Should AI Have a Seat in our Classrooms: Perspectives from Faculty at Smith

“Do you want someone else to live your life for you?” That question, posed by Senior Laboratory Instructor Joe Yeager of the Chemistry Department, reflects the heart of the discussions surrounding AI use in the classroom. When does AI go from being a tool to replacing the learning and living that should be done by students? As faculty attempt to draw this line in the sand through personal and departmental policies, students are left to navigate a shifting sea of expectations and guidelines.

A point echoed across departments was that AI inhibits the learning process, which, for faculty, is more important than the end product. Yeagar emphasizes “the point of doing an academic assignment is not to have the final product, but to have done the work”. When students ask AI to complete tasks for them, including generating notes and study guides, they are losing out on the opportunity to engage critically with the material. Faculty worry that it will erode the skills students study to obtain. As Yeager explains, “the impact might not be felt right away, but over time, the abilities that you have cultivated in your education start to atrophy if you offload these tasks too much.” 

In subjects like English, where so much of class is focused on the process of writing and editing, this is especially true. Lecturer Delgado Dixon, who teaches creative writing, explains, “Rarely do you begin a story and write exactly what you think you’re going to write and execute it exactly as you say you will. Part of becoming a writer and an artist is learning from that process and undergoing it.” For a tool that is trained to be logical, Delgado Dixon does not feel that AI can properly capture the complexity and humanity that creative writing calls for. She explains creative work “is not based solely on logic or on what’s in the canon or what is grammatically true,” but “on a looser, associative kind of knowledge.” 

Still, some faculty believe that AI can be a beneficial tool for learning. German Lecturer Sandra Digruber has students use it in class to provide feedback on their writing assignments in addition to doing peer review. She then has students compare the feedback they receive. Digruber believes that in this context, “AI can actually strengthen this critical lens” by forcing them to ask questions about their work, such as “what do I want to present” or is my authorial voice coming through.

Neilson Library, Scranton. (2024). Creative Commons License.

Outside of the classroom, AI has been used to generate study guides, practice quizzes, and to act as a tutor itself. From behind the grading desk, faculty have differing perspectives on its effectiveness and unseen shortcomings. Gillian Beltz-Mohrmann, an assistant professor in physics and statistical and data sciences, provides resources for students in her courses on how to efficiently interact with AI. If students are stuck on homework problems, they may use AI as a resource, but this does not include turning in AI-generated work. Digruber also encourages students to utilize AI when studying. “I ask students to use it as a conversational partner so that they can ask immediate follow-up questions,” said Digruber. 

Yeager cautioned against the use of AI study tools not because of a lack of effectiveness, but the hidden cost, which is the loss of human connection. What is lost in replacing office hours with AI is the connection between students and faculty. “It is a little bit of a shame to me when students decline to foster that relationship,” states Yeager, “Chat GPT could claim to write you a recommendation, but that’s probably considered fraud.” By relying on AI, students are losing the resources they are paying for at Smith College, such as office hours, tutors, study sessions, and human connection.

Some faculty are concerned that a focus on AI will detract from the purpose of college. Beltz-Mohrmann wants students to enjoy whatever they pursue, both during and after their time at Smith. She suggests that if students feel the need to offload tasks to artificial intelligence, they should “find something else to do that’s more fun.” And if students feel pressure to gain skills in AI applicable to their respective fields, Senior Laboratory Instructor in Chemistry, Mohini Kulp argues that “critical thinking is the harder part…if you build that in your time at Smith, then the AI will come easily later.”

The Smith College Academic Integrity Board encourages faculty to be mindful that students' use of AI could detract from their learning, stating that they should take steps to learn about AI and then create guidelines for their students. For faculty, the lack of an institution-wide policy gives flexibility. According to Delgado Dixon, “even if there was one universal policy, how do you enforce that in a class that’s lab-based, let’s say, versus creative writing? I think those are really different courses and have different expectations and educational goals.”

There is no consensus among Smith College faculty on AI. Some departments have detailed plans to navigate learning in a world with AI, and other departments are still in the process of developing such policies. But faculty are discussing, human to human, whether or not AI deserves a seat in our classrooms.

By Beatrice Tauer, Celia DiNitto, Minty Mintz, and Nathalie Sullivan

References:

Gillian Beltz-Mohrmann in an interview with the authors, 26 February 2026.

Maria Bickar, Mona Kulp, and Joseph Yeager as a group in an interview with the authors, 26 February 2026.

Sandra Digruber in an interview with the authors, 26 February 2026.

Ariel Delgado Dixon in an interview with the authors, 26 February 2026.

Smith College | Academic Integrity Board Information for Faculty. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2026, from https://www.smith.edu/your-campus/offices-services/dean-college/academic-integrity-board/academic-integrity-board-faculty