Virginia Tech and MSU Pioneer University Frameworks for Responsible AI Use in Education
Virginia Tech and MSU are advancing responsible AI frameworks in academia, balancing ethical AI principles with practical teaching challenges.
- • Virginia Tech's AI framework outlines seven principles including fairness, accountability, and privacy.
- • MSU’s AI guidelines encourage responsible use but leave room for interpretation among faculty.
- • Virginia Tech includes governance structures and AI literacy training in its framework.
- • MSU faculty report challenges like AI misuse by students and desire more support for teaching with AI.
Key details
Virginia Tech and Michigan State University (MSU) are leading efforts in establishing responsible AI guidelines within academic environments, each adopting different strategies to ensure ethical and effective AI use in education.
Virginia Tech's AI working group, led by Executive Vice President and Provost Cyril Clarke and COO Amy Sebring, has spent 18 months crafting the "Responsible and Ethical AI Framework for Virginia Tech." This comprehensive framework proposes governance structures, AI literacy training, policy reviews, and a dedicated website to enhance awareness among faculty, staff, and students. It centers on seven core principles: mission alignment, innovation for good, human-centered benefit, responsible use, fairness and transparency, human judgment and accountability, and data security and privacy. Dale Pike, co-chair of the working group, emphasized the framework’s goal to ensure AI use aligns with the university’s mission, highlighting the institution’s commitment to balancing AI benefits with ethical considerations (ID 96079).
Meanwhile, at MSU, professors in the Broad College of Business are integrating AI both as an educational tool and a subject matter. They have utilized AI to design a 400-level course syllabus on AI’s effective use and are teaching students to harness AI skills for future careers. However, MSU's AI guidelines, approved in August, promote responsible AI use but lack detailed implementation directives, leading to mixed reactions. Writing professor Hannah Allan permits AI brainstorming, while art history professor John Fry compares AI to standard classroom tools but worries about its misuse diminishing essay quality. Some faculty, like history professor Edward Murphy, have adapted teaching methods to counteract these effects. Despite these efforts, several faculty members have expressed the need for clearer guidelines and more support to integrate AI thoroughly into their teaching practices (ID 96081).
Together, these two universities exemplify a growing trend of educational institutions grappling with AI’s challenges and opportunities. Virginia Tech focuses on a structured, principle-driven framework with explicit governance and education plans, while MSU grapples with the balance between flexible guidelines and practical classroom impacts. Both highlight the importance of supporting faculty and students through training, clear policies, and ethical considerations to responsibly integrate AI into higher education.