By The Signal Editorial Board
Artificial intelligence has become a growing topic of discussion within educational settings in recent years. With the release of ChatGPT’s chatbot in 2022 and the human-like developments made in AI-generated media, many question how teachers and students alike will accommodate these developments.
As one of the most widely used AI tools since its launch in 2022, ChatGPT continues to roll out new models with further knowledge and updates to benefit these users. However, many have growing concerns over the amount of work requested of these chatbots, with some students feeding their assignments into AI software to have essay questions written, math problems solved or completed work revised. It is uncertain how schools will continue forward as the line between original thought and artificial creation becomes blurry.
While the College has not yet announced an official stance on AI, their recent actions appear to not be entirely against its usage.
On Sep. 26, the Office of Student Conduct notified students through email of mandatory completion of Hazing Prevention training. The training modules, which are due on Nov. 1, were created in response to the passage of H.R. 5646, or the Stop Campus Hazing Act. The law states that higher education institutions receiving federal student aid are required to disclose information on campus hazing incidents, as well as their preventative programs in place. This law was enacted in December 2024.
The training modules were made available to students through PlaidLMS, an online learning platform boasting over 27,000 users.
Aimee Wardle, assistant director for student life, and Melissa Andreas, assistant director of student conduct, said in an email statement that “Plaid LMS was chosen after reviewing several programs because the content was developed by experts and clearly delivers the message that hazing can affect any student, not just members of fraternities, sororities, or athletic teams.”
However, quickly after students began the mandatory training, several complaints were raised as to the quality of the program. Within each module, students were virtually placed in different scenarios, questions and interactive buttons populating the screen to prompt the student to learn more about the details and prevention of hazing.
The graphics and production of the software quickly came into question.
Within the program, a digital moderator appeared with robotic speech, visuals experienced arbitrary delays and some content appeared impersonal while discussing such pertinent information.
Students are prompted to choose a situation, where they undergo a hypothetical hazing scenario; the options include a fraternity setting, sports team and newspaper editorial team. The scenarios provided examples of demeaning activity that could be inflicted upon new members of these organizations, such as the newspaper team being forced to wear humiliating clothes and hats.
If students chose the newspaper pathway, they would not be provided with information and insight as to the deadly consequences of hazing, exposed only to a light-hearted example of a hazing experience. The provided example makes light of the real experiences of students nationwide, hazing being amounted to embarrassing clothing.
“One particular section uses AI-generated visuals, but the educational content comes directly from specialists. We have been working with Plaid since Spring 2021 on other educational modules and have found them to be very receptive to feedback,” Wardle and Andreas said. “All colleges and online training platforms had a limited timeframe to develop and implement training under the Stop Campus Hazing Act, and Plaid offered the best combination of quality, engagement, efficiency, and cost.”
For students who do not support AI usage and may not want to engage with this program, they face consequential holds being placed on their account or potential referral to the Office of Student Conduct and Off-Campus Services.
With no consistent stance on AI usage and varying policies among educators, this becomes very confusing for students, and provides little guidance for what is deemed appropriate within the College.
College campuses need a clear stance on AI usage, and a plan of action to tackle the evolving AI presence to provide guidance to their students, which can be accomplished through open and honest conversation.
