Pearson: faculty should not use AI grading

Susan Pearson used a May 21 opinion essay in The Daily Northwestern to argue that college faculty should not use artificial intelligence to grade student work. Pearson, identified by the student newspaper as an opinion contributor, wrote that grading is “fundamentally an exercise in professional judgement” and said using AI for that task would undercut the expertise faculty claim when they evaluate students. Northwestern University’s Office of the Provost had already signaled that the issue was under review. In a March 9 message to faculty, the office said some instructors were interested in experimenting with AI assistance in grading and assessing student work, and invited faculty input as the university developed guidance and policies. ### What, exactly, did Pearson argue against? (dailynorthwestern.com) Pearson wrote that grading is not a clerical burden that can simply be outsourced to software. In the essay, she said evaluation sits alongside other academic judgments faculty routinely make, including reviewing journal articles, grant proposals, fellowship applications and promotion cases. (northwestern.edu) The May 21 piece said faculty expertise is built over years of training in a field and that assigning grades draws on that background. Pearson wrote that when she grades student work, she does so within a course she designed herself, linking evaluation to the readings, topics and assignments she selected. ### Why did this become an issue at Northwestern now? (dailynorthwestern.com) Pearson tied her argument to a March email from Northwestern’s provost office. She wrote that the message said some Northwestern instructors were interested in experimenting with AI assistance in grading and included a form to gather information about how faculty were already using such tools and what guidance they wanted. (dailynorthwestern.com) The provost office said on March 9 that the topic was controversial across higher education. The office also said that grading and assessing student work at Northwestern “is always the responsibility of faculty,” even as some instructors may want to test AI tools to enhance evaluation methods. ### What limits did Northwestern already put around AI-assisted grading? (dailynorthwestern.com) Northwestern’s March 9 notice said any use of AI tools in teaching must comply with federal student privacy rules under FERPA. The notice said legally protected information, including grades, student work and evaluations, could not be uploaded to any AI tool without a university-approved data protection agreement and security review. (northwestern.edu) The same notice said Microsoft Copilot’s enterprise product could be used for student information, but ChatGPT and other consumer tools could not. The provost office said those restrictions were in place while broader institutional guidance was being developed. ### How does Pearson’s argument fit the wider higher-education debate? College Board said on Feb. 25 that its survey of more than 3,000 U.S. college faculty found broad concern about student AI use. (northwestern.edu) The organization said 74% of faculty reported students were using AI to write essays or papers, while 67% said students were using it to paraphrase or rewrite content. Jessica Howell, College Board’s vice president of research, said faculty had “serious concerns” about AI’s impact on critical thinking, original writing and academic integrity. The survey also found that 45% of faculty reported an overall negative view of AI use in higher education, while 34% reported a positive view. (newsroom.collegeboard.org) ### What happens next on campus? Northwestern’s provost office said in March that feedback from faculty, including an online discussion on “AI-Assisted Grading: Policies and Guidelines,” would help shape “clear and effective guidance and policies.” The university did not, in the materials reviewed, announce a final policy by May 22. Pearson’s essay remains published on The Daily Northwestern website with her byline and date of May 21, 2026. (newsroom.collegeboard.org) The campus debate is now split between faculty experimentation described by the provost office and objections from faculty voices such as Pearson’s. (dailynorthwestern.com) (northwestern.edu)