The invisibility of visual arguments

Here's my concept map.
Here's my post this week (visual argument to come later).
As I read Cynthia Selfe’s article about new media, I found myself agreeing with much of what she presents. Like Selfe, I have noticed the prevalence of visual communication in our culture. To function in this context, one must become literate, developing the ability to read visual texts (perhaps even more than alphabetical texts). And what better way to learn to read visual texts than composing one, which is exactly what Selfe advocates at the end of the essay.
Yet, I finished reading Selfe’s piece with frustration. Teaching students a new kind of literacy was an exciting thought, but I did not see how reading visual texts would ever become a priority in English 1000. Even though visual literacy is highly valued in our culture, alphabetical literacy has more value within the academy. This attitude is apparent in the requirements for English 1000. As I recall, English 1000 instructors must assign their students three written papers during the semester. As students compose these alphabetic texts, they seem to have little time to compose a visual argument. And an instructor cannot really teach visual literacy effectively when visual texts must ultimately be analyzed through the composition of alphabetic texts.
To sum up, I liked what Selfe presents. I think it is unfortunate that the academy doesn’t place more value on visual argument. Due to a scholarly preference for alphabetical argument, some students are missing opportunities to acquire the tools to communicate visually.