Guest column: When publishers’ fear of AI prohibits basic uses
Key Takeaways
- •Publishers' initial attempts to prohibit even basic AI uses, which required advocacy to revise contract language, illuminate a critical ongoing tension between traditional intellectual property rights and the educational imperative to leverage AI for learning and research.
- •This struggle reflects a broader trend where fear of AI can lead to overly restrictive policies, hindering academic freedom and innovation.
- •For the education sector, it underscores the vital role of institutions and collective action in proactively shaping equitable AI use policies to ensure beneficial access for educators and students.
Skip to main content Menu Search Special Reports --> Research High-Impact Research Research Requests Podcasts The Next 150 The Audit Video CSU YouTube CSU System YouTube Photos CSU in Photos CSU Flickr Impact Map Faculty & Staff Art of Research Applause Campus Construction alerts Editor’s note (Nov. 10, 2025): This guest column from Libraries Dean Karen Estlund resulted in advocacy from the CSU community and the national academic library community, and CAS proposed revised contract language.
Our Take
Publishers' initial attempts to prohibit even basic AI uses, which required advocacy to revise contract language, illuminate a critical ongoing tension between traditional intellectual property rights and the educational imperative to leverage AI for learning and research. This struggle reflects a broader trend where fear of AI can lead to overly restrictive policies, hindering academic freedom and innovation. For the education sector, it underscores the vital role of institutions and collective action in proactively shaping equitable AI use policies to ensure beneficial access for educators and students.
Topics & Tags
Analysis & Perspectives
Strategic Planning for AI Professional Development: Equipping Educators to Integrate AI as a Pedagogical Partner, Not Just a Tool
This article outlines a strategic framework for professional development, empowering educators to effectively integrate AI into their teaching practices. It moves beyond viewing AI as a mere tool, instead focusing on equipping educators to leverage AI as a sophisticated pedagogical partner. The aim is to enhance learning experiences and foster innovative instructional design.
Redefining Assessment and Feedback Strategies in the Age of Generative AI: From Plagiarism Detection to Promoting Critical AI Literacy
This article explores how the advent of generative AI necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of assessment and feedback strategies in education. It advocates for a shift from solely focusing on plagiarism detection towards cultivating critical AI literacy among students. The piece outlines innovative approaches to integrate AI responsibly, ensuring academic integrity while equipping learners with essential skills for an AI-driven world.
People Also Ask
What recent news of AI is most relevant for classroom teachers?▾
How has news of AI changed public perception of education?▾
What news of AI should schools track for policy planning?▾
How do I teach students to critically assess news of AI?▾
Related Articles
Your Child’s Data: The Ominous AI Threat Schools Are Ignoring
It’s a digital age, and our kids are growing up with technology woven into the very fabric of their education. From interactive whiteboards to personalized learning apps, AI is rapidly becoming an invisible force in K-12 classrooms. In fact, over 50% of students and teachers are already using AI tools in some capacity. That sounds cutting-edge, doesn’t it? Progress, efficiency, tailored education – all the buzzwords we love to hear. But here’s the unsettling truth: this lightning-fast...
Opaque by Design: Big Bans, Buttery AI Black Boxes And Blind Spots
Part Three of three on children, social media and the ban. The first piece asked how we arrived here. The second asked what we should… Opaque by Design: Big Bans, Buttery AI Black Boxes And Blind Spots was published on FE News by Neil Wolstenholme, Kloodle Chairman
Making AI chatbots friendly leads to mistakes and support of conspiracy theories
Skip to main content Skip to navigation Skip to navigation Warm chatbots are 30% less accurate and 40% more likely to support false beliefs, the study found. Photograph: Thai Liang Lim/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Warm chatbots are 30% less accurate and 40% more likely to support false beliefs, the study found. Photograph: Thai Liang Lim/Getty Images Friendly AI chatbots more likely to support conspiracy theories, study finds Chatbots programmed to respond warmly even cast doubts on Apollo moon