While many universities restrict student use of AI tools like ChatGPT, some professors are quietly incorporating the same technology into their teaching methods and course content—causing frustration among students who see the practice as hypocritical.
At Northeastern University, a business student reported finding clear signs of AI-generated material in her lecture slides. One slide even included a command to ChatGPT: “expand on all areas. Be more detailed and specific,” followed by a list of leadership traits, complete with generic definitions and examples. Other clues included strange formatting, distorted images, and glaring spelling errors—hallmarks of unrefined AI output.
For students paying high tuition, the discovery raised serious concerns. “We’re being told not to use AI ourselves because it’s academically dishonest,” the student said, “yet our professors are using it to prepare the very material we’re learning from.” The course syllabus explicitly banned unauthorized use of chatbots, yet AI was clearly being used by the instructor.
Faculty members, however, defend the practice. Many argue that AI serves as a productivity tool, helping them handle large workloads more efficiently and even functioning as a virtual teaching assistant. According to a national survey, the number of higher-ed instructors who regularly use generative AI nearly doubled in the past year—jumping from 18% to a significantly higher percentage.
Tech companies have taken notice, offering AI tools specifically tailored for academic institutions. These enterprise versions are pitched as ways to enhance education while also generating revenue.
At Southern New Hampshire University, a similar situation unfolded. An anthropology student discovered her professor had mistakenly uploaded a transcript of their interaction with ChatGPT, which included the grading rubric and a request for the AI to provide “really nice feedback” on her term paper.
Despite such incidents, university officials often speak in generalities. Robert MacAuslan, VP of AI at SNHU, emphasized the value of AI in reshaping education but noted the importance of maintaining human oversight. Faculty guidelines, he said, clearly discourage using tools like ChatGPT or Grammarly as substitutes for personalized, meaningful feedback.
Other administrators acknowledge the complexity of setting universal policies around AI. One faculty fellow from the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment admitted that establishing clear-cut rules is challenging, as appropriate AI use can differ by discipline. Instead, his department advocates for flexible principles rather than rigid policies—though critics argue this approach lacks transparency and accountability.
As AI becomes more embedded in higher education, the gap between institutional use and student restrictions may continue to widen—raising questions not just about fairness, but about what constitutes a meaningful, human-led education in the digital age.
ALSO READ : NAMFED to Present NDS-2 report to President Mnangagwa
