“Skepticism should not be treated as resistance; it often identifies genuine concerns that responsible implementation needs to address,” says Jean-Francois Coget, dean of the College of Business at Sacramento State University. “Trust must be earned through transparency, participation and evidence. Institutions should explain what tools are being used, how information is protected, where AI is permitted and where it is not, and who remains accountable for the outcome. Faculty, staff and students should also have meaningful opportunities to question proposed uses and help shape institutional practices.”
Start With a Framework for AI Adoption
As AI transforms higher education and the student experience, there’s a risk that student expectations will not be met, says Aaron Ament, president of the National Student Legal Defense Network (Student Defense).
“Students’ expectations of what the college experience will be like often involve human interaction, such as relationships with professors,” he says. “When those interactions are supplanted by technology, there’s a risk of losing important parts of the educational experience, such as identifying at-risk students or students with high potential in a certain area. AI must be used to add value, not to replace key parts of the human experience.”
DISCOVER: Communities of practice help boost faculty proficiency with AI.
In April 2026, Student Defense released the Student AI Bill of Rights, establishing five nonnegotiable protections that institutions can use as a checklist for informing decisions about when to use AI. The five protections are:
- The right to transparency about when and how AI is being used to evaluate students
- The right to human oversight on high-stakes decisions
- The right to data sovereignty over students’ academic work and personal information
- The right to an education free from algorithmic bias
- The right to share in AI's benefits by being prepared to work with the technology as informed citizens
This high-level framework may be a good starting place for institutions to make decisions about how to use AI and how to communicate with the campus community about its use.
Open the Conversation to the Campus Community
Students and faculty members should have input into decisions about responsible innovation with AI, but that isn’t happening on most campuses. In fact, just 31% of faculty members said their institution meaningfully involves them in shaping AI policy, according to a 2026 Digital Education Council survey.
READ MORE: Old Dominion University’s AI incubator redefines AI literacy.
Often, skepticism stems from a lack of transparency and fear that leaders will impose new processes without accountability, says Roger Lam, founder and CEO of Ordify AI, a no-code AI orchestration platform that partners with institutions such as the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. “The institutions getting this right aren't just pushing AI literacy, they are focusing on agency,” he says. “They provide low-stakes, governed environments where the AI is an extension of the user’s workflow, not a replacement for their work. When students can see exactly how the AI logic functions and have the authority to guide it, the anxiety begins to ease.”
When technology leaders don’t allow room for campus community members to voice their input, there’s an increased risk that they’ll lose control of the narrative. “If faculty members don't trust IT, they don't come to IT,” says Sean Campbell, founder of Cascade Insights, professor of AI and director of AI integration at George Fox University. “They use their personal ChatGPT account with student data in it, and you've lost the visibility you needed most.”
In addition to listening to leaders across campus voice their concerns, it’s also important for IT leaders to communicate with transparency. “IT leaders need to be clear about their own motivations when they advocate for an AI platform,” Campbell says. “People can tell the difference between ‘This is the best tool for your work’ and ‘This is the tool we already pay for.’ Say which one it is.”
UP NEXT: An AI center of excellence can help shape a university’s AI strategy.
Focus on Outcomes
At George Fox University, Campbell and his team work to set specific guidelines about which decisions will remain human. “Anything touching a student's standing, their aid, their admission or an academic integrity question needs a person accountable for the call and a student who can ask how it was made,” he says.
The decision to adopt an AI tool should be based on the outcome rather than the shiny new technology.
“Some of the most effective work you can do as an IT leader is to lead more with the job impact and less with the tech,” Campbell says. “Show how a job can be improved and how outcomes get easier to reach: better student education, better student retention, and faculty and employees who are happier with their day-to-day — and be clear about the limits of the technology as it stands today.”
