Smithsonian gathering puts Black faith communities’ technology priorities on the agenda

A curriculum debut is planned

A reported curriculum debut at Washington’s Forward Religions Conference raises a question for community educators: how should learning about technology connect with having a say in its design?

In her November 12 Word In Black article, the Rev. Dorothy S. Boulware reports a planned November 14 introduction of a multifaith public-interest technology curriculum. Her interview with Fallon Wilson describes material addressing machine learning and data. We have not inspected it. Source: wordinblack.com

The museum’s own event page confirms the conference is scheduled for November 13–15, presented by its Center for the Study of African American Religious Life. The theme is “Welcome Home,” marking the center’s tenth anniversary. The announced format includes discussions and emerging-technology demonstrations. The accessible museum page does not supply the curriculum itself or independently confirm its detailed contents. Source: nmaahc.si.edu

From access to influence

Boulware connects Wilson’s work on pandemic-era technology access with communities’ influence over technology. She also reports Wilson’s recommendation that pastors document and explain their AI research processes. That is an attributed recommendation, not a conference policy. Source: wordinblack.com

For a congregation, access and influence are different questions. Being able to operate a service does not necessarily give its users a say in which problems it is designed to solve. Conversely, a community need not build its own software to make a useful contribution. It can describe a neglected need, explain why a proposed feature would not help, or insist that a non-digital route remain available. This is our interpretation of the decision facing local communities, not an assessment of the forthcoming material.

A practical starting point

Consider a hypothetical community learning group preparing to discuss AI. Before choosing a product, participants could make two lists: tasks for which they want assistance, and decisions about those tasks that they want to help shape. Someone may want easier access to local services while also wanting a voice in what an automated directory leaves out.

The facilitator can compare those lists without uploading participants’ personal circumstances to an AI system. The useful result is a clearer account of community priorities, not a presumption that every request needs an AI solution. Christian participants can approach this as care for neighbors while allowing other traditions to explain their own reasons for participating. The curriculum’s eventual publication would provide a further opportunity to examine whose priorities its examples represent. Until then, its content and educational effects remain unassessed.