Students were assigned one of their classmate’s Device Designs and asked to imagine what society would be like if it was widely implemented. Inspired by the NYT‘s op-ed from the future series, they wrote op-eds focusing on the ethical, legal, political, religious, or social implications of their peer’s device. They could take any stance they wished as long as they had a clear thesis supported by compelling evidence with a persuasive call to action.
Alexis Bateh, “Signed, Your Ion”
Bateh-op-ed
Alivia Suhr, “Stop Messing with Your Kid’s Brain’
Suhr-op-ed-1
Christine Cheng, “The Real-Life Babel Fish: A Cultural Crisis”
Cheng-op-ed
Naya Wu, “The Dangers of the Telepather in Criminal Investigation”
Wu-op-ed
Shreya Choudhary, “Mnemosync: 1 Chip, 2 Surgeries, 3 Reason to Forget it Even Existed”
Choudhary-op-ed
Nathan Wong, “Should Machines Really Be Able to Speak for Us?”
Wong-op-ed
Ty Feeney, “Translator Danger: Security Risks of the CoPilot Translator”
Feeney-op-ed
Saima Firoj, “Brain Chips Shouldn’t Cost Users Their Lives”
Firoj-op-ed
Matthew Li, “The Translinguistics Chip Is Saving America, And Soon It Will Save the World”
Li-op-ed
