Forum Post
I am writing to voice concerns and questions related to the cancellation of the Turnitin AI Detection software and the memo circulated on Wednesday.
Faculty have shared a number of different concerns with the process and substance of the memo and, more generally, concerns about university support for faculty in grappling with substantial unauthorized AI use across campus in classes. This is particularly true for online courses and in programs that require a writing-heavy curriculum.
These concerns include:
1) No communication or forewarning that this change was likely to take place, particularly mid-semester. Faculty have communicated dismay over the lack of process/ communication regarding this change. Why was Faculty Senate not involved in a decision that directly affects faculty?
2) Using the tool as the sole basis for an academic integrity violation is already prohibited. Some faculty have found the Turnitin AI detection software as a useful checkpoint to prompt further investigation to, for example, invest more time in comparing a submission to previous writing in the course or spend time double-checking other indicators which may provide concrete evidence of unauthorized AI use, particularly online, writing-heavy courses. There is concern that the memo bases much of the cancellation decision on uses of the software that are already prohibited by WSU (i.e., using the AI detector as the sole basis for academic integrity violations).
3) Faculty have also expressed a desire to understand the data describing increased student distress and anger from these faculty accusations of academic integrity violations. What is this data? How was it collected? How representative are they? How are trust and well-being operationalized? Do these student reactions affect certain colleges or departments more than others?
4) Given that all AI detection software is prohibited from use, what tools and resources will be provided to faculty that will help reduce, rather than increase, faculty workload with regard to detecting unauthorized AI use in courses? Particular concern was raised with the asymmetry regarding WSU increasing subscriptions and piloting AI-driven products and encouraging their use compared to the levels of support provided for faculty attempting to identify more nefarious (and, anecdotally, widespread) reliance on these tools by students. Some programs and units may be able to reduce reliance on writing-heavy assignments and increase in-person assessments, but this is not the case for other programs and courses.
Response
The discontinuation of the Turnitin AI Detection software mid-semester, addressed in this Faculty Forum post, was also brought to the last Faculty Senate meeting as a constituent concern. Bill Davis, Vice Provost for academic engagement and student achievement joined the meeting and discussed the circumstances around the discontinuation and the reasons for it. If you would like to hear the discussion of this topic, it can be viewed on the Faculty Senate meeting recording for on February 12, 2026 starting at the 1:06:15 time mark.
There were two important issues raised. The first was about the process for, and communication regarding, university-wide subscriptions to software. The Turnitin AI Detection software was discontinued mid-semester with very little warning. The reasons for the midsemester discontinuation were understandable (date of subscription renewal and opportunity to unsubscribe from the AI detection function), but faculty would have benefited from more lead time on this decision. This brought up the general question about how decisions are made regarding university-wide software subscriptions and how faculty might have input on, and be better informed about, those decisions.
The second issue relates to the use of AI detections software, its effectiveness, and fairness to students. Dr. Davis pointed out that most of our peer institutions do not use these programs due to their false positive detection rate and the resulting complaints filed by students who feel they have been unfairly accused of using AI for assignments when they have not. The WSU Center for Community Standards receives these complaints and they are concerning. Faculty generally don’t use AI detection software as their only assessment of AI use, but the software is still determined to be problematic.
As faculty are encouraged to engage with AI in their pedagogy, and to instruct students on its appropriate use, they could use more tools help assess when AI is being uses appropriately and when it is not. Dr. Davis points out that this an active discussion in the WSU AI Council and also a topic of discussion with the Teaching Academy. There are certainly more issues and discussion ahead, as it pertains to AI.
.
Comments