This quote from Paul is a bit misleading:

"The computer conference setting can be personal, friendly and inclusive. The medium is largely race-neutral, location-neutral, status-neutral, age-neutral, income-neutral, disability-neutral, and would be gender-neutral except for the clue of first names. Student participation in the discussion (in part forced by our course format) is greater than in any of our face-to-face classes. Some kinds of personal warmth appear to be more freely exchanged in the absence of bodies."

It is misleading because many of the computer programs or websites we (and students) use on a daily basis don't acknowledge the majority of cultures, either globally or domestically (see the BBC article above). In short, most computer systems, at least in the US, are anglicized. However, I do agree they are MORE race-, gender-, status-neutral than a traditional classroom setting. For example check out the following quote from Starr:

"The traditional dictionary had a cumbersome and inadequate method to describe the pronunciation of words; the multimedia dictionary pronounces them...... The computer thereby turns the passive reader into a participant; it cues the student of a need to do something, but not necessarily what to do."

First Starr says on-line dictionaries tell you how to prounouce words so you won't be able to make your own "cumbersome" interpretation. Next, he says computers don't tell you what to do. I see conflict, here. (If you've never gotten an audio pronounciation from Merriam Webster.com, do so. They select the whitest people alive to read these words.) Starr's article is extremely unbalanced.