Harvard University
“We would all benefit from getting out of the AI-detection business because it damages trust between faculty and students,” the dean – David J. Deming – stated in an email he sent to students on the first day of class. The email stated that he favored “actively encouraging AI usage where it can deepen learning.”
The faculty wasted no time sharing their worries about how AI could undermine learning by discouraging students from coming up with their own thoughts.
The debate at Harvard is just a small part of a larger and ongoing debate about what stance institutions of higher education should take regarding use of the technology for coursework and exams.
The debate is also unfolding amid a steady release of reports and research warning about the perils of allowing AI to play too big of a role in what students produce.
For instance, a 2026 paper from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania raises concerns about how AI can foster “cognitive surrender” when people rely on AI-generated answers and solutions without doing the intellectual work necessary to derive them.
“What happens when our judgments are shaped by minds not our own? What becomes of intuition and effort when a generative, artificial partner stands ready to answer?” researchers ask in the paper. “How do we preserve agency, reflection, and autonomy in a world where users engage in cognitive surrender?”
It also comes at a time when universities are wrestling with developing policies to govern the use of AI not only in the classroom but on campus in general. For instance, The EDU Ledger found through a LinkedIn poll in June 2026 that more than half of respondents – 52% – indicated no formal policy on AI use is currently in place to guide AI use in admissions, advising, or hiring decisions. Another 26% said they are unsure whether any policies exist. Only 8% of respondents indicated that a policy is in place. The final 11% of respondents noted that AI policy is in development.
