Professors at the California State University are urging the 22-campus system to exercise caution in its enthusiastic adoption of artificial intelligence for use in the classroom.

Ahead of the November meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees, the academic senate has passed a resolution asking CSU leadership to focus its AI efforts on simplifying administrative tasks for faculty instead of encouraging its use for teaching and learning. The 53-member senate serves as the official voice of the system’s 28,000 faculty members across the state.

“Because Generative AI tools easily generate long-form responses to questions, faculty are struggling to carry out meaningful assessment,” says the resolution, which was approved Nov. 5. “Rushing ahead without being able to measure whether students are learning may harm students, society, and the economy more broadly. Until we are confident that we have solved the assessment problem, indiscriminate deployment of GenAI in the classroom may do more harm than good.”

Amid a nationwide debate on the use of AI in higher education, the CSU prides itself on being what it calls the “nation’s first and largest AI-empowered university system.” Jumping on the AI train in early 2025, it partnered with tech companies such as Google, Microsoft and Nvidia.

At that time, the system struck a controversial multimillion dollar deal with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT Edu to all its faculty, staff and students. The system’s strategy, officials said, was to enhance teaching and learning with the use of AI, offer AI trainings and connect students with “AI-enabled organizations” for work opportunities.

Officials added that the CSU was offering more and more opportunities and training material for faculty to “better understand and employ AI tools in the academic setting.” This included using AI to develop course materials, integrating it into the curriculum and teaching students how to use the technology. Over the last couple of years, the CSU has offered funding for professors to integrate AI into their curriculum and joined external research projects to support the integration of AI literacy into teaching and learning.

But many faculty members, and the senate that officially represents them, are not on board.

“There’s so much more energy being put into encouraging the use of AI than into trying to honestly answer the question about whether or not it’s good for students,” said Jon Bruschke, a communications professor at Cal State Fullerton and a member of the academic senate.

“A substantial portion of the faculty on my campus have reservations about it, and I think the resolution was an attempt to say we need to put the brakes on trying to get this into the classroom and acting like the train has left the station and that something’s wrong with you if you’re not willing to get on board.”

With instructors fearing a negative impact on students’ critical thinking skills, the senate’s resolution calls for greater intentionality in deploying AI in the classroom. It says the university must be cautious until there is an “informed understanding” of the ways in which AI benefits and hinders student learning. Until then, the focus should be on using this new technology to free faculty of their administrative burden, it says. Responding to emails and applying a grade curve to student scores are some routine tasks that AI could assist with, professors said.

The resolution does not say individual faculty members should stop experimenting with AI in their instruction if they want to do so. But it pushes for a change in the systemwide priority. It asks that the CSU support faculty in developing assessment methods that are suitable in today’s AI-enabled world and collaborate on a systemwide study to understand the impact of the technology on student learning.

The resolution will be shared with the chancellor, board of trustees, campus presidents and other system leaders. The academic senate recommends policies to the CSU and serves as the official voice of the faculty, but its resolutions do not by themselves have any executive power. The next meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees, where the resolution may come up, is scheduled for Nov. 17 and 18.

This is not the first time CSU faculty have sought to limit the role of AI in their classrooms. Earlier this year, California passed a law that requires every CSU course to have a human instructor of record. Sponsored by the union representing CSU professors, the law’s goal is to prevent faculty employees from being replaced by AI tutors.

Since the CSU began implementing its AI initiative, both faculty and students have asked for greater involvement in decision-making.

In a February statement, the Cal State Student Association — which is led by and represents the student bodies at each CSU campus — cautioned against implementation of the initiative without meaningful student input. The students urged the CSU to issue consistent guidance on AI use and expressed concern over data privacy. The association also drew attention to environmental concerns and psychological impact of AI use.

In contrast to the CSU, the University of California has opted for a slower approach to systemwide adoption of AI tools. UC officials said their governance of AI was ahead of adoption, and they would not “trade safety for speed.” In 2021, the UC established a set of guiding principles for the internal use of AI, priding itself as the first university system in the country to do so. The CSU adopted a similar set of guidelines for AI use in February 2025, when it rolled out its major AI initiative.

The California Federation of Teachers, a union representing 120,000 educators and faculty, on Wednesday called for a three-year pause on AI in K-8 public school classrooms, citing concerns that schools are adopting AI tools without adequate safeguards.

_____

©2026 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.