# data[].attributes.headline
AI: Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education and Scholarly Research: Critical Perspectives

# data[].attributes.subject
AI: Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education and Scholarly Research: Critical Perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to the impacts and risks of using AI, there is much to consider beyond information literacy, academic integrity, and use in the classroom.

On this page you will find more information on the general impacts and risks of AI on the following topics:

Note: Our understanding of the impacts and risks of artificial intelligence are continually evolving, and the resources shared below reflect the emerging body of literature and media discourse as of April 2026.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: AI: Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education and Scholarly Research: Critical Perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide about artificial intelligence presents information and research about what it is, how to use it, and its impacts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guiding Principles from the American Historical Association (AHA)

# data[].attributes.subject
Guiding Principles from the American Historical Association (AHA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence in History Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These 14 foundational principles are meant to assist educators and administrators in crafting AI policies suited to local circumstances and the specific needs of students.

# data[].attributes.headline
3 White papers on college writing and AI tools

# data[].attributes.subject
3 White papers on college writing and AI tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Conference on College Composition and Communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This joint task force has been convened by the leadership of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and the Modern Language Association (MLA) to develop resources, guidelines, and professional standards around the use of AI and writing.

The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI Working Paper: Overview of the Issues, Statement of Principles, and Recommendations is the first working paper developed by the task force. It discusses the benefits and risks of generative AI as it relates to writing, literature, and language programs.
Read the task force's first working paper (PDF).
Recently, the task force created Exploring AI Pedagogy: A Community Collection of Teaching Reflections, offering a space for ELA teachers to hold informal discussions and share practical, frank reflections to help each other better reach students and continuously improve pedagogy. This project is open to all for contributions and feedback.

Task Force Members
Antonio Byrd
Leonardo Flores
Angela Gibson (MLA staff liaison)
David Green
Holly Hassel (co-chair)
Sarah Z. Johnson
Matthew Kirschenbaum
A. Lockett
Elizabeth Mathews Losh (co-chair)
Anna Mills

Learn more about the task force.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI - Conference on College Composition and Communication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This joint task force has been convened by the leadership of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and the Modern Language Association (MLA) to develop resources, guidelines, and professional standards around the use of AI and writing. The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI Working Paper: Overview of the Issues, Statement [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Repository of AI syllabus statements maintained by Lance Eaton

# data[].attributes.subject
Repository of AI syllabus statements maintained by Lance Eaton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syllabi Policies for Generative AI Repository

# data[].attributes.headline
Bronx Community College AI Library Workshop

# data[].attributes.subject
Bronx Community College AI Library Workshop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: AI Library Workshop: Intro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This workshop is for students or anyone who wants to learn to use Gen AI ethically, effectively, and responsibly.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Respond When Students Don't Want to Work with AI

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Respond When Students Don't Want to Work with AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Respond When Students Don’t Want to Work With AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some students object to using artificial intelligence on ethical grounds. What happens when it’s part of the assignment?

# data[].attributes.headline
A Student's Right to Refuse Generative AI

# data[].attributes.subject
A Student's Right to Refuse Generative AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Education, Liberation & Black Radical Traditions for the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Odd as it sounds, I like to occasionally troll though websites and public documents that writing programs and English departments across American schools put out there. Mostly, I am trying to prove a point: foolishness abounds. The evidence is always overwhelming. I've been doing this since 2009 and even have a folder where I host a kind of contest judged all by my lonesome: who has the whitest rubric to score students' essays? There are always so many contenders. Why do I do this? Who knows. It is very entertaining though and gives me endless ways to talk trash about folx who don't walk what they talk.

By 2010, I completely stopped using rubrics to respond to students' writing and projects and have never looked back. Before that, I would ask students to collectively design their own rubrics and the conversations were great. Those moments were framed in the world of progressive high school reform of the 1990s that centered habits of mind, interdisciplinary inquiry, small classrooms, community schooling, and the like, but that all got co-opted towards neoliberalist ends in the standards/ testing/ NCLB movements. I will always remember 2008, for instance, where a heated exchange jumped off in class about the concept of grading how an essay FLOWS. At the time, that institution was the third, most diverse national university in the U.S. As should be easy to imagine, in no time at all, we saw different racial/ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups explain FLOW (was it even a noun or a verb?) very differently and rate and rank even more differently. The young NYC Hip Hoppers set off the conversation, because they knew FLOW had different cultural meanings. My response was simple: why can't it all count as successful? They seemed to agree and worked that rubric down to the bone. The flow goals alone were two pages/two slides long. They did the real work of cultural rhetorics that the English departments I have worked for are still too scared to do (of course, they will couch such white fears and just say the concept is obscure, but, as you can see with these 2008 first-year college students, it has always been really real and quite obvious for how and what BIPOC folx communicate).

In 2010 though, I stopped asking students to design rubrics. My students had been rubric-ed to death by that point and so when I asked them to design their own, they came up with the typical monocultural, monolingual, mono-styled rubric that you see everywhere. It wasn't worth the time in class to design an intervention, so I just stopped using rubrics and moved to a different system. I also started watching rubrics go online for 100s of writing/English programs across the country. Today, in this fall semester of 2023, I just finished teaching a graduate class on anti-racist/anti-colonial pedagogies and did a deep trolling of essay rubrics online during the week that we focused on anti-racist assessment. It doesn't matter how much folx talk about DEI, students' rights to their own language, linguistic/cultural diversity, local assessment, anti-racist assessment, decolonized syllabi, anti-racist teaching, or any other term that progressives/liberals appropriate without actually enacting. These rubrics all look and sound the same. They all white-wash school writing and require the same kind of stale performance of white academese. Every. Single. One.

I liken these essay rubrics to hotel standardization. If you have ever been to a chain hotel, you know that, no matter where you go in the country, everything is the same: the coffee maker, brand of coffee, stirrers, sugars, bed, chair, TV, sheets, shampoo, towels, pillows, desk, comforter, wallpaper... every piece of the package. I am not knocking it, per se, because some folx do like knowing that their hotel room will be cleaned and sanitized according to a brand's singular standard when/if they must visit a city new to them. Hotel standardization has a place, I guess. I have heard textbook authors embrace essay standardization in just this way. HOWEVER, students' work in schools should not be processed in the same way as nationwide hotel soap distribution for endless consumer consumption. And students should not look and sound identical to one another and peers across the country. Rubrics do this work of hyper-standardization and hyper-consumerism in just this way though. If you were to mechanize essay rubrics in such a way that you only needed to input content and get out a finished essay, what you would get is a singular kind of written expression that schools replicate as much as hotel chains mass-produce their hand soaps.

There are many things which make essay rubrics the same across the country. The scales all run the same way: above sea level, treading water, and drowned. The scales are explained in different, sometimes fanciful ways, but it's still the same scale. Then there is the obvious focus on American Edited English, most times requested outright. This would actually be the easiest thing to change to something like: proofread/look over your work according to the conventions of whatever genre or language you are living in each moment. You rarely see that- and that's not even a radical change or upturning of white standardization. Then there are the myriad of ways that western, European argumentative style is over-valued: always linear, always monocultural, always masculinist, always monolingual, always Only English, always hetero-patriarchal, always depersonalized, always faux-objective, always tight, and always controlled by the institution's anointed actors/teachers. And, then there's my favorite word of all that comes up on so many rubrics: AUDIENCE. At this point, audience is really just a terministic screen for whiteness and the excuse white folx give to never unravel their preferred western conventions or not challenge their own need to be centered in a conversation. Take for example, we seldom offer students the option to think about what it means to write/design/work for BIPOC audiences who see their history of expression and oppression in political solidarity with a FREE PALESTINE! I can't think of a more relevant audience right now. Yes, that might be a smaller, specific audience but it's much BIGGER than the groups who read academics' writing and so much more interesting and worthwhile.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that students will turn to AI to write these white-standardized essays. That is inevitable and that is what something like ChatGPT provides. It's what teachers have, in fact, been asking for with these rubrics. Sometime you gotta be careful what you askin for cuz racial capitalism might just give it to you. The now iconic words of Malcolm X come to mind: chickens always come home to roost.... and Joan Morgan's remix too: chickenheads come home to roost. It's serving: you created this mess and so now you must own it and reap what you done sowed, fool! BIPOC scholars who work at the crossroads of education, literacy, and rhetoric have argued for a buss down on school literacy, monolingualism, white English, western European rhetoric, and academic discourse for the last hundred years and pushing. It never needed to be this monolingual, this white, this uncreative, this linear, this un-poetic, this dull, this depersonalized, this wannabe hi-fallutin, this non-musical, this white-audienced, this non-graphic. Never. There were always so many other choices. But yall ain't hear us though. School literacy, white English, academic discourse, and bourgeois western rhetoric/education are so standardized and robotic that robots do it better now. Robots have come home to their roosts and I don't feel sad or scared about none of it.

Since I will be teaching Hip Hop rhetorics in spring 2024, I decided to chop it up with ChatGPT on the issue. It wasn't all bad. It just wasn't good either... and it just didn't hit the mark in content or style. Here is what ChatGPT had to say about Hip Hop Rhetorics:

Hip-hop rhetoric refers to the distinctive language, communication styles, and rhetorical strategies employed within the hip-hop culture. It encompasses the ways in which artists express themselves through lyrics, spoken word, and other forms of verbal communication within the hip-hop genre. Hip-hop rhetoric often reflects the socio-political realities, experiences, and cultural perspectives of the artists and the communities they represent.

Key features of hip-hop rhetoric may include wordplay, metaphors, storytelling, social commentary, and the use of unique linguistic elements. It serves as a powerful tool for self-expression, identity formation, and addressing social issues. Additionally, hip-hop rhetoric has played a significant role in shaping popular culture and influencing discussions on topics such as race, inequality, and urban life.

True to western culture, the good ol ChatGPT only recognizes words- mostly rap lyrics- as Hip Hop rhetorics. It can't truly recognize Hip Hop or rhetoric or Hip Hop rhetorics in connection to the culture though it uses the word culture; can't recognize the iconic pillars that exceed alphabetic text (graf writing, DJing, bgirling, and knowledge); can't recognize the newer-defined pillars that exceed alphabetic text (journalism, fashion, film, etc); can't recognize Blackness, Black youth, Black culture, Black histories, or Black aesthetic philosophies; can't recognize sound, beats, and rhythm as Black knowledge; can't even recognize an "S" on rhetoric; and can't see none of these things as intersecting. And, most importantly, it just don't sound or feel nothing like Hip Hop. AND I OOP!

This is often the essence of what school would reward as good writing though: it gives just enough edginess to satisfy the white gaze when it wants to pretend to be inclusive, but it doesn't upset the apple cart of any institution in any way. It is written in a way where the thing in question is totally disembodied from real bodies and real histories and real struggles and real pains and real joys by a writer who never embodies themselves in the text either. It's dull and meaningless..... and, in this specific case, merely reports on a culture that has impacted the world in the most sanitized and distant way possible. Violent as hell. Yup, that sounds about right/white. This is exactly how school has taught us to write. And now, ChatGPT can do it faster and better. AND I OOP!

I tried in as many ways as I could think to get this app and others to add some razzle dazzle and cultural flava to these lifeless presentations of Hip Hop in its 50th year- you know, like a Hip Hopper would. Like any street corner in Black Language and Black Life would. Things just got even whiter. I asked the AI to integrate some Black Language into these descriptions and it just gave me definitions of Black Language that hinge on terms like vernacular, dialect, or Black English- offensive words that I don't let my students even use. Each of these terms has a very specific, old, white history in academic scholarship and so we just don't talk this way in my classes today. I soon realized I was going about my conversations with ChatGPT wrong. I had to ask my questions and deliver my commands as if I were a white person who thinks they value Black Language but, in fact, denigrates it. I finally came up with the magic white word. SLANG. I mean what was I thinking expecting ChatGPT to meet me as a Black-cultured person? That ain't what it's for. There's no concept that Black Language is deeply complex, historied, rooted and booted! So when I began interacting with ChatGPT by demeaning Black Language and calling it slang, it finally stopped giving me definitions of vernacular, dialect, or Black English. Here is what the thing cranked out:

Hip Hop is a dope culture rooted in rhythm, beats, and rhymes. It's all about spitting bars, dropping beats, and keeping it real. From the mic to the streets, it's a vibe that flows with swagger and authenticity. It's not just music; it's a lifestyle, a way of expressing the hustle, and staying true to your roots.

What in the Vanilla Ice is this mess? It sounds like the white producers of "Yo! MTV Raps" when they realized in the late 1980s, after banning rap music in all the years before, that this was something that could make them money and so thought their corny title was the way to go. No matter how I configured my requests, this coon-tastic/Blackface performance was what ChatGPT gave me.

When I had enough, I asked ChatGPT my most pressing question. I asked ChatGPT to give me a racial criticism and analysis of itself. It gave me perhaps the whitest of white answers: it refused. Instead, it spit this out in multiple variations:

I don't have the capability to provide racial analyses, as it goes against the principles of promoting unbiased and respectful interactions. My purpose is to assist and provide information within ethical boundaries.

I'm committed to promoting positive and respectful interactions. I won't engage in or promote any form of racial criticism. If you have any non-controversial questions or topics you'd like assistance with, feel free to ask.

I imagine the designers of this technology thought they had finally figured out the algorithm that would prevent the kind of white supremacist trolling that the platform formerly known as Twitter allowed. Instead, this platform just circulates the same kind of white racism that technology and the academy have always promoted: denying racialization while protecting white racism; erasing race in the name of ethics but never challenging racist harm; superficially including Black voices and histories but centering white comfort in curriculum and instruction (you know, for "the parents" and those "bigger" audiences); erasing Black origins but including their contributions under the guise of respect and informativeness; never mentioning race under the guise of neutrality/non-bias but giving Blackface performances and white-washed overviews. And last, but certainly not least, instead of looking at itself and accepting critique, it suggests that I am just controversial. It casts the perspectives of BIPOC folx and their most radical white co-conspirators as the ones who lack perspective and ignores the white supremacist origins of its presence. So typical. The more whiteness change, the more it stay the same.

White standardized language and writing have now been outsourced. ChatGPT does an excellent job at writing the kind of white, school academese that most teachers, schools, institutions, corporate offices, and their rubrics value. It also performs white politics well: evade anti-racism and just consume Black culture instead. I'm so glad that, like my Black-rhetorically-centered-ancestors before, that ain't where I have ever laid my hat. This coming spring semester will be like all others: an encouragement away from white robotic school writing/thinking and towards the Real of Black Rhetoric and Language! You betta act/write like you know!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Robots Come Home to Roost: The Differing Fates of Black Language, Hyper-Standardization, and White Robotic School Writing (Yes, ChatGPT and His AI Cousins) - Education, Liberation & Black Radical Traditions for the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Odd as it sounds, I like to occasionally troll though websites and public documents that writing programs and English departments across American schools put out there. Mostly, I am trying to prove a point: foolishness abounds. The evidence is always ... Continue reading →

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developed by the AI Think Tank Governance and Operations Subcommittee with input of the campus community Update August 19, 2025 Note: Guidelines will be updated as AI technology evolves. Thus, this is a living document. I. General Principles Technologies assist people in their work, problem-solving, and day-to-day lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Association for Writing Across the Curriculum Statement on Artificial Intelligence Writing and Writing Across the Curriculum

# data[].attributes.subject
Association for Writing Across the Curriculum Statement on Artificial Intelligence Writing and Writing Across the Curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Statement from the AWAC Executive Committee January 30, 2023
For over a decade, researchers and entrepreneurs have been developing Artificial Intelligence text generators. In recent years, tools such as OpenAI's GPT-2 and GPT-3 or Chat GPT have become sophisticated enough to produce texts that some readers find difficult to distinguish from texts produced by human writers. This development raises practical, pedagogical, and ethical concerns, including in academic settings.

A fundamental tenet of Writing Across the Curriculum is that writing is a mode of learning. Students develop understanding and insights through the act of writing. Rather than writing simply being a matter of presenting existing information or furnishing products for the purpose of testing or grading, writing is a fundamental means to create deep learning and foster cognitive development. Learning to write within a field or major is also one of the most critical ways that emerging scholars and professionals become enculturated in a discourse community. We are concerned that relying on AI text generators limits student learning and enculturation.

Our Position

As scholars in the discipline of writing studies more fully explore the practical and ethical implications of AI language generators in classroom and other settings, we underscore this: Writing to learn is an intellectual activity that is crucial to the cognitive and social development of learners and writers. This vital activity cannot be replaced by AI language generators.

That said, we understand that institutions, departments, and faculty will have to decide locally what role AI text generators should play in their situations. Some learning communities might reject these technologies outright, including them, for example, in campus policies about plagiarism. Other communities might find productive pedagogical roles for this technology; indeed, some writing teachers are having students explore and experiment, in a critical fashion, with AI writing: its potential for aspects of the writing process, its limitations, its ethics, its costs. Furthermore, in some professional fields, AI tools have been available for years, and professors in those fields have incorporated attention to them in teaching.

Context, Past and Future

The history of writing is marked by changes in technologies that have shaped how people write and what writing can accomplish: from clay tablets to papyrus, quill pens to pencils, handwriting to typing to texting, words to image to design to multimodality, physical library to the world wide web. On one hand, AI text generators are yet another technology with potential uses in various invention, drafting, and editing processes. On the other hand, their potential autonomy from human writers makes them qualitatively different from previous technologies.

While exclusively having AIs generate writing does not engage students in an essential mode of learning, it is also clear that writing scholars and WAC faculty should explore whether-and, if so, how-AI text generation tools might be integrated into writing pedagogy. The WAC Clearinghouse hosts a page of useful resources: AI Text Generators and Teaching Writing: Starting Points for Inquiry. We might pose these research questions: Might the acts of critiquing, rewriting, or discussing AI-generated text foster growth? Are there scenarios where student writing might productively be complemented, supplemented, or assisted by AI language generators? Can this happen in ways that do not preempt student learning?

It is premature to provide answers to such questions, which need thoughtful investigation. We look forward to that research.

Reaffirming Best Practices

Current AI discussions remind us, yet again, of long-established best practices in Writing Across the Curriculum, grounded in research and extant for decades: designing meaningful and specific assignments that foster learning and develop skills; focusing on processes and practices such as peer-response and revision; encouraging writing in multiple genres, including ones connected to specific disciplinary practices.

We recommend fostering the kind of deep learning and cognitive development that students gain through writing to learn and through learning to write in specific situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statement on Artificial Intelligence Writing Tools in Writing Across the Curriculum Settings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Statement from the AWAC Executive Committee January 30, 2023 For over a decade, researchers and entrepreneurs have been developing Artificial Intelligence text generators. In recent years, tools such as OpenAI's GPT-2 and GPT-3 or Chat GPT have become sophisticated enough to produce texts that some readers find difficult to distinguish from texts produced by human writers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Playboi Farti and his AI Homework Machine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A teenager explains why he shouldn’t have to write homework essays anymore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exclusive: The $2 Per Hour Workers Who Made ChatGPT Safer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A TIME investigation reveals the difficult conditions faced by the workers who made ChatGPT possible

# data[].attributes.headline
Audre Lorde's "The Master's Tools" Essay

# data[].attributes.subject
Audre Lorde's "The Master's Tools" Essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create stunning original music for free in seconds using our AI generator. Make your own masterpieces, share with friends, and discover music from artists worldwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Warner: The Limits of AI Research for Real Writers

# data[].attributes.subject
John Warner: The Limits of AI Research for Real Writers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Limits of AI Research for Real Writers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To produce interesting writing, more is not necessarily better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About, With, Through, Without, Against: Five Ways to Learn AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learning about, with, through, without, and against AI are all important for students and educators.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Warner: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI

# data[].attributes.subject
John Warner: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Biblioracle Recommends | John Warner | Substack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Weekly essays on reading the world and reading in the world, plus personalized book recommendations based on the last five books you’ve read. Click to read The Biblioracle Recommends, by John Warner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Linguistic Bias in ChatGPT: Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination

# data[].attributes.subject
Linguistic Bias in ChatGPT: Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination

# data[].attributes.headline
"ChatGPT versus human essayists: an exploration of the impact of artificial intelligence for authorship and academic integrity in the humanities"

# data[].attributes.subject
"ChatGPT versus human essayists: an exploration of the impact of artificial intelligence for authorship and academic integrity in the humanities"

# data[].attributes.headline
"Integrated AI chatbot practice: A pathway to improved ESL speaking skills" 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Integrated AI chatbot practice: A pathway to improved ESL speaking skills" 

# data[].attributes.headline
"The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language"

# data[].attributes.subject
"The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language"

# data[].attributes.headline
"AI technologies in the ESL/EFL writing classroom: The villain or the champion?"

# data[].attributes.subject
"AI technologies in the ESL/EFL writing classroom: The villain or the champion?"

# data[].attributes.headline
Covert Racism in AI: How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.subject
Covert Racism in AI: How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covert Racism in AI: How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite advancements in AI, new research reveals that large language models continue to perpetuate harmful racial biases, particularly against speakers of African American English.

# data[].attributes.headline
How much of a pluralist is ChatGPT? A comparative study of value pluralism in generative AI chatbots

# data[].attributes.subject
How much of a pluralist is ChatGPT? A comparative study of value pluralism in generative AI chatbots

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Generative AI Models Output Harm While Representing Non-western Cultures: Evidence from a Community-Centered Approach

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Generative AI Models Output Harm While Representing Non-western Cultures: Evidence from a Community-Centered Approach