Breaking the techno-ties that bind
As the use spreads of computer tools marketed as artificial intelligence, some educators and even entire institutions are embracing the new tech. For example, Ohio State University has anounced a bold AI Fluency initiative to redefine learning and innovation.
But some educators are pushing back against the “inevitable” technology, and open letters are becoming one tool of the resistance. Literary Hub published a letter from authors addressed to publishers. In the Netherlands, over 900 educators have signed a letter entitled “Stop the Uncritical Adoption of AI Technologies in Academia.”
The unfettered introduction of AI technology leads to contravention of the spirit of the EU Al act. It undermines our basic pedagogical values and the principles of scientific integrity. It prevents us from maintaining our standards of independence and transparency. And most concerning, AI use has been shown to hinder learning and deskill critical thought.
Earlier in July, another open letter launched “from educators who refuse the call to adopt GenAI in education.” Melanie Dusseau (University of Findlay) and Miriam Reynoldson (RMIT University) got the petition up and running, and to date over 700 educators have signed on in just two weeks.
Dusseau has previously spoken out about AI in education with an article at Inside Higher Ed last November, arguing that resistance is not futile.
If you are tired of the drumbeat of inevitability that insists English faculty adopt AI into our teaching practices, I am here to tell you that you are allowed to object. Using an understanding of human writing as a means to allow for-profit technology companies to dismantle the imaginative practice of human writing is abhorrent and unethical. Writing faculty have both the agency and the academic freedom to examine generative AI’s dishonest training origins and conclude: There is no path to ethically teach AI skills.
The open letter declares that “Current GenAI technologies represent unacceptable legal, ethical and environmental harms,” that it is “a threat to student learning and wellbeing,” and that it is “overwhelmingly aimed at automating and replacing human effort.”
The open letter includes a series of pledges, including a refusal to use AI to design or evaluate coursework, nor include “AI literacy” in course design. They also pledge to resist marketing hype, especially that coming from salespeople who are net themselves educators (a problem in education that predates the invention of the computer).
Numerous writers tout the “inevitability” of AI in education {the London School of Science and Technology published a whole post about “the futility of resisting AI in education”).
But there are also voices arguing against any rush to AI adoption. Scott Latham, Ph.D., a professor of strategy at the Manning School of Business at the University of Massachusetts, wrote a “memo to teachers” at Inside Higher Ed last year, “AI Is Not Your Friend” And writing educator John Warner mounts a defense of humanity in writing and writing instruction is his new book, More Than Words.
Dusseau said via email that she and Reynoldson “wanted to do something that focused on autonomy and academic freedom in the face of the many ethical concerns surrounding generative AI technology.” What they created was one more sign of international resistance to GenAI.
