@rkaplan, you never have to worry that I’ll take pushback or disagreement personally–I don’t. I’ve always learned best through thoughtful, respectful discussion. Besides, I’m pretty laid-back about most things. So never hesitate to challenge my thinking. 
Just to clarify, as I said originally, I’m not opposed to students or staff using AI. In fact, I agree–it should be encouraged as part of preparing students for college and career. The challenge is determining when and how it’s appropriate for students to leverage AI as a tool in their learning.
I think we’re approaching this from different perspectives. In an academic context–especially where writing is concerned–the process is not just a means to an end. It’s the point. Writing is where critical thinking, reflection, synthesis, and imagination happen. It’s not only about producing a polished document–it’s about forming understanding and developing the art and discipline of writing itself.
One cannot learn to write–or, I would argue, think critically and imaginatively–without actually writing. If we outsource that process to AI, we risk bypassing the very intellectual and creative work that writing is designed to cultivate.
Students learn by doing.
If AI is doing all the doing, then students won’t truly learn to write. In an academic setting, authorship matters–not only for ethical reasons, but because the learning is in the doing.
To put it in practical terms: suppose I submit an AI-generated white paper to my board–a paper that, for all intents and purposes, I did not write. It’s well-crafted and well-received. I’m praised for my insight and leadership. But am I truly worthy of that praise? Even if I edited and approved the final version, the fact remains: I didn’t write it. A machine did, using scraped material from the work of others. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that doesn’t feel honest. Any recognition I received would feel unearned and hollow. It feels like winning a game by cheating.
That’s why this issue matters deeply to me–not just for my own integrity, but because I’m helping shape a culture that values original thought, honest effort, and intellectual ownership. If I begin submitting work written by AI, I’m undermining the very standards I want our students to uphold.
As I said earlier, I’m not opposed to using AI to support the process–brainstorming, outlining, offering stylistic feedback.
But I draw a clear line between support and substitution.
That line protects the purpose of writing in academic life: learning, not merely producing a product.
I value this discussion. It’s a complex and evolving issue, and hearing other perspectives helps sharpen my thinking. For me, this is a conversation about learning, not persuading. So if there’s a flaw in my reasoning or something I’ve missed, please don’t hesitate to push back. I welcome it. 