Dartmouth College Provost Santiago Schnell no longer appears to write his own opinion pieces and academic articles, a revelation that has ignited a fierce campus debate over institutional hypocrisy, the role of artificial intelligence in higher education, and the fundamental value of human writing. <\/p>\n
The controversy began as a byproduct of an investigation by Dartmouth college student journalists. The student reporters were piggybacking on a broader national investigation by the Semafor<\/em> website, which attempted to determine which guest opinion pieces published in major newspapers had been written or heavily assisted by artificial intelligence, using the Pangram AI-checking program to scan the texts.<\/p>\n Industry experts note that AI detectors are not completely infallible. As various commentators and researchers have explored, minor tweaks in text can sometimes shift an AI-checking program’s determination from 100% AI to 100% human. However, Provost Schnell has not denied using artificial intelligence to produce text that he ultimately submits and warrants as reflecting his own professional output.<\/p>\n When questioned by Dartmouth student journalists via email, Schnell defended his workflow. He explained that he deploys artificial intelligence for language refinement, copyediting, improving clarity and organization, and making his writing processes more efficient. He maintained that he always reviews the final text and takes full responsibility for its content. <\/p>\n Intriguingly, the email response that Provost Schnell sent directly to the student journalists was itself flagged and judged to be 100% AI-written. When confronted with this specific finding, Schnell clarified his process further. He stated that he developed the substance and wrote an initial draft, then used an AI tool to assist with language and clarity. He noted that he incorporated several suggestions\u2014including reworded sentences\u2014before reading it through, making minor changes, and sending it out under his signature. He reiterated, "I am fully responsible for any text under my signature."<\/p>\n Despite his insistence on accountability, critics point out a stark contradiction: he did not actually write the text he is standing behind. At best, Provost Schnell has substituted the labor of writing for automated text generation. The 100%-AI-written scores suggest he may have gone an even further step toward fully automated text production, bypassing the cognitive struggle of drafting entirely.<\/p>\n This practice is not sitting well with a significant portion of the student body. In a biting opinion piece published in the student newspaper, Eli Moyse, a senior majoring in government studies and creative writing, called for Provost Schnell to be fired. Moyse highlighted what he considers an untenable hypocrisy: Schnell using generative AI to produce a Washington Post<\/em> op-ed while simultaneously presiding over strict academic integrity policies that penalize students for similar shortcuts, particularly when it comes to cheating with AI. <\/p>\n Moyse characterized Schnell\u2019s actions as an insult to the student body. As the chief academic officer of Dartmouth College, utilizing automated tools to secretly produce polished prose is the exact kind of behavior that would land undergraduate students in serious disciplinary trouble. <\/p>\n The tension surrounding artificial intelligence on campus is palpable. Writing about the broader academic landscape in The Chronicle of Higher Education<\/em>, Dartmouth writing professor Jeff Sharlet noted that his students "hate" artificial intelligence, even as they increasingly find themselves compelled to use it out of academic pressure or perceived necessity.<\/p>\n While the future of Provost Schnell\u2019s position remains uncertain, some observers suggest he may be on relatively solid institutional ground, given the administration’s broader stance on technology. Earlier in September, Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock published an opinion piece in The Atlantic<\/em> bearing the provocative title, "Why I Want More AI at Dartmouth."<\/p>\n In her article, President Beilock articulated a pragmatic perspective, arguing that if universities hope to remain relevant in a world rapidly shaped by artificial intelligence, they should strive to guide students to understand and use these tools productively. Undoubtedly, a crucial part of this productive integration involves navigating the complex ethical considerations surrounding automated writing\u2014considerations that Provost Schnell appears to have overlooked in his pursuit of administrative efficiency.<\/p>\n President Beilock also used her essay to criticize educators who resist technological changes, writing that rather than tackling disruptive shifts and the resulting anxiety head-on, many educators are merely trying to make AI go away. While characterizing total resistance as an attempt to wish the technology away may oversimplify the concerns of educators, her core point about the necessity of confronting the issue head-on resonates across the academic community.<\/p>\n This situation forces a deeper examination of the intersection between human labor and artificial intelligence assistance, particularly in the realm of writing. Writing is not merely a mechanism that results in a final text product; it is an active, cognitively demanding experience in and of itself. Engaging in automation-assisted or fully automated text generation via large language models inevitably denies or distorts that essential human experience. The act of struggling with phrasing, sentence structure, and conceptual clarity is deeply intertwined with how humans formulate and refine their thoughts.<\/p>\n For Provost Schnell, who successfully established his academic career and publishing record long before the advent of modern text-generating LLMs, the loss of this writing process may seem trivial. He has transitioned smoothly to an automated workflow that prioritizes speed and polish. However, for students\u2014especially those at the student newspaper who have publicly stated they "don’t want more AI at Dartmouth"\u2014the distinction is vital. <\/p>\n Observers have raised valid concerns about "self-alienation," a phenomenon where an individual’s choice to automate significant portions of their core labor removes the connective tissue that makes professional work meaningful and intellectually rewarding. Witnessing this transition in leadership can erode trust within an academic community.<\/p>\n If academic leadership is going to incorporate generative AI into their regular professional practices, transparency becomes paramount. Institutions and administrators owe the communities they serve complete honesty regarding how communications and policy statements are produced. While AI-assisted text generation may inevitably become normalized for bureaucratic boilerplate and routine statements, the discovery that a provost utilized artificial intelligence to respond directly to journalistic inquiries naturally leaves students feeling alienated and frustrated.<\/p>\n The broader cultural anxiety around this issue is compounded by external commentary. Just days before President Beilock\u2019s call for more AI at Dartmouth, The Atlantic<\/em> published an essay by John Paul Rollert, an instructor at Harvard and the University of Chicago\u2019s Booth School, titled "A Society of Cheats." Rollert sharply criticized students who rely on AI as cutting corners, framing their choices not merely as technical violations of academic integrity, but as a broader moral failure.<\/p>\n This creates a dizzying double standard. One could theoretically view Provost Schnell\u2019s AI usage as a prime, real-world example of President Beilock\u2019s vision: an established, accomplished professional who has already proven his intellectual capabilities without AI automation, now utilizing modern tools to produce text more efficiently. Yet, students are framed as learners who have not yet earned the right to bypass foundational struggles. They are told they lack the necessary judgment to request AI-generated text and stand behind it as a true reflection of their own thoughts.<\/p>\n Accepting this stratified framing\u2014where AI is treated as a privilege earned by senior administrators and faculty, while strictly prohibited or heavily policed for students producing the exact same genres of written work\u2014creates an unsustainable dynamic. Generative AI remains uniquely problematic when applied to writing because automated text generation distorts the very essence of human communication. <\/p>\n Calls for Provost Schnell\u2019s immediate removal may be shortsighted, as a hasty termination risks sidestepping a much-needed community dialogue. Instead, this controversy presents Dartmouth College with an invaluable opportunity to engage in a rigorous campus-wide conversation about what the institution truly values, where it draws the ethical lines, and why human labor in writing still matters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dartmouth College Provost Santiago Schnell no longer appears to write his own opinion pieces and academic articles, a revelation that has ignited a fierce campus debate over institutional hypocrisy, the role of artificial intelligence in higher education, and the fundamental value of human writing. The controversy began as a byproduct of an investigation by Dartmouth […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1347,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72],"tags":[1198,80,2390,2386,282,79,2391,81,2387,2388,2389,2392,2037],"class_list":["post-1348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-education-and-career","tag-academic","tag-career","tag-controversy","tag-dartmouth","tag-double","tag-education","tag-ethics","tag-jobs","tag-provost","tag-reliance","tag-sparks","tag-standards","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1348\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}