Enabling responsible AI adoption through governance
AI presents a strategic dilemma for institutions. While they strive to integrate the latest tools into the classroom, they must also address concerns about how these tools are being used and may impact learning. A round table, held in partnership with Studiosity, during the 2026 IHE US AI Summit, brought together higher education experts from the US higher education sector to discuss the gaps between AI adoption at institutions and students’ increasing fluency. “AI can create a blind spot where students become dependent operators rather than independent thinkers,” said Jared Steuernol, regional director for North America at Studiosity. “Faculty can feel like while they’re hired to teach and assess, they’re having to be the auditor and the policeman in the room to look at whether or not students are using AI.”
The round-table participants discussed their institutions’ approaches to building policies and guidelines as AI evolves. “Students’ expectations are higher because they read the guidelines, but faculty adoption has been lagging behind,” said Amarda Shehu, vice-president and chief AI officer at George Mason University. The AI policy at her university is shaped by communities of practice and early champions of AI who share ideas and innovate, she said.
Steve Maniscalco, chief information officer at State University of New York (SUNY) at Oneonta, emphasised the importance of working with students. The university’s leadership organised dialogues to understand how students felt about AI. “The goal of the task force that we have on campus is to have these conversations and to try and figure out what policies we want to create around the curriculum,” said Maniscalco. “This includes issues such as whether faculty should include a statement about AI in their syllabi. But we also want to give them freedom and respect their philosophy of teaching.”
One of the challenges for institutions is that educators can be at different stages in their familiarity with and acceptance of AI tools. Stephen Cook, chief information officer at SUNY Brockport, said that while many educators acknowledge that AI would impact how they teach, they are struggling to cope with the pace of change. To address these gaps, the university takes a grassroots approach through committees led by staff and students.
Brad Lucas, associate dean of research and graduate studies at Texas Christian University, spoke about the factors contributing to faculty resistance. When questions about surveillance and data integrity are addressed, there may be more opportunities to onboard those who are hesitant to use it, he said.
Participants noted that if students aren’t taught how to use AI, they are likely to explore it on their own. However, without guidance and appropriate tools, their interaction with AI may not be productive. Iren Valova, associate dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, argued that if educators choose to ban AI in the classroom, they should explain to students the reasons behind the decision. “Otherwise, you are including a bias that negatively impacts the students,” Valova said. “We’ve adopted a universal curriculum of AI literacy that includes the basic tenets,” she said. Any AI use outside of this is determined by the needs of the discipline. “Some faculties have embraced AI and are creating exceptional materials for students to engage with, not replacing their thinking.”
Find out more about Studiosity.
