Guest User
“Here I Am”: Reclaiming Moral Presence in a ...

Written by: Gila Hammer Furnes

Abstract: In a culture where children witness cruelty, grief, and injustice on their screens before breakfast—often without an adult to hold what they have seen—this essay reclaims moral presence as a pedagogical condition. Drawing on Lévinas, Buber, Todd, Biesta, and Ellsworth, it introduces Hineni—the Hebrew phrase meaning “Here I am”—as an ethical stance of availability that precedes instruction, autonomy, or deliberation. In contrast to dominant models of moral development that locate ethics in reason, regulation, or curriculum, Hineni reconfigures the child not as a future ethical subject, but as one already present in their trembling response to the world. Situated at the intersection of digital culture, ethical phenomenology, and critical pedagogy, the essay resists calls for digital resilience and instead frames education as a space of mutual presence. It argues that pedagogy must not merely protect the child, but stay with them—in their silence, uncertainty, and proximity to harm. To teach ethically in a digital age, it suggests, is not to command response, but to echo it.

Keywords:Hineni, moral education, digital culture, ethical responsiveness, critical pedagogy

Image: "Hineni" by Howard J Duncan is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

“Here I Am”: Reclaiming Moral Presence in a Culture of Digital Noise

scientific integrity

Against the Uncritical Adoption of ‘AI’ Technologies in Academia

Against the Uncritical Adoption of ‘AI’ Technologies in Academia

Written by: Olivia Guest, Marcela Suarez, Barbara C. N. Müller, Edwin van Meerkerk, Arnoud Oude Groote Beverborg, Ronald de Haan, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Mark Blokpoel, Natalia Scharfenberg, Annelies Kleinherenbrink, Ileana Camerino, Marieke Woensdregt, Dagmar Monett, Jed Brown, Lucy Avraamidou, Juliette Alenda-Demoutiez, Felienne Hermans, and Iris van Rooij

Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) companies and their rhetoric infringe on academia in harmful ways, mirroring past uncritical acceptance of industry logics, such as those of tobacco and petroleum. In this position piece, we tease apart and explain why phrases like ‘generative AI’ impede scholarly discussion because by design these expressions are used to dazzle and sidestep scrutiny. Furthermore, we contend with the AI industry’s logics to enable rejecting frames such as: that we must embrace the future, that this hype cycle is unique, that anthropomorphism and circular reasoning hold water when discussing AI systems, and that students are now all cheating or all need to use AI. To these ends, we expound on why universities must take their role seriously to a) counter the AI industry’s marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. For each point we raise, we include pointers to relevant work to further inform and convince our colleagues.

Keywords: higher education, artificial intelligence, AI hype, digital technology, critical AI literacy, education policy, scientific integrity