve rather than hormones and vanity. Friends—well-meaning, gray-templed philosophers—remind me that we’re each born with a finite reservoir of Life Force, that it burns down like a fuse, and that it’s only sensible to bow to biology, show gratitude, and pace ourselves. All true. But I also know that left unchecked, my own Life Force has a history of going rogue—dragging me into self-destructive spirals like a moth to a Molotov cocktail. So I remind myself, daily, that power without purpose is a demolition derby in my own skull.

    Still, when I think of Walt’s Gym, I remember that giddy, foolish optimism of youth—that belief that life was nothing but expansion, growth, and muscle gains. And weirdly, I still feel that same charge now. Same source, different vintage. That current is still flowing through me, unruly and alive. The only real difference? I no longer try to bottle it. I just hold on and let it do its work.

  • From Corner Office Dreams to Carpool Reality: One Engineer’s Recession Watch

    From Corner Office Dreams to Carpool Reality: One Engineer’s Recession Watch

    I just got off the phone with my friend, a seasoned engineer marooned in the asphalt sprawl of Southern California, who sounded like a man peering over the edge of an economic cliff with a pair of shaky binoculars. The view? Grim. The engineering sector—usually a stalwart of rational planning and concrete outcomes—is now gripped by the wobbly-kneed fear of an incoming recession. Hiring freezes are spreading like a case of financial frostbite, and everyone’s waiting for the other steel-toed boot to drop.

    The culprits? Our beloved government’s carnival of tariff acrobatics—somersaults, swan dives, and the occasional flaming hoop—leaving the business sector in a state of chronic vertigo. With policy shifting by the hour and no clear sense of direction, companies are curling inward like startled armadillos, refusing to hire or spend, while consumers clutch their wallets like Victorian widows clutching pearls.

    Just a month ago, my friend had a juicy job offer on the table—complete with perks, prestige, and a corner office view of existential dread. He was mulling it over with the quiet satisfaction of a man whose talents were finally being recognized. But now? That same company has ghosted him like a bad Tinder date, citing “market uncertainty” and initiating a hiring freeze. Translation: they’ve lost their nerve and joined the swelling ranks of firms slamming shut the doors like it’s a zombie apocalypse.

    His current job, for now, is safe. But the interns? Sacrificed at the altar of “cost-cutting measures.” And his planned splurge—a shiny $50K car meant to serve as both reward and statement piece—has been downgraded to a practical vow of austerity. No V6 joyrides, no heated leather seats, just a cold reminder that in this economy, survival is the new luxury.

    “I’m just lucky to still be employed,” he said, with all the enthusiasm of a man clinging to a lifeboat made of unpaid invoices and canceled bonuses.

  • From Sweat Temple to Spa Prison: My Gym Breakup Story

    From Sweat Temple to Spa Prison: My Gym Breakup Story

    There was a time, back in the sepia-toned haze of the 1970s, when the gym was my church and iron was my sacrament. I was a teenage bodybuilder, baptized in sweat and testosterone, and the gym was a crude sanctuary—part locker room, part gladiator pit—where you could grunt, curse, and lift until your eyeballs threatened to pop like grapes. No frills, no air freshener, no nonsense. Just clang, bang, and the occasional chest-pounding primal scream.

    Then came the 1980s, when gyms got a makeover. They went corporate. The rusted barbells got swapped for chrome. The boom boxes were silenced in favor of syrupy pop music so chirpy it made your teeth ache. Suddenly, everyone wore genie pants and strutted between machines like peacocks dipped in glitter. I soldiered on, of course, slogging through the artificial sweetness and protein-powdered small talk. But the joy had drained from the dumbbells.

    By 2005, I snapped. The gym had become a perfume counter with resistance bands. I fled to the one place where the spirit of muscle still breathed: my garage. I bought a set of kettlebells and never looked back. No waiting for equipment. No toe fungus lurking in communal showers. No ex-frat boys flexing in front of mirrors while discussing their smoothie macros. Just me, my iron cannonballs, and the relentless clang of salvation.

    As I reflect on my exile from Gym Nation, I’ve made peace with my reasons. Let me count the ways:

    I like people. I enjoy storytelling, especially if it involves morally questionable behavior and a dash of scandal. But I can’t dish gossip and deadlift at the same time. I’m not that talented. The gym wants you to be a social butterfly with deltoids, but I want solitude and sweat.

    I used to catch colds with the regularity of a school nurse—four times a year like clockwork. Every cardio machine was a petri dish disguised as fitness equipment.

    And don’t get me started on the showers. You haven’t known dread until you’ve seen a septuagenarian air-drying his nether regions for forty-five minutes like a puffy white heron. Showering was a biohazard. Not showering meant marinating in my own musk, turning my car into a rolling terrarium of mildew and despair.

    Gyms also close for holidays, which is when I need them most—Thanksgiving rage, New Year’s guilt, Fourth-of-July shame. My garage, on the other hand, never takes a day off. It’s always open, always angry, always welcoming.

    And the waiting. Dear God, the waiting. I train fast, like I’m running from the ghosts of carbs past. Having to wait ten minutes for a squat rack while someone scrolls Instagram is a crime against the pump.

    I spent about a thousand bucks on kettlebells, from 10 to 80 pounds. That may sound steep, but compared to a decade of gas, membership fees, and viral exposure? It’s a steal.

    This garage of mine—it’s not just a space. It’s a holy temple of kettlebell discipline. A shrine to simplicity, sweat, and solitude. And I’ll keep swinging those iron orbs until I drop dead—or transcend into Valhalla, kettlebell in hand.

  • The Gospel According to Dad: A Parable of Rocks, Regret, and Cabernet

    The Gospel According to Dad: A Parable of Rocks, Regret, and Cabernet

    I was sixteen. My parents were recently divorced. Once a month, I’d visit my father at his swanky apartment and we’d discuss my future.

    One night, my father stared at me across the dinner table, a slab of rare steak leaking its red juices into a mountain of mashed potatoes. He squinted, as if trying to determine whether I was his son or a lost philosophy major who’d wandered in from a patchouli-scented commune.

    “So,” he said, carving off a bloody corner, “what are your career plans?”

    I gave him the truth. “Not totally sure, but I’m leaning toward philosophy.”

    He dropped his knife like I’d just confessed to joining a nudist circus. “Why in the hell would you want to do a thing like that?”

    “The search for meaning,” I said.

    He snorted and chased his chew with a gulp of red wine, as if meaninglessness required lubrication. “Don’t waste your time.”

    “Meaning is a waste of time?”

    He wiped his mouth like he was preparing to deliver a TED Talk from the underworld. “Let me tell you a little story.”

    And then came one of Dad’s home-brewed parables—equal parts whiskey, cynicism, and divine apathy:

    “A young man, about your age, stood on a beach and looked up at the heavens. ‘God,’ he said, ‘help me find meaning.’ And God, being the cosmic wiseass that He is, replied, ‘Look at all the rocks around you. One of them has the meaning of life written on it. Go find it.’ The young man looked around—millions of rocks—and said, ‘But God, that’ll take forever.’ And God said, ‘That’s your problem, not mine.’”

    I already regretted everything.

    “Decades passed. The man turned over every rock. He aged like a leather shoe abandoned in the desert. No inscription. He grew sunburned, brittle, and spiritually constipated. Finally, in his nineties, he looked up at the sky, trembling with rage, and shouted, ‘God! I’ve been faithful! No pleasure, no joy, no Netflix—just rock-flipping! And I found nothing!’”

    Dad leaned in, eyes gleaming.

    “And God said: ‘That’s right, you dumb shit. Now die.’”

    There was a silence. Even the mashed potatoes seemed stunned.

    I blinked. “Where in the hell did you hear that story?”

    He leaned back, smug as a snake on a warm rock. “Made it up. For your benefit.”

    “My benefit? What am I supposed to take from this bleak little fable?”

    He ticked the lessons off like commandments: “One, God doesn’t give a shit. Two, there is no meaning. Three, stop thinking so damn much and just live your life.”

    “Easy for you to say,” I muttered. “Cruising around in your fancy car, living in your swanky bachelor pad, drinking overpriced wine.”

    “Worry not, my son,” he said, swirling his cabernet like it owed him rent. “You’ll get yours someday.”

    “So you’ve found paradise?”

    He shrugged. “Far from it. But it’s got central air. And that’ll have to do.”

  • The Curdling Effect: How Great Songs Die in Grocery Stores

    The Curdling Effect: How Great Songs Die in Grocery Stores

    There was a time—long before streaming services, algorithmic playlists, and “sonic branding agencies”—when “Dark Side of the Moon” could take you on a soul-melting trip through space, madness, and time. In high school, Pink Floyd was our sonic sacrament. The cymbals shimmered like cosmic omens, and we let the guitars dissolve our angst into astral vapor.

    Then Circuit City got its grubby corporate mitts on it.

    Some goons in a boardroom decided that Pink Floyd’s transcendent opus would make a great jingle for discount televisions. The song was diced, commodified, and stuffed into every radio and TV break until what once felt like a journey into the abyss became the soundtrack to buying a laser printer. “Dark Side: didn’t just sell out—it was dragged through the spin cycle of capitalism and emerged shriveled and stained, like a silk shirt forgotten in a laundromat dryer.

    Same thing happened to U2. “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” once carried a biblical ache, a spiritual yearning that made you want to climb a desert mountain and cry. Then one fateful day in 1989, I was in a fluorescent-lit supermarket, watching the vegetable misting system descend on some limp romaine, when I heard it—Muzak’d into oblivion. Bono’s ache had been lobotomized and looped over damp eggplant. I felt like I’d witnessed a holy relic turned into a toilet brush.

    There’s a name for this: The Curdling Effect. When a song becomes so omnipresent, over-marketed, or backgrounded that it curdles—its soul separating from its sound, leaving only a sentimental sludge.

    Sometimes entire bands curdle. Take Coldplay. They’re talented, sure, but somewhere along the way they became the official band of stadium urinals and car commercials. Every note now drips with forced uplift and corporate synergy. Once they soared; now they slosh around in the shallow end of their own overexposure.

    But here’s the miracle: some songs are immune. Some endure. Some never curdle.

    Take “Fade Into You: by Mazzy Star. It drips with longing, and its beauty doesn’t spoil, even after decades. This morning, driving my twin daughters to school, I heard Victoria Bigelow’s cover. It stopped me. Time slowed. The song had lost none of its haunting gravity. It was still a velvet fog of romance and surrender.

    And then came a moment of musical resurrection. Olivia Dean’s “Touching Toes” played on the car stereo. It reminded me of Maria Muldaur’s “Midnight at the Oasis,” a song I hadn’t thought of in years. Both had that sultry, half-smile sway that drops your blood pressure and restores your faith in kindness. I let people merge in traffic. I was chill. I was enlightened.

    I’m now curating a playlist: Olivia Dean, Maria Muldaur, and any song that keeps me from flipping off fellow drivers. I call it The Chill Driver Playlist—a sonic antidote to the Curdling Effect.

  • How to Grade Students’ Use of ChatGPT in Preparing for Their Essay

    How to Grade Students’ Use of ChatGPT in Preparing for Their Essay

    As instructors, we need to encourage students to meaningfully engage with ChatGPT. How do we do that? First, we need the essay prompt:

    In World War Z, a global pandemic rapidly spreads, unleashing chaos, institutional breakdown, and the fragmentation of global cooperation. Though fictional, the film can be read as an allegory for the very real dysfunction and distrust that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. Using World War Z as a cultural lens, write an essay in which you argue how the film metaphorically captures the collapse of public trust, the dangers of misinformation, and the failure of collective action in a hyper-polarized world. Support your argument with at least three of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt’s “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Ed Yong’s “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” Seyla Benhabib’s “The Return of the Sovereign,” and Zeynep Tufekci’s “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook.”

    Second, we need a detailed “how-to” assignment that teaches students to engage critically and transparently with AI tools like ChatGPT during the writing process—in the context of the World War Z essay prompt.

    Assignment Title: How to Think With, Not Just Through, AI

    Overview:

    This assignment component requires you to document, reflect on, and revise your use of ChatGPT (or any other AI writing tool) while developing your World War Z analytical essay. Rather than treating AI like a magic trick that produces answers behind the curtain, this assignment asks you to lift the curtain and analyze the performance. What did the AI get right? Where did it fall short? And—most importantly—how did you shape the work?

    This reflection will be submitted alongside your final essay and counts for 15% of your essay grade. It will be evaluated based on transparency, clarity, and the depth of your analysis.

    Step-by-Step Instructions:

    Step 1: Prompt the Machine

    Before you write your own thesis, ask ChatGPT a version of the following:

    “Using World War Z as a cultural metaphor, write a thesis and outline for an essay that explores the collapse of public trust and the failure of global cooperation. Use at least two of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt, Ed Yong, Seyla Benhabib, and Zeynep Tufekci.”

    You may modify the prompt, but record it exactly as you typed it. Save the AI’s entire response.

    Step 2: Analyze the Output

    Copy and paste the AI’s output into a Google Doc. Underneath it, write a 300–400 word critique that answers the following:

    • What parts of the AI output were useful? (Thesis, outline, phrasing, examples, etc.)
    • What felt generic, vague, or factually inaccurate?
    • Did the AI capture the tone or depth you want in your own work? Why or why not?
    • How did this output influence the direction or shape of your own ideas, either positively or negatively?

    📌 Tip: If it gave you clichés like “in today’s world…” or “communication is key to society,” call them out! If it helped you identify a strong metaphor or organizational structure, give it credit—but explain how you built on it.

    Step 3: Revise the Output (Optional But Encouraged)

    Take one paragraph from the AI’s draft (thesis, topic sentence, body paragraph—your choice), and rewrite it into a stronger version. This is your chance to show:

    • Stronger voice
    • Clearer argument
    • Better use of evidence
    • More sophisticated style

    Label the two versions:

    • Original AI Version
    • Your Revision

    📌 This helps demonstrate your ability to evaluate and improve digital writing, a crucial part of critical thinking in the AI era.

    Step 4: Reflection Log (Post-Essay)

    After completing your final essay, write a short reflection (250–300 words) responding to these questions:

    • What role did AI play in the development of your essay?
    • How did you decide what to keep, change, or discard?
    • Do you feel you relied on AI too much, too little, or just enough?
    • How has this process changed your understanding of how to use (or not use) ChatGPT in academic work?

    Submission Format:

    Your AI Reflection Packet should include the following:

    1. The original prompt you gave ChatGPT
    2. The full AI-generated output
    3. Your 300–400 word critique of the AI’s work
    4. (Optional) Side-by-side paragraph: AI version + your revision
    5. Your 250–300 word final reflection

    Submit as a single Google Doc or PDF titled:
    LastName_AIReflection_WWZ

    Grading Criteria (15 points):

    CriteriaPoints
    Honest and detailed documentation3
    Thoughtful analysis of AI output4
    Evidence of critical evaluation3
    (Optional) Quality of paragraph revision2
    Insightful final reflection3

  • How to Use a Process Journal to Teach Critical Thinking to Students

    How to Use a Process Journal to Teach Critical Thinking to Students

    One of the most urgent challenges in today’s writing classroom is not getting students to submit essays—it’s getting them to think while doing it. As generative AI continues to automate grammar, structure, and even “voice,” the real question is this: How do we reward intellectual work in an age when polished prose can be faked?

    One answer is deceptively simple: grade the thinking, not just the product.

    To do that, we must build assignments that expose the messy, iterative, and reflective nature of real analysis. We’re talking about work that requires metacognition, self-assessment, and visible decision-making—tools like reflective annotations, process journals, and “thinking out loud” assignments. These formats ask students not just to present a claim but to show how they arrived at it.

    Let’s take the following essay prompt as a case study:

    In World War Z, a global pandemic rapidly spreads, unleashing chaos, institutional breakdown, and the fragmentation of global cooperation. Though fictional, the film can be read as an allegory for the very real dysfunction and distrust that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. Using World War Z as a cultural lens, write an essay in which you argue how the film metaphorically captures the collapse of public trust, the dangers of misinformation, and the failure of collective action in a hyper-polarized world. Support your argument with at least three of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt’s “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Ed Yong’s “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” Seyla Benhabib’s “The Return of the Sovereign,” and Zeynep Tufekci’s “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook.”

    To ensure students are doing the cognitive heavy lifting, pair this prompt with a process journal designed to track how students analyze, revise, and reflect. Here’s how that works:

    Assignment Title: Thinking in the Rubble: A Process Journal for the Collapse of Trust Essay

    Overview:
    As students build their World War Z argument, they’ll also keep a process journal—a candid record of how they think, doubt, change direction, and use (or resist) AI tools. Think of it as a behind-the-scenes cut of their essay in the making. The journal is worth 20% of the final grade and will be assessed for clarity, critical insight, and honest engagement with the writing process.

    Journal Requirements:

    1. Reflective Annotations (Pre-Writing)

    Choose one paragraph from each of the three sources you plan to use. For each, write a 4–5 sentence annotation addressing:

    • Why you chose it
    • What it reveals about trust, misinformation, or institutional failure
    • How you might use it in your essay

    📌 Goal: Show how you’re thinking with your sources—not just cherry-picking quotes.

    2. Thesis Evolution Timeline

    Document your thesis at 2–3 stages of development. For each version:

    • State your working thesis (even if it’s a mess)
    • Explain what caused you to change or clarify it
    • Note the moment of insight or struggle that sparked the revision

    📌 Goal: Track the intellectual arc of your argument.

    3. Thinking Out Loud Log

    Choose one option:

    • Audio: Record a 3–5 minute voice memo in which you talk through a draft issue (e.g., integrating a source, clarifying your angle, or refining a counterargument)
    • Written: Compose a 300-word journal entry about a problem spot in your draft and how you’re trying to fix it

    📌 Goal: Reveal the inner dialogue behind your writing decisions.

    4. AI Transparency Statement (If Applicable)

    If you used ChatGPT or any AI tool at any point, briefly document:

    • Your prompt(s)
    • The output you received
    • What you kept, changed, or rejected
    • Why

    📌 Goal: Reflect on AI’s influence—not to punish, but to encourage digital literacy and self-awareness.

    5. Final Reflection (Post-Essay, 300 Words)

    After submitting your essay, write a closing reflection that answers:

    • What new insight did you gain about public trust or misinformation?
    • What was the hardest part of the process—and how did you push through?
    • What part of your final paper are you proudest of, and why?

    📌 Goal: Practice self-assessment and connect the work to broader learning.

    Submission Format:

    Submit as a single Google Doc or PDF titled:
    LastName_ThinkingInTheRubble

    Assessment Criteria (20 Points Total):

    • Depth and honesty of reflection
    • Evidence of critical engagement with readings and ideas
    • Clear documentation of thesis development and revision
    • Intellectual transparency (especially regarding AI use)
    • Clarity, specificity, and personal insight across all entries

    This process journal does more than scaffold an essay—it teaches students how to think. And more importantly, it gives instructors a way to see that thinking, reward it, and design grading practices that can’t be hijacked by a chatbot with decent syntax.

  • Teaching in the Age of Automation: Reclaiming Critical Thinking in an AI World

    Teaching in the Age of Automation: Reclaiming Critical Thinking in an AI World

    Preface:

    As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become embedded in students’ academic routines, we are confronted with a profound teaching challenge: how do we preserve critical thinking, reading, and original argumentation in a world where automation increasingly substitutes for intellectual effort?

    This document outlines a proposal shaped by conversations among college writing faculty who have observed students not only using AI to write their essays, but to interpret readings and “read” for them. We are working with a post-pandemic generation whose learning trajectories have been disrupted, whose reading habits were never fully formed, and who now approach writing assignments as tasks to be completed with the help of digital proxies.

    Rather than fight a losing battle of prohibition, this proposal suggests a shift in assignment design, grading priorities, and classroom methodology. The goal is not to eliminate AI but to reclaim intellectual labor by foregrounding process, transparency, and student-authored insight.

    What follows:

    • A brief analysis of how current student behavior around AI reflects broader educational and cognitive shifts
    • A set of four guiding pedagogical questions
    • Specific, implementable summative assignment models that resist outsourcing
    • A redesigned version of an existing World War Z-based argumentative essay that integrates AI transparency and metacognitive reflection
    • What a 12-chapter handbook might look like

    This proposal invites our department to move beyond academic panic toward pedagogical adaptation—embracing AI as a classroom reality while affirming the irreplaceable value of human thought, voice, and integrity.

    Conversations about the Teaching Crisis

    In recent conversations, my colleagues and I have been increasingly focused on our students’ use of ChatGPT—not just as a writing assistant, but as a way to outsource the entire process of reading, analyzing, and interpreting texts. Many students now use AI not only to draft essays in proper MLA format, but also to “read” the assigned material for them. This raises significant concerns about the erosion of critical thinking, reading, and writing skills—skills that have traditionally been at the heart of college-level instruction.

    We’re witnessing the results of a disrupted educational timeline. Many of our students lost up to two years of formal schooling during the pandemic. They’ve come of age on smartphones, often without ever having read a full book, and they approach reading and writing as chores to be automated. Their attention spans are fragmented, shaped by a digital culture that favors swipes and scrolls over sustained thought.

    As instructors who value and were shaped by deep reading and critical inquiry, we now face a student population that sees AI not as a tool for refinement but as a lifeline to survive academic expectations. And yet, we recognize that AI is not going away—on the contrary, our students will almost certainly use it in professional and personal contexts long after college.

    This moment demands a pedagogical shift. If we want to preserve and teach critical thinking, we need to rethink how we design assignments, how we define originality, and how we integrate AI into our classrooms with purpose and transparency. We’re beginning to ask the following questions, which we believe should guide our department’s evolving approach:

    1. What can we do to encourage critical thinking and measure that thinking in a grade?

    We might assign work that requires metacognition, reflection, and student-generated analysis—such as reflective annotations, process journals, or “thinking out loud” assignments where students explain their reasoning. Grading could focus more on how students arrived at their conclusions, not just the final product.

    2. How can we teach our students to engage with ChatGPT in a meaningful way?

    We can require students to document and reflect on their use of AI, including what they prompted, what they accepted or rejected, and why. Assignments can include ChatGPT output analysis—asking students to critique what AI produces and revise it meaningfully.

    3. How can we use ChatGPT in class to show them how to use it more effectively?

    We could model live interactions with ChatGPT in class, showing students how to improve their prompts, evaluate responses, and push the tool toward more nuanced thinking. This becomes an exercise in rhetorical awareness and digital literacy, not cheating.

    4. What kind of summative assignment should we give, perhaps as an alternative to the conventional essay, to measure their Student Learning Outcomes?

    As the use of AI tools like ChatGPT becomes increasingly integrated into students’ writing habits, the traditional essay—as a measure of reading comprehension, original thought, and language skills—needs thoughtful revision. If students are using AI to generate first drafts, outlines, or even entire essays, then evaluating the final product alone no longer gives us an accurate picture of what students have actually learned.

    We need summative assignments that foreground the process, require personal intellectual labor, and make AI usage transparent rather than concealed. The goal is to design assignments that reveal student thinking—how they engage with material, synthesize ideas, revise meaningfully, and make decisions about voice, purpose, and argumentation.

    To do this, we can shift the summative focus toward metacognitive reflection, multi-modal composition, and oral or visual demonstration of learning. These formats allow us to better assess Student Learning Outcomes such as critical thinking, rhetorical awareness, digital literacy, and authentic engagement with course content.

    4 Alternative Summative Assignment Ideas:

    1. The AI Collaboration Portfolio

    Description:
    Students submit a portfolio that includes:

    • Initial AI-generated output based on a prompt they created
    • A fully revised human-authored version of that piece
    • A reflective essay (500–750 words) explaining what they kept, changed, or rejected from the AI’s draft and why.

    SLOs Assessed:

    • Critical thinking
    • Rhetorical awareness
    • Digital literacy
    • Ability to revise and self-assess

    2. In-Class Defense of a ChatGPT Essay

    Description:
    Students submit an AI-assisted essay ahead of time. Then, in a timed, in-class setting (or via recorded video), they defend the major claims of the essay, explaining the reasoning, evidence, and stylistic choices as if they wrote it themselves—because they should have revised and understood it thoroughly.

    SLOs Assessed:

    • Comprehension
    • Argumentation
    • Oral communication
    • Ownership of ideas

    3. Critical Reading Response with AI Fact-Check Layer

    Description:
    Students choose a short essay, op-ed, or excerpt from a class reading and:

    • Write a 400–600 word response analyzing the author’s argument
    • Ask ChatGPT to summarize or interpret the same reading
    • Compare their own analysis with the AI’s, noting differences in tone, logic, accuracy, and insight

    SLOs Assessed:

    • Close reading
    • Critical analysis
    • Evaluating sources (human and AI)
    • Writing with clarity and purpose

    4. Personal Ethos Narrative + AI’s Attempt

    Description:
    Students write a personal narrative essay centered on a core belief, a formative experience, or a challenge. Then, they prompt ChatGPT to write the “same” story using only the basic facts. Finally, they compare the two and reflect on what makes writing personal, authentic, and emotionally compelling.

    SLOs Assessed:

    • Self-expression
    • Voice and tone
    • Audience awareness
    • Critical thinking about language and identity

    Original Writing Prompt That Needs to be Updated to Meet the AI Era:

    In World War Z, a global pandemic rapidly spreads, unleashing chaos, institutional breakdown, and the fragmentation of global cooperation. Though fictional, the film can be read as an allegory for the very real dysfunction and distrust that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. Using World War Z as a cultural lens, write an essay in which you argue how the film metaphorically captures the collapse of public trust, the dangers of misinformation, and the failure of collective action in a hyper-polarized world. Support your argument with at least three of the following sources: Jonathan Haidt’s “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Ed Yong’s “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” Seyla Benhabib’s “The Return of the Sovereign,” and Zeynep Tufekci’s “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook.”

    This essay invites you to write a 1,700-word argumentative essay in which you analyze World War Z as a metaphor for mass anxiety. Develop an argument that connects the film’s themes to contemporary global challenges such as:

    • The COVID-19 pandemic and fear of viral contagion
    • Global migration driven by war, poverty, and climate change
    • The dehumanization of “The Other” in politically polarized societies
    • The fragility of global cooperation in the face of crisis
    • The spread of weaponized misinformation and conspiracy

    Your thesis should not simply argue that World War Z is “about fear”—it should claim what kind of fear, why it matters, and what the film reveals about our modern condition. You may focus on one primary fear or compare multiple forms of crisis (e.g., pandemic vs. political polarization, or migration vs. misinformation).

    Use at least three of the following essays as research support:

    1. Jonathan Haidt, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid” (The Atlantic)
      —A deep dive into how social media has fractured trust, created echo chambers, and undermined democratic cooperation.
    2. Ed Yong, “How the Pandemic Defeated America” (The Atlantic)
      —An autopsy of institutional failure and public distrust during COVID-19, including how the virus exposed deep structural weaknesses.
    3. Seyla Benhabib, “The Return of the Sovereign: Immigration and the Crisis of Globalization” (Project Syndicate)
      —Explores the backlash against global migration and the erosion of human rights amid rising nationalism.
    4. Zeynep Tufekci, “We’re Asking the Wrong Questions of Facebook” (The New York Times)
      —An analysis of how misinformation spreads virally, creating moral panics and damaging collective reasoning.

    Requirements:

    • Use MLA format
    • 1,700 words
    • Quote directly from World War Z (film dialogue, plot events, or visuals)
    • Integrate at least two sources above with citation
    • Present a counterargument and a rebuttal

    To turn this already strong prompt into a more effective summative assignment—especially in the age of AI writing tools like ChatGPT—we need to preserve the intellectual rigor of the original task while redesigning its structure to foreground student thinking and reduce the possibility of full outsourcing.

    The solution isn’t to eliminate AI tools, but to design assignments that make invisible thinking visible, emphasize process and synthesis, and require student-authored insights that AI cannot fake.

    Below is a revised, multi-part assignment that integrates World War Z and the selected texts while enhancing critical thinking, transparency of process, and AI accountability.

    Revised Summative Assignment Title:

    “World War Z and the Collapse of Trust: A Multi-Stage Inquiry into Fear, Crisis, and Collective Breakdown”

    Assignment Structure:

    Part 1: AI Collaboration Log (300–400 words, submitted with final essay)

    Before drafting, students will engage with ChatGPT (or another AI tool) to generate:

    • A summary of World War Z as a cultural allegory
    • A brainstormed list of thesis statements based on the themes listed
    • AI-generated outline or argument plan

    Students must then reflect:

    • What ideas were helpful, and why?
    • What ideas felt generic, reductive, or inaccurate?
    • What did you reject or reshape, and how?
    • Did the AI miss anything crucial that you added yourself?

    📍Purpose: Reinforces transparency and encourages rhetorical self-awareness. It also lets you see whether students are thinking with the AI or hiding behind it.

    Part 2: Draft + Peer Critique (optional but encouraged)

    Students submit a rough draft and exchange feedback focusing on:

    • Depth of metaphorical analysis
    • Quality of integration between sources and film
    • Presence of original insight vs. cliché or summary

    📍Purpose: Encourages revision and demonstrates development. Peer readers can help flag vague AI language or unsupported generalizations.

    Part 3: Final Essay (1,200–1,300 words)

    Write a sustained, argumentative essay that:

    • Analyzes World War Z as a metaphor for a specific contemporary fear
    • Draws from at least two of the provided sources, but ideally three
    • Provides detailed evidence from the film (specific dialogue, visuals, character arcs)
    • Engages with a counterargument and offers a clear rebuttal
    • Demonstrates critical thinking, synthesis, and voice

    📍Changes from original: Slightly shorter word count, but denser expectations for insight. The counterargument now isn’t just a checkbox—it’s a chance to showcase rhetorical skill.

    Part 4: Metacognitive Postscript (200–300 words)

    At the end of the final essay, students write a short reflection answering:

    • What did you learn from comparing human analysis with AI-generated ideas?
    • What part of your argument is most your own?
    • What was difficult or challenging in developing your claim?
    • How do you now see the role of fear in shaping public response to crisis?

    📍Purpose: Makes thinking visible. Encourages students to take ownership of their learning and connect it to broader themes.

    Why This Works as a Better Summative Assignment:

    1. Harder to Outsource: The process-based structure (log, reflection, critique) demands personalized engagement and critical self-awareness.
    2. SLO-Rich: Students demonstrate close reading, source synthesis, rhetorical control, metacognition, and original thought.
    3. AI-Literate: Rather than punish students for using AI, it teaches them how to interrogate and surpass its output.
    4. Flexible for Diverse Thinkers: Students can lean into what resonates—fear of misinformation, loss of global trust, migration panic—without writing a generic “this movie is about fear” paper.

    Here is what a handbook might look like as a chapter outline:

    Teaching in the Age of Automation: Reclaiming Critical Thinking in an AI World

    Chapter 1: The New Landscape of Student Writing

    A critical overview of how generative AI, digital distractions, and post-pandemic learning gaps are reshaping the habits, assumptions, and skill sets of today’s college students.

    Chapter 2: From Automation to Apathy: The Crisis of Critical Thinking

    Examines the shift from student-generated ideas to AI-generated content and how this impacts intellectual risk-taking, reading stamina, and analytical depth.

    Chapter 3: ChatGPT in the Classroom: Enemy, Ally, or Mirror?

    Explores the pedagogical implications of AI writing tools, with a balanced look at their risks and potential when approached with rhetorical transparency and academic integrity.

    Chapter 4: Rethinking the Essay: Process Over Product

    Makes the case for redesigning writing assignments to prioritize process, revision, metacognition, and student ownership—rather than polished output alone.

    Chapter 5: Designing Assignments that Resist Outsourcing

    Outlines concrete assignment types that foreground thinking: “think out loud” tasks, AI comparison prompts, collaborative revision logs, and reflection-based writing.

    Chapter 6: Teaching the AI-Literate Writer

    Guides instructors in teaching students how to use AI critically—not as a ghostwriter, but as a heuristic tool. Includes lessons on prompting, critiquing, and revising AI output.

    Chapter 7: From Plagiarism to Participation: Reframing Academic Integrity

    Redefines what counts as authorship, originality, and engagement in a world where content can be instantly generated but not meaningfully owned without human input.

    Chapter 8: The New Reading Crisis

    Addresses the rise of “outsourced reading” via AI summarizers and how to reignite students’ engagement with texts through annotation, debate, and collaborative interpretation.

    Chapter 9: Summative Assessment in the Age of AI

    Presents summative assignment models that include AI collaboration portfolios, in-class defenses, metacognitive postscripts, and multi-modal responses.

    Chapter 10: World War Z and the Collapse of Public Trust (Case Study)

    A deep dive into a revised, AI-aware assignment based on World War Z—modeling how to blend pop culture, serious research, and transparent student process.

    Chapter 11: Implementing Department-Wide Change

    Practical strategies for departments to align curriculum, rubrics, and policies around process-based assessment, digital literacy, and instructor training.

    Chapter 12: The Future of Writing in the Post-Human Classroom

    Speculative but grounded reflections on where we’re headed—balancing AI fluency with the irreducible value of human voice, curiosity, and critical resistance.