{"id":17684,"date":"2026-01-30T13:18:40","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T21:18:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=17684"},"modified":"2026-01-30T13:20:25","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T21:20:25","slug":"my-shingetsu-news-agency-visible-minorities-column-72-confronting-ai-in-higher-education-with-decent-primary-source-data-on-the-harm-being-done-to-universities-by-enabling-students-in-the-soc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=17684","title":{"rendered":"My Shingetsu News Agency Visible Minorities column 72: “Confronting AI in Higher Education”, with decent primary source data on the harm being done to universities — by enabling students in the Social Sciences to cheat."},"content":{"rendered":"

Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
\n\"Guidebookcover.jpg\"<\/a>\"japaneseonlyebookcovertext\"<\/a>\"Handbook<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\u300c\u30b8\u30e3\u30d1\u30cb\u30fc\u30ba\u30fb\u30aa\u30f3\u30ea\u30fc\u3000\u5c0f\u6a3d\u5165\u6d74\u62d2\u5426\u554f\u984c\u3068\u4eba\u7a2e\u5dee\u5225\u300d\uff08\u660e\u77f3\u66f8\u5e97\uff09\"<\/a>\"sourstrawberriesavatar\"<\/a>\"debitopodcastthumb\"<\/a>\"FodorsJapan2014cover\"<\/a>
\nUPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
\nDEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
\n“LIKE” US on Facebook at http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/debitoorg<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/embeddedrcsmJapan<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.facebook.com\/handbookimmigrants<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JapaneseOnlyTheBook<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/BookInAppropriate<\/a>
\nIf you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
\n\"Donate<\/a>
\nAll donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!<\/i><\/p>\n

Hi Blog. \u00a0This month’s column offers primary source data about how Artificial Intelligence is a bad thing for teaching in my field — although not all fields. \u00a0And when my journalism contacts note that AI skills will be required for future jobs in their field, I sigh in despair. \u00a0Here’s my case for why it’s bad in the field of Social Sciences. \u00a0Debito Arudou, Ph.D.<\/p>\n

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/<\/p>\n

AI IN HIGHER EDUCATION:\u00a0 A VIEW FROM THE FRONT LINES<\/strong><\/h2>\n

By Debito Arudou, Shingetsu News Agency “Visible Minorities” column 72, January 27, 2026<\/h4>\n

Courtesy https:\/\/shingetsunewsagency.com\/2026\/01\/27\/visible-minorities-confronting-ai-in-higher-education\/<\/a><\/p>\n

It probably won\u2019t surprise you that columnist (or, for that matter, activist) is not my day job.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been a university professor on three continents for more than thirty years.\u00a0 And as my career enters my last decade, I\u2019m realizing something very bad is happening around me in Higher Education:\u00a0 Artificial Intelligence (AI).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

What is AI?\u00a0 It refers to computer systems designed to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as learning from experience, recognizing patterns, understanding language, and making decisions. \u00a0Rather than possessing consciousness or emotions, AI relies on data, algorithms, and computational power to identify relationships and generate predictions or actions. \u00a0As AI continues to advance, it is expected to significantly influence the future of society, work, and daily life. \u00a0AI will automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, allowing people to focus on more creative, strategic, and interpersonal activities, while also transforming industries such as healthcare, education, transportation, and science through faster analysis and personalized solutions. \u00a0At the same time, AI will introduce challenges related to employment shifts, data privacy, bias, and ethical responsibility. \u00a0How AI ultimately shapes the future will depend not only on technological progress, but on the values, policies, and human judgment guiding its development and use.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t write that paragraph.\u00a0 ChatGPT did, when I gave it the prompt, \u201cPlease give me one paragraph of about 150 words describing what AI is and how it will influence our future.\u201d\u00a0 It took less than ten seconds and saved me a lot of work.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

AI has increasingly infiltrated technology in higher education by transforming how students learn, how instructors teach, and how institutions operate. \u00a0AI-powered tools now support personalized learning through adaptive platforms that tailor content to individual student needs, while virtual tutors and chatbots provide around-the-clock academic and administrative assistance. \u00a0Instructors use AI to automate grading, analyze student performance data, and identify learners who may need additional support. \u00a0Universities also apply AI to admissions, course scheduling, and research analysis, improving efficiency and decision-making. \u00a0As AI becomes more integrated, higher education must balance innovation with ethical concerns such as data privacy, academic integrity, and equitable access.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Psych. \u00a0I didn\u2019t write that paragraph either.\u00a0 See how easy it is to ask a question and have the computer spit out 100 words of overview?\u00a0 I won\u2019t anger my editor by doing that again, but think of how seductive this technology is for time-crunched (or just lazy) students who don\u2019t have to do any research beyond asking a bot a question.\u00a0 No need to think for yourself, either. \u00a0Just copy-paste.\u00a0 Even if you end up with paragraphs laced with self-serving pro-AI propaganda.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

HOLDING BACK THE DAM AGAINST A TSUNAMI OF CHEATING<\/strong><\/h4>\n

I teach Political Science, and have an express zero-tolerance policy towards the use of AI in students\u2019 submitted assignments.\u00a0 Two semesters ago, my policy was to give zeros on assignments in the first instance and Fs in the course for repeat offenders.\u00a0 But last semester, this became untenable as AI reached the event horizon.\u00a0 AI went from something students were still discovering to being a regular part of their toolbox.\u00a0 Colleges were suddenly even encouraging them to use it.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Just to give one example, last August<\/a>, in its rush to become \u201cthe nation\u2019s first and largest AI-empowered university system<\/a>,\u201d the California State University system invested $17 million in ChatGPT Edu, providing it for free for the more than 500,000 students, faculty, and staff in its system.\u00a0 The CSUs justified it by saying, \u201cThe comprehensive strategy will elevate our students\u2019 educational experience across all fields of study, empower our faculty\u2019s teaching and research, and help provide the highly educated workforce that will drive California\u2019s future AI-driven economy.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Maybe.\u00a0 But what it has signaled to students nationwide that they now have an alternative to doing the fundamental work of doing research\u2014i.e., formulating a research question, gathering evidence to answer it, and presenting it for review in a coherent and convincing manner.\u00a0 Now you could ask a computer to do all that.\u00a0 And then copy-paste.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I have a pretty decent data set to substantiate the damage.\u00a0 Last Fall Semester, I taught a total of 396 students in seven classes.\u00a0 (Yes, I like to teach.)\u00a0 I put up some safeguards against AI use.\u00a0 Their papers, submitted online, were scanned automatically by AI detectors approved by the school (Copyleaks and Turnitin).\u00a0 I also required students to write their papers on Google Docs (with the AI turned off) so that there would be an edit record I could confirm in case their essays tested AI-positive.\u00a0 And I warned the students that if they could not provide sufficient evidence they wrote the paper themselves, I would likely fail them in the class. \u00a0(I also quietly put in a \u201cTrojan Horse\u201d prompt, such as \u201cmention Finland,\u201d as a non sequitur in invisible ink.)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I assumed this rubric would deter most cheaters.\u00a0 But as the semester went on, it became clear that more students were resorting to AI.\u00a0 Detection rates went up in the AI scans, but there were holes.\u00a0 Some papers tested positive and mentioned Finland, but there were papers that tested positive without mentioning Finland, and some mentioned Finland yet tested negative for AI (since there is now \u201crehumanizing\u201d software to mask AI use).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

So that meant I had to police the papers for red flags.\u00a0 There were plenty.\u00a0 Some 100-level intro course students included unreferenced peer-reviewed sources and obscure decades-old monographs.\u00a0 Others clearly had graduate student level writing. \u00a0For example, when instructions required students to give an origin story behind their political socialization, I raised an eyebrow at a generic and anodyne sentence like, \u201cI was brought up in a multicultural neighborhood where I got exposed to various cultural practices, and thus, I learned to value pluralism and social equity. \u00a0The socioeconomic place of my family laid an emphasis on education, civic participation, and community service, which taught me some values, which tend to curb populist or partisan instincts. \u00a0Moreover, foreign experiences, like seeing how Finland is governed and what their social policies have taught me, have helped me to comprehend how a state can appropriately balance the freedom of individuals and well-being of society.\u201d\u00a0 Especially when they shoehorned in Finland.\u00a0 Unsourced.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Same with, \u201cMeanwhile, being exposed to other communities and other worldviews enabled me to form delicate opinions on cultural matters instead of organically adhering to the ideological inclinations of my parents.\u201d \u00a0\u2018Organically?\u2019\u00a0 From a student who is not a native speaker of English?\u00a0 Indicatively, neither of these essays triggered the AI detector, which is where checking the Google Doc edit histories came in.\u00a0 I could verify that these sentences and paragraphs appeared as a whole in a single edit within one minute.\u00a0 Copy-paste your way through college.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

By the end-semester term paper, out of the 380 students who had made it that far, 58 students were snagged for cheating.\u00a0 In one segment of classes the AI-positive rate was 8.5%, the other, 25%!\u00a0 Since every suss paper took at least a half hour to check the edit history and write up an explanation of the grade, this added two extra weeks of uncompensated time to my grading.\u00a0 And that\u2019s before we got to the grade appeals and nuisance grievances filed by students (which I won given the clear and unimpeachable standards of evidence).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

THE STUDENTS TAKE A STAND.\u00a0 AND SO DO I<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Naturally, given the nature of Political Science classes, students made their counterarguments.\u00a0 Most were of course pure-beef bullshitting.\u00a0 But the best one was from my Intro Politics Class in their end-semester evaluation:<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The effectiveness of the teaching was great; however, this was the first class I have experienced in my last four years of community college and university, where AI was deeply looked down upon. \u00a0I understand the professor\u2019s views on this, but it seemed a bit too strict, especially with the faulty Turnitin system that was used for this course. \u00a0I never got detected for AI (because I don\u2019t use it when writing papers, only for something difficult to be understood easily), but I saw how other students were falsely flagged and had to defend themselves due to the AI checker that was used. I would recommend the solution of AI being accepted, however, only past a certain threshold.\u00a0 Let\u2019s say I use AI to help me write a paper, but I write the majority of the paper, and I got ideas from ChatGPT. There should only be a flag of ten percent or less that can have AI in a paper. The university actively encourages us to use AI in our education, and it felt like the professor wasn\u2019t really listening to what the university\u2019s modern policies on AI are now.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

An excellent argument, and it articulated how emboldened students feel by universities buying AI for them.\u00a0 But I respectfully disagree with the student on both having a minimum threshold of AI use and that these are expressly the university\u2019s policies towards AI.\u00a0 Having a computer write your paper for you is still as much cheating as if another human or a paper mill wrote it for you.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

But in Fall Semester I felt like my view was in the minority, as but one professor holding back a swelling dam of cheaters.\u00a0 So I clarified my standpoint in a class announcement:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

As you know, I have a strict rule against using AI in this class.\u00a0 Zero tolerance.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because if I don\u2019t enforce that, the flood gates open.\u00a0 Students who actually do their own work will grumble about being graded via demanding rubrics, while students who cheat their way through college will get away with high grades on something they didn\u2019t create.\u00a0 This gives incentives for everyone to cheat, because why bother putting the effort in?\u00a0 And that in term moots the development of fundamental college skill sets of researching and writing. <\/em>It also cheapens your degree.\u00a0 Like getting a degree from a \u2018party school,\u2019 if you become known for getting a degree from an \u2018AI school,\u2019 employers and the academy will discount your credentials even if you put in the work to get them.\u00a0 Guilt by association. \u00a0<\/em>Despite some colleges short-sightedly adopting AI as a tool, I see AI technology now undermining the very act of getting an education.\u00a0 Therefore, as with your previous writing assignments, I cannot give credit to students who used AI to write their term papers.\u00a0 As per the syllabus and the assignment submission guidelines, this is cheating and plagiarism.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

THE VIEW FROM ON HIGH<\/strong><\/h4>\n

When I consulted with my contacts in administration, they offered me a bracing view of the situation:\u00a0 AI is not seen as cheating in all fields.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

For example, Math and Computer Sciences are all-in and don\u2019t see it as a threat\u2014more as a competitive advantage.\u00a0 AI saves them a lot of time and work, especially for computer programmers writing code or training to be cybersecurity analysts. \u00a0But for us in the Humanities and Social Sciences, where we are trying to teach skills essential to basic critical thinking, AI is generally seen as a short-circuit.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This divisiveness is why it\u2019s been difficult for universities to come up with an official policy regarding AI use.\u00a0 So professors are left to decide their own policies.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Fine.\u00a0 So I made my zero tolerance clear to students at all stages and enforced it.\u00a0 If the students don\u2019t like that, they can choose a course with a different professor.\u00a0 That\u2019s the first line of my syllabi.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

LESSONS LEARNED FROM MY ROUGHEST SEMESTER IN THE ACADEMY<\/strong><\/h4>\n

What have I learned?\u00a0 That even with this understanding, some students crunched for time will resort to any means to not fail an assignment, even if that means they risk failing the course.\u00a0 And when caught cheating, many will resort to other means, including sophistry and nuisance grade appeals, to bamboozle or punish the professor.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Does that mean I will rescind my Zero-Tolerance Policy?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 Are there other alternatives I could take to lessen the opportunity to cheat, such as handwritten essays under examination conditions in blue books?\u00a0 Probably not.\u00a0 Students cannot possibly write their best work under an even shorter time crunch or include sources in their essays.\u00a0 You can\u2019t do good research in an hour as well as write 1500 words.\u00a0 Not to mention the exquisite misery of decoding everyone\u2019s handwriting.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Point is, no method is foolproof or cheat-proof.\u00a0 Some cheaters will get through no matter what, and life is full of people who didn\u2019t earn what they got.\u00a0 We have people in high office who are glaring examples of that.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

But we educators do what we can.\u00a0 At least through my efforts, the people who don\u2019t cheat may not feel their degrees being devalued.\u00a0 I will forever man the bulwark to defend the academy from people who simply won\u2019t do the work to get the credential.\u00a0 Otherwise, as seen in the movie \u201cIdiocracy,\u201d you might as well just buy your law degree from Costco.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I dare AI to come up with a conclusion like that.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

ENDS<\/p>\n

PS: \u00a0I know that Debito.org Readers such as JK use AI to translate and collate very often in Debito.org’s comments section. \u00a0I will not stop people from doing that. \u00a0I just hope they’ll check the accuracy of the output too.<\/p>\n

======================
\nDo you like what you read on Debito.org? \u00a0Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities? \u00a0Please consider donating a little something. \u00a0More details here<\/a>. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Excerpt: I teach Political Science, and have an express zero-tolerance policy towards the use of AI in students\u2019 submitted assignments.\u00a0 Two semesters ago, my policy was to give zeros on assignments in the first instance and Fs in the course for repeat offenders.\u00a0 But last semester, this became untenable as AI reached the event horizon.\u00a0 AI went from something students were still discovering to being a regular part of their toolbox.\u00a0 Colleges were suddenly even encouraging them to use it. What this has signaled to students nationwide that they now have an alternative to doing the fundamental work of doing research\u2014i.e., formulating a research question, gathering evidence to answer it, and presenting it for review in a coherent and convincing manner.\u00a0 Now you could ask a computer to do all that.\u00a0 And then copy-paste.<\/p>\n

I have a strict rule against using AI in classes.\u00a0 Zero tolerance.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because if I don\u2019t enforce that, the flood gates open.\u00a0 Students who actually do their own work will grumble about being graded via demanding rubrics, while students who cheat their way through college will get away with high grades on something they didn\u2019t create.\u00a0 This gives incentives for everyone to cheat, because why bother putting the effort in?\u00a0 And that in term moots the development of fundamental college skill sets of researching and writing. It also cheapens students’ degrees.\u00a0 Like getting a degree from a \u2018party school,\u2019 if the college becomes known as a degree from an \u2018AI school,\u2019 employers and the academy will discount student credentials even if they put in the work to get them.\u00a0 Guilt by association. \u00a0Despite some colleges short-sightedly adopting AI as a tool, I see AI technology now undermining the very act of getting an education.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

AI is not seen as cheating in all fields. For example, Math and Computer Sciences are all-in and don\u2019t see it as a threat\u2014more as a competitive advantage.\u00a0 AI saves them a lot of time and work, especially for computer programmers writing code or training to be cybersecurity analysts. \u00a0But for us in the Humanities and Social Sciences, where we are trying to teach skills essential to basic critical thinking, AI is generally seen as a short-circuit. This divisiveness is why it\u2019s been difficult for universities to come up with an official policy regarding AI use.\u00a0 So professors are left to decide their own policies. And zero tolerance is mine. This column gives statistics from teaching hundreds of students a semester to assess how effective this policy is at stemming the tsunami of cheating.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,18,43,36,19,13,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pinprick-protests","category-academia","category-bad-business-practices","category-bad-social-science","category-education","category-media","category-tangents"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17684"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17684\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17686,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17684\/revisions\/17686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}