Here is my response to Why Pedagogy 'Experts' Are Wrong: Grievance as a genre has become popular in higher education discourse because the complexity of the challenges education faces took decades or longer to form and will likewise take years to address. Some see higher education as a sinking ship and crowd the decks to bicker over what academic unit administration should fling overboard to cut weight amid the latest round of budget cuts. I challenge that assumption and think we all should likewise do the same. The ship remains afloat, even if it has sprung a number of leaks. We are charting a course together through increasingly turbulent waters and should not jeer with glee if an academic department is cast into the waves. Our campuses are supposed to be communities, not isolated or siloed departments that rarely interact with one another.

One thing the increasing polarized AI discourse has taught me these past four years is how quickly reasonable, well-educated individuals become incensed about a topic mostly discussed online. What often begins as polite back and forth quickly devolves into deeply emotional name-calling and personal attacks. It is no coincidence that the very platforms we debate on fuel and reward some of our worst tendencies that we wouldn’t display in person. It’s also not surprising to see how such a dynamic warps the rhetoric we use to convey our message.

Tempering your position to avoid alienating some of your audience, trying to balance engaging evidence alongside emotion, or calling for reasonable and sensible reforms are now viewed as weaknesses in online debates or digital provocations. Why? Because the algorithms that carry our arguments reward those who shout the loudest and issue statements that are anything but reasonable. Imagine if the internet worked to reward gestures that built communities and historically shaped discourse in healthy and productive ways.