The chalkboard. The printing press. The personal computer. The internet. A select handful of technologies have fundamentally reshaped the way we learn, and you can add artificial intelligence (AI) to the list.
While there is considerable discussion about students using AI in their schoolwork, there is less discussion about how universities are utilizing it. Watchdog technology that inaccurately flags students as cheats, artificial proctors that lack the perceptive abilities of human alternatives, AI-powered grading tech, and invasive technologies deployed to constantly monitor students’ activities are among the many use cases that give ample reason for concern about students’ rights and well-being.
Many professors and university administrators view artificial intelligence as a threat to academic integrity when students use it. And yet, those same university employees are increasingly using AI for their own purposes, despite well-documented reasons to suggest they should be more cautious in their trust of a flawed technology.
Before we examine these problems more deeply, know that there is a firm that fights tirelessly for students whose rights are violated by universities’ use of AI. Call the LLF National Law Firm Education Law Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.
Inconsistent AI Policies (Especially at the Professor Level) Thrust Students Into a Guessing Game
Some of the most elemental aspects of teaching are increasingly being outsourced to AI. Take grading, for instance. Many professors are now using AI technology as a grading assistant, which is concerning because:
- AI technology still has limitations and flaws, which can lead to students receiving inaccurate grades.
- Experts stress the importance of students being informed of how their work is being evaluated, but that is not always happening when professors use AI to grade students’ work.
- While tools like ChatGPT have shown promising potential as a grading assistant, they require an appropriate rubric (and other forms of oversight) to grade with sufficient accuracy.
AI-powered grading tools are especially hazardous when educators instill too much trust in their accuracy, failing to review the technology’s marks before marking the grade as official.
False Flags by AI Checkers
Ironically, university employees who impose non-negotiable, draconian prohibitions on students’ use of artificial intelligence often exempt themselves from such restrictions.
A student using ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for a creative writing course? Possible grounds for suspension or other severe discipline.
A university using provably flawed AI to evaluate students’ work and determine if that student used artificial intelligence to create that work? Common practice.
The hypocrisy is blatant, especially because we know that:
- Schools are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to determine whether students have submitted AI-generated work.
- Researchers who have evaluated the effectiveness of these AI-powered checkers determined that the results of their studies “raise doubts,” including that the technology would flag human-created work as AI-generated.
- Technologies such as GPTZero have a “high false-negative rate,” meaning they do not reliably detect machine-generated text.
The effectiveness of AI checkers can vary based on the specific model. Some checkers may also struggle to distinguish between AI-generated text and text from specific chatbots and text-spinning platforms.
Students are aware that the AI tasked with policing other AI is not perfect in identifying AI-generated work. Some students have even lobbied their schools to abandon these technologies in the name of protecting students’ rights. Yet, universities nationwide continue to make momentous disciplinary decisions based primarily on the insights of AI checkers like Turnitin and GPTZero.
Flaws in AI-Powered Proctors
Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous presence in many students’ lives, to the extent that some view the technology as Big Brother, a term first coined in George Orwell’s 1984.
The analogy to 1984 becomes all the more apt when you discover that schools are using artificial intelligence to surveil students—through their computer cameras—while they take examinations or perform other tasks that require proctoring. Aside from the creep factor, this is an alarming development because:
- Artificial intelligence does not have the benefit of knowing a specific student, as a human proctor might.
- Because AI lacks familiarity with the student, it has little contextual information (like the student’s reputation for honesty or dishonesty) upon which to base its conclusions and insights.
- AI also lacks nuance in interpreting environmental noises (like someone entering the testing area), rapid eye movements, and other potential reasons to flag the student
- One study found that AI proctors are approximately 10% more likely to determine that a student has violated exam conditions than human proctors.
AI proctoring may also be vulnerable to issues such as unreliable internet connections, biases, and potential discrimination (based on factors like race or disability), which warrant caution when using this technology.
The rise of AI proctors isn’t some hypothetical development. Sixty-three % of American and Canadian universities mention remote proctoring on their websites, and AI-facilitated proctoring will likely become more common as a cost-saving measure.
Privacy Concerns
Many students and guardians have complained that the deployment of artificial intelligence by universities has come at the cost of students’ right to privacy. Some of the most pressing concerns are:
- Lack of transparency about which AI technologies are being used (generally in a surveillance capacity), which third parties are providing the technology, and how information and media collected by the technologies might be used
- The mandatory imposition of AI technologies (like remote proctoring services) upon students, regardless of whether the student feels comfortable with the technology
- Constant monitoring of students’ activities on university-issued devices
The idea of students’ rights, including the right to privacy, appears to have been largely abandoned by universities nationwide. We have never lost respect or stopped fighting for those rights at the LLF National Law Firm.
Do not hesitate to reach out to our Education Law Team if you believe your or your student’s rights have been violated through a school’s use of artificial intelligence.
Not Honoring the Rights of Disabled Students
We have witnessed the adoption of artificial intelligence in nearly every corner of higher education. Disabled university students who have yet to be affected by their schools’ adoption of AI technology may be sooner than later, and this prompts concerns about:
- Whether schools are outsourcing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) to AI: “Reducing the paperwork burden” for educators who work with students with disabilities is one of the foremost promises of AI adoption. Platforms like Magic School have been deployed specifically to help educators craft students’ IEPs, but concerns remain about the accuracy and appropriateness of AI’s plans and recommendations.
- The quality of AI-powered assistive technologies: It seems inevitable that more and more universities will begin using AI-enabled assistive technologies, whether it’s for students who are hard of hearing or blind, those with learning disabilities, or others for whom AI might be a resource. Yet, if these technologies are going to replace humans, the technologies must be truly capable of doing just as good a job as the humans they replace.
- Privacy, which is always paramount when discussing disabled students: If a school is inputting data about disabled students into AI platforms, privacy and security become pressing issues. Should schools fail to prioritize security when choosing (or deciding whether to use) AI platforms that will hold sensitive information about disabled students, privacy violations may be inevitable.
Students with disabilities who believe their rights or well-being are compromised by their school’s use of AI technology should contact our Education Law Team as soon as possible.
Giving Artificial Intelligence Too Much Trust (and Power Over Students’ Reputations)
We do not believe that artificial intelligence was ever meant to be a standalone resource. AI’s capacity to harm rises immeasurably when humans take a hands-off approach, rather than overseeing, guiding, and overruling the AI when necessary.
Yet, our team often encounters circumstances where:
- Professors and administrators implement AI checkers and proctors while being utterly unaware of these technologies’ flaws and shortcomings.
- When an AI checker or proctor flags a student as engaging in misconduct, professors and administrators trust the AI without question.
- False flags by artificial intelligence lead to students being sanctioned.
- The determinations of flawed AI take precedence over humans’ instincts, rational thought processes, and better judgments.
Similar blind faith is often extended when artificial intelligence is given access to students’ most sensitive digital communications and activities.
Too many schools have given AI the wheel, and many professors and administrators simply watch from a safe distance as students are forced to play the role of crash dummy.
Call the LLF National Law Firm When Artificial Intelligence Exposes You to Real Disciplinary Consequences
Many administrators and professors are deploying AI mercenaries to policethe very same students who are prohibited from using artificial intelligence themselves. Privacy violations, lack of care for disabled students, inaccurate grading, and other adverse outcomes have inevitably resulted from the rapid adoption of AI on campus, and students are the ones most severely harmed.
If you or your student becomes the victim of haphazard AI policies or practices, call the LLF National Law Firm Education Law Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.
We handle issues of student discipline, rights violations, and other disputes between the university and its students. Don’t wait to reach out.