Alexander Response

1. Why should teachers and students of writing consider sexuality in a networked classroom?

     Alexander states that "networked classrooms offer an unparalleled opportunity for students and teachers to address issues of sexual orientation in powerful and unprecedented ways" (208). First of all, he mentions that computerizing classrooms gives gay and lesbian student infinite access to information on LGBTQ communities and lifestyles. They can then feel like even if they don't know anyone personally that they can relate to as far as sexual orientation, they at least know they are not alone. He also points out that the ability to have anonymity on the internet gives gays and lesbians more freedom and comfort in have that initial voice, since "the dangers of speaking from a gay subject position are very real" (209).  Teachers and students of writing should consider sexuality in a networked classroom because it’s an outlet in which gays and lesbians can more easily express themselves and identify with one another without facing immediate physical threat. They can hide behind anonymity or come together as a community.

2. Alexander does not provide and in-depth study like Buck does. How could his piece have benefitted from a structure like Buck's?

     An in-depth study like Buck’s includes specific examples, research, and statistics that support the author’s thesis and persuade the audience. Buck included specific examples like BlackPlanet, Yahoo, and BlackVoices. He mentions that “as much as 30% of all utterances [contain] some form of tonal semantics” (80), supporting his point that Black linguistics are evident even online, not just in spoken language. I think stating a thesis and then citing examples, research, and statistics like Buck did would make Alexander’s article more credible, and overall his article would benefit from these changes.