If actions that students typically do are under constant surveillance by AI or a remote person, this will negatively impact their academic performance and trust in the institution and curtail learning for pleasure. Learning for pleasure would then be replaced by doing the bare minimum to get around or fools these tools while completing the assignment just to complete the assignment and obtain a positive mark. Without a personal connection to either their professor or their work students in the long run will suffer. 

Swartz, M. H., & McElroy, K. (2023). The “Academicon”: AI and Surveillance in Higher Education. Surveillance and Society, 21(3), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i3.16105

Gourley encourages people to be cautious when implementing these tools without critical thought, and I agree. Outside of the concerns previously mentioned, Gourley also mentions that utilizing these tools are turning students into data that might be a violation of the student's personal rights. Once these tools are used, there is no clear or easy method for students and faculty to know where their data is going or to whom it is being sent. 

Gourlay, L. (2022). Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00352-x

This article also highlights that AI and Algorithms are not immune to human biases; these biases are dangerous for the institution because they may be violations of local, state, or federal law. For instance, the authors highlight that AI has had issues with facial recognition of individuals with darker skin tones. It is up to the institution to ensure that the use of AI does not cause any bias incidents on campus.

Szcyrek, S., & Stewart, B. (2022). Surveillance in the System: Data as Critical Change in Higher Education. The Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 2(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2022.2.2.34

It is important to note that through these methods, the university in question did reduce the number of students cheating, although, as Lee and Fanguy argue, this came at the cost of students' academic thought and critical thinking skills. Which ultimately leads to educational deterioration among students. One of the arguments for continuing to implement these tools is that students are more likely to cheat in an online setting. This is not true for proctored exams; students cheat the same amount of time if the exam is proctored, regardless of whether it is an AI or a human being. This article highlights how implementing leadership decisions regarding surveillance without faculty or student input can undermine the institution's goals. 

Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182

What the authors focus on here is the normalization of surveillance and the erosion of autonomy to the point where students are forced to have check-ins or appear physically perfect in order to pass an exam. This takes away the choice and freedom that have become a selling point of college to students in order to ensure that they never fail or feel bad. This will lead to students saying whatever they need to say to cease the surveillance by an ever-growing AI big brother institution. 

Wilson, A., & Ross, J. (2024). “Your U-Well-Being Journal is due today.” Studies in Higher Education, 50(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2368264

Universities must exercise caution when monitoring faculty lectures or research, as historical examples have shown that sometimes controversial research is indeed correct. One of the most famous incidents throughout history is Copernicus's finding that the sun is the center of the solar system and not the Earth, as previously thought. If institutions continue to monitor and utilize AI to do so, prioritizing metrics such as student satisfaction, then the important research conducted at these institutions will be reduced. 

Tucker, W., & Vance, A. (2016). EDUCATION LEADERS REPORT School Surveillance: Th e Consequences for Equity and Privacy. Educational Leaders Report, 2(4).

This technology is seen as a double-edged sword at first glance, but afterward, careful consideration of the negatives outweighs the positives. If institutions want to implement these measures, there need to be well throughout guardrails to ensure student privacy and that any incidents that may or may not occur on campus do not follow students for the rest of their lives. This constant monitoring is hazardous because it goes against the very ethos of the college experience, which is a place of freedom and learning from mistakes. This technology, especially with the biases already inherent in AI, reduces this freedom to an afterthought.

One of the first claims that is rejected in the study is the claim that Bark, an EdTech company, has claimed that it has stopped sixteen school shooting incidents. This is disproven in multiple ways. The only thing that Edtech companies care about is the bottom line, and increasing their profit margins; this, combined with institutions increasingly becoming more business-minded, leads to students' rights being violated with no concern under the guise of safety. 

ACLU. (2023). Digital Dystopia: The Danger in Buying the EDtech Surveillance Industry is Selling. ACLU Publications.

Once again, this article highlights an instance where higher education professionals want Edtech to have one outcome and forget to consider the other possibilities, including the fact that these technologies could lead to the creation of a surveillance state that moves to "save students from themselves" even though there is no clear or immediate danger.  This removes personal freedom and security from students under the guise of protection and safety. 

Collier, A., & Ross, J. (2020). Higher Education After Surveillance? Postdigital Science and Education, 2(2), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00098-z

I agree with Dr. Weinberg's thesis that the proliferation of this trend would be negative for higher education and that students, faculty, and staff must collaborate to fight back against universities selling and profiting from their work. The article ends with the author highlighting those groups battling back from refusing to work and research on any AI applications to open letters. 

Weinberg, L. (2024). AI is consolidating corporate power in higher ed (opinion). Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/11/06/ai-consolidating-corporate-power-higher-ed-opinion

The theme of this grouping of articles is that regardless of whether it is students, faculty or staff, there are grave concerns from all three groups about their data privacy and how it will affect their current and future work.  These concerns are valid until there is clear and concise communication from universities, upper administration, AI companies, and EDTech companies about the process for data once it is sold.

Park, J., & Vance, A. (2021, February 11). Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/2/data-privacy-in-higher-education-yes-students-care