Indecision Is a Decision: Now is the Time to Define Your AI Position

[Ai]

For institutions considering faculty and student engagement with AI, each day without clear guidance means decisions are being made in individual classrooms without institutional support. Some faculty are experimenting with ChatGPT to draft assignment prompts. Students may be using Claude for research. IT teams are fielding requests for tool approvals without institutional guidance. While academic integrity officers are handling cases with inconsistent frameworks.

The absence of an AI policy isn't the absence of impact—it's the presence of chaos.

The Hidden Costs of Inaction

Without clear institutional guidance, the impact of AI use across campus is shaped by chance rather than intention, leading to predictable and avoidable problems.

• Institutional support becomes disconnected and risky. Nearly half of institutions are investing in AI-related professional development, yet without a clear policy, faculty may leave sessions more confused than confident. They learn what AI can do but return to classrooms unsure of what’s permitted, encouraged, or aligned with institutional values. Meanwhile, tool adoption often happens ad hoc—faculty discover tools on their own, use them in isolation, then seek approval after the fact. This disconnect weakens the impact of training and increases the risk of security vulnerabilities, compliance issues, and inconsistent pedagogy.
• Equity goals turn into accidental inequities.  Institutions often name equity, ethics, and algorithmic bias as priorities, but without clear guidance, these values can’t consistently shape day-to-day AI decisions. One department might embrace AI for accessibility while another restricts it entirely, not because of different values, but because of unclear direction. Students with fewer resources fall behind as policies vary by instructor, turning your commitment to equity into a matter of circumstance rather than design.
• Student trust erodes through unpredictability.  When AI rules shift from class to class—banned in one, required in another, ignored in a third—students face uncertainty. Inconsistency undermines the trust that predictability builds in a learning environment. Some avoid beneficial AI use altogether; others take unnecessary risks because expectations are unclear. A policy creates the shared contract that fosters confidence through consistency.

The longer the delay, the more these challenges compound. Faculty remain hesitant to experiment, students navigate contradictory expectations, and informal norms take root that will be harder to change later. A clear policy is the most effective way to replace uncertainty with confidence and to align daily decisions with your institution’s values.

Policy as Protection and Empowerment

Your faculty’s perspectives on AI may vary widely. Some are eager to explore new possibilities, others are cautious and want more evidence, and some remain firmly opposed. A well-crafted policy doesn’t force convergence on a single stance; it protects all positions by making expectations transparent and respectful. Clear guidance allows early adopters to experiment within agreed boundaries, gives cautious faculty the clarity they need to set limits with confidence, and ensures those who choose not to engage with AI are equally supported.

Because a well-crafted AI policy isn't restrictive bureaucracy, it's protective infrastructure. It shields faculty from the anxiety of making isolated decisions about emerging technology. It protects students from conflicting expectations across their learning experience. And, it safeguards your institution from the risks that come with uncoordinated adoption.

A policy also empowers. It gives some educators the green light they have been waiting for, allowing them to engage with AI within clear boundaries. It allows students to develop AI literacy skills consistently across their educational experience. It positions your institution as thoughtful and proactive rather than reactive and uncertain.

Moving Beyond "Wait and See"

Institutions are actively exploring AI use cases, investing in professional development, and navigating the ethical considerations. This isn't theoretical planning for a distant future—it's addressing daily realities.

Whether your institution chooses to encourage AI use, maintain caution, or take a measured approach, that decision should be intentional and clearly communicated. The issue isn't whether your stance should be permissive or cautious—it's whether you'll make that choice deliberately or leave it to chance.

Your institution's values matter. Its educational mission matters. Its commitment to supporting both educators and students matters. But without a policy that translates these principles into actionable guidance, they remain abstractions while real decisions get made in real classrooms by people who need institutional leadership.

The wait-and-see period for a policy has served its purpose. We’ve seen enough to know that classrooms are already making AI-related decisions without coordinated guidance. Now it’s time to define your stance, support your community, and lead with the clarity your community deserves.

The decisions are happening anyway—make sure they align with your institution’s vision for the future. 

Defining your AI policy doesn’t have to be overwhelming.

We’ve created a guide to help institutions turn their values into clear, actionable guidance—adaptable to your context and focused on shaping a future-ready academic culture.

Position. Draft. Align. Deliver. A step-by-step guide to developing a policy for AI that reflects yo... © 2025 by Alison Irvine is licensed under CC BY 4.0