The End of Inquiry: AI and the Erosion of Liberal Arts at SLU
As we reach the end of the semester, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that this has been the first term in which Artificial Intelligence has been explicitly mentioned in nearly every syllabus at St. Lawrence University. Professors are grappling with how to address this new reality. Some have chosen to embrace AI as a tool, while others, to their credit, have restricted or prohibited its use. So far, St. Lawrence professors have done well in maintaining academic rigor by placing limits on AI in the classroom, recognizing the threat it poses to the intellectual values we claim to cherish.
In a world increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence, the question must be asked: Should we allow AI to dictate what we learn, and how we learn it, in college classrooms? The rise of AI tools, from chatbots like ChatGPT to automated writing assistants, has spurred heated debates about their role in higher education. While some argue that AI can streamline learning and make academic tasks more efficient, there is an undeniable cost to integrating these technologies into classrooms, especially at institutions like St. Lawrence University, which prides itself on fostering critical and creative thought. The use of AI in education, particularly in liberal arts disciplines, is not just an academic concern; it’s an ethical and existential one. Any class that requires the use of AI is not a class that should be allowed to be taught.
At its core, a liberal arts education is meant to challenge students to think deeply, critically and creatively. It is an education designed to encourage intellectual curiosity, the development of independent thought, and the cultivation of personal and professional skills that will serve students throughout their lives. St. Lawrence University, with its strong commitment to these values, aims to produce graduates who can engage thoughtfully with the world, solve complex problems, and contribute meaningfully to society. This mission is threatened by AI.
AI, by its very nature, undermines the deep, engaged thinking that is the hallmark of a liberal arts education. Instead of encouraging students to think through problems themselves, AI provides a shortcut. It can generate essays, solve problems, and even craft creative works— all at the click of a button. While this may seem efficient, it fundamentally contradicts the purpose of an education that challenges students to confront difficult ideas, develop their own arguments, and innovate in their thinking. Instead of cultivating original thought, AI promotes rote responses, standardization, and an abandonment of the intellectual rigor that is the foundation of a liberal arts education.
The integration of AI into higher education is not just an abstract philosophical concern, it has devastating practical consequences for students and their future careers. Students who rely on AI to complete assignments or projects may miss out on essential learning experiences that are critical to developing skills in analysis, problem-solving, and creative expression. These are not merely academic skills, they are the building blocks of personal and professional growth.
In the workplace, the consequences of relying on AI for problem-solving and creative thinking are stark. AI cannot replace the human ability to navigate complex, ambiguous situations or think critically about novel problems. Professionals who lean on AI without developing their own problem-solving capacities will find themselves ill-equipped to tackle real-world challenges. As the job market continues to evolve, employers will place an increasing premium on the skills that AI cannot replicate: critical thinking, creative innovation, and independent judgment. Those who have bypassed these essential learning experiences in favor of AI shortcuts will be left behind.
Beyond the professional realm, the lack of cognitive development facilitated by AI poses significant risks to personal growth. A society that increasingly relies on technology to do the thinking for us risks producing a generation of individuals who are disconnected from their intellectual potential. In a world where critical engagement with ideas is becoming more necessary than ever, a reliance on AI threatens to create a future where people are unable to engage meaningfully with the world around them.
There are also significant ethical and ecological considerations when it comes to AI. The environmental impact of AI is profound; the vast computational power required to train and run AI models consumes massive amounts of energy, contributing to climate change and ecological destruction. By incorporating AI into education, we are complicit in a system that prioritizes convenience over long-term sustainability.
This is not just an issue for students; it is an issue for professors and administrators as well. Professors who encourage the use of AI in their classrooms are not only undermining the academic integrity of their courses but are also contributing to an environmentally destructive system. The push for efficiency and productivity in education, driven by the allure of AI, comes at a high ecological price. As an institution committed to producing ethical, responsible citizens, SLU must reflect on the long-term consequences of embracing AI technology that harms the planet. If we truly care about sustainability—both in terms of the environment and intellectual development—we should reconsider our reliance on these tools.
The question of whether AI should be used in the classroom ultimately comes down to the question of what kind of educators we want at SLU. Professors who restrict AI are, quite simply, better professors than those who either allow it without restriction or, worse, enforce its use. A professor who limits or forbids AI in their classroom is making a deliberate choice to challenge students, to demand that they engage with the material on a deeper level, and to push them toward intellectual independence. This is the very essence of good teaching.
By contrast, professors who use or encourage AI risk undermining their students’ intellectual development. Allowing AI to dictate the pace and substance of coursework is an abdication of the professor’s role as a mentor and intellectual guide. It creates an environment where students are rewarded for using shortcuts instead of cultivating original thought. In an era where academic integrity is already under threat, the use of AI only exacerbates the problem, encouraging a culture of minimal effort and intellectual laziness.
The use of AI in liberal arts education is fundamentally incompatible with the mission of institutions like SLU, which should prioritize critical thinking, creativity, and environmental responsibility. If we allow AI to infiltrate our classrooms, we risk sacrificing the very qualities that make a liberal arts education valuable—qualities like intellectual rigor, independent thought, and creative innovation.
Universities like SLU should reject AI in classrooms designed to develop the minds and spirits of students. Instead, we must return to methods that encourage deep learning, self-reflection, and personal growth. In an age where machines can do the thinking for us, the value of human creativity and independent thought has never been more crucial—let’s not let technology rob us of our future.
On a completely different note, thanks for reading the opinions section this semester! I can’t thank our contributors enough for sharing their beliefs about all kinds of different topics. Remember, Saints, the power of thoughtful discussion and diverse perspectives is what makes our community stronger. Keep engaging, keep questioning, and most importantly, keep listening. And as we head into the break, don’t forget: kindness always makes the world a little better, and sometimes all it takes is a good tune to help you keep going. Take care of yourselves, take care of each other, and we’ll be back next semester with more music, good energy, and conversations that matter.