For years, discourse around education policy has been plagued by culture wars between individuals on opposite sides of the political aisle. The focus has shifted from genuine improvement in performance and quality to menial policies around parent’s autonomy and what students should and shouldn’t be able to check out from the library.
While institutions and legislatures continue to argue over what students ought to be able to read or what teachers should be allowed to say, a new threat has quietly taken the throne: generative artificial intelligence.
Both students and professors have rolled with the tides to further integrate AI into their daily lives, becoming one of the governing forces of academic life. However, universities continue to treat it as a disciplinary issue rather than what it really is — a shift in how we learn and process information.
The question is no longer about whether or not a student will use AI in their classes. The real issue is how universities will address it: continue to pretend they can regulate AI away, or work to design a coherent policy around it.
Even students in technical disciplines are aware of the threats that unchecked AI usage poses to the learning environment. If AI becomes the default for students to find answers fast, students may graduate with degrees, but not with the same level of cognitive rigor that graduates are expected to display.
Jayani Sivakumar, a third-year studying computer science, emphasized the importance of early learning like intro-level courses to a student’s development.
“When it comes to using AI for students I would definitely not agree with using that in earlier stages of school,” Sivakumar said. “But as they progress to upper levels, I think it is important for both the teachers and students to kind of work and play around with AI.”
This idea reveals nuance that is missing from the current policy surrounding AI. The use of AI is not inherently negative but, depending on when and how it is used, can have consequences.
Blanket bans of AI in the classroom are unenforceable, and total permission can risk building the foundational skills of a field of study.
Ananya Kollengreth, a second-year studying computer science and mathematics, believes that using AI undermines the purpose of pursuing an education.
“The point of school is to exercise your brain and to learn and become a better student,” Kollengreth said. “If you let AI do that for you, you will never learn.”
At the same time, she rejected the idea that AI should be entirely avoided.
“It’s just a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused,” Kollengreth said.
Student insights highlight the tension underscoring the exact reason we need a more comprehensive policy for AI use. It can be an amazing tool to help students learn more and understand more, but it can also serve as a shortcut that lessens a student’s learning.
Universities and professors have responded in many different ways. Some ban AI use outright, while others have embraced it, and even integrate it into their systems of course content support.
Rather than asking whether or not AI use is cheating, universities should begin to ask how they can continue to assess the same virtues and knowledge in an age where artificial intelligence can generate a response in seconds.
A successful AI policy for students would distinguish between using the technology as an aid to engage with course content and using AI as a replacement for cognitive labor. The easiest way to make this happen is through a shift in assignment design, rather than surveillance of AI use.
AI is not another classroom debate. It calls for a re-alignment of how universities will continue to call for cognitive labor and academic rigor and set students up for success outside of the classroom.
We can pretend that the artificial intelligence autocracy isn’t taking shape in our classrooms, or we can make policies that help us place power back in the hands of students and professors.
Right now, we are doing neither.
