I acknowledge that my previous blog entry about Have-nots was written with the intent of being controversial in an effort to induce discussion. If you read it, you will notice that there is shock value in paragraphs 1 & 2 and I
apologize for making anyone feel insulted. In reflection, shock value was not the smartest avenue for starting an intellectual discussion, as the topic was almost completely avoided on Thursday at the risk of touching off WWIII. But I would like to emphasize
the argument in paragraph 3, which is where I suggest a new direction
for future discussions of Haves and Have-nots.

Saying “We need to be aware that there are Have-nots” is a finite
statement that leaves no room for discussion. That is why I am suggesting a new
statement that opens the conversation up in two areas: 1) How can we
make it our responsibility to encourage the Haves to take advantage of
their resources and opportunities and use them to benefit Haves and
Have-nots a like, and 2) To change the conversation from the finite,
“We need to be aware of Have-nots” to the open-ended “We can overcome
the obstacles facing Have-nots by…”

A classmate said both in class and in her blog that a lot of the conversations at
the symposium “were mostly talking ABOUT people like me rather than
WITH people like me.” She and I share a similar thought, in that we both want
to include Have-nots. For me, this means future conversations should
focus on including Have-nots among those who benefit from the uses of
technology. For her, it means including Have-nots in the conversation
itself. Again, let me reiterate the commonality that we both emphasize the inclusion of Have-nots.

Despite the shock value of paragraphs 1 & 2, hopefully you can see
the merit of paragraph 3 of both the original post and my response to
eal166, which states these very ideas. If nothing else, I invite her (and all other readers)
to join me in contributing to a positive discussion where together we
can explore how educators can overcome these obstacles and ensure that
Have-nots become Haves in terms of growth and benefits.

Hopefully this new post, which omits the shock value, is worthy of a
response from our community =)