For arts and humanities professors, one of the biggest threats to academic integrity concerns AI-generated essays. Back in 2023, this practice existed on the margins. At that time, I was catching on average two per cent of students. Sensing trouble ahead, I felt it was my responsibility to address this new form of academic fraud.
I explained to undergraduates why submitting AI-generated papers defeats the entire purpose of a liberal education. AI acts as a surrogate, doing the reading, writing and critical thinking for them. I also advised students against feeding an industry that facilitates cheating. And I warned that the penalty for getting caught was severe: an automatic zero and withdrawal from the course.
I was confident these measures would discourage AI dependency. The result: AI-generated essays doubled every year for the next three years. Current research indicates that the problem is here to stay. In one report shared by Inside Higher Ed, students listed access to generative AI, specifically ChatGPT, as the reason why cheating has become easier.
The choices before me were clear: maintain the status quo or fight back against this assault on higher education. At first, I was reluctant to change, but as AI technology evolved, I found myself spending countless hours trying to determine how much (if any) of an essay was written by an actual human being. There is no bigger waste of time than correcting papers authored by a machine.
AI had poisoned the learning environment — one built on trust between professor and student — so I began searching in earnest for an antidote. After examining various options, I concluded that if students enjoyed unsupervised access to AI, no cure was forthcoming. So, this fall, I am returning to handwritten, in-class essays, proctored by myself and my teaching assistants.
Sadly, too many students seem to have adopted the ethics of AI companies.
Undoubtedly, many professors will stay the course and continue with unsupervised, online essays, which are easier to read and to edit. But this apathetic response to the AI crisis drastically inflates grades and contributes further to the debasing of standards. Given the current climate, doing nothing, in my view, constitutes a dereliction of duty.
Some professors have taken half measures by embracing the idea of responsible AI — the idea that AI can be used ethically to enhance student learning. I find the term oxymoronic, given that 25-35 per cent of students use AI to write their entire essays, according to comprehensive studies reviewed by The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Too many undergraduates will continue to use AI in irresponsible ways because professors often cannot prove conclusively that a paper is AI-generated. Today’s technologically savvy students know that most AI-generated writing goes undetected.
If we want to ensure the value of a university degree, professors cannot stand idly by and allow AI tech giants to dictate classroom outcomes. Instead, we must confront head-on this existential threat to academia. It’s hard to see AI investors as anything but amoral when it comes to the impact of AI on student intelligence and literacy skills.
Sadly, too many students seem to have adopted the ethics of AI companies. I have witnessed a growing number who view education transactionally. The joy of lifelong learning is not a priority for those desperate to avoid repeating a course or who just want a diploma to get a job. From their perspective, submitting AI-generated essays is the most expedient way to achieve these objectives.
Under the circumstances, in-class assignments are an appropriate corrective. Students can no longer use AI to conceal a skills issue or to mask poor work habits. As for professors, they can stop stressing about whether an essay is AI-generated. Written results will speak for themselves.
In the age of AI, secure assessments are vital because they separate the wheat from the chaff. In my classes, students who are serious about their studies can still demonstrate their academic prowess. However, those who rely on AI as a crutch face a harsh reality. Going forward, they must do the reading, writing and critical thinking themselves.
Stuart Chambers is a professor in the School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies at the University of Ottawa. He composed this article without the assistance of artificial intelligence. He can be reached at schamber@uottawa.ca
Editor’s Picks