As universities across the country sign lucrative contracts with artificial intelligence companies, faculty members are being left out of critical decisions that directly impact their work and student learning, according to a new report from the American Association of University Professors.
The report, “Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions,” released in July, surveyed approximately 500 AAUP members and found widespread concern about the rapid deployment of AI tools without adequate faculty input or transparent policies governing their use.
“The uncritical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) poses a threat to academic professions through potential work intensification and job losses and through its implications for intellectual property, economic security, and the faculty working conditions that affect student learning conditions,” the report states.
The findings reveal a troubling disconnect between administrative enthusiasm for AI and faculty concerns about its implementation. Seventy-one percent of respondents said decision-making and AI initiatives are overwhelmingly led by college or university administrations, with many describing administrators pushing AI integration into research, teaching, and policy with little meaningful input from faculty, staff, or students.
One survey respondent captured the frustration: “Admin doesn’t seem to care about or value faculty input on this or any other topic” and hoped for “more faculty involvement in determining how AI and tech generally are used.”
The timing of the report is significant, as major universities have announced high-profile partnerships with AI companies. Arizona State University made headlines with its collaboration with OpenAI, while the California State University system recently partnered with tech giants to advance what they call “equitable” AI training.
While 81 percent of survey respondents reported using some type of educational technology, and 45 percent found it at least somewhat helpful, their experience with AI specifically has been less positive. Only 15 percent said they are required to use AI tools, yet nearly 81 percent reported being mandated to use educational technology systems that include AI components, even when AI features are supposedly “turned off.”
This suggests that many faculty members and other academic workers may not realize that they are using AI-enabled tools for their work, highlighting what the report identifies as a critical knowledge gap.
The survey results paint a concerning picture of AI’s impact on academic work. AI has generally led to at least somewhat worse outcomes for the teaching environment (according to 62 percent of respondents), pay equity (30 percent), job enthusiasm (76 percent), academic freedom (40 percent), and student success (69 percent).
Faculty expressed particular worry about AI’s impact on student development. Ninety-one percent noted that they were at least somewhat concerned about preventing academic dishonesty, but many emphasized deeper educational concerns.
“I am less concerned about the ‘honesty’ part than the ‘failure to learn’ part,” wrote one respondent. Another noted: “It is now more difficult for [students] to develop their thoughts on a topic because they don’t have to spend time with it while they work through writing about it… I am worried that they will never again get the chance to change their opinion as they expose themselves to ideas over the long term.”
To address these concerns, the AAUP report recommends establishing meaningful shared governance policies around educational technology decisions. The association calls for the creation of standing or ad hoc committees of faculty, staff, and students that would have significant oversight powers, including the ability to meaningfully challenge procurement decisions and evaluate technology’s impact before and after deployment.
“People are terrified of the onslaught of uncritical AI narratives and partnerships across many sectors and what it means for the future,” said Britt Paris, chair of the AAUP’s ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions and professor at Rutgers University–New Brunswick. “But in talking with higher education workers across the country, we have seen that AI in higher education is barely even functional and tech companies view the sector as a cash cow to exploit.”
The report outlines comprehensive recommendations across five key areas: improving professional development about AI and technology harms, implementing shared governance policies, improving working and learning conditions, demanding transparency and opt-out options, and protecting faculty members and academic workers.
Key recommendations include requiring impact assessments before technology deployment, ensuring faculty can opt out of AI tools without penalty, protecting intellectual property rights, and prohibiting the use of AI in high-stakes employment decisions like hiring, tenure, and promotion without independent verification.
The report emphasizes that 98 percent of respondents said supporting accessibility was at least somewhat important when considering increased AI use in higher education, while also noting concerns about bias and discrimination inherent in data-intensive technologies.
AAUP President Dr. Todd Wolfson reiterated the organization’s commitment to meaningful learning experiences.
“We in higher education labor are dedicated to providing meaningful learning experiences for our students and are willing to fight for it.”
The report represents the beginning of a broader campaign, with the AAUP promising to follow up with bargaining suggestions, resolution language, and organizing events around AI in higher education throughout the coming year.
