AI in education: Swim against the current

By Contributing Writers of The Griffin

What is the right balance, at a university, between deteriorating our critical thinking skills and strengthening them? To even ask this question places our little school among a sea of others. Despite so many schools paving the way regarding AI regulations (whether it be in the best direction or not), Canisius seems to always find itself falling behind to the detriment of its students.

Canisius has rather readily fallen into line with deterministic ideals about AI in education. It is not just coming, it is here, so we might as well learn to live with it, right? To assume there is nothing to be done on the behalf of students and educators disregards the point of attending our institution.

Canisius has the opportunity to set itself apart from other institutions, in part in consideration of how it operates under Jesuit values. “Cura Personalis” — to care for the mind, body and spirit.

For Canisius, as an institution of higher education, to look at other universities’ decisions and follow suit due to popularity does nothing to set us apart as a body that offers nothing novel to its students. The primary distinction between Canisius and its neighbouring universities is the relationship between students and professors, which is only dulled by a reliance on third party factors, which have nothing to do with the college’s mission or strengths.

If Canisius truly wanted to use the trend of AI to its advantage, we would dedicate more attention to the support of staff and faculty. Not only would this further benefit the strengths that Canisius already has, but it would also genuinely teach students about their field of study rather than simply automating homework to no real gain.

The initiative to rely on AI to any extent seems nothing more than an attempt for students to offset a workload they don’t truly care for. And for faculty, a means to placate an administration, who fails to meet their needs and often gives too much work for too little pay.

The refusal to give in to this automated education isn’t a failure to accept the present or a marriage to an archaic past. It is a certainty in a system that works, and a respect for the professors who uphold it and their efforts in academics. Facilitating a space of critical engagement is not optional under the ideals Canisius claims to maintain.

This is not to say that the general use of AI is a grave sin. But, it would be a ridiculous thing to say that one could spend a majority of their college career having another thing do their work and still expect to know the material they “learned”. At a Jesuit institution more than any, it should be clear that education is more than job training and rote memorization. The materials that we gather and keep in our minds are things that ought to make us better educated people who can give to the world.