Connected but Unequal

After listening to the agree side video during the debate “technology has led to a more equitable society”, my immediate reaction was to strongly agree with it and take it at face value. After all, every aspect of modern life incorporates or at least involves the usage of digital tools in some form. I reflect on my own experiences in which the educational, health, occupational, and even activist pathways that I have taken are all enabled through technology, and the statement seems to make complete sense. However, as I continued to dwell on this, I find myself stopping at the important questions of “equitable for whom” and “equitable in what ways?”.

On the one hand, I can attest to technology opening up doors that have previously been closed. In my work, I have encountered students who have been labelled as low or non-performers in a traditional learning context excel once they have been provided with the appropriate assistive technology tools to support their learning. This was not miraculous but one of access, as tools such as speech to text technologies and adaptive technology provided a far more equitable experience for these learners in an academic setting. At those times when I can see my students succeed, I can completely buy in to the role of assistive technology and the tremendous potential it has for all learners who may have previously fallen through the cracks.

On the other hand, I consider learners who may not have basic internet access at home. The pandemic highlighted how deep the digital divide runs and how prevalent it is even in the most well funded communities. I recall a survey statistic that over three quarters of teachers in high-poverty schools reported their students could not access the internet to participate in synchronous learning consistently. It is difficult for me to consider a piece of technology or digital tool to be a great equalizer when access is not something that has been equitably extended to all. I recall an interesting RAND study on the digital divide that was conducted at the beginning of the pandemic. The issue for learners and families was not solely about the one-time support of having or not having a digital device, but the ongoing, long-term support, infrastructure, and digital skills necessary for all learners.

It is this inconsistency and dichotomy that frustrates me the most. It is not just the devices and infrastructure alone but the opportunity that it unlocks. In an ideal world, the internet represents a world of endless possibility in which you can do everything from buy essential goods to taking an online university degree to finding potential work, but it is also the world in which the work is not done, or there is not the support for, a large percentage of the global population. I have not found this to be reconciled or changed in any way, which frustrates me as this is an opportunity gap as well. I came across a recent statistic in an article that I found chilling: “2.7 billion people in the world remain offline, of which 84% of those offline are in the Global South.” (Digital Trends 2023). In an increasingly technological and digital world, I find it upsetting that we are failing so many.

Equally, in the same way, technology does provide that space of opportunity where those who have been traditionally disenfranchised can make their voices heard and not wait for traditional pathways of justice or representation. One story that I find heartwarming in this regard is in the recent case of Florida students using social media platforms to support one another after school shootings occurred and rejecting the “usual” narratives being touted by adults around them. They did not need to wait for an external party to represent their views, as they used digital tools to not only share information and resources with one another but build a movement of civic action.I will qualify some of my own excitement on this, however, as I think the truth is that for every high-profile case of using digital technology to achieve what are otherwise lofty goals, there are countless untold stories of the innumerable individuals, usually from already marginalized communities, who have been either left behind, left out, or directly harmed as a result of systems that have not been designed with their needs and access in mind. Yes, these technologies can help us see areas of bias, discrimination, and social injustice in an unadulterated format that previously would not have been visible, but they can also be just as adept at replicating those same issues in a new guise if we are not cautious in our approach. As much as I have read about the potentials of artificial intelligence to drastically improve access to healthcare, clean water, sanitation, education and reduce global inequality (Pappas, 2023), I know anecdotally and in other literature that without ethical design and rollout, these tools will benefit only a privileged few.

I don’t believe that I am changing my position on the original statement by the conclusion of this exercise, but rather refining it. Technology can lead to a more equitable society, but it is not guaranteed or automatic and takes hard work and effort. It does not just happen organically through increased distribution. Equity is not built into the device or the technology but in the design, the necessary systems of support and, more importantly, the desire to make things more inclusive. We have to be as deliberate and intentional about access as we are about innovation.

   As such, it is less of an either-or answer but more of a consideration that while I reflect on my own experiences in which technology has helped many, I need to be cognizant that for every student, family, or individual who benefits, there are likely many more who are still struggling. This reflection is not a rejection of technology but a call to always remember whom we are building these tools for and not to conflate access and connectivity with equality.