If a muscle atrophies, our bodies weaken. We can’t walk very far, we can’t lift things.

When your ability to think atrophies, well, that’s arguably a whole lot worse. “Cogito, ergo sum,” or — “I think, therefore I am,” as René Descartes put it.

Thinking, thus, is as elemental as breathing. Universities should create the conditions for students to learn how to do it well, and the University of Chicago has struck an important blow to that end.

Leaning on the convenience of artificial intelligence for writing assignments comes at a cognitive cost: A reduction in critical thinking, according to a 2025 study from researchers at MIT, Wellesley and the Massachusetts College of Art and Design.

A new policy for the U. of C.’s social sciences core aims to return the classroom to an analog experience in which students must generally read, write and analyze without AI’s assistance.

“At UChicago, we train students to use both reason and specialized knowledge in preparation for life as a free person,” the memo from Social Sciences Collegiate Division Master Jenny Trinitapoli reads. “… we first equip students to read, write, and think without dependence on AI, just as we equip students to read, write, and think beyond the bounds of conventional views or leading ideologies.”

In other words, this is about challenging students to think for themselves before introducing the life-altering capabilities of artificial intelligence into the equation.

Note, this memo is explicitly not anti-AI. Trinitapoli notes that technology can be “used for good scholarly purposes in other parts of the curriculum.”

It simply recognizes the proper sequence of things — think first, leverage tools after.

The same restraint applies to professors, who will not be permitted to employ AI to write syllabuses or course materials. AI use in grading is also tightly restricted.

This effort to cultivate our own minds, as Trinitapoli puts it, is noble and worthwhile, and absolutely in keeping with the university’s long and hallowed reputation as an institution where rigorous instruction and deep intellectual engagement are considered table stakes.

Notably, this policy does not apply to the whole school but to a set of discussion-based social science courses. U. of C. President Paul Alivisatos has made his broader philosophy known, too, and it comes across as entirely sensible, acknowledging the powerful assistance AI can offer when, say, doing data analysis while at the same time reinforcing the need for independent thought.

“The University has a duty of care to ensure that the education offered to you is responsive to these technological developments by teaching you how to think with machines, how to think without them, and how to think about them,” Alivisatos said in a June statement.

The U. of C. is not alone in reckoning with how to lasso AI in academic settings. Duke University earlier this month updated its AI guidance, reinforcing that students are expected to do their own work, unless authorized, and sharing the expectation that professors should come up with guidance on the use of AI in the classroom to be included in their syllabuses. All while firmly supporting AI literacy.

Columbia University, too, “embraces generative AI tools” while also demanding its students rely on the use of their own critical thinking skills in the pursuit of their education, meaning students are expected to do their assignments and exams without AI assistance, unless expressly permitted.

These universities are among our nation’s top schools, and what they do resonates far beyond the confines of campus. We expect others will follow suit.

We applaud the University of Chicago for recognizing the fundamental importance of teaching students to think for themselves.

___

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.