Unsurprisingly, student use of AI tools was a main concern for humanities chairs. One classics chair described themself as “at my wit’s end,” as they regularly receive papers written by AI. Though many chairs receive what they suspect are completely or partially AI-generated written assignments from their students, proving their suspicions is difficult, and chairs feel they are getting insufficient guidance from their institutions in this struggle. The aforementioned classics chair described the complicated and time-consuming process they went through when they reported an AI-generated essay as plagiarism at their institution. As one LOTE department chair put it, “cheating has always been an issue, and proving it has always been an issue. But now cheating has gotten easier.” A chair of a gender studies department underlined how “frustrating” it is for faculty trying to figure out whether written assignments were generated by AI. They added that this is “eroding trust between students and faculty,” since “accusing students of using AI can cause problems in the student-teacher relationship.”
About one-third of the chairs we spoke to described specific ways they have adapted their pedagogy due to AI. The most common solution is returning to in-class writing assessments to eliminate plagiarism concerns. Others are integrating more group work or personal writing assignments into their courses. Chairs were concerned about the fundamental ways AI would change student learning, especially of core humanities skills like critical thinking or deep reading. In a few cases, chairs said their faculty were beginning to find ways for students to critically engage with AI. These chairs mentioned examples of exercises where students use AI for a task, then evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the AI tool’s output, with the objective of giving students a better critical understanding of the technology.
Chairs who had negative or mixed opinions about AI’s impact on the humanities did not necessarily see AI technology itself as an inherent evil. The primary source of frustration for many was how their institutions have handled AI’s integration into education. Because the technology has emerged so quickly and with such massive impacts, instructors feel unable to keep up, and chairs describe their institutions as overwhelmed, underprepared, and thus unable to offer the necessary degree of support to instructors. As one English department chair explained, “It’s very rapid. Universities are underresourced to deal with it. We have panels and workshops on AI and teaching. The people who present at those are well-intentioned, but they feel a day late and a dollar short.” For other chairs, the question was less about whether training was being offered; they simply did not have the time to engage. As one chair put it, “How can you possibly keep up with this AI issue with a four/four teaching load?”
Critical analysis of AI’s impact on education and society is important to humanities chairs. In their own classes, they prioritize this type of discussion and try to set standards for appropriate and inappropriate uses of the technology. However, they feel this runs counter to their administrations, which are encouraging AI use among faculty and students. As one history chair explained, the “push” at their institution to adopt AI without enough “critical discussion” about “everything that goes into it, whether it be environmental or labor,” was problematic. They speculated that the institution was driven by a “fear of missing out” and a desire to be “cutting edge.” Another chair, from a philosophy department, said they “loved the idea of embracing AI” but had significant concerns because “we need to ask important ethical questions about whether using AI is justifiable.” This same chair emphasized the magnitude of the issue and the need for continued reflection and training: “We feel the world might be very different, and we don’t know what skills students will need in the future. I would love training on how to proceed. No one knows where the world is going with this and what the changing needs of pedagogy will be.”