AI in higher education: Questions every leader must ask
June 2026 — AI in higher education represents something between and among a conundrum, a contradiction, and competition. In writing this article, I am not setting out to solve the conundrum, resolve the contradiction, or outwit the competition. I do hope to offer a framework — in the form of a set of questions — for leaders in higher education to consider as they set out to respond to the rapidly-changing world of AI.
Join us at caa’s upcoming leadership summits! These premier events bring together hundreds of public and private sector leaders to discuss the challenges and opportunities for businesses and investors. Find the next summit in a city near you!
What does an AI think I should write?
I thought sharing the results of an AI prompt — in preparation for writing this article — might be a great way to provide some context to this article on AI. As such, I wrote a prompt for ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot to suggest how to write a “realistic but skeptical” article on AI in higher education. The results are summarized below and reflect those suggestions shared by both AI engines:
Yes—there’s actually a growing body of articles, op-eds, and research that cover very similar “realistic but skeptical” ground (emphasis in the original). You wouldn’t be alone—but that’s good news: you can position your piece as part of an emerging conversation rather than reinventing it.
That makes me feel better. I would hate to be alone. In all seriousness, I thought AI produced some relevant and potentially useful themes around which to organize this article. And you may feel the exact same way after reading what I actually write. If so, I have generously placed the AI response first! If you want a more personal take, read on.
Some questions to consider…
Is our role formation of the person? Skill development? Imparting knowledge? Something else entirely?
In addition to serving as a college president, I also have nearly a quarter-century of service as an Army National Guard officer. My officer training incorporated a variety of requirements ranging from physical training to leadership to land navigation, etc. This training was delivered through a combination of college classes, drills, field training exercises, and a variety of exercises ranging from responding to an ambush to planning a patrol in which the cadets would apply what they had learned.
Collectively, this learning and experience produced a consistent set of skills and knowledge. It also led cadets to a way of being that reflected the type of Commissioned Officer the country and the Army needed them to be.
Perhaps higher education sits in a similar position vis-à-vis our students?
Our students need skills. We expect our students to develop a set of general skills (critical thinking, teamwork, effective communication skills, etc.) alongside very specific skills tied to their major course of study.
Our students need knowledge. We not only are ensuring a level of knowledge around shared subjects, ranging from literature to science and math to economics (and more as seen in the Core). We also expect our students to simply know certain things — not know how to look them up but know them. An accountant should clearly know the principles of accounting. An economist should understand the concept of supply and demand. A lawyer should understand the fundamentals of legal research and citation.
Ultimately, our students need formation to fully realize their potential as human beings. I would argue that we need students who are integrated, whole persons who bring certain core values, such as a good work ethic, respect for other people, respect for the truth, integrity, etc. into who they are.
Who are our stakeholders and what do they expect? What are the philosophical — even moral — implications in the use of AI? What role does our institution have in shaping the answer to this question?
Every president has slightly different stakeholders at their institution but they generally include faculty, students, staff, alumni, a governing board, donors, employers of our graduates, accreditors, and the like. To my thinking, higher education is perfectly positioned to not just ask stakeholders what they expect but to truly create a place to jointly create those expectations. Arguably, no other institution or organization is designed to bring together multiple disciplines, businesses, non-profits, etc. and actually engage in debate and dialogue around AI and to then share those results.
The writer of Proverbs famously observed that: “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). AI use has wide-ranging and potentially serious implications from a moral and ethical perspective. Philosophers, faith leaders, and others who may not traditionally be included in this discussion also have a place at the table — maybe even primacy of place. As just two examples, AI use has serious implications for privacy while AI use in a military framework could so profoundly change warfare as to impact a country’s survival.
Ultimately, we need both a compass and a map to effectively navigate. Knowing that we want to integrate AI into student learning or produce “AI-literate” graduates is not sufficient — it is a compass without a map. We need to understand more broadly where we currently sit with respect to AI and our vision of the world — and our place in it — in order to truly create the map of where we want to be.
How does the “average student” actually learn?
It is an aphorism in higher education that it is the one “service” where the “customer” does not demand to get everything that they pay for. If this were not the case, we would probably never have to deal with plagiarism and other forms of cheating. This suggests to me there is something inherent to human nature and education that results in students taking the easy route to calling it “finished” versus mastery.
Consider the original Matrix movie and the ability for Neo to learn Kung Fu in a matter of seconds as it is downloaded to his brain. It worked great in the context of Hollywood. The rest of us don’t learn if we don’t go through an actual combination of reading, thinking, practicing, and (perhaps most importantly) making mistakes from which we truly emblazon a skill or idea or key concept on our very beings.
This does not mean eschewing the use of AI. It does mean ensuring students actually are learning and not regurgitating whatever AI produced.
How do I personally use AI?
I don’t have the perfect answer to any one of these questions. In my own work, I have been very deliberate to set my phone down and avoid AI when listening to others, engaging in dialogue, etc. The act of thinking and creating is fundamentally mine. At the same time, I have found AI useful in finding research, answering short questions, and analyzing reports (particularly professional reports or reports from experts).
I even asked AI to analyze three years worth of appointments alongside best practices for presidents and my strategic plan to assess how I am spending my time in light of these documents. It took eight prompts but it eventually produced a worthwhile document. I have used it to help produce case studies but have had to be very specific about my learning objectives and the general approach I want to use.
And I always have to check its work.
Have something to say? You can become a contributor by reaching out to caa today!
