California State University calls itself “the first and largest AI-powered public university system,” a sweeping promise to make tools and training available to 460,000 students and 63,000 faculty and staff. The press release makes grand claims, such as “AI Educational Innovations” and an AI Commons meant to transform teaching, learning, and research. The execution, however, feels less like a well-thought-out policy initiative and more like they prompted ChatGPT to make it AI-powered.
At CSUSB, faculty and student-support leaders describe a rollout that caught them off guard, provided little required training, and left both instructors and students improvising ethical boundaries on their own.
Dr. Jessica Luck, chair of CSUSB’s English Department, said faculty learned of CSU’s “AI-powered” identity at the same time the public did. “We felt just as blindsided as the students,” she said. “We found out when we read it in the newspaper.”
The English department has tried to address the confusion internally by hosting informal lunch forums where professors share the changes they are making in their classrooms. Despite some optional online information pages and a training course, Luck said the department received no direct training or consistent direction. “We’re not about forcing policies down people’s throats,” she said, “but we were given no heads-up. Everyone is just scrambling to figure out how to handle it.”
The bigger issue for Luck and her department is the education journey the students will take. “Asking AI to write your paper,” she said, “is like asking a robot to lift the weights for you in kinesiology class. You skip the work that builds your brain.” She stressed that writing is not about producing grammatically perfect sentences; it’s about the intellectual effort of forming ideas. “We want students to struggle a little,” she said. “That’s how they learn to think.”
Amid heavy workloads, a few faculty members have still managed to take CSU’s training and bring what they learned back to their departments. Dr. Sunny Hyon, a linguist in the English Department and one of the two English department faculty members to have completed the Academic Applications of AI (AAAI) microcredential, described the program as “informative,” praising its modules on ethical use, prompt creation, and classroom application.
In one of her courses, Hyon asked students to open ChatGPT and request a list of potential careers for English majors. The results varied from student to student, prompting a discussion of how AI-generated lists differ and how the tool could help identify gaps in the university’s online information on career paths.
Her example demonstrates what meaningful AI literacy can look like when professors have the time and support to implement it. But that is precisely what most CSU instructors lack. The AAAI course is optional, must be completed on the professor’s free time, and is offered without follow-up. “It’s helpful,” Luck said of Hyon’s experience, “but it shouldn’t depend on whether a few faculty members happen to take a voluntary class.”
For Nathan Jones, director of the CSUSB Writing Center, the changes are more behavioral than structural. “We haven’t overhauled how we work,” he said. “We meet students where they are and collaborate on goals. But we’re seeing new patterns in what students bring in.”
Students now arrive with drafts often heavily crafted with AI. Jones and his staff approach those papers the same way they always have: ask about intent, discuss citations, and discuss ethical use. Jones pointed to a more potentially sinister side of AI usage when he said, “Watching Grammarly or an AI suggestion steer a student mid-sentence is like seeing another agent seize the wheel. If you accept uncritically, your thinking shifts without you noticing.”
The Writing Center has tried to keep up through self-study and staff reading. They recently discussed a Harvard Business Review article on “AI work slop,” meaning work produced carelessly by AI and handed off to others to clean up. The piece raised questions about trust and collaboration that the center is increasingly seeing in student writing.
Jones confirmed that Writing Center staff received access to the same optional AAAI training. None has completed it. “Our student employees are capped at 20 hours a week,” he said. “If the training takes ten hours, that’s half their week. When it isn’t required, it’s hard to justify.”
Jones related an anecdote in which he asked a group of upper-division and graduate students whether they had ever used AI in their work, and every hand went up. When he followed by asking who had ever cited AI in their writing, every hand went down. When he asked who had used the university-provided AI, no hands went up. “The biggest effect of providing a campus AI might be the signal that using AI is sanctioned,” he said. “Students may not use the campus tool, but they feel permitted to use AI elsewhere.”
The Writing Center has already expanded its resources to meet the moment. It now provides handouts on citing AI in APA and MLA formats and offers workshops for graduate students on documenting AI use in their theses and dissertations. Tutors also advise students accused of AI use, some of whom are wrongly accused, on how to demonstrate process and authorship. “We’re seeing more of that,” Jones said. “Students who didn’t use AI and don’t know how to prove they didn’t.”
On Oct 28, CSUSB hosted what was described as an “IRA-supported CSUSB Student Success Workshop focused on helping students integrate AI into the learning process” led by Professor Viktor Wang from the Department of Educational Leadership and Technology. The event, available to CSUSB students via email on Zoom, promised to help students understand how to “ethically integrate AI into their educational journeys.”
About 20 people attended, several of them student presenters. The session covered topics such as how generative AI works, responsible use, and examples of classroom applications. It introduced useful concepts, including the “tutor, tool, topic” framework, which encourages students to learn from, with, and about technology —a solid educational model developed by Robert Taylor in 1980.
Still, much of the presentation blurred the line between enthusiasm and accuracy. Some statements, such as that “AI launched in November 2022,” that “70 percent of Hollywood movies are made with AI,” or that the CSU spent $16.9 million investing in ChatGPT, were misleading or incorrect. Others overstated AI’s cognitive abilities or understated its current reach, suggesting that GenAI created new knowledge or that AI can’t access the internet. Wang’s student presenters often brought the discussion back to practical ground, emphasizing verification, transparency, and bias awareness, but the workshop was certainly not official university training, more like a panel discussion of enthused AI users.
The event illustrated a recurring CSU pattern: initiatives advertised as part of a major AI rollout that, in practice, amount to small, voluntary sessions attended by only a few students. The workshop’s goals —ethical literacy, critical use, and awareness of bias — were admirable, but its limited attendance, less-than-factual generalizations, and lack of formal integration into coursework underscored how far the CSU still has to go in turning “AI Powered” into a usable tool for students and faculty.
CSU’s Academic Senate seems to share that lack of direction. Its resolution, The Possible Use of AI in Instruction, explicitly states that the university “has no intention of requiring that faculty use GenAI.” It recognizes that “some students will inevitably use GenAI” and encourages instructors to adapt assignments accordingly. But the resolution stops short of mandating training or offering clear standards. It is, in essence, an acknowledgment that the system is figuring things out as it goes.
Meanwhile, CSU’s AI Commons site includes several thoughtful documents: an AI Literacy Literature Summary, an Ethical Principles Framework, and Guidelines for Faculty Regarding AI in Instruction. They all stress ethical use, transparency, and critical engagement. But each document also describes itself as non-prescriptive. The framework “does not dictate practices,” the literacy page “invites reflection,” and the faculty guidelines “encourage local adaptation.” They are well-meaning and toothless.
The result is a patchwork. Some departments embrace AI experimentation; others ban it outright. Some students learn to prompt critically; others learn to hide their use of prompts. Professors are left to interpret vague assurances of “empowerment” without clear rules, while support centers field the fallout. Students risk using tools provided by their university that could get them kicked out.
The stakes are not theoretical. AI use in writing and research raises practical and ethical questions that require literacy and education, not thoughts and prayers.
Students who use AI haphazardly skip the cognitive exercise that writing is meant to teach: synthesizing, analyzing, and articulating. Students who never use it may graduate unprepared for workplaces that now expect AI fluency. Professors who ban it entirely may encourage academic integrity but miss opportunities to teach ethical usage. Professors who allow it without guardrails risk unintentional plagiarism.
Even well-intentioned integration can go wrong. An art student, who asked to remain anonymous, said they were required to use generative AI to create images in a class designed to teach drawing. The student objected on environmental and ethical grounds, but was told they had to complete the assignment using AI. CSU providing ChatGPT without structured guidance gives students permission to cheat and gives professors the power to force its use.
The broader irony is that CSU’s systemwide announcement seems to have legitimized AI use more than it has educated anyone about it. Jones calls it a “signal effect.” The existence of a CSU-branded chatbot implies safety and approval, even if few use it. That’s what happens when policy is superseded by the press.
There are workable solutions. The CSU does not need to ban AI, nor does it need to glorify it. It needs to teach it. The AAAI microcredential could become a required baseline for all teaching faculty, with compensation for completion and discipline-specific modules. Every professor, from art to zoology, should know how AI works, where it fails, and how to integrate or restrict it responsibly.
Before orientation, every incoming CSU student should complete an AI literacy and ethics module. CSU already requires training on Title IX, alcohol safety, and information security. AI usage deserves the same level of importance. Students need to know how to cite AI, when not to use it, and how to document their writing process to protect themselves.
Faculty should be provided with a clear menu of policy statements ranging from full prohibition to guided integration, so they can choose one, adapt it, and include it in every syllabus. Consistency does not mean uniformity; it means transparency.
Student-support units like Writing Centers and Libraries should receive paid time and funding to train staff and update resources. Compensation for faculty and staff is a far better way to spend 17 million dollars than simply providing every student with a ChatGPT account. That is where policy becomes practice.
If CSU is to remain credible in its claim to be “AI-powered,” it must report progress annually: how many faculty have completed training, how many students have completed literacy modules, what learning outcomes are observed, and what gaps persist.
It’s not about being against AI; it’s about preparation. Faculty like Jessica Luck and Sunny Hyon are already doing the real work of adapting pedagogy. Staff like Nathan Jones are translating theory into student support. And educators like Viktor Wang are in the trenches with students. They should not be left to shoulder an institutional experiment alone.
Artificial intelligence is not going away. Students will continue to use it. Professors will continue to debate it. Universities will continue to market it. Corporations will continue to demand fluency. But the difference between being “AI-powered” and being “AI-prepared” is the difference between a slogan and an education.
For now, the CSU’s initiative feels more like branding than transformation. It promises empowerment but delivers ambiguity. The tools have been handed out. The safety manual is optional.
Understood. Below is a **public-facing rebuttal statement** you can post (or adapt as an op-ed, comment, or open letter). It is assertive, corrective, and instructional—aimed not just at the author, but at readers. It **does not litigate line-by-line**, but instead establishes authority, practice, and pedagogy, and reframes the issue at a higher level.
—
**Public Response: On AI, Accuracy, and What Responsible Practice Actually Looks Like**
I attended the Oct. 28 CSUSB AI workshop—because I led it.
Several characterizations of that session, and of my work more broadly, reflect a misunderstanding of both what was said and how AI is responsibly used in higher education. Rather than rebutting sentence by sentence, I want to clarify the *practice* and *pedagogy* that guided that workshop and continue to guide my teaching, research, and service.
First, the factual record.
• ChatGPT was publicly released in November 2022. That statement is accurate and widely documented.
• The CSU’s $16.9 million investment in AI-related infrastructure, tools, and initiatives has been publicly reported by CSU and CSUSB. Referencing published system communications is not “enthusiasm”; it is citation.
• When discussing AI’s presence in media and creative industries, I spoke about **AI-assisted workflows**, not that AI singlehandedly “creates” films. Anyone familiar with contemporary production understands the pervasive use of algorithmic tools in editing, sound design, rendering, restoration, localization, and visual effects. That distinction matters—and it was made.
Now to the more important issue: **how AI is actually used in serious academic work**.
I use AI every day—not to replace thinking, but to *reclaim it*.
• I design detailed grading rubrics and write precise prompts so AI can help surface patterns in student submissions, allowing me to focus on feedback, reasoning, and learning outcomes rather than repetitive mechanical tasks.
• I use AI to shoulder drudgery: rewriting and polishing course catalogs, aligning learning objectives, and checking consistency across large curricular documents.
• I use AI to read—rapidly and across languages. AI can process hundreds of pages in minutes and give an accurate gist, which allows me to decide where *my* deep reading is required.
• I use AI to review lengthy dissertations, summarize arguments, and flag methodological or analytical issues before I conduct further assessment myself.
• I use AI because it is capable of inferential statistical analysis, calculus, and methodological verification—tools that support, not replace, scholarly judgment.
• I use AI to re-evaluate dissertation methods chapters, not to rubber-stamp them, but to *stress test* them.
In every course I teach, I post a clear AI usage policy. Students are not told to “use AI blindly,” nor are they told to fear it. They are taught to become **responsible, ethical, and critical users**—to disclose, to verify, to cite, and to understand the limits of the tools they engage.
That is education. Not prohibition. Not hype.
For context: I have published eight books on artificial intelligence totaling more than 4,000 pages. I recently launched *The International Journal of AI on Pedagogy, Innovation, and Learning Futures*. My work sits at the intersection of AI, education, and workforce transformation because that is where our students already live.
I am a product of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. So are our students.
The guiding principle of my teaching—and of the workshop in question—is simple and longstanding:
**Learn about technology.
Learn with technology.
Learn from technology.**
This framework is not new, reckless, or unserious. It is how educators prepare learners for a world that already expects AI fluency, ethical reasoning, and critical judgment—simultaneously.
If we reduce AI conversations to caricatures of “enthusiasm versus accuracy,” we miss the real work: teaching students *how* to think with powerful tools without surrendering their agency.
That was the purpose of the workshop.
That remains the purpose of my work.
The article presents a critique of CSU’s AI initiative that blends opinion, anecdote, and reporting. While broader discussion of institutional AI strategy is appropriate, the section describing the Oct. 28 CSUSB Student Success Workshop contains inaccuracies and misleading characterizations that require correction.
First, the workshop was supported by IRA (Instructionally Related Activities) funding and was properly designated as a student success initiative. IRA funding is intended to support co-curricular and instructional support activities that enhance student learning outside formal coursework. The session was therefore an appropriate and legitimate use of IRA funds, focused on student AI literacy, ethical awareness, and critical engagement—not on policy training or systemwide faculty development.
Second, the workshop was not presented as official CSU or CSUSB training, nor was it advertised as systemwide guidance or mandatory instruction. It was a voluntary, student-facing educational session. Framing it as representative of CSU’s AI rollout or institutional policy misrepresents both its scope and intent.
Third, the article attributes incorrect or misleading statements to the workshop, including claims that “AI launched in November 2022,” that “70 percent of Hollywood movies are made with AI,” and that the CSU “spent $16.9 million investing in ChatGPT.” These claims are either inaccurate or imprecisely framed. Any reference to November 2022 was clearly about the public release of ChatGPT, not the origin of artificial intelligence as a field. The reported $16.9 million figure refers to a systemwide investment in AI-related infrastructure, licensing, and services across multiple vendors, not a purchase of ChatGPT as a standalone product. Presenting it otherwise is misleading.
Fourth, the assertion that the workshop suggested generative AI “creates new knowledge” or that AI “cannot access the internet” does not accurately reflect the substance of the session. The workshop emphasized limitations, verification, bias awareness, ethical use, and human responsibility in AI-supported learning. Student presenters repeatedly reinforced transparency, critical evaluation, and the need to understand AI outputs as probabilistic and fallible rather than authoritative.
Fifth, the characterization of the workshop as blurring “enthusiasm and accuracy” is based on selective interpretation rather than documented evidence. No transcript, recording, or formal verification process is cited, and no opportunity for response or clarification was provided prior to publication.
Finally, the article repeatedly uses this IRA-supported student workshop as a proxy for CSU’s broader AI strategy, despite acknowledging that the session was small, voluntary, and informal. Using a student success activity to critique a systemwide policy initiative is analytically unsound and unfairly personalizes what is fundamentally an institutional governance and implementation issue.
In sum, while critical examination of CSU’s AI rollout is necessary, accuracy and contextual integrity matter. An IRA-funded student workshop should not be misrepresented as official policy training, nor should individual faculty be positioned as symbols of institutional failure through imprecise or incorrect claims. Constructive debate about AI in higher education depends on careful distinctions among policy, infrastructure, experimentation, and student-facing educational support.
Dr. Wang –
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the article, I am sorry that you found it to be disparaging, that was not my intent. While I had a less than optimal experience with the event, as I outlined in the article, I was still pleased that the effort was being made to bring ethical usage of AI to the forefront of students minds.
As for inaccuracies in the reporting, I have a full Zoom transcript of the call, and am more than willing to share with you the excerpts that I pulled those quotes from. At 2:17:03 you specifically stated AI cons included “No access to the internet. Some paid, has limited knowledge..” at 2:09:17 you stated ” So if you turn on TV, you know people talk about, you know about 70% of move. Hollywood movies are made with the assistance of AI..” at 2:10:47 you stated that ” Generative AI was launched in november 2022 ” and while I am sure you were referring to ChatGPT’s launch in Nov 2022 .. there are many other generative AI models that came before and after. At 2:14:52 you stated that “we have all these available tools. And i use i use chat gpt because the csu has invested.. 16.9 million dollars. And of all the AI tools, i believe chat gpt is probably the best..” Lastly, at 2:11:58 you stated “Alright so We say generative AI.. Because AI is capable of generating new knowledge. And that’s why, you know. That’s that’s 1 of the major reasons we need to apply.”
I would be happy to submit the Zoom transcript file to you for review if you would like.
As for whether this should have been considered an “official policy training” your own email marketing the event stated:
“Hi Coyotes,
Quick reminder that our AI training webinar is tomorrow, Monday, Oct 27, 2:00–4:00 PM (Pacific). Join to learn practical, ethical ways to use AI for studying and career prep.
”
The follow up email said the following:
”
Join us for an IRA-supported CSUSB Student Success Workshop focused on helping students integrate AI into the learning process—ethically, effectively, and with practical, hands-on strategies you can use right away. We’ll cover smart ways to use AI for studying, research, writing, and time management, plus tips to avoid common pitfalls. All students are welcome.
”
Bolding was yours.
Neither of these emails, sent from a CSUSB mail-list, by a professor at CSUSB to CSUSB Students indicate that they are not an official CSUSB sponsored activity.
I stand behind my reporting of this event, and while I felt there were shortcomings, I presented several positive takeaways from the session.