At this point I have come to believe that all educators need to publish a GenAI statement discussing their use of GenAI as individuals, educators, administrators, mentors, and members of the larger academic and scholarly community. I’m working on mine, check back soon. Short version: I do not choose to actively use it although I have not (yet) found a way to avoid the passive use forced upon us by the ubiquity of this technology. I do allow my students to use it for certain tasks and assignments, but they need to submit all of the prompts they used (I hope they used more than one), a reflection on the quality of the output and how they edited it, and a general statement about the use of GenAI that reflects their understanding of the broader social and environmental costs. I will post my use statement on this page later.

My thinking on this subject has evolved from my 2023 article and even my comments in a 2025 article still in the editing stage (link to come, hopefully to a published article!) The more I learn about the workings of AI, for want of a better term, the more ardent my rejection. As an educator I am also deeply concerned about the ways use of GenAI is “deskilling” users.

My thinking on this subject has been deeply informed by my work with colleagues in Drew’s Theological School researching and discussing AI use as part of a Wabash Small Project Grant “The Multiple Impacts of AI on Theological Education” Led by Jesse D. Mann. Below is our “Learning Abstract” from our final report submitted in December 2025.

The Multiple Impacts of AI on Theological Education: Our project addressed the multiple impacts of generative AI on theological education and on higher education more generally. We learned that, while GenAI may be ubiquitous, it is not exactly inevitable. We learned about the complex and sometimes invisible ethical aspects of this technology as we moved beyond the common focus on academic integrity to address data-privacy, global inequities, and environmental, regulatory, and other issues. We explored creative uses for GenAI and movements such as “slow AI” and decolonizing AI that challenge us to rethink our pedagogical goals and methods and remain focused on the human. We also learned that, in institutional contexts, it can be challenging to develop a critical stance toward GenAI without appearing obstructionist. Above all, we learned that a small, diverse cohort of educators with different expertise can contribute to the University’s discourse around, and planning for, GenAI adoption by studying the multiple ways this technology affects teaching and learning.