AI is polarizing post-secondary education, with instructors divided on how it should be used
Yasmine Elsayed (she/her) // Contributor
Caroline Zhang (They/Them) // Illustrator
AI (artificial intelligence) continues to spark intense debate about how, why and to what extent we should embrace it. With AI’s rapid growth and integration into our society, our approach to monitoring its capabilities and developing relevant policies is not as fast as its technological advancements.
From artists utilizing AI in their work to professors at major universities using it in their classrooms, AI has found its way into nearly every discipline. For some, AI represents a new and innovative frontier, whereas others outright refuse it and express deep concerns with its under regulated application.
Luis Eduardo Azmitia Pardo—an economics professor here at Capilano University—believes that, “AI should be approached thoughtfully and with caution, but not with fear.” When asked about how he integrates AI into his courses, he expressed that AI plays more of a supportive role, helpful but with clear guidance. Additionally, he provided examples clarifying his approach, “students may use AI to help brainstorm ideas, organize their writing or clarify concepts. But, I emphasize that their own critical thinking, analysis and reflection must remain central. There are areas where I encourage them not to use AI at all, such as phenomenological or contemplative reflections, which are deeply personal and tied to their own lived experiences.”
Azmitia Pardo notes that AI has helped make learning more accessible to students—especially those who struggle with structure or language—and has offered a way to demonstrate how technology can be used to assist rather than do the heavy lifting. “The challenge, of course, lies in ensuring that students don’t bypass their own learning process or rely too heavily on AI to do the thinking for them.”
In contrast, Cara DiGirolamo, an English instructor at CapU, holds reservations about using AI in an academic environment. They note that when universities support AI, it suggests that institutions do not prioritize students’ future advancements. DiGirolamo is explicitly referring to LLMs (language learning models), such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok, among others. They believe that LLMs offer an easy way out, saying, “If you are tempted to cheat, AI makes it easy to cheat. If you don’t like to struggle, AI makes it possible to avoid struggling. Choosing not to use AI is possibly the best thing someone can do for their moral fibre.” This further emphasizes that if AI becomes a greater, more integrated part of post-secondary education, universities will have sacrificed scholarship and higher learning in the name of convenience.
While AI should be approached with caution, DiGirolamo believes that if universities choose to embrace AI in a more formal capacity, appropriate measures should be taken to maintain critical thinking. They explain, “Class sizes must be reduced to a maximum of 15 students, and all exams must be converted to oral exams where students have to explain things verbally with no aids. Everyone must also build their own neural net, so they can see exactly how AI works and why it is unreliable for research.”
Whether AI is viewed as an asset or a liability, its place in higher education may reveal more about how we value learning and academic integrity than about the technology itself. As demonstrated by the conflicting views held by Azmitia Pardo and DiGirolamo, instructors are divided on how AI should be approached within the academic environment. On the one hand, AI can be seen as providing a relative advantage in the learning process. On the other, it can also be viewed as an existential threat to the purpose of higher education. But, in the absence of consensus among faculty members, one thing is certain: AI is here to stay, and universities need to adapt fast.