Courtroom Reflection
A quiet hush in the courtroom.
On the front bench sat the defendants: Artificial Intelligence, Language, Media, Modern Society, Ignorance, and, somehow, Humanity itself.
This course felt less like a class and more like witnessing a trial. Every week, another system I had accepted without question was dragged into the courtroom and interrogated: technology, identity, education, stress, language, power. By the end of the semester, the most uncomfortable realization was not that these systems were flawed, but that I participated in many of them unconsciously.
The judge called my name.
“Miss Boraei,” she said, “begin your testimony.”
Case One: The People vs. Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence stood confidently, polished like a corporate advertisement pretending to be innovation.
Before this course, I viewed AI the same way many people do: futuristic, intelligent, almost magical. If something was labeled “AI-powered,” I instinctively trusted it more. What changed my perspective was realizing how much AI is shaped not by intelligence, but by marketing, media narratives, and invisible human labor.
The most impactful moment for me was learning about the hidden labor sustaining AI systems. I had imagined automation as independent and almost mechanical, yet behind supposedly “smart” systems are underpaid workers labeling disturbing content and filtering harmful material so platforms can function. Convenience suddenly stopped feeling innocent. AI was no longer just technological innovation; it became tied to exploitation, inequality, and corporate power.
At the same time, discussions surrounding algorithmic bias exposed how AI systems inherit society’s prejudices. Facial recognition failing darker-skinned people and women revealed that technology is never neutral because the societies creating it are not neutral either. AI is purely a mirror of its creator’s reality. This connected deeply to broader course discussions surrounding digital inequality and Western-centered narratives. If most AI systems are trained on dominant perspectives, then overreliance on them risks flattening cultural differences into one “acceptable” version of knowledge.
Soliya made this especially visible. Participants from different countries viewed AI completely differently. Some framed it as innovation and efficiency, while others focused on accessibility and educational improvement. That contrast made me realize how dangerous it becomes when one narrative dominates globally and presents itself as universal truth.
This changed how I think academically, professionally, and personally. Earlier this semester, I used AI tools carelessly, prioritizing convenience over privacy. Now I think much more critically about data collection, dependence, and what is sacrificed when people slowly outsource creativity and thought itself.
My interviews with Aya and Mennatallah Salem about AI in the workplace complicated this further. Aya’s fear of students losing originality and entering an “AI loop,” where AI writes and evaluates human work, felt dystopian but believable. Mennatallah’s perspective, however, showed AI as a genuinely useful tool for efficiency and communication when guided critically by humans. Together, both interviews forced me to confront the same question repeatedly throughout this course: at what point does assistance become replacement? But, since I ask that question, answering so becomes a choice rather than a loss of control. Being unconscious over AI use, traps AI into the toolbox, which I intend to use as such.
Aya’s discussions about AI in academia reflect a world where students use AI and accessors use AI. No human intellectualness in sight. The AI course module about Civil AI literacy responds to her fear. The module summarizes how AI policies are created without input from students, faculty, and staff; thus they often reflect the views and assumptions of the people who designed them rather than the people actually affected by them. Hence, civic AI literacy reminds us that AI governance should include a wide range of voices so it better represents the communities it impacts.
In addition, when exploring different digital technologies, I discovered the world of AI is not limited to ChatGPT, but rather a whole world of task specific AI. Like Research Rabbit, or Gemini. Using the benefits of AI to help assist in where it is most strong allows mankind to advance, without taking over. Research Rabbit allowed you to do all the research yourself, it just linked the academic literature together, to aid direction. Gemini itself is a hub of various helpful digital tools, like the interview gems that simply helped attain more impactful interview questions, but it did not do the interview itself, and we had to feed it first. Gemini also helped create the empathy games. I gave it all my scenarios and it simply created the code to make the game. Having that help is like using a knife instead of a spoon when cutting a steak. Thus, I intend to use it as such. Purley has helped to achieve more, but as long as it is me achieving , not AI with me signing off.
AI is not a villain , but it poses the issue m not of whether AI can think, but whether humans will stop thinking alongside it.
Case Two: The People vs. Language
The next defendant approached quietly: Language.
Reading Lina Mounzer fundamentally changed how I understand words, translation, and war. Before reading her work, I thought empathy meant understanding suffering intellectually. Lina made me realize empathy is impossible without engaging emotionally and linguistically with another person’s reality.
Her description of translation as transplantation stayed with me all semester. Something always bleeds in the process. Meaning survives, but never the same. When she describes English as “a war wound,” language stops feeling like a neutral communication tool and becomes tied to survival, identity, and sacrifice. What must once sacrifice for something else to remain. Does understanding for awareness compete with the beauty of culture which also provides a different sense of meaning.
That specifically connects to our intercultural Tahrir discussions, where many cultures shared the same meaning behind metaphors, and all wished to say similar morals and truths about life, but the individuality of the culture changed the whole sentence, providing a different outlook. If the same ingredients are given to different chefs, the dishes will all turn out completely different but just as delicious.
In continuation, our discussions about media narratives and “The Danger of a Single Story” further enriched this concept. The course repeatedly demonstrated how power controls not only what stories are told, but which versions become accepted as truth. Whether discussing refugees, Africa, education, or AI, dominant narratives consistently flatten complexity into digestible stereotypes.
I realized I carried many of these assumptions myself.
Reading “How ‘African’ is Northern Africa?” forced me to confront how deeply stereotypes shape identity. Growing up in Scotland, I unconsciously separated “Egyptian” from “African” because my understanding of Africa had already been filtered through racialized portrayals. The article challenged the idea that Africa could ever be reduced into one appearance, language, or experience. Confronting however leads to acknowledgement, but not necessarily change. One can be aware but unable to change a long lived generational bias. I am still exploring my confrontation.
In addition, the privilege walk reinforced this discomfort. Watching how race, gender, nationality, religion, and class physically altered people’s positions in the room made privilege impossible to intellectualize abstractly. Positionality suddenly became visible. One’s privilege solely relies on the various components of their identity, but one characteristic alters one standing so quickly, it almost gives whiplash.
What this course taught me socially is that ignorance rarely comes from hatred alone. Often, it comes from passively inheriting incomplete narratives and never questioning who benefits from them.
Thus, writing about my interactions with such valuable literature in blog form really allowed me to reflect deeply rather than passively consume, as what is the use if you don;t internalize such findings? How else can one change their perspective if they give it no thought?
Blogs as a digital tool were very impactful as it became a shared space to read other classmates’ interactions with the same texts and grow a web of ideas from one core article. Having an online space to immerse into other people’s ideas allowed me to expand on mine, and see whether I agree or disagree with others perspectives, all part of a very interactive and engaging educational process.
Case Three: The People vs. Modern Society
Then Modern Society entered the courtroom carrying deadlines, notifications, and coffee cups.
The somatic healing sessions with Dr. Lucy unexpectedly opened the door to the course. Discussions about the “Olympics of suffering” revealed how normalized exhaustion has become. Modern culture treats stress almost like social currency; the more overwhelmed you are, the more productive or successful you appear.
What disturbed me most was realizing how disconnected people have become from themselves physically and emotionally. Humans now exist in near-constant fight-or-flight mode, unable to distinguish between genuine danger and everyday pressure. The body absorbs stress long before the mind fully processes it.
This idea connected surprisingly well to the rest of the course. For example, discussing AI dependence potentially due to the need to be productive thus convenience becomes important to aid burnout. Similarly applies to nationalism, prejudice, or media narratives, the same pattern keeps appearing: people cling to what feels familiar, even when it harms them. Familiarity masquerades as safety.
Dr. Lucy’s idea that awareness itself can interrupt harmful cycles became one of the most valuable lessons I will carry forward personally. Paying attention to physical sensations, emotions, and reactions creates a pause between stimulus and response. That pause matters because systems thrive most when people move unconsciously through them.
Having access to the digital tool of zoom was extremely valuable as it allowed me to attend such seminars which I would have otherwise not been able to attend. Whether it be the SOmatic Healing webinar, Soliya, and many more online classes, Zoom proved to be extremely valuable when exploring intercultural learning to truly allow for engagement with different communities and people.
Case Four: The People vs. Ignorance
The final defendant was Ignorance.
Soliya and the Tahrir field trip became some of the most meaningful experiences in the course because they revealed something both simple and profound: cultures are simultaneously deeply different and deeply similar.
In Soliya, conversations about education, AI, nationalism, and reform repeatedly showed that countries often share the same fears and goals, even if their methods differ. The Tahrir discussions about metaphors reinforced this beautifully. Different cultures may use different rhetoric, stories, or symbols, but often communicate the same core human truths. In both situations, it was easy to connect, as our minds were already wired to build a bridge between worlds, rather than wave through windows. I believe that if this was a universal mindset, hidden acts of prejudice would reduce.
This realization changed how I understand intercultural communication entirely. True understanding is not about erasing differences, but recognizing humanity within them and embracing it.
If I could improve the course, I would extend intercultural experiences like Soliya over longer periods because the most transformative conversations only began once people became comfortable enough to move beyond surface-level introductions. Potentially making the tahrir discussions a series, or a project.
Ignorance also calls upon empathy, sympathy and compassion. Our experiences playing and creating games to provoke empathy to causes we see as important was very new. Being pushed to make choices I never would have dreamed to take, as a refugee, or a someone in poverty, in crisis management, etc. allowed me to really put myself in the shoes of grief and fear. I would lie if I said I didn’t previously hold sympathy toward such causes, but the course taught me the differentiation between sympathy and empathy. Thus, channeling empathy, taught me to never take my challenges for granted. Furthermore, observing the methods which were successful in provoking those emotions allowed me to make a game over a cause which I see as very important, and which I would want to educate people about. As eating disorders are commonly known but rarely understood and empathized with.
The power of empathy is one which humanity needs to foster against a world growing cold from war and technology. Human connection needs to stay firm, thus by introducing the awareness of such emotions, one can then look at issues with softer , kinder eyes, and see differences and challenges in a more productive manner, possibly bringing upon the need to make a change, compassion. The next steps to a stronger tomorrow, if developed in the minds of the youth.
Final Verdict
The judge looked at me one final time.
“What kind of person should take this course?”
I answered honestly:
“Anyone willing to become uncomfortable.”
Because this course does not simply teach digital literacy, AI ethics, media criticism, or intercultural communication. No amount of chocolates can coat the unease of various topics. The course teaches suspicion toward simplification. It teaches you to question who benefits from narratives, systems, technologies, and stereotypes that initially appear neutral and innocent.
Most importantly, it teaches that technology, language, media, and identity are never separate from humanity itself. Every algorithm reflects values. Every narrative reflects power. Every system reflects the people who built it.
The courtroom fell silent.
Then the judge delivered the final verdict:
Humanity is neither innocent nor guilty.
Only responsible.
AI disclosure statement :
I used AI to help me structure the courtscene. Meaning, generally how to order and place my writing.
The links to my referenced blogs and game :
https://janaboraei-ops.github.io/ED-game-again/
https://reflect.creativitycourse.org/published/dont-we-all-love-a-good-game-night/
Provide Feedback