Barret Heaton, an adjunct professor in the Liberal Arts department, is in his first semester of teaching. He inherited another professor’s class, Mysticism in/around/under Mathematics, at the last minute and used AI to create a peer-grading rubric, disclosing his use to students. Several students emailed with concerns, prompting a class discussion.
“The amount of energy, and anger, and confusion, and despair, and disappointment was coming through really clearly,” Heaton said.
Afterward, Heaton emailed his students explaining his use of AI and promising a new rubric. Some replied that they felt heard and understood.
Heaton said this experience heightened his awareness when preparing coursework, and that he would take his time rather than reach for easy solutions.
“It’s a more meaningful process, and I feel like it’s my own,” Heaton said, “and if it works in the classroom, then I feel proud of it. Part of the reason I want to teach the class is because I’m creative, too, and I want to be creative in creating experiences, and readings, and activities for the students.”
Students at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago have noticed the use of AI by their professors and expressed alarm. SAIC has no faculty AI policy, but recently recommended Google Gemini to students, faculty, and staff. Its student policy remains unchanged.
Faculty said they use AI to create course materials or check for typos and clarity.
Sam Sharpe, a lecturer who teaches comics classes in the department of Painting and Drawing, uses AI to check for errors and clarity in worksheets or to cut down writing. But he has never used it to devise assignments, lesson plans, or exercises.
“The job of an arts educator is to teach students how to become more themselves, and part of that is making the class reflect the individual professor as much as possible, as a way of demonstrating what it means to be yourself as a creative individual,” Sharpe said. “Relying on a third party of any kind, even another human artist, to help build the class plan (unless that artist is co-teaching with me) is an abdication of that responsibility.”
For some students, professors’ AI use breaks trust.
Anna Strzepek (BFAAE 2027) had a professor who used AI to create their slides, presentations, and worksheets. Strzepek felt that it was slightly dishonest and not what she believed her tuition dollars would go toward. (Strzepek is the staff cartoonist at F Newsmagazine.)
“Particularly when it’s an education professor teaching me how to teach, I want to be able to trace their ideas and their messy process,” Strzepek said. “I want them to have to go through the trouble that we do for our lesson plans. Otherwise, how are we supposed to learn from their example?”
Sam Qian (BFA 2027) said their professor used AI to edit their resumé; Qian found it distasteful. Other students in the class were outraged and offended.
“It’s disrespectful to the students actively trying to break into an industry replacing them with data centers,” Qian said.
Across the U.S. and Canada, according to the Digital Education Council’s 2026 Global AI Faculty Survey, 67% of higher education faculty said they see themselves using AI in their teaching practice in the future. This is a lower percentage than in any other region of the world.
At SAIC, only a fraction of faculty use AI for teaching or creating course materials. Many professors intentionally avoid it.
Lecturer Marnie Galloway, who teaches comics in the department of Painting and Drawing, said that she does not use AI for developing her curriculum, in her classroom, or in any other aspect of her personal or professional life. She said that it feels like a no-brainer not to engage with AI, especially considering the environmental impact.
“My job as an educator is to support emerging artists [to] discover and deepen that internal and material process for themselves. It is a deeply humanistic and humanizing practice, and using AI would only rob me and my students of our own understanding,” Galloway said.
Todd Hasak-Lowy, an adjunct professor who teaches in the Writing and Liberal Arts departments, said that though he avoids using AI, he thinks “full-blown adults with years of writing and thinking without AI can use AI to — perhaps meaningfully — speed up and enhance some of their work, especially that of the more tedious variety.”
Other faculty believe that students and faculty should be held to the same standards.
“I whole-heartedly reject the notion of a producer/consumer divide between professors and students, and so my gut tells me that the ethics of AI use should be identical for both of us,” Assistant Professor Whitney Johnson, who teaches in the departments of Art and Technology and Sound Practices and Liberal Arts, said.
“If teachers were paid more, the amount of time spent in the classroom and out of the classroom would not feel limited to a point where hyper efficiency would be necessary,” Lecturer Eshovo Momoh, who also teaches in AT/SP, said. Momoh said that he can’t say whether it is incorrect or unethical to use AI for things that don’t require creativity like organizing class lists, syllabi, and assignments.
Artists in fields that have been reckoning with AI pre- and post-deep learning, like art and technology and sound practices, often have different relationships to AI. Since the 1980s, these fields were some of the first to be exploring modern machine learning techniques.
Adjunct Professor James Connolly, who teaches sound-based programs in the department of Film, Video, New Media, and Animation, said that while he doesn’t want students to use generative AI to make their work for them, there is creative potential for AI models that we train, develop, and run ourselves.
“I am interested in AI models that we can run on our own machines, and which exist outside of the highly destructive corporate AI data center ecosystem,” Connolly said.
Kristin McWharter, who teaches games classes in AT/SP, said that as the workforce is quickly changing to consider AI, it is paramount that people build literacy around how the tools are being used.
“I think it’s really important that people gain familiarity of how these tools are being used, whether or not they choose to actually implement those changes in their own work,” McWharter said.
She also noted the importance of interrogating the shame felt around using AI. Even though Mcwharter believes AI tools make certain technical skills more accessible, she said when people pass the work off as their own, that’s a result of shame.
“We don’t feel empowered to acknowledge the tools that we’re using to make our work, and I just want to work against those shame mechanics as much as possible,” McWharter said. “What does it mean that we’re not confident? And how can we talk about that more?”
Some faculty recommend AI for translation services in classes. Sharpe first advises students to rely on the Writing Center, but said he understands that time does not always allow a visit.
“I see using these [AI] programs as a way of bridging communication barriers between people and allowing non-native speaking students to focus [on] class work instead of translation,” Sharpe said.
In the fall of 2023, SAIC added an AI policy to the student handbook. The Academic Misconduct section reads that students are encouraged to “consult with their instructor if they are interested in utilizing AI tools (apps, etc.) to develop content they plan to submit for a course assignment,” and should ask their instructor if they aren’t sure if a tool they plan to use is AI-facilitated. The section ends: “Submitting content developed with the assistance of AI without receiving permission from the instructor to do so may constitute a violation of the School’s Academic Misconduct Policy.”
That fall, the school’s administration began sending recommended language for faculty to include in their syllabi about an AI policy for their classrooms.
On Oct. 9, 2026, Information Services sent an email to staff and faculty with the subject line “Google Gemini Approved for Employee Use.” The email explained that Google Gemini is the preferred AI tool if staff and faculty are going to use AI. It states that “because it is part of our Google Workspace for Education environment, Gemini operates under our agreement with Google and includes important security and privacy protections.”
According to Bree Witt, vice president of marketing and communications, there is not a required policy for if and how faculty and staff are permitted to use AI, other than a recommendation to use Google Gemini over other AI tools.
Although SAIC’s AI policy for students hasn’t changed, Information Services sent a similar email to students with the subject line “Google Gemini Approved for Student Use.” Both emails explain that Gemini is the preferred AI tool for its security, how to log in correctly, and the different types of Gemini tools. The email to students includes a reiteration of the existing student AI policy.
Some universities pay for AI tools. The University of Southern California spends $3.1 million annually on ChatGPT Edu. Witt said Gemini was already included in SAIC’s existing Google Workspace for Education subscription.
“It was a practical decision driven by data privacy rather than an institutional endorsement of generative AI,” said Witt.
Doug Rosman, who teaches in AT/SP, said that Gemini’s approval offers a chance to discuss AI tools and classroom policies.
“Just because the school has officially partnered with Google on this, doesn’t mean that blanket use is allowed in the classroom. Just because we have access to it doesn’t mean we should be using it,” Rosman said.
Connolly said that while it is good that SAIC is communicating policies and best practices around Google Gemini, their guidelines could have gone further.
Many students opposed Gemini’s approval.
Lian Bell (BFA 2028) said AI undermines the goals of an arts education.
“AI has been proven that if used in the wrong ways, [it] can inhibit critical thought. An institution like the [School of the] Art Institute of Chicago approving of AI only makes the situation worse,” Bell said.
Jack Loomis (BFA 2028) said that while he isn’t surprised that Gemini was approved, as many institutions are adopting AI tools, he feels Gemini doesn’t benefit students.
“Being a good artist requires you to think deeply about the world around us, and replacing that thinking with AI will only hurt SAIC students,” Loomis said.
Loomis added that approving Gemini could hurt the administration’s reputation among students.
Lucas Delagarza (BFA 2030) thinks that while AI can be a tool if used in moderation, the approval of Gemini will result in many essays and artworks being written and conceptualized with AI.
Sean Park (BFA 2027) said “the school approving AI use for students feels like they’re taking away opportunities to learn,” and pointed to the benefit of class sessions dedicated to SAIC resources like the Flaxman Library.
“I feel like this school shouldn’t be enabling more AI use, and should instead encourage us to find ways to do things outside of AI,” Park said.
